What if FDR lives?

Basically ITTL he lives a substantially healthier life and at the very least completes a fourth term. Would he go for fifth? What's up with the Cold War?
 
IMO, the Cold War gets off to a similar start and FDR will not go for a 5th term- if he lives that long or hasn't resigned.

Here's the thoughts of folks in similar threads over the past few months:

FDR lives until 1949
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=248145

FDR makes it through his whole fourth term...
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=247565

Franklin Roosevelt 1st UN Secretary General
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=248187
 

Mathuen

Banned
I wonder how FDR's anti-imperial sentiments and belief in self-determinism would affect American relations in a world in which he lives.
 
I wonder how FDR's anti-imperial sentiments and belief in self-determinism would affect American relations in a world in which he lives.

Well, to give one example: the U.S accepts Ho Chi Minh's offer of alliance in 1945, and the Vietnam War is butterflied away.
 
We had a thread that compared the level of change that came with each president's death.I said FDR's death as causing the least change. I see him doing things the way Truman did. Of course he does not run for a fifth term. h He does not have the war as an excuse.
 

Japhy

Banned
We had a thread that compared the level of change that came with each president's death.I said FDR's death as causing the least change. I see him doing things the way Truman did. Of course he does not run for a fifth term. h He does not have the war as an excuse.

Except that ignores that FDR was actively interested (Before the final health collapse) in Taking away French Colonies, Taking some sort of Action about Stalin (Not that we'll ever know for sure), and Forcing though a Second New Deal based on his "Second Bill of Rights" concept. Truman was a regular Liberal, FDR wants to push the US in a direction that is most in common with what Henry Wallace wanted to do in 1948.
 
Well, to give one example: the U.S accepts Ho Chi Minh's offer of alliance in 1945, and the Vietnam War is butterflied away.
The Vietnam War is butterflied away if Ike isn't in office. There's a difference between supporting the French and dividing Vietnam and supporting a corrupt half. FDR supported neither, Truman supported the first, Ike supported both.

Except that ignores that FDR was actively interested (Before the final health collapse) in Taking away French Colonies
That is the biggest change, but this will affect France way more than America. See what I wrote about Ike and Vietnam above.
Taking some sort of Action about Stalin (Not that we'll ever know for sure)
Yeah, what Truman did.
Forcing though a Second New Deal based on his "Second Bill of Rights" concept.
Which would be known in history as the Fair Deal.
Truman was a regular Liberal, FDR wants to push the US in a direction that is most in common with what Henry Wallace wanted to do in 1948.
Truman was pretty much the same as FDR, Henry Wallace's difference with the two is that he remained pro-Soviet longer and was way more naive.
 
The Vietnam War is butterflied away if Ike isn't in office. There's a difference between supporting the French and dividing Vietnam and supporting a corrupt half. FDR supported neither, Truman supported the first, Ike supported both.

That is the biggest change, but this will affect France way more than America. See what I wrote about Ike and Vietnam above.
Keep in mind that I said FDR might have made Vietnam a U.S ally, not just avoided war. And I don't know that Truman would have not propped up the South had he won a second full term in '52 - it's not out of line with his normal foreign policy, especially with the legacy of Korea so close to hand.

Which would be known in history as the Fair Deal.

Yes and no. There are BIG differences between FDR's Second New Deal and the Fair Deal, and between FDR and Truman on domestic policy in general. For example, I don't see FDR wobbling on the OPA after the war, given how successful it had been at restraining inflation - which is important if you're set on full employment.

FDR's Second Bill of Rights includes: the right to a job, the right to a living wage, the right to farm, a rather strange clause that tries to balance "freedom from unfair competition" and "freedom from monopoly" for businessmen, the right to housing, the right to health care, the right to universal social insurance, and the right to education.

The Fair Deal was more modest in some ways and more advanced in others. FDR's Second Bill of Rights didn't include civil rights for African Americans, for example; however, the 21 points of the Fair Deal were more gradualist and limited when it came to social insurance (other than health care) and wages, didn't have anything on education, and didn't frame anything in the language of social right.

However, in both cases, we have to keep in mind what Congress looked like in '45-48. Chances are, most of this isn't getting through.
 
Keep in mind that I said FDR might have made Vietnam a U.S ally, not just avoided war. And I don't know that Truman would have not propped up the South had he won a second full term in '52 - it's not out of line with his normal foreign policy, especially with the legacy of Korea so close to hand.
Truman's on record of calling Eisenhower a fool for wanting to go to war in Indochina during Ike's first term.

Yes and no. There are BIG differences between FDR's Second New Deal and the Fair Deal, and between FDR and Truman on domestic policy in general. For example, I don't see FDR wobbling on the OPA after the war, given how successful it had been at restraining inflation - which is important if you're set on full employment.

FDR's Second Bill of Rights includes: the right to a job, the right to a living wage, the right to farm, a rather strange clause that tries to balance "freedom from unfair competition" and "freedom from monopoly" for businessmen, the right to housing, the right to health care, the right to universal social insurance, and the right to education.

The Fair Deal was more modest in some ways and more advanced in others. FDR's Second Bill of Rights didn't include civil rights for African Americans, for example; however, the 21 points of the Fair Deal were more gradualist and limited when it came to social insurance (other than health care) and wages, didn't have anything on education, and didn't frame anything in the language of social right.

However, in both cases, we have to keep in mind what Congress looked like in '45-48. Chances are, most of this isn't getting through.
They're similar enough in what will get passed by Congress. I don't see the OPA sticking around, the Republicans will eliminate it by 1947 for sure.
 
Top