What WOULD Fascist America do, anyway?

Shackel

Banned
Assuming the "Business Plot" happens and succeeds, would America so a whole "Lend-Lease" thing with Germany?

What's keeping America from just being an absolute donkey and funding the Allies, only to turn on them once Europe is utterly broken like some sort of puppetmaster?
 
Well, since the plot would first have to exist before it could happen, and the likely success of a plot so absurd as to invite a known left-leaning general to lead a right-wing coup...
 
Answering the OP, the leaders of a Fascist America would probably be asked how wide their neck is to ensure that the re-constituted FDR government has enough rope.

The Democrats win even bigger in 1934.
 
Yeah, the FDR government would reassert itself unless they killed FDR or something.

But anyway, what is this business plot exactly that you speak of, I wikied it but there wasn't much there.
 
Yeah, the FDR government would reassert itself unless they killed FDR or something.
I don't think they plotters would have the balls to kill FDR. Something tells me this is the August Coup 40 years early, with all the discrediting of conservatism (instead of hardliner communism) that follows. Maybe FDR succeeds in court-packing?
 
If FDR dies in his second term and Henry A. Wallace, socialist and at that time Soviephile, becomes President then perhaps...

Instead of Lindbergh and the isolationist movement, reactionaries and third wing agitators like Father Coughlin back Colonel Patton at the head of a push to invade the Soviet Union for its aggression against Finland. It helps if Churchill gets into power as soon as he wanted and declares war on the USSR in the name of Finland like he wanted.

Wallace is replaced with another candidate by the Democratic Party but backed by those who want to keep the New Deal alive; Patton shows strong support but GOP isolationist ticket Taft/MacArthur prevails.

America sits WWII out, there are no Allies as the Brits and Soviets are at an armistice at best and the Germans are able to deal with them each individually. The fall of France is used against the isolationist president and the Pattonistas come out in strong support for defending the British Isles from an imagined threat of invasion while the Democrats coordinate their efforts with the out of power British Labor Party (dubbed a communist conspiracy by the Pattonistas) and the Progressives under Wallace and others scream for American troops on the ground in the Eastern Front to help the Soviets wipe Nazism from the face of the Earth.

In 1940 isolation platform of the Taft Republicans seemed more sensible than invading or fight for the Soviet Union. In 1944 the Pattonistas' platform of defending Britain and letting the Nazis and Soviets exhaust each other is the most popular and they are elected.

Patton goes off script and at some point begins planning a massive invasion of Europe, with Congress getting in the way of his undeclared war. Of course the economy is still a wreck and while the ruling party sold conscription as full employment, Patton wants soldiers to be soldiers not farmers and laborers.
 
Have to agree with the General and others; the states will not go along peacefully with something like this, at least not back in '30s.
 

Japhy

Banned
If FDR dies in his second term and Henry A. Wallace, socialist and at that time Soviephile, becomes President then perhaps...

Henry Wallace in FDR's Second Term is just Secretary of Agriculture, "Cactus Jack" John Nance Garner, whom was about as conservative a Dem as you can get was VP up until 1941. In the Event FDR dies, Garner's attempt at a New Deal Rollback will please any business elements in the country.

That said those business elements, the DuPonts and groups like the American Legion and Politicians like Al Smith whom were all supposedly involved in the Business Plot are bound to support Democrats rather then...

Instead of Lindbergh and the isolationist movement, reactionaries and third wing agitators like Father Coughlin back Colonel Patton at the head of a push to invade the Soviet Union for its aggression against Finland. It helps if Churchill gets into power as soon as he wanted and declares war on the USSR in the name of Finland like he wanted.

Besides the fact that you've made some sort of mistake in separating the Father Coughlin types and the Isolationists like America First and Lindbergh (They were one and the same) you've made a rather random call by picking George Patton to be their front man, that makes next to no sense. Father Coughlin isn't going to support some Right wing reactionary colonel, he's going to support Isolationist leftists like Huey Long and Gerald Smith. And being as that fringe movement was isolationist, there's no way they'd want to have America go to war over a nation it has no ties too like Finland.

Wallace is replaced with another candidate by the Democratic Party but backed by those who want to keep the New Deal alive; Patton shows strong support but GOP isolationist ticket Taft/MacArthur prevails.

Again Wallace is not going to be President before 1941 and Wallace would be the type trying keep the New Deal alive, and pushing for more. He might be on a ticket as VP for Garner though, as a peace offering between the New Dealers and the Conservatives. Your Patton run is of course, as mentioned flawed. Taft in 1940 is an option yes, but MacArthur as his VP seems to have the same oder as your Patton pick, just because "Rule of Cool" and the TVTropes view of AH says you can do anything you want if its Awesome enough doesn't mean it makes any sense. Taft would have to pick a Progressive Republican to balance out his ticket and keep Thomas Dewey's faction in line.

America sits WWII out, there are no Allies as the Brits and Soviets are at an armistice at best and the Germans are able to deal with them each individually. The fall of France is used against the isolationist president and the Pattonistas come out in strong support for defending the British Isles from an imagined threat of invasion while the Democrats coordinate their efforts with the out of power British Labor Party (dubbed a communist conspiracy by the Pattonistas) and the Progressives under Wallace and others scream for American troops on the ground in the Eastern Front to help the Soviets wipe Nazism from the face of the Earth.

Only thing worth mentioning here is that the idea that Stalin and Whitehall wouldn't come together, even if they'd had a crisis while they're BOTH under attack by the Nazi's is ridiculous. "I'd have put in a good word for Satan" and all that.

In 1940 isolation platform of the Taft Republicans seemed more sensible than invading or fight for the Soviet Union. In 1944 the Pattonistas' platform of defending Britain and letting the Nazis and Soviets exhaust each other is the most popular and they are elected.

Patton goes off script and at some point begins planning a massive invasion of Europe, with Congress getting in the way of his undeclared war. Of course the economy is still a wreck and while the ruling party sold conscription as full employment, Patton wants soldiers to be soldiers not farmers and laborers.

George Patton, again, is REALLY not the Right wing Nut job you want for your scenario. If Col. Patton got into Politics he could AT MOST be a General Walker whom quickly fades from the scene, and it was never in Patton's Character to make such moves. And you know the idea that America could never get out of the Great Depression without FDR is rather flawed. So is the idea of a President planning ground actions without a declaration of war. While FDR did start Americas Undeclared Naval War in 1941, there wasn't any plan to send troops to occupied France by any means.
 
I don't see how getting the date on which of FDR's multiple terms had Wallace leads into criticizing how the scenario wouldn't work with Garner having any relevancy to the topic whatsoever.

And you just said "No, Wallace would be (insert exactly what I said)". Either you didn't read my statement or you left a "wouldn't" of your own out.

The idea that the New Deal didn't have a positive impact on economic recovery is hardly a matter of academic consensus or majority opinion last time I checked, it is a political position. If I made a timeline based around the economy recovering more quickly without the New Deal or something like it I could be just as criticized, so that statement of yours is hardly worth the time it took to type.

The historical hook that Churchill, if PM earlier than OTL, would have declared war on the Soviets is too interesting to be as unexplored as it is.

And MacArthur was a Taft Republican, and in the context of another party running a military man is hardly out of the question himself.

And if I hadn't made a distinction between Coughlin and the American First types, you would have mentioned Coughlin's wavering between Long and Lindbergh, and acted like you had spotted something. So yes, the distinction was important and that part of your statement is pointless. Then you somehow take the exact reverse of your position about Coughlin being a Right Wing American Firster by then saying he was fully a Left Wing Spread Our Wealther. Considering the inanity of those two statements existing in the same clause of yours, my bit about "third wing agitator" is looking more and more of well chosen.
 

Japhy

Banned
I don't see how getting the date on which of FDR's multiple terms had Wallace leads into criticizing how the scenario wouldn't work with Garner having any relevancy to the topic whatsoever.

Because the Business Plot Clique isn't going to be interested in overthrowing Gardner? And After the Election of 1940 there's not really time left for America to go Fascist.

And you just said "No, Wallace would be (insert exactly what I said)". Either you didn't read my statement or you left a "wouldn't" of your own out.

You're right sir, misreading on my part I thought you said the "Democrats nominate someone who wants to keep the new deal alive." Of course if Cactus Jack is President even if he rolls back the New Deal there's little reason for him to be unseated if he's the incumbent.

The idea that the New Deal didn't have a positive impact on economic recovery is hardly a matter of academic consensus or majority opinion last time I checked, it is a political position. If I made a timeline based around the economy recovering more quickly without the New Deal or something like it I could be just as criticized, so that statement of yours is hardly worth the time it took to type.

I do feel that the New Deal did have a positive impact on the economic recovery. It just makes no economic sense that after WWII Starts in Europe that the country would continue to be in terrible economic shape more then a decade after the stock market crash, with or without a New Deal, is all.

The historical hook that Churchill, if PM earlier than OTL, would have declared war on the Soviets is too interesting to be as unexplored as it is.

Ok.

And MacArthur was a Taft Republican, and in the context of another party running a military man is hardly out of the question himself.[/quote[

Again, your Patton Candidacy isn't really possible. One Crazy Colonel in the US Army whom isn't the type to get into Presidential Politics anyway, is not going to run for a third party when he could be training troops and playing with his tanks.

And if I hadn't made a distinction between Coughlin and the American First types, you would have mentioned Coughlin's wavering between Long and Lindbergh, and acted like you had spotted something. So yes, the distinction was important and that part of your statement is pointless. Then you somehow take the exact reverse of your position about Coughlin being a Right Wing American Firster by then saying he was fully a Left Wing Spread Our Wealther. Considering the inanity of those two statements existing in the same clause of yours, my bit about "third wing agitator" is looking more and more of well chosen.

America first wasn't just a Right-Wing Organization you know. The Isolationist movement had support from both the Right and Left. Coughlin was an isolationist and in that regard supported Lindbergh when it suited his purposes. Lindbergh himself was basically a one-issue fellow whom could be supported by both the Left and Right. In regards to other issues Coughlin was a supporter of the Share Our Wealth Movement, thats a historical fact. Coughlin being an isolationist, and a supporter of Huey Long's Populist theory, isn't going to put his weight behind a Fringe, Interventionist Right Wing Army Colonel who's never made a name for himself before.
 
But when was I ever talking about John Nance Garner? There are plenty reasons of why the 1940's are a bad time for my scenario, once you've reminded me of Wallace not being in the second term, without your own personal conversation with yourself about Garner. I'm not talking about Garner, your speculation about how Garner would react to the scenario is interesting but irrelevant to me at this time.

And again, you seem to be glossing over what I wrote. I specifically pointed out the connection between Coughlin and Long. I go out of my way in my first post to point out Coughlin's fondness for both Long and Lindbergh (and, in the context of his later support of the Christian Nationalist Crusade I don't think calling him a third wing type like the Nazis or Fascists rather than a Left Wing populist who supported Lindbergh on one issue is inaccurate) and yet you then use that as an excuse to act like I didn't mention his connection to either Lindbergh OR Long. Why should I even bother to make well thought out statements and specifically try to head off obvious criticisms when your just going to ignore me and make the criticisms that I specifically avoided anyway?
 
Yeah, the FDR government would reassert itself unless they killed FDR or something.

But anyway, what is this business plot exactly that you speak of, I wikied it but there wasn't much there.

Try Business Plot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot#Butler_and_the_veterans

It's been much debated exactly what happened. One theory is that the plot was smashed, and due to the amount of money (DuPont, Pew, etc.) available to the plotters and the desire of the government not to give anybody else any ideas the whole thing was "buried as quietly as possible". Especially as in 1934 Germany had its "Night of the Long Knives" when Hitler essentially eradicated the Brown Shirts,

If the plot does succeed, first the unions are disbanded. Any recalcitrants such as Walter Reuther of the United Auto Workers are whacked. America then joins Nazi Germany in the Crusade against Communism. Britain and France are either persuaded to join or remain neutral.
 
Because the Business Plot Clique isn't going to be interested in overthrowing Gardner? And After the Election of 1940 there's not really time left for America to go Fascist.



You're right sir, misreading on my part I thought you said the "Democrats nominate someone who wants to keep the new deal alive." Of course if Cactus Jack is President even if he rolls back the New Deal there's little reason for him to be unseated if he's the incumbent.



I do feel that the New Deal did have a positive impact on the economic recovery. It just makes no economic sense that after WWII Starts in Europe that the country would continue to be in terrible economic shape more then a decade after the stock market crash, with or without a New Deal, is all.



Ok.

And MacArthur was a Taft Republican, and in the context of another party running a military man is hardly out of the question himself.[/quote[

Again, your Patton Candidacy isn't really possible. One Crazy Colonel in the US Army whom isn't the type to get into Presidential Politics anyway, is not going to run for a third party when he could be training troops and playing with his tanks.



America first wasn't just a Right-Wing Organization you know. The Isolationist movement had support from both the Right and Left. Coughlin was an isolationist and in that regard supported Lindbergh when it suited his purposes. Lindbergh himself was basically a one-issue fellow whom could be supported by both the Left and Right. In regards to other issues Coughlin was a supporter of the Share Our Wealth Movement, thats a historical fact. Coughlin being an isolationist, and a supporter of Huey Long's Populist theory, isn't going to put his weight behind a Fringe, Interventionist Right Wing Army Colonel who's never made a name for himself before.

At least the leftist Isolationist didn't have a bunch of traitors trying to sell us out to the Nazis within their ranks. :mad:

Try Business Plot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot#Butler_and_the_veterans

It's been much debated exactly what happened. One theory is that the plot was smashed, and due to the amount of money (DuPont, Pew, etc.) available to the plotters and the desire of the government not to give anybody else any ideas the whole thing was "buried as quietly as possible". Especially as in 1934 Germany had its "Night of the Long Knives" when Hitler essentially eradicated the Brown Shirts,

If the plot does succeed, first the unions are disbanded. Any recalcitrants such as Walter Reuther of the United Auto Workers are whacked. America then joins Nazi Germany in the Crusade against Communism. Britain and France are either persuaded to join or remain neutral.

A truly horrific scenario; I could only imagine that this country might even be like that of DoD by 2000...................only just without the Ameriwank. Maybe.
 
Because the Business Plot Clique isn't going to be interested in overthrowing Gardner? And After the Election of 1940 there's not really time left for America to go Fascist.

1940??? The "Butler plot" was in 1934, giving America plenty of time to go Fascist. Not that all that much time was needed as the country still had the old segregationist-Jim Crow laws on the books.



Quote:
Originally Posted by baldy46
Try Business Plot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busines...d_the_veterans

It's been much debated exactly what happened. One theory is that the plot was smashed, and due to the amount of money (DuPont, Pew, etc.) available to the plotters and the desire of the government not to give anybody else any ideas the whole thing was "buried as quietly as possible". Especially as in 1934 Germany had its "Night of the Long Knives" when Hitler essentially eradicated the Brown Shirts,

If the plot does succeed, first the unions are disbanded. Any recalcitrants such as Walter Reuther of the United Auto Workers are whacked. America then joins Nazi Germany in the Crusade against Communism. Britain and France are either persuaded to join or remain neutral.


A truly horrific scenario; I could only imagine that this country might even be like that of DoD by 2000...................only just without the Ameriwank. Maybe.

DoD???? Department of Defence??? Dungeons and Dragons???

Ameriwank????
 
Top