Before the resulting civil war, or after?
48 states quickly seceding and then peacefully reforming the US, electing a new POTUS while they do so is hardly a civil war.Before the resulting civil war, or after?
That kinda makes the rather strange assumption that the whole government would play along.I'm assuming the resulting Civil War would be a rather painful curbstomp/guerrilla war, assuming that, you know, the government has all the wealth.
That kinda makes the rather strange assumption that the whole government would play along.
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?Yeah, the FDR government would reassert itself unless they killed FDR or something.
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.
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.[/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.
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.
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.
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????