WI: A candidate in 1940 that is Pro-Nazis wins in the American election

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by kasumigenx, Aug 2, 2019.

  1. kasumigenx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    What if there is a Pro-Nazi candidate that wins in 1940 against Roosevelt, this would ruin America's power reach in the long term as it would be the Russians who would have the spoils of the war after the allies won.
     
  2. David T Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Are you aware of how few Americans in 1940 were actually "Pro-Nazi"? According to a Gallup poll of April 1940, 84 percent of Americans wanted the Allies to win the war; only 2% wanted the Germans to win. https://www.google.com/search?biw=1717&bih=722&ei=im1EXZnxBI3wsQX1hKL4DA&q=84%++"allies+to+win"++2%&oq=84%++"allies+to+win"++2%&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i22i29i30.9967.11042..11747...0.0..0.150.539.0j4......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71.1QfKncyz0Qw&ved=0ahUKEwiZ3sCD1uTjAhUNeKwKHXWCCM8Q4dUDCAo&uact=5 That doesn't mean of course that they wanted the US to join the war, but that is another matter.
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2019
  3. Mr_Fanboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2016
    The closest you could get is someone who is a closet Nazi sympathizer - for instance, Joe Kennedy.
     
  4. kasumigenx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    We can have him win the elections and show his colors on the presidency.
     
  5. Mr_Fanboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2016
    In any case, there is no remotely plausible President of the United States who would intervene on the side of the Nazis. The most you would get is hard neutrality.
     
  6. kasumigenx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    Yes, that is what I am asking for so that Europe would be under the Russian hold in the Coldwar times after Hitler is defeated.
     
  7. Reagent Cartography's Reactionary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2013
    Location:
    Lourenço Marques, República de Sofala
    Charles Lindbergh could be another possibility, assuming he'd be up to running and doesn't have his multi-year exile to Europe (avoiding the "Crime of the Century" might be necessary in that respect)
     
  8. Tamara Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2019
    If Pearl Harbor still happens, then the United States will still be joining the allies- The American people would demand it. I suppose the president in this scenario could try to only enter the Pacific theater, but I’m not really sure how feasible that would be.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2019
  9. Mr_Fanboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2016
    Yeah. In any case, there are not a plethora of such options who are plausible. Maybe George Van Horn Mosely?

    Now, Robert Taft was not a Nazi sympathizer by any account, but he was a strict isolationist, and when it came to American participation in the war, that may have ended up being a distinction without a difference.
     
  10. David T Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    There were several isolationists who could have won in 1940--among Republicans, Taft, Vandenberg, and Dewey (the latter two as yet unconverted to internationalism), indeed most GOP presidential candidates other than Willkie. Among Democrats, if FDR didn't run, Burton Wheeler is a possible, though hardly likely, nominee. But none of these men were "pro-Nazi" either publicly or privately. Indeed, it is surprising how few of the isolationists even professed indifference to Britain's plight (let alone Nazi sympathies). To quote an old post of mine on alternatives to lend-lease:

    ***

    It is sometimes assumed that the enemies of lend-lease were indifferent to whether Britain was defeated (or even actually wanted a German victory). Actually, most of them would have denied this; the great majority of them professed to want to help Britain in *some* way, but in a way less likely to get the US into the war, or involving better financial/strategic terms for the US:

    "Each lend-lease opponent, it seemed, had a different alternative to FDR's comprehensive legislation. Merwin K. Hart, president of the New York State Economic Council and an arch-rightist, merely called for the continuation of cash-and-carry. Others spoke in terms of a straight loan, with sums ranging from $2 to $10 billion. Taft for example suggested offering $2 billion in loans to Britain, Canada, and Greece.

    "Others considered outright gifts. Edwin Johnson would authorize the president to turn over $2 billion worth of munitions to Britain for 'testing.' Herbert Hoover would give Britain all the defense material the United States could spare and some $2 to $3 billion to make other purchases. The U.S., said Senator George Aiken, should donate outright the larger part of a $2 billion lend-lease appropriation in the form of materials to Canada. General Wood suggested that Britain exhaust its U.S. resources, after which it would receive gifts or loans of planes, artillery, and tanks, all carried in Britain's own vessels. More moderate than some anti-interventionists, Wood did favor selling American merchant ships to Britain, provided the U.S. merchant marine would not be crippled in the process.

    "Several anti-interventionists proposed bargaining over certain British colonies within the Western Hemisphere. The British, said the *New York Daily News*, should simply give the United States its pick of sites as well as other 'conveniently located pieces of the empire.' Wood spoke of the transfer of Newfoundland or British Honduras. [Hamilton] Fish's eye was on the West Indies. Representative Melvin J. Maas proposed an amendment enabling the U.S. to purchase all British possessions in the Western Hemisphere, with the obvious exceptions of Canada and Nova Scotia.

    "Other goods and concessions were sought. Congressman William J. Barry (Dem.-N.Y.) noted such British raw materials as manganese, chromium, tin, and nickel. Nye wanted Britain's commercial shipping. Wiley desired revision of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty (1901) with Britain, which provided free access to the Panama Canal to ships of all nations on equal terms.

    "A few anti-interventionists used the debate over lend-lease to suggest total impartiality in the conflict. Journalist and maritime historian Lincoln Colcord argued, 'We should not have taken sides.' In fact, he accused the America First Committee of 'trying to carry water on both shoulders,' for it was endorsing aid to Britain in principle when strict neutrality was called for. Similarly Lawrence Dennis, in an obvious reference to the sentiment embodied in the AFC, said that the noninterventionists should never have abandoned absolute neutrality. By endorsing 'all-aid-short-of-war,' they could only fight rearguard actions and postpone the inevitable.

    "Other anti-interventionists supported the continued flow of war goods to Britain. General Wood sought to rush steel and remove bottlenecks on planes. Colonel McCormick wanted Britain to have whatever it required, though he did not think it needed anything. Charles A. Lindbergh, far more cautious, favored continuing current aid to Britain but stressed the need for negotiated peace; hence, such assistance should neither be increased nor continued indefinitely." Justus D. Doenecke, *Storm on the Horizon: The Challenge to American Intervention, 1939-1941,* pp. 170-1. https://books.google.com/books?id=XYFTZYJTyGAC&pg=PA170

    (What led me to reading Doenecke's book was a passage in Jack Ross, *The Socialist Party of America: A Complete History,* p. 411. https://books.google.com/books?id=MnflBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA411 "Virtually no one in the anti-interventionist camp was indifferent to the plight of Britain; even Robert Wood of the America First Committee endorsed Herbert Hoover's argument for aid short of direct military aid." He gives Doenecke's book as a reference. "Virtually no one" is an exaggeration, but it is true that many so-called isolationists did favor *some* kind of aid to Britain, as Doenecke's book makes clear.)
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2019
    gap80, Zagan and Leon Trotsky like this.
  11. Chris Oakley 2.0 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Location:
    Salem, Mass., USA
    ASB as hell. By 1940 you'd have had better luck getting a date with Carole Lombard than finding a presidential candidate who was openly sympathetic to Germany. Even Joseph P. Kennedy didn't want to open that can of worms.