WI: FDR Dies Early in Third Term

In reading Robert Dallek's Franklin D. Roosevelt: A Political Life (2017), I realized that FDR's health was already severely declining before he began his third term. On Election Night 1940, he asked to be alone while receiving the results. Dallek suggests that Roosevelt was having some kind of health episode as had become common by that point. In May 1941, FDR was "sidelined by illness" according to Dallek. At another point early in his third term, Dallek's description leads one to believe FDR was near death.

What if, some time between 01/20/1941 and 12/06/1941, FDR were to die in office? How would Wallace handle the lead-up to Pearl Harbor, Pearl Harbor itself, and the beginning of WWII?
 
In reading Robert Dallek's Franklin D. Roosevelt: A Political Life (2017), I realized that FDR's health was already severely declining before he began his third term. On Election Night 1940, he asked to be alone while receiving the results. Dallek suggests that Roosevelt was having some kind of health episode as had become common by that point. In May 1941, FDR was "sidelined by illness" according to Dallek. At another point early in his third term, Dallek's description leads one to believe FDR was near death.

What if, some time between 01/20/1941 and 12/06/1941, FDR were to die in office? How would Wallace handle the lead-up to Pearl Harbor, Pearl Harbor itself, and the beginning of WWII?
You ever read the For all Time, it covers this scenario conpletly accurately in great detail :)
 
I have, but for some reason, I thought it had Wallace taking over in 1945, not 1941... I'll have to go back and read.
 
You ever read the For all Time, it covers this scenario conpletly accurately in great detail :)

Is it just me or does president Wallace behave like someone who has no clue about politics in this timeline? I mean, he was member of the government for nine years when FDR died in late '41, so he should know the ropes; for example how to make Congress pass a law.
 
Is it just me or does president Wallace behave like someone who has no clue about politics in this timeline? I mean, he was member of the government for nine years when FDR died in late '41, so he should know the ropes; for example how to make Congress pass a law.

I’ve always disliked that a deeply dystopian timeline has been the go-to answer for this question, full stop. While a timeline that deals with a WI can be an answer it is surely not the only one...
 
I’ve always disliked that a deeply dystopian timeline has been the go-to answer for this question, full stop. While a timeline that deals with a WI can be an answer it is surely not the only one...

I always assumed that a Wallace presidency would be quite beneficial to the US. Free health care and desegregation in the 40s instead of much later. A more normal relationship/rivalry with the Soviet Union instead of the Cold War.
 
I always assumed that a Wallace presidency would be quite beneficial to the US. Free health care and desegregation in the 40s instead of much later. A more normal relationship/rivalry with the Soviet Union instead of the Cold War.
The cold war would have probably still happened once nukes are developed, unless Soviets take a more moderate stance as well, which I think is unlikely after WWII.
 
The cold war would have probably still happened once nukes are developed, unless Soviets take a more moderate stance as well, which I think is unlikely after WWII.

That's why I wrote: rivalry. It's not unlikely that two world powers with different social, economic and political systems compete for the dominant position on the world. But it doesn't have to happen like it did in OTL.
 
I’ve always disliked that a deeply dystopian timeline has been the go-to answer for this question, full stop. While a timeline that deals with a WI can be an answer it is surely not the only one...

EDIT: As I read more of the TL, I realize that its author has to hate Wallace. 118,000 Americans captured, dead or wounded after a failed invasion of Europe in 1943? Seriously?
 
That's why I wrote: rivalry. It's not unlikely that two world powers with different social, economic and political systems compete for the dominant position on the world. But it doesn't have to happen like it did in OTL.
I could see that, but it could be a case of very mild start, and an escalation in the 60s. If FDR dies before pearl harbor the end of world war could be very different. It is possible the Soviets lose the war and aren't as big a threat after the war. Or if Wallace increases lend leasing with the Soviets they might do beter.
 
I could see that, but it could be a case of very mild start, and an escalation in the 60s. If FDR dies before pearl harbor the end of world war could be very different. It is possible the Soviets lose the war and aren't as big a threat after the war. Or if Wallace increases lend leasing with the Soviets they might do beter.

These are the kinds of questions/answers I was hoping to spur. As I reread For All Time, I’m increasingly unconvinced it should be held up as some definitive assessment of a potential Wallace
 
These are the kinds of questions/answers I was hoping to spur. As I reread For All Time, I’m increasingly unconvinced it should be held up as some definitive assessment of a potential Wallace
What were his views on Nazi Germany before the war?
He was much more peaceful than FDR it seems likely that he wouldn't be as eager to go to war as Roosevelt. That could to a neutral US throughout the conflict especially if Wallace doesn't embargo Japan.
 
Top