WI FDR is killed

I know this was discussed before but bear with me please. Let's say Zangara killed Rosevelt and Garner replaced him. What would be the consequences?
1. More isolationist policy for the US?
2. Less economic development due to no New Deal. Probably they would have to do some reforms to increase employment at least a little bit but overall their economy could be worse.
3. Is Garner re-elected or not? If not, who will replace him. If he holds out for two terms who would be next possible candidates?
4. Most importantly, effects on World War II? Is the "Man in the High Castle type story" realistic? Probably less US involvement right away but I've read Garner actually supported the embargo on Japan do that would still lead to Pearl Harbor attack. In this case, with less military reforms and build-up due to worse economic situation and more isolationism that fleet would be weaker do maybe if the Japanese still surprise them they could destroy the entire fleet, crippling the American war effort completely together with other attacks on the Philippines and elsewhere. That could also mean no US occupation of Iceland. ITTL would they take a Germany first strategy or would they focus on Japan to revenge themselves? Something similar to Lend-lease agreement could be made, though not as worth as OTL. Still, even a weaker American economy could quickly outmatch the much weaker Japanese and the German economy which critically lacked resources. I am aware the war would end up the same but would it make any changes on the field? Perhaps prolonging it and changing the post-war map? Maybe the Germans could hold out longer? Any effects on the African campaign or perhaps Normandy
5. Effects on the Manhattan Project? Would the Americans pursue the same way as OTL and if defeating Germany proves harder to defeat would they use it there? When and how?
6. How would the war in the Pacific turn out? Would a total defeat at Pearl Harbor mean anything to Midway or the Coral Sea? Guadalcanal and New Guinea maybe? If the Japanese have more success and succeed in cutting off Australia that would surely be a huge impact with them having more resources from Indonesia and the ability to overrun Burma, threaten India, bomb Australia a lot (but still probably no invasion of Australia) and it could also force the British to divert the resources from their African campaign or bombing Germany to India and Australia dince i suppose the Australians wouldn't be too eager to fight in Egypt or Libya with their own country threatened like this.
 
1) Garner hated the Japanese. He is going to do his best to undermine Japanese power in China and the Pacific as that was seen as an American sphere. I don't see him moving aggressively in Europe. No one in America wanted anything to deal with the headaches the Continent offered.
2) Garner supported a large part of the New Deal. The question is will he move aggressively against the Supreme Court which kept blocking parts of said legislation. I would say no since he argued with FDR over his court packing schemes. Some parts of the New Deal will pass, but not as much. The result: there are so many arguments pro and con regarding the New Deal that I couldn't give a valid answer. His balanced budget style wouldn't help. Also, his anti-labor stance would seriously change the face of the modern Democrats.
3) Garner would run and likely win re-election. The man was trying, something Hoover could never convince the American public of. I don't see the Dems winning again in 1940 so toss it to Dewey.
4) The Nazis go on a rampage. France still falls. Garner is in his final year and a lame duck, not good for the Brits. The best he likely accomplishes is a build up of forces, but I doubt he goes all out like FDR did with Lend Lease. The UK struggles on being forced to pay for whatever they need further wrecking their finances. The Soviets receive nothing so the Germans will have a weaker UK to the west and a USSR that is going to struggle come 1942. They'll need those factories that churned out tanks and planes to make other needed supplies or sacrifice to retain their weapon making ability. Either way, they aren't the force they were OTL. I see Stalingrad lost by 1942 cutting off their oil that signals the end over time. Germany will be busy with all that entails for the next decade. Genocide and partisans make occupation difficult. The future of Germany depends on what follows Hitler's death. Civil War? Orderly succession? Likely a lot of behind the scenes like the Soviets after Stalin. Still a gray area.
5) With the fears of German aggression, the Manhattan Project continues though likely not with as much funding. The bomb comes no later than 1950. Then the Nazis go wild trying to build their own.
6) Japan, though, is getting curb stomped by the US. That was always in the cards. But without the Soviets, expect no Manchurian safe haven for the communists. Korea will also fall into the American sphere so no Sung dynasty. Japan doesn't get the economic stimulus the Korean War brought so likely a longer economic recovery.

Just some quick thoughts.
 

bguy

Donor
4) The Nazis go on a rampage. France still falls. Garner is in his final year and a lame duck, not good for the Brits. The best he likely accomplishes is a build up of forces, but I doubt he goes all out like FDR did with Lend Lease. The UK struggles on being forced to pay for whatever they need further wrecking their finances. The Soviets receive nothing so the Germans will have a weaker UK to the west and a USSR that is going to struggle come 1942. They'll need those factories that churned out tanks and planes to make other needed supplies or sacrifice to retain their weapon making ability. Either way, they aren't the force they were OTL. I see Stalingrad lost by 1942 cutting off their oil that signals the end over time. Germany will be busy with all that entails for the next decade. Genocide and partisans make occupation difficult. The future of Germany depends on what follows Hitler's death. Civil War? Orderly succession? Likely a lot of behind the scenes like the Soviets after Stalin. Still a gray area.

The decision on whether or not to provide aid to the Soviets will fall to Garner's successor (which I agree is likely going to be Dewey), so I imagine some sort of U.S. aid will be provided. (Dewey won't like the Soviets, but it is clear after the fall of France that the Nazis are an existential threat to the U.S., so I think President Dewey would be pragmatic enough to help the Soviets on the enemy of my enemy is my friend grounds.)

Fully agree with all your other points.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
2) Garner supported a large part of the New Deal. The question is will he move aggressively against the Supreme Court which kept blocking parts of said legislation. I would say no since he argued with FDR over his court packing schemes. Some parts of the New Deal will pass, but not as much. The result: there are so many arguments pro and con regarding the New Deal that I couldn't give a valid answer. His balanced budget style wouldn't help. Also, his anti-labor stance would seriously change the face of the modern Democrats
Garner supported a large part of New Deal after it was put forward. But, whether he would introduce it or not is another problem?
 
I suppose he would have to make some moves to keep enough voters for himself. Besides, though I'm not too familiar with it, but Roosevelt couldn't have made up New Deal all by himself so as Garner probably had a similar staff some changes would be introduced, at least as much as the Supreme Court allows.
But are you sure Japan gets curbstomped by the much weaker Americans? If the Japanese see a weaker American fleet maybe they make that third attack at Pearl Harbor and devastate the Pacific fleet. It could be rebuilt but they would definitely need more time. Would that be a benefit for the Japanese or a downside? And how would that influence the Japanese on other fronts, not just in the south Pacific, but also in China and Burma?
Oh and about the Soviets, didn't the Lend-lease kick really kick in only after Stalingrad? Sure, the Soviets not benefiting from it as they couldn't actually pay for it and ITTL the Americans wouldn't be nearly as generous, later on the Soviets would start to fail, but then again the Germans were getting exhausting too weren't they? Any thoughts on that?
 

bguy

Donor
Garner supported a large part of New Deal after it was put forward. But, whether he would introduce it or not is another problem?

Liberals in Congress will introduce most of the New Deal programs regardless of who the President is. (Remember even IOTL, the New Deal Congress was perfectly capable of acting independent of FDR as when they passed the veteran's bonus bill over his veto.) And Garner would sponsor much of the New Deal anyway. He was a Wilsonian progressive who had already sponsored a 3 billion dollar public works bill (the Garner-Wagner Act) while Speaker and was a long time supporter of federal deposit insurance (indeed he was the one who had to talk FDR into supporting such a program).

Vladivostock said:
But are you sure Japan gets curbstomped by the much weaker Americans? If the Japanese see a weaker American fleet maybe they make that third attack at Pearl Harbor and devastate the Pacific fleet. It could be rebuilt but they would definitely need more time. Would that be a benefit for the Japanese or a downside? And how would that influence the Japanese on other fronts, not just in the south Pacific, but also in China and Burma?

Why would there be a much weaker American fleet? Even the isolationists in Congress overwhelmingly supported the Two Ocean Navy Act after the fall of France, so a massive navy bill is pretty much inevitable if France falls.
 
Top