WI: No Second World War

Deleted member 1487

Query: How well does New Deal Liberalism, government policy, and economic recovery do without WW2? Circa 1937 onward, things started to go off kilter. The Supreme Court took issue time and again with New Deal programs, and killed off a fair number. The Court Packing scheme revolted the public. And FDR cut back on spending and tried to balance the budget, which sent the economy back down again until he went back to New Deal policy. And this had to effect of giving Conservatives a boost, and they took Congress in 1938, thus blocking further reforms and ending the New Deal. WW2 washed over all of that. We went from Domestic Keynesianism to Wartime Keynesianism. Here, FDR simply has run into an opposition he cannot overcome.
If Germany doesn't go to war there likely will be a much more mild build up in 1939 to signal to Japan to take the US seriously, but not anywhere near what it was IOTL up to 1942 and certainly not what it was during the war and post-war with the GI Bill. So the US economy does a lot more poorly unless there is war with Japan and then you get the bump. I'm assuming there isn't war with Japan ITTL, so then the US economic recovery is probably more like it is now after the 2008 recession: muted. Things pick up, but never get anywhere near what it was IOTL especially with competition not being destroyed, the inheritance of German scientists, and the looting of German patents valued at $10 Billion in 1940 dollars. Likely the economy would eventually put the GOP back into power in Congress and the Presidency, which starts dismantling the New Deal and labor protections. So the US ends up being a shadow of what it could have been IMHO, while Europe remains much more successful than even OTL thanks to no destruction and the loss of ~40 million people. The USSR would be highly interesting.
 
Here, FDR simply has run into an opposition he cannot overcome.
Another thing to consider -- TTL, FDR is unlikely to make an unprecedented run for a third consecutive term; more likely he steps out, and the Democrats nominate someone to defend the New Deal and all that (maybe James Farley, maybe Cordell Hull, or someone else), while the Republicans are less anxious about nominating an isolationist anti-New Dealer like Taft. Likely result: the Democrats win 1940, and New Deal-esque policies continue through the 1940's.
 

Deleted member 1487

Another thing to consider -- TTL, FDR is unlikely to make an unprecedented run for a third consecutive term; more likely he steps out, and the Democrats nominate someone to defend the New Deal and all that (maybe James Farley, maybe Cordell Hull, or someone else), while the Republicans are less anxious about nominating an isolationist anti-New Dealer like Taft. Likely result: the Democrats win 1940, and New Deal-esque policies continue through the 1940's.
For the GOP Dewey was the guy and he was much more likely than Taft. Taft was the Ron Paul of his day and Dewey was the favorite until FDR came back in and then Wilkie was the dark horse they thought could beat him as a former Democrat that left the party over a fight with FDR.
 
Another thing to consider -- TTL, FDR is unlikely to make an unprecedented run for a third consecutive term; more likely he steps out, and the Democrats nominate someone to defend the New Deal and all that (maybe James Farley, maybe Cordell Hull, or someone else), while the Republicans are less anxious about nominating an isolationist anti-New Dealer like Taft. Likely result: the Democrats win 1940, and New Deal-esque policies continue through the 1940's.
Here's my thing in regards to that: the Conservative Coalition was a stop on the New Deal. Is it more likely that it would have been a full stop, or is it more likely that it was simply a lull until New Deal Liberalism inevitably overcame it? And how much would the country suffer in either case? The shift in course and return to course would seem to be a problem, as the 1937 Recession was testament to. How effective, exactly, was the Conservative Coalition in that 1938-1941 gap? Was it like later decades, where they didn't roll back the New Deal but prevented any more major policy? Or was it chipping away at the New Deal itself?

In regards to candidates, I've never been satisfied with the options other than FDR. James Farley is a machine man. And Cordell Hull had a Tweety Bird voice, which even in 1940, I don't know how well that'd be received for the presidency.
 
For the GOP Dewey was the guy and he was much more likely than Taft. Taft was the Ron Paul of his day and Dewey was the favorite until FDR came back in...
I wouldn't say Taft was that unlikely; he did come in second the first ballot, after all. And the GOP might well hesitate to give the nod to a failed gubenatorial candidate; I also think the roll-backers won't go for him. Maybe Vanderberg emerges as a compromise candidate?
In regards to candidates, I've never been satisfied with the options other than FDR. James Farley is a machine man. And Cordell Hull had a Tweety Bird voice, which even in 1940, I don't know how well that'd be received for the presidency.
But without the chaos in Europe, FDR doesn't have the excuse to break tradition; and if he does anyway, he's basically conceding "the other Democrats really are that mediocre". Whoever the Dems pick, as long as the GOP doesn't move to the center, all they really have to do is run on the success of the New Deal.
How effective, exactly, was the Conservative Coalition in that 1938-1941 gap? Was it like later decades, where they didn't roll back the New Deal but prevented any more major policy? Or was it chipping away at the New Deal itself?
They couldn't get control of either branch of Congress; sure, they did well enough the New Dealers didn't press their luck in that time, but they still couldn't really threaten the ND Coalition.
 
Still, in a world where the New Deal is over by 1938, what is that going to look like? Would we have a positive view of Keynesian economics, if we didn't have wartime Keynesianism pull us through to full prosperity? Would it dominate the Post-Warless world so much compared to the OTL? For that matter, how would we view FDR if he faced everything he did in a second term, with the controversy and opposition blocking, and did not have a third of fourth term as a wartime leader?
Just saw this; response is in the other thread.
 
Trying to imagine modern day Britain without the NHS, and far smaller, limited pensions.

I've been researching this subject for my Reds vs. Blues TL. There is still a European war during this period, but it doesn't spread beyond it, and isn't nearly as devastating.

Anyway, Britain's health service ITTL may not be like OTL's NHS, but it would still have a universal health service. Plans to create such a system existed long before the war; if anything, WWII delayed the creation of an NHS-like system, rather than creating the conditions for it.

It would probably end up more like the French system, funded by a combination of taxes and mandatory, state-provided health insurance. Similarly, the welfare state would be more insurance oriented, like the French system, but means testing already existed.
 
A few specific thoughts on the US.

The boost WWII gave to the US economy is grossly underestimated by most people. 'A Call to Arms: Mobilizing America for World War II: by Klein describes how portions of the US industrial infrastructure had been lost since 1918. The causes went beyond the Great Depressionm tho that was the most important problem.

One example was the US railway system. That had peaked in capacity sometime between 1895 & 1920. Growth over all was stagnated & overcapacity portions were actually disappearing in the 1920s. When the system was surveyed 1940-1942 it was found up to a third of the 1890s-1920 capacity was not in use. Some was simply underused. large portions had maintiance cut so that full designed capacity was not possible. Other large chunks had been abandoned and effectively removed. Depending on how the numbers were interpreted the real capacity of the US railway system in 1940 was approx 20% less than circa 1918. A massive rebuild program turned that around & increased capacity went far beyond the early 20th Century levels. The entire system saw its obsolete portions modernized, maintiance was remedied across the board, and capacity of specific lines or portions increased through reconstruction programs. New capacity was added to service the new industrial plant that was built.

Another example would be the new aircraft industry. The 1938 output was near a pathetic 2000 aircraft a year. The actual potential output was less than 10,000 per year with the labor force, & manufacturing plant available. By 1944 aircraft production reached 105,000. Mostly due to the newly trained labor & 90% new industrial plant.
 
Top