World War II Under Robert Taft

[Mr_Fanboy]

Go with me on this one - let's say that US Senator Robert Taft, a strong conservative and noted isolationist, had secured the Republican presidential nomination in 1940, then went on to narrowly defeat FDR in the general election. However, despite his isolationism, let's say the situation with Japan still deteriorates to the point where Pearl Harbor, or something like it, occurs, and Germany still declares war upon the United States.

How would American involvement in World War II be different, given that Taft was politically the polar opposite of FDR? What strategy would he insist upon the US military taking, and how would his relationship with the other Allied powers have been different than FDR's (beyond, I assume, greater skepticism toward Stalin)? What sort of postwar settlement would he have insisted upon for Europe and the rest of the world? How would he have navigated postwar geopolitics, however they would have ended up looking here?

 

[Livius wannabe]

Would a president Taft have sanctioned the Hull Note?

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Taft would have had to deal with the already underway military mobilization that started shortly after the collapse of France. Actions such as the Two Ocean Naval Act of July 1940, the call up up Army and Navy reservists, and the induction of the State National Guards into Federal Service all occured before Taft would be elected or inaugurated.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Many of Taft’s early decisions would probably be as OTL. America was essentially at War with Germany in the Atlantic already. That, in itself, would domino towards further involvement and American opposition to Japanese expansionism in Asia is almost a given.

I suppose there is movement on whether a Taft administration goes Europe or Asia First?

 

[raharris1973]

I suppose there is movement on whether a Taft administration goes Europe or Asia First?

Certainly, especially if the postwar and Korean War statements of Taft and his wing of the Republican Party are taken as indicative of what they actually would have done if in charge in the 1940s.

 

[raharris1973]

Taft might be inclined to swallow wholesale the "Victory through Airpower" theory promoted by Alexander De Seversky and Walt Disney in the animated film of the same name.

However that might run into some limits. Taft expressed some reservations about demanding unconditional surrender of Japan, and perhaps about using the atomic bomb.

And before we get into that, there is still 1941 to consider.

Despite the undeclared Atlantic war and US mobilization, lend lease was not passed till Mar 1941. Also with Taft in office Hitler *might* fear he has something to lose by declaring war on America.

 

[raharris1973]

bumping for discussion..

 

[CaliGuy]

Taft might be inclined to swallow wholesale the "Victory through Airpower" theory promoted by Alexander De Seversky and Walt Disney in the animated film of the same name.

However that might run into some limits. Taft expressed some reservations about demanding unconditional surrender of Japan, and perhaps about using the atomic bomb.

And before we get into that, there is still 1941 to consider.

Despite the undeclared Atlantic war and US mobilization, lend lease was not passed till Mar 1941. Also with Taft in office Hitler *might* fear he has something to lose by declaring war on America.

If the information here is accurate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Taft#Opposition_to_World_War_II

"Between the outbreak of war in September, 1939 and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 Taft opposed nearly all attempts to aid countries fighting Germany."

--then I could see Taft significantly reducing the amount of U.S. aid and assistance that Britain gets.

 

[99 Luftballons]

bumping for discussion..

Please don't bump if you don't have anything to contribute.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

...
--then I could see Taft significantly reducing the amount of U.S. aid and assistance that Britain gets.

This brings Taft crossways with the US business community which had been: A. Losing money from the continuance of the war & general disruption of the trade with Europe.

B. Had been making money from war material sales to the Allies.

Take a look at where the bulk of US trade went in the previous two decades, & what happened to that as the war spun out in Europe 1939-40. One of the problems the Isolationists could not figure out was that the US economy had been heavily dependent on exports. Each month the war continues threatened more idle US labor. Aid to the Allies helps to some extent offset the loss of exports to German occupied Europe.

 

[Michele]

Taft would have had to deal with the already underway military mobilization that started shortly after the collapse of France. Actions such as the Two Ocean Naval Act of July 1940, the call up up Army and Navy reservists, and the induction of the State National Guards into Federal Service all occured before Taft would be elected or inaugurated.

Yes, but these are minor in comparison to the real issues, and woul djust amount to heightened US self-defense, not a bad thing of course, but neither a direct effect on the ongoing war.

The real issues are of course anti-Japanese policies, on the one hand, and war supplies to Britain under various formulations, on the other.

I don't know Taft enough, but I suspect his stances later in the war and after the war were influenced by the war itself. I wouldn't be surprised if he would not push for stronger pressure on Japan; and I'd suppose he might conceive or accept something akin to Cash&Carry, but I don't see him pushing for Lend-Lease.

Which is bad news for China, Britain, and later the USSR.

 

[hzn5pk]

Hitler would have declared war on the US after the Japanese attack on Pearl, no matter if it was FDR or a Republican at Potus. Hitler thought the US was morally weak and also thought that his ultimate victory would include victory over the Americans sooner or later.

 

[hzn5pk]

Also, would a foreign policy statement of Taft be to only grant aid to Britain and France only if they would set parts of their empires free after the war similar to the USA and Philippines. Making a statement that the USA is not fighting to keep the old world empires propped up.

Or does Taft and the Republicans just not care?

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

...I'd suppose he might conceive or accept something akin to Cash&Carry, ...

Cash & Carry had been the policy since the repeal of the last Neutrality Acts by Congress in latter 1939.

Also, would a foreign policy statement of Taft be to only grant aid to Britain and France only if they would set parts of their empires free after the war similar to the USA and Philippines.

Sales of military goods to France had already ceased with the German/French Armistice seven or eight months before Tafts inauguration.

Making a statement that the USA is not fighting to keep the old world empires propped up.

Or does Taft and the Republicans just not care?

Good question. United Fruit and the others still had their lobby in Congress, and the China lobby was not entirely altruistic. True free market proponents would favor decolonization, but its surprising how many business leaders of that era and business friendly politicians had lost sight of the free market and were working for special relationships in many directions, including with the empires. For both the Republican and Democratic politicians it really depended on who their financial backers were.

Hitler would have declared war on the US after the Japanese attack on Pearl, no matter if it was FDR or a Republican at Potus. Hitler thought the US was morally weak and also thought that his ultimate victory would include victory over the Americans sooner or later.

The question here is if Taft would have argued for the embargo, particularly freezing the Japanese bank accounts in the US. This had a negative economic effect on the US as it ceased sales and short term loans to Japan. There was a Japan Lobby of businessmen as well as a China Lobby. Japans occupation of French Indo China, largely completed before he would be inaugurated was a second nasty political shock to the US, and gave Japan control of a significant portion of the worlds rubber production. I really don't know where Taft stood on all this. I can say that with no embargo & related sanctions then Japan has no reason to attack the US, or Britain, or the Dutch East Indies. If the sanctions are imposed in the summer of 1941 under Tafts leadership, and negotiations fail as per OTL, then it is likely Hitler does back up Japan should it attack the US.

 

[UCB79]

If the information here is accurate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Taft#Opposition_to_World_War_II

"Between the outbreak of war in September, 1939 and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 Taft opposed nearly all attempts to aid countries fighting Germany."

--then I could see Taft significantly reducing the amount of U.S. aid and assistance that Britain gets.

Yes, I can't see Taft coming up with Lend- Lease which he IOTL firmly opposed. Not only that
- he kept hoping England would see the light & make peace with Hitler &, reports his biographer,
really didn't seem to care if England won or lost(which led Taft's own nephew, Horace Taft, to
call Robert Taft "dead wrong on our foreign policy.") SEE James T Patterson's excellent biography
of Taft, MR REPUBLICAN(1972), ch. 16.

 

[CaliGuy]

This brings Taft crossways with the US business community which had been: A. Losing money from the continuance of the war & general disruption of the trade with Europe.

B. Had been making money from war material sales to the Allies.

Take a look at where the bulk of US trade went in the previous two decades, & what happened to that as the war spun out in Europe 1939-40. One of the problems the Isolationists could not figure out was that the US economy had been heavily dependent on exports. Each month the war continues threatened more idle US labor. Aid to the Allies helps to some extent offset the loss of exports to German occupied Europe.

Couldn't Taft realize that cutting off aid to Britain might quickly end the war and thus allow the U.S. to resume sending its exports to continental Europe, though?

 

[Michele]

Hitler would have declared war on the US after the Japanese attack on Pearl, no matter if it was FDR or a Republican at Potus. Hitler thought the US was morally weak and also thought that his ultimate victory would include victory over the Americans sooner or later.

Hmmm... Hitler hated the guts of the US supplies to Britain throughout 1941, and an undeclared naval war was already going on. He thought he had little to lose and much to gain if his U-Boote could strike close to the source, and indeed there were the second "happy times".

But if little or no stuff is coming from the USA to Britain, and anything that does come is carried by British-flagged cargo ships that are fair game for the U-Boote all over the place, and no USN warships are present to interfere, the equation is seriously different.

 

[takerma]

I do not think he issues the ultimatum to Japan in Autumn and Pearl Harbor is triggered.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Couldn't Taft realize that cutting off aid to Britain might quickly end the war and thus allow the U.S. to resume sending its exports to continental Europe, though?

Might. Its become common knowledge that Britain was "broke' at the end of 1941, or 1940, or whatever. Tho the reality was more complicated & less than the complete economic meltdown some people imply. Perhaps someone has some solid numbers to enlighten us with on this point? The reality of Britains economic situation was less well understood in the US then than today, after all the Brits had no gain in letting everyone know where their finances actually were. Churchill & his peers certainly saw the problem in that. Maybe it was not blindingly obvious to Taft & his staff that Britain would be forced to make peace with Germany, maybe it was clear.

The other problem that may not have been clear to Taft & Co was the probability of German economic policies in Europe preventing a return to open markets there. While the post war economic policy of the nazi leaders is not very clear their ineptitude is. While a favored few; Ford, DuPont, Rockafeller, Davis, benefitted from nazi favor the bulk of US business men had found prewar business in nazi Germany was not what it had been previous, and business in occupied Europe was worse. A peace in nazi dominated Europe is unlikely to return the US to the free market access of the latter 19th and early 20th Century. The Great Depression was aggravated by economic protectionism and trade restrictions. I suspect this situation would be worse with the likes of Goering & Heydrich building a kleptocracy across Europe. This is going to blindside Taft, or any other President who leads the US during a European peace in the 1940s.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Hmmm... Hitler hated the guts of the US supplies to Britain throughout 1941, and an undeclared naval war was already going on. He thought he had little to lose and much to gain if his U-Boote could strike close to the source, ...

Hitler had discussed several times in 1941 attacking the US. I'm unclear on his reasoning for considering it, and deferring. Perhaps he understood Japans plan and was waiting for that to develop?

As for withholding supplies to Britain; Tafts inauguration would come while Cash & Carry was still the primary activity. Lend Lease was not yet spun up. So most goods enroute to Britain in the Spring of 1941 were purchased via private contracts with US companies, and mostly paid for in advance, or through secured credit. Interrupting that transfer of goods, and halting future transfer means a suppression of free trade in war material that had developed after the Nuetrality Acts were repealed in 1939. If Taft wants to force a peace badly enough he can try for Congress passing the necessary legislation, or force a cut off of trade through executive powers. But, the knock on effects in US industry will be swift. if he reverses the US military mobilization and ceases the massive military purchases it will aggravate the economic effects.