Post by eurofed on Sept 26, 2020 3:29:59 GMT
I have been considering the revision of an old TL of mine about a best case scenario for the Axis. It wins the war thanks to close military and economic cooperation between the Axis powers, them being substantally stronger and facing no fuel issue thanks to such cooperation and availability of Matzen, Libyan, and Manchurian oilfields, a more sensible and pragmatic leadership (Goering replaces Hitler in 1939-40), better strategic choices, and America staying neutral. Japan joins Barbarossa and invades Southeast Asia to deliver Britain the coup de grace, but leaves the USA strictly alone. The Axis powers mostly take a defensive stance against the USN and refuse to take the bait about FDR's naval provocations. These events in turn keep the Congress and US public opinion largely non-interventionist.
I am fairly confident this alone should be enough to keep America neutral. It may still provide Lend-Lease to the British or even the Soviets, but it is OK if it does so; the Axis powers manage to squeeze it to a trickle by winning the Battle of the Atlantic and closing most delivery routes to the USSR. On the other hand, FDR's undeclared naval war represents a provocation testing the patience of the Axis leaders and a serious interference in the Battle of the Atlantic that I wish to remove if at all possible. This means getting rid of the man, given his implacable hostility to the Axis powers. He should be available to do his New Deal stuff up to 1938-40 (America needs to be strong to wage the Cold War against the Axis bloc and absorb the defeated Dominions from the wreckage of the British Empire), but afterwards he becomes a serious problem.
As far as I know about the other potential Presidents in the 1940s, nobody of them was as hardcore interventionist, anti-fascist, or pro-Soviet as FDR, and as driven to defy the isolationist instincts of the American public. No one else was willing to do anything more than grant L-L to Britain and China (extension to the USSR was FDR's stretch) and apply economic sanctions to Japan (meaningless ITTL because of the Manchurian oilfields) in absence of a direct Axis aggression to the USA. Of course, there is the option of killing him. His health was poor (even if his true conditions were carefully hidden from the public) and steadily deteriorating over time, so it is far from unreasonable to have him die a few years earlier. Even if he dies after getting a third term, VP Wallace was unpopular (FDR had to fight tooth and nail to get him nominated), with no power base in the Democratic Party, and with skeletons in the closet (bizarre religious beliefs). In all likelihood he won't have the political capital or the balls to wage an undeclared naval war w/o the support of the Congress and public opinion, even more so if tainted by scandal.
Alternatively, or in addition, we may throw the scandal book at FDR, since he had plenty of skeletons in the closet. His poor health kept hidden from the public, his marital infidelity, the First Lady's alleged lesbian affair (esp. bad if it can be construed as occurring with FDR's knowledge), his warmongering manipulations to force America into the war against the wishes of the public and despite his public pledges to keep America out of the war (more damning ITTL since the Axis powers have a more moderate stance towards America), thorough infiltration of the Administration by Soviet espionage and Commie sympathizers (esp. damning b/c of the President's pro-Soviet stance that can be construed as culpable or willful neglect of Commie subversion if not active complicity).
No matter how much FDR and the Democrats were popular and riding on the wave of the New Deal, their political capital should have a breaking point somewhere if scandals pile up. The GOP was steadily recovering electorally during the 1940s as political fatigue about FDR's long rule built up; they seized the Congress in 1946 and came within a hair's breadth of getting the Presidency in 1948. The rallying round the flag effect of Pearl Harbor and WWII belligerance delayed the process, but absence of intervention should remove this factor. Surely in the right circumstances the process can be accelerated substantially. A de facto coalition of Republicans and conservative Democrats controlled the Congress since 1938. If the scandals can throw the Congress to the GOP and/or persuade the conservative Democrats to turn wholly against FDR and align with the isolationists, he should be in serious trouble.
If most or all of the potential scandals get aired at once, isolationists should have a field day depicting the President and the Administration as a sickly, degenerate warmonger in the thrall of a clique of depraved Commie sympathizers that want to drag America into the war to make the world safe for Bolshevism and build a Socialist regime in America. The most controversial aspects of the New Deal, such as the attempted court-packing scheme, might be revisited in the light of the Soviet espionage scandal and given a sinister spin. The simplest solution seems to make FDR die before the 1940 election, lose it, or be forced to give up the nomination. However, for the sake of originality, I am wondering about the feasibility of a Watergate-style scenario in 1941-42, with a Nixon-like FDR dying or being forced to resign, Agnew-like VP Wallace resigning as well, and the Presidency going to Secretary of State Hull to play Ford's role. The 25th Amendment did not exist yet and the Presidential line of succession only included Cabinet secretaries at the time.
The scenario advantage of getting FDR at least partially brought down by scandals is he was the champion and standard-bearer of interventionism. His downfall would taint the policy by association, forcing the next President to align closer to isolationism and making interventionism politically toxic at least for a while. Of course, once the Axis is done crushing the USSR and bringing Britain to its knees, the American people shall wake up to an unpleasant new reality. But by then the Axis shall be in full control of Afro-Eurasia, and headed to develop WMDs and the means of intercontinental delivery at the same time as the USA. Cold War shall become the only possible course.
Opinions? Suggestions?
I am fairly confident this alone should be enough to keep America neutral. It may still provide Lend-Lease to the British or even the Soviets, but it is OK if it does so; the Axis powers manage to squeeze it to a trickle by winning the Battle of the Atlantic and closing most delivery routes to the USSR. On the other hand, FDR's undeclared naval war represents a provocation testing the patience of the Axis leaders and a serious interference in the Battle of the Atlantic that I wish to remove if at all possible. This means getting rid of the man, given his implacable hostility to the Axis powers. He should be available to do his New Deal stuff up to 1938-40 (America needs to be strong to wage the Cold War against the Axis bloc and absorb the defeated Dominions from the wreckage of the British Empire), but afterwards he becomes a serious problem.
As far as I know about the other potential Presidents in the 1940s, nobody of them was as hardcore interventionist, anti-fascist, or pro-Soviet as FDR, and as driven to defy the isolationist instincts of the American public. No one else was willing to do anything more than grant L-L to Britain and China (extension to the USSR was FDR's stretch) and apply economic sanctions to Japan (meaningless ITTL because of the Manchurian oilfields) in absence of a direct Axis aggression to the USA. Of course, there is the option of killing him. His health was poor (even if his true conditions were carefully hidden from the public) and steadily deteriorating over time, so it is far from unreasonable to have him die a few years earlier. Even if he dies after getting a third term, VP Wallace was unpopular (FDR had to fight tooth and nail to get him nominated), with no power base in the Democratic Party, and with skeletons in the closet (bizarre religious beliefs). In all likelihood he won't have the political capital or the balls to wage an undeclared naval war w/o the support of the Congress and public opinion, even more so if tainted by scandal.
Alternatively, or in addition, we may throw the scandal book at FDR, since he had plenty of skeletons in the closet. His poor health kept hidden from the public, his marital infidelity, the First Lady's alleged lesbian affair (esp. bad if it can be construed as occurring with FDR's knowledge), his warmongering manipulations to force America into the war against the wishes of the public and despite his public pledges to keep America out of the war (more damning ITTL since the Axis powers have a more moderate stance towards America), thorough infiltration of the Administration by Soviet espionage and Commie sympathizers (esp. damning b/c of the President's pro-Soviet stance that can be construed as culpable or willful neglect of Commie subversion if not active complicity).
No matter how much FDR and the Democrats were popular and riding on the wave of the New Deal, their political capital should have a breaking point somewhere if scandals pile up. The GOP was steadily recovering electorally during the 1940s as political fatigue about FDR's long rule built up; they seized the Congress in 1946 and came within a hair's breadth of getting the Presidency in 1948. The rallying round the flag effect of Pearl Harbor and WWII belligerance delayed the process, but absence of intervention should remove this factor. Surely in the right circumstances the process can be accelerated substantially. A de facto coalition of Republicans and conservative Democrats controlled the Congress since 1938. If the scandals can throw the Congress to the GOP and/or persuade the conservative Democrats to turn wholly against FDR and align with the isolationists, he should be in serious trouble.
If most or all of the potential scandals get aired at once, isolationists should have a field day depicting the President and the Administration as a sickly, degenerate warmonger in the thrall of a clique of depraved Commie sympathizers that want to drag America into the war to make the world safe for Bolshevism and build a Socialist regime in America. The most controversial aspects of the New Deal, such as the attempted court-packing scheme, might be revisited in the light of the Soviet espionage scandal and given a sinister spin. The simplest solution seems to make FDR die before the 1940 election, lose it, or be forced to give up the nomination. However, for the sake of originality, I am wondering about the feasibility of a Watergate-style scenario in 1941-42, with a Nixon-like FDR dying or being forced to resign, Agnew-like VP Wallace resigning as well, and the Presidency going to Secretary of State Hull to play Ford's role. The 25th Amendment did not exist yet and the Presidential line of succession only included Cabinet secretaries at the time.
The scenario advantage of getting FDR at least partially brought down by scandals is he was the champion and standard-bearer of interventionism. His downfall would taint the policy by association, forcing the next President to align closer to isolationism and making interventionism politically toxic at least for a while. Of course, once the Axis is done crushing the USSR and bringing Britain to its knees, the American people shall wake up to an unpleasant new reality. But by then the Axis shall be in full control of Afro-Eurasia, and headed to develop WMDs and the means of intercontinental delivery at the same time as the USA. Cold War shall become the only possible course.
Opinions? Suggestions?
