Roosevelt had been in poor cardiovascular health for a long time, with very severe hypertension, so it seems plausible that he could have suffered a fatal stroke or heart attack significantly earlier than he actually did. This seems like it could have a significant impact, especially if his death changes the outcome of the Presidential race in some respect--for example, if he dies exactly a year before he did IOTL, then Henry Wallace would become President!
WI: FDR dies in 1944?
- Thread starter Workable Goblin
- Start date
I feel like a convention fight would occur. Probably James Byrnes or someone like that makes a challenge.
I initially planned to astutely observe that because Roosevelt had such a large EV and popular vote margin that he could hav died mid-October or later and not much would change. I figured that by then it'd be so late in the race, there would be no time for the Democrats to broker a new ticket, so Truman assumes the nomiation as the default setting. (Even today most jurisdictions couldn't reprint the ballots that fast.) Ergo, Zombie Roosevelt [Truman] still wins the popular vote. My thought was Roosevelt [Truman] could have easily shed several point and still have a landslide. Ergo, President Wallace serves out the remainder of Roosevlt's 3rd term, Truman takes office with the new term, and we know how the rest of hsitory plays out-- probably.
BUT THEN... I looked at the popular vote by state. Roosevelt ran up the vote in some southern states, but many large EV states around the Great Lakes and the Mid-Atantic states were won by Roosevely <3%. New assessment, the Chicago Daily Tribune gets to print "Dewey Defeats Truman" without being embarassed.
I think Dewey probably defeats Wallace OR Truman.
Unfortunately, Wallace would be President until January 20th, 1945, and could do IMMENSE damage until then.
Unfortunately, Wallace would be President until January 20th, 1945, and could do IMMENSE damage until then.
Between D-Day 1944 and January 20, 1945, wasn't the Allied military on enough auto-pilot to keep moving OTL without much presidential input? Why would Lame Duck Wallace do anything damaging in time of war, given the level of advisorship he would have?
They’re making a play on Wallace being sympathetic with the commies and that leading to implausible hilarity.
Edit: dead right on Dewey winning though, easily the most likely outcome.
Last edited:
marathag
Banned
Yeah, that's how it's been ever since _for All Time_ now 20 years gone on SHWI on Usenet
I know Wallace himself wasn't a spy, but as stated he WAS overly sympathetic to the USSR and many of the people in his orbit were certainly security risks.
marathag
Banned
Any more than Harry Hopkins, FDRs main advisor,Lauchlin Currie, his Administrative Assistant or Gen. Faymonville Lend Lease administrator of LL to the Russians?
It depends very much on when FDR dies. If it is before the convention (19-21 July), then IMO Wallace gets the nomination. OTL it took a fair amount of maneuvering by party insiders and FDR to get Truman as VP nominee instead. Wallace even led on the first ballot for VP. As President, he'd be unstoppable. (Which is ironic, because in 1940, FDR had to threaten to withdraw from the ticket to get the convention to nominate Wallace.)
If FDR dies soon after the convention... Who replaces him on the ticket? Truman could be promoted, but he's a largely unknown quantity. Wallace could step in, as he is now President, leaving Truman in place. But Wallace has just been rejected by the convention for VP, and key party insiders really don't want him. Presumably the DNCommittee makes the choice.
IF the DNC spurns Wallace, does he run third-party?
If Truman, the DNComm must also name a VP candidate. Jimmy Byrnes?
If in October; it may be too late for Wallace, whose demotion has been set in place. OTOH it may be too late for the DNC to name anyone but Wallace and have him become a plausible candidate.
If it is Wallace, the Republicans will drop the "Dear Guru" letters. In the early 1930s, Wallace had been a follower of expatriate Russian Theosophist Nikolai Roerich. Wallace wrote letters to Roerich, expressing his devotion to the "Dear Guru" in fulsome language, replete with Roerich's mystical gibberish. As Sec of Agriculture, Wallace even commissioned Roerich (who had some scientific credentials) to lead an expedition to north China in search of useful crops. By the late 1930s, Wallace had broken with Roerich, but the letters would still have been profoundly embarrassing. The Republicans wanted to use them in 1940, but the Democrats countered by threatening to expose Wendell Willkie's adulterous affair with socialite Irita Van Doren. In 1944, they could not be so deterred. IMO the letters, Wallace's excessive pro-Sovietism, and his simply not being Roosevelt would be enough to flip the outcome.
If FDR dies soon after the convention... Who replaces him on the ticket? Truman could be promoted, but he's a largely unknown quantity. Wallace could step in, as he is now President, leaving Truman in place. But Wallace has just been rejected by the convention for VP, and key party insiders really don't want him. Presumably the DNCommittee makes the choice.
IF the DNC spurns Wallace, does he run third-party?
If Truman, the DNComm must also name a VP candidate. Jimmy Byrnes?
If in October; it may be too late for Wallace, whose demotion has been set in place. OTOH it may be too late for the DNC to name anyone but Wallace and have him become a plausible candidate.
If it is Wallace, the Republicans will drop the "Dear Guru" letters. In the early 1930s, Wallace had been a follower of expatriate Russian Theosophist Nikolai Roerich. Wallace wrote letters to Roerich, expressing his devotion to the "Dear Guru" in fulsome language, replete with Roerich's mystical gibberish. As Sec of Agriculture, Wallace even commissioned Roerich (who had some scientific credentials) to lead an expedition to north China in search of useful crops. By the late 1930s, Wallace had broken with Roerich, but the letters would still have been profoundly embarrassing. The Republicans wanted to use them in 1940, but the Democrats countered by threatening to expose Wendell Willkie's adulterous affair with socialite Irita Van Doren. In 1944, they could not be so deterred. IMO the letters, Wallace's excessive pro-Sovietism, and his simply not being Roosevelt would be enough to flip the outcome.
Last edited:
Then let's turn the page to the next step - President Dewey, 1944!
Dewey wins based on party-fatigue, the weirdness of the guru-letters, and accusations of Wallace's pro-Sovietism.
But, on being inaugurated in 1945, and even in planning the transition in wartime, Dewey needs to be a bit careful on the third point. He's got to finish the war and the Soviets are an ally. All the military advisors are advising the concluding the wars in both Europe and the Pacific is easier with Soviet cooperation as early as possible, and the Soviets cannot be realistically kept out of either war. He's obligated to do summit meetings with the British and Soviet leadership. The momentum for the United Nations concept is strong.
So who is Dewey making his Secretaries of War, Navy and State? Who might he be retaining from FDR's cabinet as a gesture of continuity?
What's Dewey's foreign policy, how does it compare to FDR's and Truman's from 45-49? Who criticizes, and from what angles? What effect does this have on party politics? Who do the Democrats choose as their standard bearer in 1948, and what is their foreign policy stance? If they differentiate themselves from Dewey's approach towards the Soviet Union, China, Greece, and other international matters, is it a critique from the left, or the right?
Dewey wins based on party-fatigue, the weirdness of the guru-letters, and accusations of Wallace's pro-Sovietism.
But, on being inaugurated in 1945, and even in planning the transition in wartime, Dewey needs to be a bit careful on the third point. He's got to finish the war and the Soviets are an ally. All the military advisors are advising the concluding the wars in both Europe and the Pacific is easier with Soviet cooperation as early as possible, and the Soviets cannot be realistically kept out of either war. He's obligated to do summit meetings with the British and Soviet leadership. The momentum for the United Nations concept is strong.
So who is Dewey making his Secretaries of War, Navy and State? Who might he be retaining from FDR's cabinet as a gesture of continuity?
What's Dewey's foreign policy, how does it compare to FDR's and Truman's from 45-49? Who criticizes, and from what angles? What effect does this have on party politics? Who do the Democrats choose as their standard bearer in 1948, and what is their foreign policy stance? If they differentiate themselves from Dewey's approach towards the Soviet Union, China, Greece, and other international matters, is it a critique from the left, or the right?
I'm going to step up and venture my thoughts on the foreign policy course of the hypothetical Dewey administration and its domestic political reverberations.
The Dewey administration will take a tone a couple more shades symbolically critical of the USSR once the war ends, but Yalta during the war and Potsdam won't be really any different. Dewey is going to to use the 'effing atomic bomb (I don't know where this alt-hist silliness I've seen of alternate Presidents *not* using it comes from, and obviously, it bugs me). The Soviets are going to get into the Pacific War. Dewey's anticommunist tone will be a little more contrastingly pronounced towards China, with any proposed mediation being more on Chiang's terms outright.
But, Dewey's not going to support Chiang with troops, nor unlimited funds, so his regime will go down under the Communists eventually.
The results of this on American politics will be interesting- there will not be McCarthyism, at least not the way we had it in OTL.
There will be post-war anticommunism and instances of overzealous security investigations potentially verging on a witch-hunt from time to time, but with the Republican administration in charge while the Soviets establish the iron curtain and China are lost, right-wing Republicans and conservatives generally cannot make softness on communism a partisan issues against the Democrats, and compel future Democratic administrations in succeeding decades to assume a posture of competitive anti-communism.
This is a huge thing for post-WWII/Cold War US foreign policy and domestic politics.
If anyone politically weaponizes anti-communism in a partisan fashion it would be the Democrats, which may not sit well with all parts of their caucus. But maybe there could be a McCarthyism oddly pushed by the center-left against American conservatives and leftists at the same time.
This all gives much to think about.
The Dewey administration will take a tone a couple more shades symbolically critical of the USSR once the war ends, but Yalta during the war and Potsdam won't be really any different. Dewey is going to to use the 'effing atomic bomb (I don't know where this alt-hist silliness I've seen of alternate Presidents *not* using it comes from, and obviously, it bugs me). The Soviets are going to get into the Pacific War. Dewey's anticommunist tone will be a little more contrastingly pronounced towards China, with any proposed mediation being more on Chiang's terms outright.
But, Dewey's not going to support Chiang with troops, nor unlimited funds, so his regime will go down under the Communists eventually.
The results of this on American politics will be interesting- there will not be McCarthyism, at least not the way we had it in OTL.
There will be post-war anticommunism and instances of overzealous security investigations potentially verging on a witch-hunt from time to time, but with the Republican administration in charge while the Soviets establish the iron curtain and China are lost, right-wing Republicans and conservatives generally cannot make softness on communism a partisan issues against the Democrats, and compel future Democratic administrations in succeeding decades to assume a posture of competitive anti-communism.
This is a huge thing for post-WWII/Cold War US foreign policy and domestic politics.
If anyone politically weaponizes anti-communism in a partisan fashion it would be the Democrats, which may not sit well with all parts of their caucus. But maybe there could be a McCarthyism oddly pushed by the center-left against American conservatives and leftists at the same time.
This all gives much to think about.
What does our most credible estimator of American political possibilities in the multiverse, @David T, believe. And I mean that sincerely.
Probably the biggest change is that Dewey is not Truman and without Truman you are likely to see a much reduced drive to 'return to normalcy' that had Truman stripping the US military to the bone with an over-dependence on the Atomic Bomb and the Air Force as a means of delivery thereof. The Air Force being a separate service after the war is still likely a given as is integration as both were favored by the majority of the military brass. I don't think the post-WWII Air Force is the same TTL though as with Dewey in charge you have less of sense of awe over the A-Bomb/Bomber being the end-all-be-all for post war US security. Since Dewey is less likely to see a need for a rapid and complete dismantling of the military in favor of domestic spending.
Randy
Randy
Why won’t Dewey be awed by the atomic bomb?
Was Dewey less committed to balancing the budget and working to retire the debt than Truman?
How does Dewey counter popular clamor to bring the boys home?
What about clamor from within the whole western, Midwestern and conservative wing of the Republican party that just loved the idea of airpower-centric, atomic-centric strategies?
You remark about Truman’s desire to shift over to domestic spending, but what big domestic spending outlays did Truman shift to immediately postwar? Certainly Dewey may be just fine skipping those, but might he, or his Congressional Republican allies, want tax cuts instead?
What sort of choices will Dewey make on funding the UNRRA, the occupations, and any European Recovery Program?
Yours is an interesting idea though.
Maybe Dewey *can* resist the ‘return to normalcy, and uphold military spending. Although perhaps to do it, he may need to create his own version of Red Scare, species of McCarthyism, and handle international affairs with the USSR in a confrontational manner right away to justify it.
I suspect that if he pulls it off, it may turn the Democrats into a Cold War-skeptical, “dovish” party, early in the Cold War, unless an escalated hot war actually occurs.
"Less of a sense of awe" over the bomb, why? Because unlike Truman he will likely listen to the scientist and military leaders who tell him it's NOT a cure all and is essential just a very big, very expensive and very complicated bomb. Truman immediately seized on the idea of the bomb being a weapon of 'one bomb-one city', needing only one airplane to carry it which needed no fighters to escort it, no Navy to support it and no Army to seize foreign bases for its use. Not only was that totally NOT what anyone working on the program or in the military was telling him but he also stopped all further research on weapons of improved efficiency and utility and refused to support any research into more 'operational' bombs. He never understood how strategic bombing worked nor did he really care and he never even tried to understand how the atomic missions worked, what was needed to accomplish and support them. Truman assumed that all USAF B-29s could carry the Atomic Bomb and deliver them to targets and that the Air Force had all the B-29s it needed. Further he assumed that when and if the bombs were needed the Manhattan Project could simply build and deliver them as needed when needed. So what does Truman do to ensure the Air Force and (by this point) the Atomic Energy Commission are ready to carry out this task if asked? He cuts their budget even though they STILL get more money than any other military branch but we'll get to that in a bit.
Truman was upfront about his not being the most "technically minded" person and was rather proud that he tended to use "common sense" over scientific or "expert" advice. Dewey was very aware he didn't know everything and that often the "common sense" answer was not the right one so he would surround himself with experts and knowledgably advisors and listen to what they had to say.
The consensus at the time was that while the Atomic Bomb was a great advancement it was NOT a super-weapon and it required a complex and expensive industrial system to produce and a technically advanced and expensive method of delivery. It was certainly NOT a single guarantee of US supremacy but that is what Truman decided to believe and what he based his post-war defensive policy on.
Was Dewey less committed to balancing the budget and working to retire the debt than Truman?
Yes in the context of the time/question pretty much EVERYONE was since Truman's "method" was to take the entire US budget, apply it to "domestic" issues, (budget and debt among them) and IF anything was left over give that the military to "maintain" the occupation and active forces. He in fact retained this 'method' right up until the Korean war broke out, for which the American military was woefully unprepared for this very reason. A vast amount of that 'spending' was to prop up and provide stop-gap measures for the very problems that Truman's policies created in the first place as well see.
The same way Truman did by using the war-time media propaganda machine to placate them by explaining that occupational and regional forces were needed to support relief and control issues. There were carefully researched and planned withdrawal schedules and re-deployment and de-mobilization plans in place already. Then Truman threw them out and ordered pretty much everyone NOT directly assigned to occupation duties brought home and de-mobilized which threw the whole carefully planned and scheduled system into chaos. (Why do you need a 'standing' military when you have the Atomic Bomb and they have not...) it also disrupted the re-integration program and the industries and business which were still ramping back towards 'normal' operation were unable to adjust to the sudden flood of ex-military men seeking jobs, homes and lives back in the US. So Truman had to throw money at various support and sustainment programs, (the GI Bill program had been approved in 1944 for example) in greater quantities and a shorter time period than anyone had planned for. Oh, and note the 'clamor' suddenly stopped. Very suddenly. This did NOT win Truman brownie points with the public or private sector.
Part of what 'sustained' Truman's belief in whole idea but that clamor too got louder and more strident as the money those areas were used to dried up and went away. It would not come back until the Korean war broke out and even then didn't really 'stabilize' till Eisenhower got into office. Oddly by that point in time the 'clamor had mostly died because the majority of folks who'd pushed that position realized what everyone else had been saying was correct. A more balanced approach was needed. This had actually become the main Republican position (fronted by Dewey no less) by 1948 OTL and the majority of the American public felt that it was desirable even if the Republican's had to raise taxes to do so. The main problem with that 'clamor' was that it was based on the idea that such a strategy would funnel more money into those areas which was exactly the opposite of what happened.
Most of the spending was efforts to pay down the debt and balance the budget but more and more ended up going to support and sustainment programs, aid packages and targeted spending that arguably shouldn't have happened with a less frantic 'return to normalcy' effort. No Dewey and the Republican's had no such plans initially and were looking to trim back some of the New Deal programs but this was shown to be VERY unpopular with the public as was cutting back on may of the post-war support programs like the GI Bill, home-ownership incentives and some others. The Republicans lost seats in the House, (though they gained on in the Senate it was still Democrat controlled) so the ability to actually shift spending by a Republican President would be limited in any case. But let's be clear here, what Truman did during the post-war drawdown left many DEMOCRATS uneasy because they were so vastly different than what had been recommended, approved and then planned and while his insistence on paying down domestic debt and balancing the budget were initially popular at home the rippling effects they had turned public opinion against him and the Democrats quite quickly. As I pointed out, by 1948 the Republican's were running on a more balanced budgetary platform that could include a raise in taxes and most American's were willing to accept such an outcome.
UNRRA funding shouldn't be a problem for Dewey as it was an Allied organization agreed to in 1943 and the reasoning and logic (lessons learned from WWI) made a lot of sense to allow a more rapid recovery from the war. Similarly the "Marshall Plan" would aim towards not repeating the mistakes of WWI by trying to alleviate the debt-bond and speed the recovery time of Western Europe while arguably strengthening ties to the US. (Note this is something Dewey a 'new' internationalist Republican wanted but that a large segment of the older non-interventionalist/isolationist Republican's would still oppose. That's not really an issue till 1948 and after really since the Republican's are not going to control either half of Congress in the near future so Dewey has to play to the Democratic majority)
A major difference between Dewey and Truman was that while both are known to be 'Internationalist' in they both felt that the US had to take a more active role in post-war international activities Dewey was actually more of an 'interventionist' than Truman was as he made more clear in the 1948 race. Truman pretty much felt that the US could simply dictate terms and actions to the international community without providing direct support (such as military forces) since the US had a monopoly on the Atomic Bomb and intended to keep it. (Part of the reason that he withdrew cooperation towards the UK's development program) Dewey seems to have been more aware that conventional 'strength' was needed as well as the Bomb and that US withdrawal of those same conventional forces would probably send a signal to the rest of the world that we would likely be retreating back into our pre-war isolationist/non-interventionalist stance which was exactly the opposite stance he and the rest of the internationalist Republican's wanted the world to think or the US to do.
Really anyone but Truman would likely have stuck more closely to the planned draw-down and de-mobilization schedule. Truman wanted it done NOW and that caused so many issues it wasn't even funny. (I have somewhere an article on a Marine unit that sat on a Pacific island for almost a year past their originally scheduled deployment date back to the states because the transport to come get them kept getting re-scheduled to 'higher-priority' work as well as one transport being de-commissioned and scrapped a the same time it was supposed to be working up to come get them. They were less than amused with the foul-ups specifically since two transports showed up with scheduled material and supply drops that had been planned from before the war ended and would have been capable of carrying them back home IF anyone had bothered to amend the orders... As it was when they got back to the states their records showed they'd been de-mobilized about six months prior as per the schedule even though they had not in fact been around to be de-mobilized! Funny enough this article was given to us when I was in the USAF serving during the FGW with an AWACS squadron as a 'morale' booster since at the time we were experiencing our own "deployment hell" incident as transport after transport schedule fell through and our deployment home was delayed again and again. It was meant to show us that our problems weren't so bad
)I don't think Dewey would need to institute a "Red Scare" as people were getting concerned by Soviet actions shortly after the war anyway. Oddly enough a case could probably be made to the American public that the US (and allies) needed to maintain a plausibly larger military for up to a decade after the war had officially 'ended' simply by implying that there was a threat of a resurgent Axis either in Asia or Europe because a large majority of Americans actually believed that to be the case. Truman and the Democrats OTL essentially 'down-playing' the Soviet threat really bit them in the keester with the series of upcoming events (loss of China, Russian Atomic bomb, Atomic Spy rings, etc) looming on the horizon and the Republican's used this OTL to their advantage. Having a Republican President and a Democrat controlled Congress is going to make all that "interesting" to say the least
Randy
President Dewey 1945-1953 also probably butterflies Eisenhower. I’m pretty sure President Dewey can get a successor to his liking, no need for Eisenhower to step in.
So assuming Dewey wins in 1948, who’s on deck for 1952?
So assuming Dewey wins in 1948, who’s on deck for 1952?