"What if Roosevelt lost to Wilkie in 1940?" Topic

What would have happened?

Would there have been Lend Lease, or anything equivalent?

Would the Japanese have bombed Pearl Harbor?

Etc.

All I know is what I read in books, and the Wascally Wepublicans trying to thwart the heroic FDR. I know squat about Wilkie and his possible actions.

Hi

I don't know that there would be anything in effect.

Pearl was driven by things other than FDR's conspiracy. IF you hold that we somehow would have supplied the japanese with a reliable supply of oil, there would be no change.

A better "what if" involves the british. That is if they had decided to keep with their plan to send a fleet with 12BBs in the event of japanese hostilities to the Far east, I am not sure the Japanese would have started in the first place.

The "decider" for the japanese was the interception of the advisory to the Commander in Singapore that he WASN'T getting his BBs was the final point.

Remember, at this time, everyone saw the BB, not the carriers, as the Queen of Battle.

Rocky

Well I thought I was going to say no Lend-Lease but he did support Lend-Lease after losing the Presidental election.

So I will say that he just would have succeeded in making the USA less capable to enter the war than it was already (he opposed the selective draft).

Perhaps he would not have taken action against Japan and kept the USA out of WW2? Mind you Hitler could have stopped the USA from fighting Germany by the simple expedient of not declaring war on the USA (that might have changed history).

Good question

Tensions between the US and Japan had been heating up for a while, with the oil embargo of July 1941 being a key issue – whether Wilkie would not or would not have done this might have tipped the scales a bit – as well, the Japanese war plans were based on the assumption that an attack on the British and Dutch holdings in Asia would lead to an immediate American attack, which was probably not true and certainly under Wilkie this might have been more obvious – the final decision to attack Pearl Harbor wasn't made by the Imperial Command until November of 1941, so it is possible that, as noted by Rocky, if Wilkie had seemed more isolationist and less likely to bail the Brits out, then the Japanese might have gone for an attack on the Brits and Dutch alone

Another interesting option is what might have happened if the US had gone with Plan Orange (massing a force in the Phillipines) – Roosevelt thought it was doomed from the start (which it probably was), but if the US had concentrated most of the US Army and Pacific Fleet in the Phillipines, potentially a very different outcome to the war (IMHO, markedly improves the chances of the Japanese having a short victorious war)

Mind you Hitler could have stopped the USA from fighting Germany by the simple expedient of not declaring war on the USA (that might have changed history).

We were in effect at war by the aggressive actions we took in defending convoys. Possibly THIS would have lead Hitler to declare war.
But would we have defended convoys so aggressively with Wilkie as President? I know nothing of the man except that he lost. 8^)

Basically, what I am asking is what would the effect on American policy have been after March 21, 1941, when Wilkie would have been innaugurated?

If the US was somewhat less provocative and let the Japanese have access to strategic materials I suspect the Japanes would have focused to finishing China first while building up the fleet. The Dutch and British were not itching for a fight so likely would have gone along. at some point it would have turned as the Japanese were very expansionistic and I doubt a delay would have helped the allies. An earlier war may have focused on hitting and securing the Malaysia and Indonesia resources while securing the lines of supply with the Phillipines.
Without Pearl, it would have been a very different war. Even if the Japanese grabbed the Phillipines, I find it hard to believe the US would have summoned the visceral rage that came from the Pearl attack. The Japanese strategy was brilliant from the beginning of the war, but doomed to failure if the US got its blood up. Wilkie was more likely to waver and likely would have made the US less ready. I am not sure how long CHurchill could have held on without feeling that he had a staunch ally in the US backing him

The Japanese probably felt that FDR was already involved with the war by having Lend Lease. And that it was inevitable that the US was going to war at some point. If there was no FDR and no LL that might have changed things or delayed them.

According to Wikipedia: "Willkie's presidential campaign was centered around three major themes: the alleged inefficiency and corruption of Roosevelt's New Deal programs, Roosevelt's attempt to win an unprecedented third term as President, and the government's alleged lack of military preparedness. Willkie claimed that he would keep most of FDR's New Deal welfare and regulatory programs, but that he would make them more efficient and effective, and that he would work more closely with business leaders to end the Great Depression. Roosevelt's attempt to break the "two-term" tradition established by George Washington was also a focus of Willkie's criticism, as Willkie declared that "if one man is indispensable, then none of us is free."

However, these first two themes did not catch the public's attention, and as Willkie's support sagged he turned to criticism of Roosevelt's lack of preparedness in military matters. However, during the campaign Roosevelt shrewdly preempted the military issue by expanding military contracts and instituting a military draft. Although Willkie had initially supported the draft, he reversed his stance when polls showed that opposition to entering another world war was a popular issue for the Republicans. Willkie then began to claim that Roosevelt was secretly planning to take the U.S. into the European war against Germany. With this claim, his campaign managed to regain some of its momentum."

Wilkie was an early supporter of civil rights for African-Americans.

No War Japan gives up expansion plans and Hitler killed by a bellboy in a Berlin Hotel. Aliens invade in 1943 an unprepared world falls prey to their attack. Also the DODGERS win the world series 8 years in a row.

Ok I can't back up the Dodgers thing.

Hmmm…..There wouldn't be any Pearl Harbor or Roosevelt conspiracy theories? LOL Robert

"We were in effect at war by the aggressive actions we took in defending convoys. Possibly THIS would have lead Hitler to declare war."

Well history shows that did not happen. Germany declared war on USA after USA declared war on Japan which was a strict adherence to the Tripartite pact. Note that Japan did not attack Russian when Germany attacked, something they could duck out of as Germany was doing the attacking (and Hitler could have used the same reasoning not to mix in).

"I am not sure how long CHurchill could have held on without feeling that he had a staunch ally in the US backing him"

Don't worry there were plenty of people in the UK ready to do a deal with Hitler – Churchill was not influenced by them either.

Is this topic on the right board?

Would you suggest Food instead?

As noted, Germany did declare war on the US, which has puzzled many the military historian – proving you should probably not try to second-guess a madman

Interestingly, apparently this was not as widely appreciated in Germany as you might think – when Goring was on trial and asked about why Germany declared war on the US, he replied in surprise "didn't you declare war on us"?

If the Japanese and Germans acted more like allies (which, thankfully, they did not) they would have ganged up on the Soviet Union, split the spoils and ruled Eurasia

Really? That's funny. In an odd and tragic way.

The US is the only nation that Germany honored with an actual Declaration of War. I guess we should feel honored…

I believe there was a Hitler's comment about why he declared war on the US and it was something to the effect that "Great nations declare war, they are not declared war on." Thus he felt that he had to strike first, before the US declared war on him.

It's commonly known as paranoid behavior.

Dan

I think that after Pearl it was inevitable that America would be drawn into the war against Germany…As an ally of Britain fighting the Japanese in the Far East it would have been very difficult for FDR to say to Churchill-
"Thanks for all the help against the Japanese but you are still on your own against Germany??!!"….

Also an interesting what if? would be what if the US forces on the Philipines had been a bit stronger and were able to hold out a bit longer? After the victory at Midway would the USN then be obliged to rescue the Philipines garrison as opposed to landing in the Solomons??

What if Julius Caesar switched places with Rommel..Or Augustus with Lincoln……arghh!

"I think that after Pearl it was inevitable that America would be drawn into the war against Germany…As an ally of Britain fighting the Japanese in the Far East it would have been very difficult for FDR to say to Churchill-
"Thanks for all the help against the Japanese but you are still on your own against Germany??!!"…."

Not really, you have to understand that the people of the USA really felt that they had been dragged into a European war in WW1. So there was a strong movement against getting involved in another one.

So after being attacked by Japan, it would be difficult to justify diverting resources to fight the Germans/Italians et al. Might even have seen Lend/Lease come to an end.

"Also an interesting what if? would be what if the US forces on the Philipines had been a bit stronger and were able to hold out a bit longer?"

Well it seems that the Japanese were often outnumbered by the Americans/British forces that they were attacking. Japanese often had air superiority. So the Allies would have had to have totally different forces to make a difference – remember Britain sending 2 battleships, only for them to be easily sunk. It was a whole new ball game and that had not yet been realised.

Wilkie wouldnt have stood a chance with the champion of the filibuster,Jefferson Smith,in office.

Without Pearl it actually would've gotten real interesting in Russia. Once Stalin saw that Japan's punch was going east into the Pacific he was able to strip the Manchurian front of veteran Siberian units and send them west to arrive in front of Moscow in the nick of time and throw back the Germans. If he'd had to keep the Siberians in Manchuria even a 2 or 3 months longer Moscow might possibly have fallen?

With the Russia situation, there is also the question of what might have happened if the Japanese had decided to get even for Khalkhin Gol and attacked, say, in September or October – there were (and are) lots of resources to be had in Siberis

…it would have been very difficult for FDR to say to Churchill-…

Read the title, please? FDR is at home now, retired.

Humor board, definitely humor. I know I laughed at more than one post.

After he loses, FDR discovers that Wilkie is actually possessed by Chaos fiends from the warp. FDR's wheel chair transforms into a fighting suit. He slays Wilkie in a long dramatic mano a mano fight scene. After slaying Wilkie FDR crowns himself Emperor of Mankind. It is discovered that Hitler is also possessed by Chaos fiends from the warp. So FDR and the Imperium…err…United States must declare war on the Chaos Mar…err..Germans. In the 1940K there is only war!!!!

Humor board, definitely humor.

LLC aka Ron

That sounds more like pulp,to me!

The "decider" for the japanese was the interception of the advisory to the Commander in Singapore that he WASN'T getting his BBs was the final point

The decider was actually the Japanese defeat at Nomonhan. There were a series of Imperial Conferences in Tokyo in mid-to-late 1941. It was there that the decision was made to go to war with the United States. The man that favored that course of action and was the most determined in the conferences was LTC Tsuji (a member of the Operations Staff at Imperial Headquaters) In April 1939 he drafted a set of principles that resulted in the conflict in Manchukuoan where the Japanese suffered a major defeat from soviet forces.

The Soviets pulled a lot of units from the east to fight the Germans in 1941, but their forces in the east still numbered over 1 million troops at all times during the war (they never trusted the Japanese). Lots of 2nd hand equipment (a/c & AFVs), but more than enough to have handled the Japanese.

Where an attack into the Soviets would have had a major impact is how it would have effected Western Allies' supply efforts (Lend Lease and UK convoys).

Dan

I think that after Pearl it was inevitable that America would be drawn into the war against Germany…As an ally of Britain fighting the Japanese in the Far East it would have been very difficult for FDR to say to Churchill-
"Thanks for all the help against the Japanese but you are still on your own against Germany??!!"….

In the US, only Congress can declare war, something it seems to have forgotten over the last 60 years but still knew in '41. The US, however, was escorting convoys as far as Iceland without such a declaration. Hitler (stupidly, as it turned out) felt the US was already fighting him while hiding behind a supposed neutrality, so why not make it official. Had he kept quiet after Pearl Harbor, public opinion in the US would have forced the President, whoever he was, to concentrate on the Japanese -- "one war at a time." He would have said to Churchill, we'll take care of the Japs for you so you can concentrate on Hitler. But I think Lend-Lease would have continued.

Down…I agree maybe there would have been a "Japan First" strategy…But one of the reasons behind the Germany First was their Atom Bomb programme which was thought (wrongly) to be as advanced as the Allies…If the Nazis got the Bomb then they would probably win the war…So therefore Germany would have to be defeated before Japan….

Wikipedia to the rescue:

"After the election, Willkie became a fervent internationalist and an unlikely ally of Roosevelt. To the chagrin of many Republicans, Willkie spoke out for controversial Roosevelt initiatives such as Lend-Lease, and campaigned against isolationism. In 1941, Willkie joined with Eleanor Roosevelt to found Freedom House.

On July 23, 1941, he urged unlimited aid to Britain. As Roosevelt's personal representative, he traveled to Britain and the Middle East in late 1941, and to USSR and China in 1942.

In 1943, Willkie wrote a book entitled One World, which recounted his recent travels and urged that some form of "world government" after the war. One World was a best-seller."

Doesn't seem that he would have had a foreign policy position regarding involvement in WWII all that different than Roosevelt.

…well, that's if one can believe what one reads on the internet.