Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Assasination!?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Assasination!?

    Hello,

    What if the assasination attempt on FDR (in Georgia...?) had been successful?

    Dennis

  • #2
    He would have died.

    Comment


    • #3
      Looking through Wikipedia, I cam across a book called 'The Man in the High Castle'. It seems to address this very issue!

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_in_the_High_Castle



      Dod hasn't read the book, though, and neither have I.

      Comment


      • #4
        More specifically,

        Would the democrates have retained power [I]after[I] the next election?

        Would there have been a lend-lease?

        If the republicans had taken the elections, and leaned more toward isolationism, would our intervention in WWII have been delayed?

        If, the US had been not leaning toward involvement in the european war, would germany ever have declared war on the US?

        Would germany's US relations have had any effect on the Japanese? Would they have brought diplomatic pressure on the Japanese to keep American out of the war?

        This would have limited the Japanese into war with the european power holdings / interest in the Pacific rim?

        How would germany have dealt with a reduced support of Britain by the US?
        Seelowe commences, and the war against russia is delayed by a year?


        And on, and on, and on.....................


        Dennis

        Comment


        • #5
          a very good question.

          well, who else in the US was pro-war in the late 1930's? woudl those people get in power also, or would the US stay isolationist - or became a mediator between UK and Germany... brokering a peace with honor between those two forces...?
          "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

          Comment


          • #6
            I suppose the most likely to succeed power from FDR would've been Senator Joseph Kennedy. With his pro-Nazi anti-British stance there wouldn't really have been any Lend-Lease agreement given the fact that he served as US Ambassador to London until 1941 strongly opposing material aid to the UK. After he was recalled, he still urged an isolationist policy. I reckon all the isolationists would've lost support after the the attack on Pearl Harbor. The US would have to form alliances with other nations. The last thing any American would want is the Kempeitai knocking on their door.
            Last edited by Sign&Print Name; 27 Feb 07, 10:26. Reason: more info
            Hitler played Golf. His bunker shot was a hole in one.

            Comment


            • #7
              It would still take a 'Pearl Harbor' incident to get the US into the war no matter who was in power. It does hurt the UK war effort to be sure and if Hitler plays his cards right (not something he was known for once the war began), he can keep the US out for a bit while we would sit back and watch the fascists and commies kill each other. I could see supporting England to 'survive', but after that... let Europe tears itself apart.

              The question becomes how rigid would the US be with Japan and would such an incident even occur if Japan was able to accomplish enough without having to take on the US? If there's no one spoiling for a fight, there might not be the will to put the screws on Japan and they wouldn't lash out by hitting the US. A deal might be made that keeps the peace and gives Japan enough... for the time being... delaying any US entry for a few years even... at which point the whole war changes.
              If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by chrisvalla View Post
                It would still take a 'Pearl Harbor' incident to get the US into the war no matter who was in power. It does hurt the UK war effort to be sure and if Hitler plays his cards right (not something he was known for once the war began), he can keep the US out for a bit while we would sit back and watch the fascists and commies kill each other. I could see supporting England to 'survive', but after that... let Europe tears itself apart.

                The question becomes how rigid would the US be with Japan and would such an incident even occur if Japan was able to accomplish enough without having to take on the US? If there's no one spoiling for a fight, there might not be the will to put the screws on Japan and they wouldn't lash out by hitting the US. A deal might be made that keeps the peace and gives Japan enough... for the time being... delaying any US entry for a few years even... at which point the whole war changes.
                Let's say FRD is dead, but the rest of history continues. US sends some aid to England (probably not as much), but is attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor and Germany declares war on the US.

                So, war continues, and near the end of the war, it's the Yalta conference. Now one thing I have read about is how one of the reasons Stalin got as much as he got from the allies was because FDR was too weak to argue (the sickness was affecting him) and convinced himself (despite Churchill's efforts) that Stalin could be trusted.

                So, if someone else where president then, might the Soviet Union not have recieved as much control over eastern Europe? Or would a non-conciliatory president just have helped to excaserbate the Cold War?



                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by daemonofdecay View Post
                  Looking through Wikipedia, I cam across a book called 'The Man in the High Castle'. It seems to address this very issue!

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_in_the_High_Castle



                  Dod hasn't read the book, though, and neither have I.

                  I read the book. Finished it months ago, still waiting for something to happen in it. ZZZZZZZZZZ
                  Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy. -- Ernest Benn

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by tsar View Post
                    I read the book. Finished it months ago, still waiting for something to happen in it. ZZZZZZZZZZ
                    Yeah, I read the synapsis and decided I would avoid the book.



                    It looked like it sucked. Hard.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I'm thinking we don't have to go all the way to Yalta to see changes sans FDR (but keeping Dec 7 the way it happened).

                      Would Truman go for a Europe first? If so, would he give in to the Brits and go for North Africa or would he push for France in '43?

                      I don't see a change in the Pacific, but Europe might be handled differently and somehow I doubt Truman is going to 'give' Eastern Europe to Stalin. I could forsee a 'we both advance as far and as fast as we can and control whatever ground we hold when Germany surrenders' and then Truman turning US forces loose to run fast and hard. In this case, the West would likely go for Berlin and once the Germans found out, they may have held harder on the East to allow the West to advance further hoping for better treatment after the surrender. The Cold War would start differently... maybe even with a few 'incidents' where East met West and where exactly the occupation zones fall.
                      If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Considering J Kennedys attitudes War with Japan may have come sooner. Roosevelt on the advice of his military chiefs delayed direct confrontation inorder to mobilize the army & get a new ship & wepoans construction program going.

                        Also knowing a bit about Kennedy it is likely less capable men would have replaced Marshall & King. Since many of the National Guard & a few regular Army Generals were well connected politically it is possible Marshalls purge of the the senior army ranks would not have occured. Both he & Roosevelt took some poltical hits when the old crocks were expelled during 1941.

                        Kennedys favortism probablly would have extened to the rest of the war effort. Roosevelt certainly had to pander to the need to return political favors & debts, but he had a talent for fitting the right people into the critical jobs, and the ability to move them out when they proved unsuitable. Kennedy displayed much less of that ability in his career.

                        Comment

                        Latest Topics

                        Collapse

                        Working...
                        X