1941-1945 if Wendell Willkie wins in 1940

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today.
Futurist
Member
Posts: 1314
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

1941-1945 if Wendell Willkie wins in 1940

Post by Futurist » 16 Oct 2018 06:25

What would the 1941-1945 time period look like if Wendell Willkie would have won in 1940?

Would there have been Lend-Lease? Would there have been a Pearl Harbor attack? Would anything else have meaningfully changed?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9392
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: 1941-1945 if Wendell Willkie wins in 1940

Post by ljadw » 16 Oct 2018 14:19

WW was an interventionist,put forward by the WASP establishment to prevent the nomination of an isolationist as Taft or Lindbergh.
WW supported LL. And he would have the same policy to Japan as FDR, thus PH was inevitable .

User avatar
Robert Rojas
Member
Posts: 2541
Joined: 19 Nov 2002 04:29
Location: Pleasant Hill, California - U.S.A.

RE: 1941-1945 If Wendell Willkie Wins In 1940.

Post by Robert Rojas » 16 Oct 2018 18:00

Greetings to both brother Futurist and the community as a whole. Howdy Futurist ( or Alvin Toffler if you so prefer)! Well sir, in respect to your introductory posting of Monday - October 15, 2018 - 9:25pm, old yours truly is of the belief that your scenario will sail into the political unknown during the course of year 1944. Vice President Charles McNary will die in office on February 25, 1944. President Wendell Willkie will die in office on October 08, 1944 one month before the Presidential Election on November 07, 1944. Who would likely succeed Vice President Charles McNary after his demise? Needless to say, this UNKNOWN PERSONALITY would succeed President Wendell Willkie after his subsequent demise. Given that we DO NOT KNOW ONE THING about this UNKNOWN PERSONALITY, it is difficult, at best, to speculate if this recently sworn in President would have the national wherewithal to be victorious in the Presidential election on November 07, 1944. Now, should this UNKNOWN PERSONALITY actually win the Presidential election of November 07, 1944, then who of us would actually know what this UNKNOWN PERSONALITY'S views of domestic and foreign policy might truly be? I, for one, cannot begin to conjure what will transpire beyond November 07, 1944. I rather suspect that both Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin will be asking their political and military advisors those very same shot-in-the-dark questions. Well, that is my initial two cents, pence or kopecks worth on this exercise into crystal ball gazing - for now anyway. As always, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day down in your corner of the Southland that what was once our Golden State of California.

Best Regards From The Greater San Francisco Bay Area,
Uncle Bob :idea: :|
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it" - Robert E. Lee

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 3730
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: 1941-1945 if Wendell Willkie wins in 1940

Post by OpanaPointer » 16 Oct 2018 18:54

Willkie was a roving ambassador for Roosevelt early in the war. They did indeed see eye to eye on many things.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

maltesefalcon
Member
Posts: 1758
Joined: 03 Sep 2003 18:15
Location: Canada

Re: 1941-1945 if Wendell Willkie wins in 1940

Post by maltesefalcon » 16 Oct 2018 23:22

Wilkie would not have taken office until Jan 1941. By this time the Battles of France and Britain were over.

Conscription was already under way as was Lend Lease although not actually signed until Q1 1941.

America was not ready for war yet so could ramp up naval escort duties and production of war goods in the meantime as IRL.

But more drastic measures like rationing and cancelling civilian vehicle production in favour of military items could probably not take place without a formal war scenario.

Wilkie would be faced with a large Democratic majority in both the House and Senate so he would struggle to get that prior to any direct threat to the USA. In fact he could face a certain amount of obstruction for his entire term.

Perhaps the OP could share their insight on what the events they forsee, instead of waiting for others to comment first?

User avatar
Robert Rojas
Member
Posts: 2541
Joined: 19 Nov 2002 04:29
Location: Pleasant Hill, California - U.S.A.

RE: 1941-1945 If Wendell Willkie Wins In 1940.

Post by Robert Rojas » 17 Oct 2018 02:20

Greetings to both cousin Maltese Falcon and the community as a whole. Howdy M.F.! Well sir, in respect to your posting of Tuesday - October 16, 2018 - 2:22pm, old yours truly is of the school of thought that President Willkie's trials and tribulations with the Democrat Party's majority in the Congress will deflate to a manageable level on June 22, 1941. In a fore night, any obstructionism from the ANTI-WAR LEFT will morph into fraternal congeniality of the now PRO-WAR LEFT. Until the pivotal event of December 07, 1941, President Willkie will much more likely receive push back from the ANTI-WAR isolationists of the Republican Party. Needless to say, President Willkie's continued support for military conscription will not exactly ingratiate himself within the ANTI-WAR isolationists of the Republican Party. In short, NO DRAFT means NO WAR. Of course, President Willkie will also have to walk the fine line of neutrality with the ever escalating maritime threat to American merchant shipping as those vessels sail to and from the British Isles. Then there would be the growing intransigence between the Imperial Japanese Empire and the United States of America over the not so inconsequential matter of China. Yes, the year 1941 will certainly be a year of domestic and international transition for both the Willkie Administration and the American People as a whole. Incidentally, I would not hold your breath waiting for any timely insights from the creator of this thread. A wait and see attitude is a refined art form to the erstwhile sage of Southern California. Well, that is my latest two cents, pence or kopecks worth on this exercise into crystal ball gazing - for now anyway! As always, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day up in your corner of the GREAT WHITE NORTH of Canada - EH!?

Best Regards,
Uncle Bob :idea: :|
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it" - Robert E. Lee

maltesefalcon
Member
Posts: 1758
Joined: 03 Sep 2003 18:15
Location: Canada

Re: RE: 1941-1945 If Wendell Willkie Wins In 1940.

Post by maltesefalcon » 17 Oct 2018 02:55

Robert Rojas wrote:
17 Oct 2018 02:20
Incidentally, I would not hold your breath waiting for any timely insights from the creator of this thread. A wait and see attitude is a refined art form to the erstwhile sage of Southern California.

Best Regards,
Uncle Bob :idea: :|
I'm glad you noticed and mentioned this. I always feel that the best what ifs include some detailed analysis of ones own first plus a fairly detailed hypothesis that invites discussion.

Instead we get a few off the cuff remarks awaiting the thoughts of others to fill in the blanks.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 6763
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: 1941-1945 if Wendell Willkie wins in 1940

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 17 Oct 2018 17:34

ljadw wrote:
16 Oct 2018 14:19
WW was an interventionist,put forward by the WASP establishment to prevent the nomination of an isolationist as Taft or Lindbergh.
WW supported LL. And he would have the same policy to Japan as FDR, thus PH was inevitable .
This pretty well sums up the situation. As others have pointed out A Democratic majority is going to make thing difficult in that direction. However there is a left curve here. While researching the question of who the Warhawks or Interventionists were I've found a very high portion of 'Republicans' among them. It appears the same views that caused them to oppose the New Deal & related domestic policies of Roosevelts supporters, also placed these men in opposition to Facism & its oppressive government and lack of interest in civil liberties. This is one of the reasons Roosevelt selected Knox & Stimson as secretaries of War & Navy despite their Republican party membership. They were very much interventionists or war hawks. More so than capable alternatives from the Democratic party membership. What this means is both parties are going to be split on the question of intervention in the European war. It will require every gram of political skill Wilkie could muster to navigate this Gordion knot of badly divided parties. Isolationists, America Firsters, Interventionists, and rabid Warhawks running across party lines creates endless complexities.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 1314
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: 1941-1945 if Wendell Willkie wins in 1940

Post by Futurist » 18 Dec 2018 06:54

Carl Schwamberger wrote:
17 Oct 2018 17:34
ljadw wrote:
16 Oct 2018 14:19
WW was an interventionist,put forward by the WASP establishment to prevent the nomination of an isolationist as Taft or Lindbergh.
WW supported LL. And he would have the same policy to Japan as FDR, thus PH was inevitable .
This pretty well sums up the situation. As others have pointed out A Democratic majority is going to make thing difficult in that direction. However there is a left curve here. While researching the question of who the Warhawks or Interventionists were I've found a very high portion of 'Republicans' among them. It appears the same views that caused them to oppose the New Deal & related domestic policies of Roosevelts supporters, also placed these men in opposition to Facism & its oppressive government and lack of interest in civil liberties. This is one of the reasons Roosevelt selected Knox & Stimson as secretaries of War & Navy despite their Republican party membership. They were very much interventionists or war hawks. More so than capable alternatives from the Democratic party membership. What this means is both parties are going to be split on the question of intervention in the European war. It will require every gram of political skill Wilkie could muster to navigate this Gordion knot of badly divided parties. Isolationists, America Firsters, Interventionists, and rabid Warhawks running across party lines creates endless complexities.
Did any of these warhawks actually support U.S. entry into the war before Pearl Harbor?

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 6763
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: 1941-1945 if Wendell Willkie wins in 1940

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 21 Dec 2018 04:34

Futurist wrote:
18 Dec 2018 06:54
...

Did any of these warhawks actually support U.S. entry into the war before Pearl Harbor?
Short answer is yes. There is a slim book (309 pages) titled 'The Warhawks' by Mark Chadian. It identifies the assorted interventionists, what they did, what organizations thy worked with or created, describes a bit of their back ground. The title is taken from a specific group who had a quasi formal organization & who met several times and communicated regularly to plan actions to push the US into the war.

A larger 800+ page history 'The Borrowed Years' is a brief analysis of how Roosevelt & the interventionists tried to prepare the US for war. Some of the same names in the Warhawks are mentioned there, and a number of others working to bring the US closer to or into war.

Three other titles on this general subject of interventionists were recommended to me. Not yet looked at them.
The Cautious Crusade
Those Angry Days
Roosevelt and the Isolationists 1932-45 (Written by Wayne Cole, historian for The Committee to Defend America First.)



Flipping thru 'The Borrowed Years' a sample of random names.

Bernard Baruch. Billionaire, had been chairman of the War Industries Board during the the Great War. In the summer of 1938 he met with Roosevelt & urged the US start industrial/military mobilization. Later than summer he urged the US should provide Britain and France with all war material possible, including ammunition.

Secretaries of War & Navy Stimson and Knox were selected by Roosevelt for their interventionist sympathies, and both were stalwart Republican party members. Harry Woodring and Charles Edison who were sacked and replaced were Democrats & New Dealers, and both isolationists. (Woodring also had accusations of being a inept administrator.)

Robert Sherwood. Prominent mid century playwright. Co-wrote ‘A Summons to Speak Out’ a argument for imeadiate US material support of the Allies against Germany. This article appeared nation wide in magazines & newspapers in the US 10 June 1940.

General Pershing. Gave a radio speech in the summer of 1940 arguing for the gift of US warships to Britain, the destroyer transfer.

Senator Claude Pepper. Strong inverventionist.

Arnold Whitridge. As a Yale professor he was a of second or third tier promenence. He had published a August 1940 a article challenging the Ivy League students ‘Where do You Stand’. This questioned the moral motives of the students who were publicly objecting to US intervention. He questioned through implication the inability or unwillingness of the students to see the difference between the democratic nature of Britian and its government and the Facist nations it was fighting. Harsh stuff once the once the polite upper class language was stripped away. Ketchum has the better part of a chapter describing the Interventionist/Isolationist debate of 1940-41 in the IVY League schools. If Ketchums account is accurate it appears that at Yale the divide was between the staff, with many Great War veterans, and the students, who were mostly the sons of wealthy old families.

A few random samples from Chadwin. All prominent in interventionist circles, some outright warhawks.

Will Clayton. Principle owner of a global cotton brokerage & a vice president of the US Import Export Bank

Allen Dulles. Wealthy attorney in New York. Had been in the State Dept during the Great War and witnessed the problems of dictating the Versailles Treaty & surrounding events in the post war settlement.

Ernest Hopkins. President of Dartmoor since 1916. Stanch conservative in internal US politics and anti New Dealer, he argued the German or Facist threat to the US was real and a greater threat to civil liberties than Roosevelt & his New Dealers.

Henry Luce. Publisher of Time, Life, & Fortune magazines. "America is responsible to herself, as well as to history for the world environment in which she lives. " Returning in May 1940 from a tour of Britain and France Luce urged Americans to unity for intervention with the expanding war.

Lewis Douglas. Arizona businessman, president of the Mutual Life Insurance Company. Originally worked in the Rosevelt administration to alleviate the Depression, he split away over the New Deal policies. Active in Arizona Republican politics and supported Wendel Wilkie. Argued against isolationism inside Wilkies campaign group. Worked with a interventionist group post 1940. Considered Facism the greatest threat to the US.

User avatar
Robert Rojas
Member
Posts: 2541
Joined: 19 Nov 2002 04:29
Location: Pleasant Hill, California - U.S.A.

RE: 1941-1945 If Wendell Willkie Wins In 1940.

Post by Robert Rojas » 22 Dec 2018 00:55

Greetings to both brother Carl Schwamberger and the community as a whole. Howdy Carl! Well sir, in respect to your in depth posting of Thursday - December 20, 2018 - 7:34pm, old yours truly will go off on an incidental tangent and ask you to go out on a limb and offer your speculation about Vice President Charles McNary's potential replacement after his untimely death on February 25, 1944. I, for one, do NOT have a clue about the WHO'S WHO within the Republican Party during year 1944. Potential intramural infighting notwithstanding, given the disparate personalities within President Wendell Wilkie's Cabinet AND the Republican politicos of the Seventy-Eighth Congress, who is (or was) likely to be the "BEST" candidate to reflect the policies and world view of the Wlikie administration? Remember this candidate will subsequently accede to the Office of the Presidency upon the untimely death of President Wendell Wilkie on October 08, 1944 - one month before the Presidential election of November 07, 1944. In terms of both your readings and obvious knowledge of just of a few of this era's so-called "WARHAWKS", old Uncle Bob will defer to your best educated guesstimate of the direction of a post Wilkie administration. I suspect your informal nomination for Vice President Charles McNary's replacement will generate a tad more discussion on this hypothetical topic WITHIN a hypothetical topic. It would be certainly helpful if brother Futurist interjected a bit of topical guidance within this far reaching creation of his. Well, that's my latest two cents worth on this G.O.P. fantasy - for now anyway. As always, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day from sea to shining sea.

Best Regards,
Uncle Bob :idea: :|
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it" - Robert E. Lee

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

Re: 1941-1945 if Wendell Willkie wins in 1940

Post by South » 22 Dec 2018 07:16

Good morning Futurist,

......

Alvin; ...... Alvin: ...... ALVIN ! ............

Return to your basic question, the 1941-1945 time period.

If no Lend-Lease, would not a substitute program, like "military assistance" or "foreign military sales" (with payment later after hostilities end) arrive on the scene ?

With no Pearl Harbor - don't forget the 12 December 1937 Japanese attack on the USS Panay in Chinese waters - wasn't war pending whether Wilkie or even Bess Truman got the POTUS job ?

The "answer" to this thread is within your "anything changed". A global steel producer and power-house nation-state on the European landmass...Washington, D.C. wasn't too keen to this. I really should say the New York financial center wasn't too keen. LaSalle Street, Chicago supported them. Follow the pfennigs, the Indian head pennies and the artistic gold coins. The thread's answer is not blowing in the wind. It was visible.


~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

Return to “What if”