So Britain would have negotiated with AH if the BEF had been captured? But I thought you said: "Britain would never make peace with Adolf Hitler" so which is it hmmmm?historygeek2021 wrote: ↑29 Mar 2021, 19:25If you want to start an ATL in which the BEF is surrounded and captured in May 1940, by all means go ahead.
Less active US involvement in the early stages of World War II
-
- Member
- Posts: 441
- Joined: 02 Sep 2011, 07:56
Re: Less active US involvement in the early stages of World War II
-
- Member
- Posts: 441
- Joined: 02 Sep 2011, 07:56
Re: Less active US involvement in the early stages of World War II
If a oneliner on Page 264 written by a biased friend is proof,then this is as well:historygeek2021 wrote: ↑29 Mar 2021, 19:36According to your own source, Garner was opposed to the embargo provisions of the neutrality act (i.e., he was in favor of cash and carry, which Congress rushed to pass as soon as the war started in 1939). So your entire timeline is baseless.
The ties that had been continually fraying between the two men was now at a breaking point. With a World War lapping on US shores, their differences grew even wider. Garner, the isolationist and “traditional” Democrat, found himself at serious odds with the internationalist and liberal FDR.
https://featherfoster.wordpress.com/201 ... ctus-jack/
-
- Member
- Posts: 641
- Joined: 17 Dec 2020, 07:23
- Location: Australia
Re: Less active US involvement in the early stages of World War II
You've presented no evidence to support your claim that Garner would have prevented Cash and Carry from being enacted in 1939. Until you do, this thread is pointless.
-
- Member
- Posts: 441
- Joined: 02 Sep 2011, 07:56
Re: Less active US involvement in the early stages of World War II
So Britain would have negotiated with AH if the BEF had been captured? But I thought you said: "Britain would never make peace with Adolf Hitler" so which is it hmmmm?historygeek2021 wrote: ↑29 Mar 2021, 21:53You've presented no evidence to support your claim that Garner would have prevented Cash and Carry from being enacted in 1939. Until you do, this thread is pointless.
-
- Member
- Posts: 433
- Joined: 19 Jan 2019, 10:39
- Location: United States
Re: Less active US involvement in the early stages of World War II
You are under no obligation to respond to this thread then; your participation is voluntary?historygeek2021 wrote: ↑29 Mar 2021, 21:53You've presented no evidence to support your claim that Garner would have prevented Cash and Carry from being enacted in 1939. Until you do, this thread is pointless.
-
- Member
- Posts: 641
- Joined: 17 Dec 2020, 07:23
- Location: Australia
Re: Less active US involvement in the early stages of World War II
I am challenging OP to provide evidence to back up his claims. That is the purpose of this forum.History Learner wrote: ↑30 Mar 2021, 00:11
You are under no obligation to respond to this thread then; your participation is voluntary?
Re: Less active US involvement in the early stages of World War II
Unfortunately, this is incorrect. Garner abhorred deficit spending(not "military spending"), and Franklin was doing a lot of that. Indeed Garner hated most of the New Deal plans for this very fact.Politician01 wrote: ↑29 Mar 2021, 11:48Garner destroyed most of his personal papers after retiring - so there will not be a clear quote of him saying : "I am opposed to ..."
https://academic.oup.com/jah/article-ab ... m=fulltext
In the 38-40 period though Garner and Roosevelt - who previously had a pretty good relationship - had a falling out because Garner opposed Roosevelts actions. This included:
opposition to (military) spending
Most hated Roosevelt for that Supreme Court packing scheme of his.opposition to the accumulation of power
A "hardcore" isolationist would not be tough on the Japanese...Garner did not oppose "cash & carry". because that was paid for upfront. He did not favor Lend-Lease, because that was more of his hated deficit spending.opposition towards the war because Garner was an isolationist (he was tough on the Japanese though)
-
- Member
- Posts: 433
- Joined: 19 Jan 2019, 10:39
- Location: United States
Re: Less active US involvement in the early stages of World War II
A President Garner (Or Huey Long, just saying) that is opposed to Lend Lease in favor of continued Cash and Carry is just as decisive for the course of the war; Britain is broke by late 1940/early 1941.
-
- Member
- Posts: 641
- Joined: 17 Dec 2020, 07:23
- Location: Australia
Re: Less active US involvement in the early stages of World War II
Since lend-lease wasn't passed until March 1941 (after Garner's 2 terms would be over in this scenario), he won't have any impact on lend-lease (which passed the House 260 to 165).History Learner wrote: ↑31 Mar 2021, 02:08A President Garner (Or Huey Long, just saying) that is opposed to Lend Lease in favor of continued Cash and Carry is just as decisive for the course of the war; Britain is broke by late 1940/early 1941.
Re: Less active US involvement in the early stages of World War II
Well, since Garner was not elected to his "first term" as President, but was deleted up from VP. He could run for President in 1940 if he wished.
His opposition to a third FDR term stemmed from his hatred of being VP. He was looking for his own time in the sun.
His opposition to a third FDR term stemmed from his hatred of being VP. He was looking for his own time in the sun.
-
- Member
- Posts: 433
- Joined: 19 Jan 2019, 10:39
- Location: United States
Re: Less active US involvement in the early stages of World War II
He could run for a third term just as FDR did but more importantly Lend Lease didn’t come out of the blue; without FDR to guide it through-worse with Garner opposed to it-its very likely to never come about or at least be delayed.historygeek2021 wrote: ↑31 Mar 2021, 04:10Since lend-lease wasn't passed until March 1941 (after Garner's 2 terms would be over in this scenario), he won't have any impact on lend-lease (which passed the House 260 to 165).History Learner wrote: ↑31 Mar 2021, 02:08A President Garner (Or Huey Long, just saying) that is opposed to Lend Lease in favor of continued Cash and Carry is just as decisive for the course of the war; Britain is broke by late 1940/early 1941.
Re: Less active US involvement in the early stages of World War II
The conundrum for Garner would be which was the lesser of three evils...Lend-Lease(deficit spending), going to war on the British side, or letting Germany reign supreme over Europe & Britain. Also Lend-Lease had significant backing in Confress - enough to override a Presidential veto.
-
- Member
- Posts: 641
- Joined: 17 Dec 2020, 07:23
- Location: Australia
Re: Less active US involvement in the early stages of World War II
No President other than FDR served more than 2 terms. Not gonna happen.
Re: Less active US involvement in the early stages of World War II
We are not talking about serving, but simply running. Whether he serves or not is at the whim of the voters.historygeek2021 wrote: ↑31 Mar 2021, 21:28No President other than FDR served more than 2 terms. Not gonna happen.
Teddy Roosevelt moved from VP to President when McKinley died(serving out the term, and being elected in 1904), but declining run again in 1908. However, with the schism occurring in the Republican Party, Roosevelt ran for President in 1912 as the Progressive(aka Bull Moose) Party. So, the precedent had already been set for a Vice President serving as, but not elected, President running for two more terms. FDR's case was different as he had already been elected to the Presidency twice already.
-
- Member
- Posts: 641
- Joined: 17 Dec 2020, 07:23
- Location: Australia
Re: Less active US involvement in the early stages of World War II
We're talking about what's plausible. FDR was a unique president who held a lot of sway over voters, and managed to leverage that into a third and fourth term. No other president in history has served a day longer than 2 full terms. John Nance Garner is not going to be president in March 1941. It isn't plausible.Takao wrote: ↑31 Mar 2021, 21:48We are not talking about serving, but simply running. Whether he serves or not is at the whim of the voters.historygeek2021 wrote: ↑31 Mar 2021, 21:28No President other than FDR served more than 2 terms. Not gonna happen.
Teddy Roosevelt moved from VP to President when McKinley died(serving out the term, and being elected in 1904), but declining run again in 1908. However, with the schism occurring in the Republican Party, Roosevelt ran for President in 1912 as the Progressive(aka Bull Moose) Party. So, the precedent had already been set for a Vice President serving as, but not elected, President running for two more terms. FDR's case was different as he had already been elected to the Presidency twice already.