What if...

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe




Grant tried for a third term and so did Teddy . . .

Grant didn't publicly run for a third term - and thereby didn't get it.

Teddy hadn't been elected twice. He finished McKinley's term and was elected once. So, another term would have been his second election.

Grant lost the Republican convention to Garfield who then chose someone as a running mate who had never been elected to office. That is how Chester Arthur became the President of the United States since President Garfield died in office. I would state that if someone came that close to winning the Republican convention - it was a very long one with many votes - then that person publicly ran for the Presidency of the United States.

Teddy became President of the United States a little over 6 months on the job as Vice President. So he had most of the term to finish and then ran for reelection. Most people would consider that two terms.

"I would state...", "Most people would say...". Those kinds of words are only needed if it isn't clearly spelled out. Grant never made any public run. He just allowed insiders to try to draft him. Teddy was only elected once.

Regardless, it isn't implausible that Roosevelt doesn't run for a third term and thereby a right-wing Republican gets elected by a constituancy who see Britain and the USSR unfavorably. An attack by an Allied Power (Japan) could then find the USA in the Axis - without need for action by Britain.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



Grant didn't publicly run for a third term - and thereby didn't get it.

Teddy hadn't been elected twice. He finished McKinley's term and was elected once. So, another term would have been his second election.

Grant lost the Republican convention to Garfield who then chose someone as a running mate who had never been elected to office. That is how Chester Arthur became the President of the United States since President Garfield died in office. I would state that if someone came that close to winning the Republican convention - it was a very long one with many votes - then that person publicly ran for the Presidency of the United States.

Teddy became President of the United States a little over 6 months on the job as Vice President. So he had most of the term to finish and then ran for reelection. Most people would consider that two terms.

"I would state...", "Most people would say...". Those kinds of words are only needed if it isn't clearly spelled out. Grant never made any public run. He just allowed insiders to try to draft him. Teddy was only elected once.

Regardless, it isn't implausible that Roosevelt doesn't run for a third term and thereby a right-wing Republican gets elected by a constituancy who see Britain and the USSR unfavorably. An attack by an Allied Power (Japan) could then find the USA in the Axis - without need for action by Britain.

Wendell Wilkie actually was the Republican nominee and had many if not most of the foreign policy objectives as FDR. So I still don't see the USA joining the Axis.

At the time for US Grant, the political machines were the ones who selected the nominees. Grant could have backed out but did not.

Sherman said it this way:
"Proposed as a Republican candidate for the presidential election of 1884, Sherman declined as emphatically as possible, saying, "I will not accept if nominated and will not serve if elected.""

[RangerJoe]

Teddy was only elected once but ran again in 1912 . . .

Teddy was the youngest US President . . .

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Wendell Wilkie actually was the Republican nominee and had many if not most of the foreign policy objectives as FDR. So I still don't see the USA joining the Axis.

Campaign positions can be dumped as soon as one gets elected. Republicans would see the USSR more harshly than Roosevelt. German, Italian, and Irish American constituancies could then tip the balance to the Axis - especially if an attack came from an Allied Power.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Wendell Wilkie actually was the Republican nominee and had many if not most of the foreign policy objectives as FDR. So I still don't see the USA joining the Axis.

Campaign positions can be dumped as soon as one gets elected. Republicans would see the USSR more harshly than Roosevelt. German, Italian, and Irish American constituancies could then tip the balance to the Axis - especially if an attack came from an Allied Power.

There just weren't that many German, Italian, and Irish Americans in the USA at that time. Especially since immigration had been restricted.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Wendell Wilkie actually was the Republican nominee and had many if not most of the foreign policy objectives as FDR. So I still don't see the USA joining the Axis.

Campaign positions can be dumped as soon as one gets elected. Republicans would see the USSR more harshly than Roosevelt. German, Italian, and Irish American constituancies could then tip the balance to the Axis - especially if an attack came from an Allied Power.

There just weren't that many German, Italian, and Irish Americans in the USA at that time. Especially since immigration had been restricted.

You're only counting people born in those countries - recent immigrants. People with roots in those countries go back to the beginning of America, and their totals exceed those with British roots.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




Campaign positions can be dumped as soon as one gets elected. Republicans would see the USSR more harshly than Roosevelt. German, Italian, and Irish American constituancies could then tip the balance to the Axis - especially if an attack came from an Allied Power.

There just weren't that many German, Italian, and Irish Americans in the USA at that time. Especially since immigration had been restricted.

You're only counting people born in those countries - recent immigrants. People with roots in those countries go back to the beginning of America, and their totals exceed those with British roots.

Then you are misusing the terms "German, Italian, and Irish Americans" which means that they have actually immigrated to the country. You are referring to ethnic groups which have assimilated, mixed with other ethnic groups, nor did they vote based on what was happening in the country of their ancestors. They will have their own agendas and will vote based upon those. Just because their ancestors arrived in the USA does not make them a hyphenated American. Not to mention that the ethnic groups were not and are not clearly delineated in Europe and elsewhere.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Then you are misusing the terms "German, Italian, and Irish Americans" which means that they have actually immigrated to the country. You are referring to ethnic groups which have assimilated, mixed with other ethnic groups, nor did they vote based on what was happening in the country of their ancestors. They will have their own agendas and will vote based upon those. Just because their ancestors arrived in the USA does not make them a hyphenated American. Not to mention that the ethnic groups were not and are not clearly delineated in Europe and elsewhere.

The numbers are based upon those Americans who themselves identify as German-American, Italian-American, and Irish-American (as opposed to British-American). People can assimilate while still remaining aware of their ancestry. The point is that there large ethnic groups in this country that would have had unfavorable views of the Allied powers, especially after that alliance included Japan and the USSR.

It is completely plausible that Roosevelt doesn't seek a third term (or doesn't get nominated if he does) and that a Republican administration would see the USSR and Japan as the greater evil over Germany and Italy. Especially after a sneak attack from one of those powers. Stalin had already killed millions of his people in the 30's. Nanking had already been raped. News of Nazi attrocities were just rumors in 1941.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Then you are misusing the terms "German, Italian, and Irish Americans" which means that they have actually immigrated to the country. You are referring to ethnic groups which have assimilated, mixed with other ethnic groups, nor did they vote based on what was happening in the country of their ancestors. They will have their own agendas and will vote based upon those. Just because their ancestors arrived in the USA does not make them a hyphenated American. Not to mention that the ethnic groups were not and are not clearly delineated in Europe and elsewhere.

The numbers are based upon those Americans who themselves identify as German-American, Italian-American, and Irish-American (as opposed to British-American). People can assimilate while still remaining aware of their ancestry. The point is that there large ethnic groups in this country that would have had unfavorable views of the Allied powers, especially after that alliance included Japan and the USSR.

It is completely plausible that Roosevelt doesn't seek a third term (or doesn't get nominated if he does) and that a Republican administration would see the USSR and Japan as the greater evil over Germany and Italy. Especially after a sneak attack from one of those powers. Stalin had already killed millions of his people in the 30's. Nanking had already been raped. News of Nazi attrocities were just rumors in 1941.

Just because someone self identifies and such does not make them that which they self identify as. I could state that I am from the planet Vulcan but that does not make me from there.

I seriously doubt that people would have voted based upon what effect it would have on the land of their ancestors. Not to mention that many people had multiple ethnicities.

As far as Nanking, there was actual concern about the US and Japan going to war over the USS Panay. There was less of a chance that the US would ally with Japan after that incident, among others.

There were some in the USA who were actively using their positions and organizations against Nazi Germany during the 1930s, I seriously doubt if they would have been stopped and their clout was beyond what an individual and/or organization of their size would ordinarily have had.

Most people were isolationist and did not favor getting into foreign wars. The political makeup of the Axis powers were such that it would have been difficult for the US to ally with them. The USA and the USSR "alliance" was more of "an enemy of my enemy may be my friend" kind of relationship.

[warspite1]

What recent posts seem to have ignored is what actually happened in terms of the Republican nomination in 1940. By the time Japan decided to declare war on the US in December 1941, real life events are supposed to have happened in this counterfactual too. We know how the Republican party reacted to German aggression against neutrals in 1940, in terms of their nomination preference. So why would a Republican be necessarily different in terms of their stance toward the Axis?

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Not to mention that the ethnic groups were not and are not clearly delineated in Europe and elsewhere.

Wut? The Vienna Awards were all about ethnicity and clearly delineated groups resulting in the chopping up of minors. This was all a result of the First World War. And likely many wars preceding that one. All Europe was a buffet of nationalities arbitrarily thrown into one country or another that didn't really represent who they were and the animosities resulting from that.

If you really wanted to do a what if for WW2 it would be much better starting in Autumn 1918 and continuing to 1939 and leaving the U.S. out of it.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

What recent posts seem to have ignored is what actually happened in terms of the Republican nomination in 1940. By the time Japan decided to declare war on the US in December 1941, real life events are supposed to have happened in this counterfactual too. We know how the Republican party reacted to German aggression against neutrals in 1940, in terms of their nomination preference. So why would a Republican be necessarily different in terms of their stance toward the Axis?

Maybe because someone is in need of somethings?

The USA was against the Axis, the people for the most part did not want to go to war but were more than willing to sell the military equipment, munitions, and other things to the Allies. Wilkie was in favor of transferring the 50 old destroyers to the UK so what is the likelihood that he would have been willing to join the Axis?

The first people to leave Germany for what was the United States left around 1683, what is the likelihood that their descendants would vote in the USA based on what was best for Germany and not in the USA? For that matter, anyone who had given up their allegiance to their country of origin, why would they vote for something that would benefit their country of origin and not the USA where they lived, worked, and had families?

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Not to mention that the ethnic groups were not and are not clearly delineated in Europe and elsewhere.

Wut? The Vienna Awards were all about ethnicity and clearly delineated groups resulting in the chopping up of minors. This was all a result of the First World War. And likely many wars preceding that one. All Europe was a buffet of nationalities arbitrarily thrown into one country or another that didn't really represent who they were and the animosities resulting from that.

If you really wanted to do a what if for WW2 it would be much better starting in Autumn 1918 and continuing to 1939 and leaving the U.S. out of it.

About 20% of Finnish people in November of 1939 spoke Swedish as their mother tongue. There were people of Finnish ancestry in Sweden.

There were Germans in the Baltic states as well as the Ukraine and Russia.

There were are are ethnic Danes in Germany.

There are still Slovenians in Austria and Italy as there are Italians in Croatia. There are also Hungarians in Croatia.

There are many similar examples.

The ethnic groups were not limited to residing in certain places only.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: warspite1

What recent posts seem to have ignored is what actually happened in terms of the Republican nomination in 1940. By the time Japan decided to declare war on the US in December 1941, real life events are supposed to have happened in this counterfactual too. We know how the Republican party reacted to German aggression against neutrals in 1940, in terms of their nomination preference. So why would a Republican be necessarily different in terms of their stance toward the Axis?

The first people to leave Germany for what was the United States left around 1683, what is the likelihood that their descendants would vote in the USA based on what was best for Germany and not in the USA? For that matter, anyone who had given up their allegiance to their country of origin, why would they vote for something that would benefit their country of origin and not the USA where they lived, worked, and had families?

warspite1

Simple fact is its impossible to say. Some Americans of German descent went back to Germany to fight, but being German didn’t make one necesarily a Nazi, so why would being a German American necessarily mean being pro-Hitler?

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: warspite1

What recent posts seem to have ignored is what actually happened in terms of the Republican nomination in 1940. By the time Japan decided to declare war on the US in December 1941, real life events are supposed to have happened in this counterfactual too. We know how the Republican party reacted to German aggression against neutrals in 1940, in terms of their nomination preference. So why would a Republican be necessarily different in terms of their stance toward the Axis?

The first people to leave Germany for what was the United States left around 1683, what is the likelihood that their descendants would vote in the USA based on what was best for Germany and not in the USA? For that matter, anyone who had given up their allegiance to their country of origin, why would they vote for something that would benefit their country of origin and not the USA where they lived, worked, and had families?

warspite1

Simple fact is its impossible to say. Some Americans of German descent went back to Germany to fight, but being German didn’t make one necesarily a Nazi, so why would being a German American necessarily mean being pro-Hitler?

Maybe because the people who think so are brainwashed?

I mean, look up Albert Günther Göring.

I mean, imagine the SS officer in charge of these Jewish woman who were on their knees scrubbing the streets and he examines the papers of a man who joined them? He stopped them all because he did not want it be known that he was supervising Hermann's brother who was on his knees scrubbing the streets . . .

Not to mention Jean-Marie Loret . . .

Or even William Patrick Hitler . . .

[Lobster]

I would wager one person of U.K. descent lives in almost every country in the world. Your point is meaningless. The Sudetenland is one example of what I'm talking about. The darker the color the more Germans that are living there.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

I would wager one person of U.K. descent lives in almost every country in the world. Your point is meaningless. The Sudetenland is one example of what I'm talking about. The darker the color the more Germans that are living there.

What does that prove? That does not make them all Nazi Germans.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
What does that prove? That does not make them all Nazi Germans.

[:D][:D] No one said it did.

Here, read this. It was something called the Munich Agreement where several countries swapped or occupied lands based on ethnicity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Ag ... %20regions.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

What recent posts seem to have ignored is what actually happened in terms of the Republican nomination in 1940. By the time Japan decided to declare war on the US in December 1941, real life events are supposed to have happened in this counterfactual too. We know how the Republican party reacted to German aggression against neutrals in 1940, in terms of their nomination preference. So why would a Republican be necessarily different in terms of their stance toward the Axis?

In 1940 the USSR was an Axis friend. By Pearl Harbor they were an offical member of the Allies. Republicans have a more viceral reaction to Communism than that other party. So, a Republican administration - just attacked by an Allied Power - might see the Axis as the lesser of two evils.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

What recent posts seem to have ignored is what actually happened in terms of the Republican nomination in 1940. By the time Japan decided to declare war on the US in December 1941, real life events are supposed to have happened in this counterfactual too. We know how the Republican party reacted to German aggression against neutrals in 1940, in terms of their nomination preference. So why would a Republican be necessarily different in terms of their stance toward the Axis?

In 1940 the USSR was an Axis friend. By Pearl Harbor they were an offical member of the Allies. Republicans have a more viceral reaction to Communism than that other party. So, a Republican administration - just attacked by an Allied Power - might see the Axis as the lesser of two evils.

What other party?

The Soviet Union was never part of the Allies.