Search results for query: *

He was more focused on his domestic agenda. I think any isolationism would be to fix America first. Seems like the product of too much college education and unchecked social liberalism being allowed to run amok plus media boosting.

I mean the New Deal was created to head off the militant labor movement and guys like Huey Long. After WW2 there was basically a general strike involving millions of people that lead to all sorts of anti-labor laws by 1948. So by the mid-1930s that movement was already in swing and FDR was the...

Only problem is that the fiscal stimulus wore off pretty rapidly, especially when the government cut back on spending: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession_of_1937%E2%80%931938 Same happened after WW2 when all the pent up spending was over by 1948-49...

Infrastructure, universal healthcare, exports. Post-war stockpiles weren't that useful, see how the Korean war demonstrated that. Demobilization pretty much wiped out the standing military.

Yup. But much of that is basically the same effect as making holes and filling them in, rather than investing in useful infrastructure or industry.

Agree for the most part, though some policies, IIRC, did hinder the economy from being jump started. WW2 was the ultimate stimulus, but a major recession happened after the war and again in 1948-49. So stimulus alone isn't necessary enough to get the economy functioning on its own, even...

Maybe if he thought he couldn't get nominated or would lose the general. He actually sounds like an ego maniac and I think the failure of the New Deal really got to him; he wanted to leave on a high note to have a favorable place in history.

I highly doubt he was planning on ending with a 2nd term before the Fall of France. Personal opinion though based on lots of reading about him.

I think he was planning on running again anyway. He was just very sneaky about how he got his 3rd nomination as he didn't even run in the primary, but got nominated at the convention and just swept it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1940_Democratic_National_Convention

Does anyone have any idea how either a Garner or Wilkie presidency would have impacted the US domestic situation? Garner seems to have been sent on an anti-communist, anti-Japanese, and anti-labor set of policies that would have created a very interesting situation, while Wilkie was anti-New...

Largely because treaty ratification, including an alliance with France and/or Britain required a 2/3rds majority which did not exist in Congress at the time. Also there was a solid block of Senators who hated the treaty and would oppose it to the death...

Agree to disagree. The US couldn't have signed that treaty due to public desire not to be locked into another European war and not having a large enough standing military to matter anyway. Not only that, but the big mistake was not more strongly resisting the treaty that was utterly...

Part of it, also part of it was the Pinay Incident. Under Garner I don't see them providing L-L at all. Probably credits to Britain, but only after they ran out of money and a much lower overall amount than given via L-L. Even if the US were to get involved in WW2 directly ITTL, which I...

Right, misremembered his first name, but linked to the correct article. I'm not actually sure. It seemed like it was pretty popular to want to help the British for both parties, but with conservatives wanting to limit the aid. He might steal the GOP platform and give them $5 billion in...

Thanks, I was surprised how easy it was to find an answer. Indeed. Probably not though the decorum factor of 2 terms then probably is maintained. So what do you think would happen if Garner is president from October 1940-January 1945? I mean domestically and with the war. Also what if...

Yes seemed like a good POD to create some interesting scenarios. Shitstorm might be putting it mildly. Seems like that would be possible: https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/20431 I'm not sure Garner had the political sway to do that given how badly he lost the VP...

What if Roosevelt dies in October 1940 from a stroke? His VP Wallace would become the nominee and face Wendell Wilkie in the November election. Any idea who would win and what they would do after they assumed power? James Garner would be president until January 1941 BTW.