1963 JFK Replaces 1943 FDR

[Zyobot]

Having racked up an unprecedented string of presidential victories already, Franklin D. Roosevelt aspired to win a fourth consecutive term in 1944. An election that, at least IOTL, he narrowly won. But in an alternate 1943, Roosevelt has reluctantly given up on that goal, as an ASB compels him to resign and hand the presidency over to a middle-aged, red-headed Catholic who claims to be the POTUS from twenty years into the future. Upon seeing a slew of other nicely-dressed men sent along with him, the rest of Roosevelt's cabinet quickly follows suit.

Plucking President John F. Kennedy and his advisors straight from 1963 and sending them directly to the Oval Office in January 1943, ASB also ensures that the downtimers see the change in management as completely legitimate in order to prevent this scenario from being a wasted effort. With Kennedy being sworn in as the new president and his 1963 cabinet there to continue advising him, what happens next as JFK seeks to change the timeline and ensure a bright future for America going forwards? I'm especially curious as to what Kennedy's odds of reelection in 1944 probably are--both insofar as strengths like his charisma, good looks, and negotiating his way out of potentially world-ending emergencies like the Cuban Missile Crisis, as well as (falsely) perceived weaknesses that'd turn off many voters at this time (such as his Catholicism).

Thank you in advance,
Zyobot

 

[ATP]

Having racked up an unprecedented string of presidential victories already, Franklin D. Roosevelt aspired to win a fourth consecutive term in 1944. An election that, at least IOTL, he narrowly won. But in an alternate 1943, Roosevelt has reluctantly given up on that goal, as an ASB compels him to resign and hand the presidency over to a middle-aged, red-headed Catholic who claims to be the POTUS from twenty years into the future. Upon seeing a slew of other nicely-dressed men sent along with him, the rest of Roosevelt's cabinet quickly follows suit.

Plucking President John F. Kennedy and his advisors straight from 1963 and sending them directly to the Oval Office in January 1943, ASB also ensures that the downtimers see the change in management as completely legitimate in order to prevent this scenario from being a wasted effort. With Kennedy being sworn in as the new president and his 1963 cabinet there to continue advising him, what happens next as JFK seeks to change the timeline and ensure a bright future for America going forwards? I'm especially curious as to what Kennedy's odds of reelection in 1944 probably are--both insofar as strengths like his charisma, good looks, and negotiating his way out of potentially world-ending emergencies like the Cuban Missile Crisis, as well as (falsely) perceived weaknesses that'd turn off many voters at this time (such as his Catholicism).

Thank you in advance,
Zyobot

Too risky.Just let JFK take over FDR body and heal it,then do the same with his advisers.
What to do ? use Katyń as pretext to stop lend-lease - Stalin try to made peace with Hitler,but since Hitler wanted everything,that was impossible.
Then Use their knowledge to eliminate all soviet agents from Manhattan project and USA goverment.
After that - gave Patton in 1944 green light to attack,Germany would fall in 1944 when soviets would still fight on Dniepr line.
Show american public proofs of Stalin crimes,end alliance and told him to go to 1939 borders.When he refuse,use mass produced A bombs.Soviet have no fighter or AA gun capable of downing B.29 at that time.

And you have american world,without soviet,China or anybody else to made problems.
P.S For Japan - nothing need to be changed.China - maybe let Mao take half,and get there two fighting states ?
Any united China would be problematic for USA future.

 

[Zero]

1940s America would freak out having a 40 something irish p.o.t.u.s. J.f.k. would try to keep cuba in u.s. sphere of influence. Knowing the cuban missle crisis is decades away would try to prevent it. Bay of pigs would be a humilating failure in his memory. Remembering meeting krushev in vienna he would be tougher on stalin.He would win relection.try to save his older brother as well.

 

[Husky_Khan]

I think the anti-Catholic bias is somewhat overstated. Kind of like how Racism is overstated nowadays.

Al Smith ran a failed candidacy against Herbert Hoover back in 1928. Al Smith was an Irish Catholic from New York and a product of the Tammany Hall Political Machine. He too suffered a lot of backlash for supposedly the idea that he would take orders from the Pope or whatever. And don't get me wrong, there was a lot of anti-Catholic backlash... but it was combined with a booming economy, no foreign wars, and the fact that there was distrust of Al Smith for assocation with Big City political machines and sounding 'ethnic' (ie City Irish) while a lot of the anti-Catholic bias was really just mind numbingly overbearing. He lost big, but despite the scorn of Southern Baptists, he still carried most Deep South as well as most of the major cities (a theme for Democrats later) thanks to his support of workers compensation and labor rights and child labor laws etc.

Al Smith despite being a Catholic, was the biggest candidate in 1928 and didn't really have any challengers in the party. And four years earlier, another Catholic, Robert La Folette, ran a third party candidacy at the head of the 'Progressive' Party which won over 16% of the vote.

The acceptance of Catholics into mainstream politics would only increase in the subsequent decades. Would there be lots of anti-Catholic bias still? Yes... but I don't think it would be quite a freakout. It's not a woman or a Black man after all running for office.

 

[ATP]

I think the anti-Catholic bias is somewhat overstated. Kind of like how Racism is overstated nowadays.

Al Smith ran a failed candidacy against Herbert Hoover back in 1928. Al Smith was an Irish Catholic from New York and a product of the Tammany Hall Political Machine. He too suffered a lot of backlash for supposedly the idea that he would take orders from the Pope or whatever. And don't get me wrong, there was a lot of anti-Catholic backlash... but it was combined with a booming economy, no foreign wars, and the fact that there was distrust of Al Smith for assocation with Big City political machines and sounding 'ethnic' (ie City Irish) while a lot of the anti-Catholic bias was really just mind numbingly overbearing. He lost big, but despite the scorn of Southern Baptists, he still carried most Deep South as well as most of the major cities (a theme for Democrats later) thanks to his support of workers compensation and labor rights and child labor laws etc.

Al Smith despite being a Catholic, was the biggest candidate in 1928 and didn't really have any challengers in the party. And four years earlier, another Catholic, Robert La Folette, ran a third party candidacy at the head of the 'Progressive' Party which won over 16% of the vote.

The acceptance of Catholics into mainstream politics would only increase in the subsequent decades. Would there be lots of anti-Catholic bias still? Yes... but I don't think it would be quite a freakout. It's not a woman or a Black man after all running for office.

I dunno if it is right or not,but i read that Deep South supported Smith only becouse he was not republican,and that would support anybody against republicans.
In fact,after that democrats was named as "yellow dog party" becouse they supposed follow even yellow dog against republicans.

 

[WolfBear]

Too risky.Just let JFK take over FDR body and heal it,then do the same with his advisers.
What to do ? use Katyń as pretext to stop lend-lease - Stalin try to made peace with Hitler,but since Hitler wanted everything,that was impossible.
Then Use their knowledge to eliminate all soviet agents from Manhattan project and USA goverment.
After that - gave Patton in 1944 green light to attack,Germany would fall in 1944 when soviets would still fight on Dniepr line.
Show american public proofs of Stalin crimes,end alliance and told him to go to 1939 borders.When he refuse,use mass produced A bombs.Soviet have no fighter or AA gun capable of downing B.29 at that time.

And you have american world,without soviet,China or anybody else to made problems.
P.S For Japan - nothing need to be changed.China - maybe let Mao take half,and get there two fighting states ?
Any united China would be problematic for USA future.

Agreed about having JFK's soul taking over FDR's body and ditto for their advisers. That said, though, I think that World War II ultimately worked out rather well for the US and thus I'm unsure that JFK would have actually bothered changing much about it. He could be much more explicit in his warnings to the Japanese about what would happen if they would reject unconditional surrender early enough, though. But in regards to the post-war division of Asia, there's a chance that JFK-FDR might not agree to the Korean partition and will instead seek to give Stalin compensation for this by giving him a larger piece of China--or something like that. This would, of course, prevent the subsequent Korean War and the US losing over 30,000 of its young men in it.

 

[Chiron]

What date in 43? Makes a difference in choices.

But if its early, D-Day in 43. Avoid the entire shit show in Italy and invade France when its defenses are far weaker and Hitler is busy fighting Kursk. Stop MacArthur's pointlessly redundant SWPC and order his ass to the CPC and set Okinawa as the target for 43 and bypass everything else. With Okinawa seized earlier when it is less fortified, fighter escorts and bombers can start hitting the guts of the Japanese War Machine much earlier and crash their economy a full year earlier.

If late in 43, then fire Mark Clark and put someone else in charge who won't waste troops in pointless shit kicking contests. And same plan as above for the Pacific.