Editor says, what if FDR inherited Churchill's worst fears after the Fall of Britain? Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s).

Share this Article on:

Facebook

Twitter

Chris Oakley commented on 2010-03-30 18:53:38 ~ You misspelled "Lindbergh", dude... :D Fixed - thanks. Ed

Eric Oppen commented on 2010-03-30 19:30:28 ~ Churchill in OTL would have been willing to cut a deal...his writings mention Gibraltar and some of the colonies as bargaining chips.

Michael N. Ryan commented on 2010-03-30 20:04:31 ~ I must confess displesure with implication that Hoover, Linderbergh and Joe Kennedy favored an authoritarian state for the United States. Kennedy was certainly a closet anti-semite but I have yet to hear of him having anti-democratic beliefs. America First was a politcally Moderate movement unlike Left wing groups of the time who were just as isolationist until Germany moved on Russia. As for Roosevelt losing office, that was most likely. With growing pulic resentment over growth of government and movement into the economy and no threat of war from Germany imminent, his proverbial goose would be well cooked. Indeed, some believe Senator Robert Taft would be the Republican candidate for president rather than Wendel Wilkie. So the New Deal would be history. Of course, that does not end chance of war between the US and J apan. Japan's warlords were not known for htier common sense. And there is a chance for anschlose between the US and Canada in which perhaps by only informan means the two primarily english speaking peoples would come together. Canada was already part of the American Economic sphere.

Eric Lipps commented on 2010-03-31 00:08:22 ~ I agree with Michael Ryan's objections re Hoover, Lindbergh and Kennedy. However, America First was not as "moderate" as he seems to believe: its isolationist program was heavily influenced by pro-German sentiment fomented by actual Nazi agents (the Nazis had planted operatives in the U.S. even before they assumed power in Germany). As for the left, one must draw a distinction between liberals, many of whom were isolationist out of disgust with what they perceived to have been the way the U.S. had been suckered into World War I by Britain or out of fealty to the American tradition of avoiding "entangling alliances," and the Communist Party, whose inner circle followed the Moscow line. And it's with noting that Stalin'a 1939 pact with Hitler and the CP's embrace of it was for all intents and purposes the Party's death knell in America: from a membership approaching 100,000 in 1939, it shriveled until by the time Joe McCarthy came along it had perhaps 5,000 members, a sizable proportion of whom were really FBI infilktrators. The overwhelming majority of the party's membership left in disgust after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact--not that that saved them from being Red-baited later.

Scott Palter commented on 2010-04-02 05:59:02 ~ Kennedy gets smeared for saying the UK would fall to Hitler. Marshal predicted the same but was not smeared. Draw your own conclusions. As for Kennedy being an anti-Semite - sure, it was common at the time. The difference is that Kennedy didn't hide his behind the usual hypocrisies. Hoover was not either authoritarian or pro-Nazi. He was against the New Deal but very specific pieces of it - indeed he had proposed many of the programs only to have a Democratic Congress refuse to go along. Similarly Lindbergh was an isolationist and may have overestimated the size of Hitler's AF but was neither pro-Nazi nor anything except a patriot. As for halifax having a fight with Churchill for power...ROFL. Halifax turned down the job before Winston got it. They did disagree on policy but then most of the Tory caucus disagreed with Churchill on policy.