Let's say FDR has that fatal stroke exactly one year earlier...

12 April 1944

Henry Wallace (popular with farmers but despised by the Democratic establishment) etc is obvious.

but how does Germany react?

Normandy has not yet happened and more importantly, neither has the failure of the July 20 Plot.

Anne Frank and co. are still in the Secret Annex in April 1944 as well....

Jennifer Anne Phillips <mechminx@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's say FDR has that fatal stroke exactly one year earlier...
>
> 12 April 1944
>
> Henry Wallace (popular with farmers but despised by the Democratic establishment) etc is obvious.
>
> but how does Germany react?
>
> Normandy has not yet happened and more importantly, neither has the failure of the July 20 Plot.
>
> Anne Frank and co. are still in the Secret Annex in April 1944 as well....

How did Wallace get along with Leahy,Marshall,King,Arnold...?
What did he think of the Manhattan Project?(How in the loop was he
in FDR's lifetime?)

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 2:29:11 AM UTC-5, Louis Epstein wrote:
> Jennifer Anne Phillips <mech...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Let's say FDR has that fatal stroke exactly one year earlier...
> >
> > 12 April 1944
> >
> > Henry Wallace (popular with farmers but despised by the Democratic establishment) etc is obvious.
> >
> > but how does Germany react?
> >
> > Normandy has not yet happened and more importantly, neither has the failure of the July 20 Plot.
> >
> > Anne Frank and co. are still in the Secret Annex in April 1944 as well.....
> How did Wallace get along with Leahy,Marshall,King,Arnold...?
> What did he think of the Manhattan Project?(How in the loop was he
> in FDR's lifetime?)
>
> -=-=-
> The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
> at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Wallace was intimately involved in the Manhattan Project. He served as an intermediary between the project management and the President. No reason to think anything changes there. As far as what Germany would think? That's irrelevant because the US was at war with them.

> dama...@gmail.com
> > Louis Epstein
> >
> > How did Wallace get along with Leahy,Marshall,King,Arnold...?
> > What did he think of the Manhattan Project?(How in the loop
> > was he in FDR's lifetime?)
>
> Wallace was intimately involved in the Manhattan Project. He served
> as an intermediary between the project management and the President.
> No reason to think anything changes there. As far as what Germany
> would think? That's irrelevant because the US was at war with them.

Indeed, the more important question is Wallace (who I'm not hip to)
and his position towards the USSR?

On 12/2/23 6:27 AM, Jennifer Anne Phillips wrote:
> Let's say FDR has that fatal stroke exactly one year earlier...
>
> 12 April 1944
>
> Henry Wallace (popular with farmers but despised by the Democratic
establishment) etc is obvious.
>
> but how does Germany react?

Dismissively.

In 1945, Hitler and IIRC Goebbels passed time in the Bunker by reading
Carlyle's biography of Frederick the Great. When they heard of
Roosevelt's death, they focused the passage about the "Miracle of the
House of Brandenburg". That was when Frederick, facing total defeat in
the Seven Years War, was was saved when the Tsarina Elizabeth died,
leading to a reversal of Russian policy. Hitler and Goebbels imagined
that Roosevelt's death could have a similar effect.

However, in April 1944, they aren't anywhere near as desperate and
delusional.

They'll just write it off.

> Normandy has not yet happened...

But it's already been decided on. Preparations are mostly complete.

>... neither has the failure of the July 20 Plot.

Butterflies flap here.

> Anne Frank and co. are still in the Secret Annex in April 1944 as well...

Nothing likely to change there, sadly.

What does change:

Later in OTL 1944, Wallace toured the USSR. He was taken to GULAG camps
in Siberia, which were "sanitized" for his visits (he was told all the
inmates were volunteers) and came away saying the camps were "a
combination TVA and Hudson's Bay Company".

_President_ Wallace is not going to make that tour. So perhaps he will
not be as deluded about the USSR as OTL.

This will help him to get the nomination for President. As a sitting
President, with Roosevelt's implied endorsement, I don't think he could
be stopped. OTL he was the favorite among rank-and-file delegates for
the 1944 VP nomination; it was only by Roosevelt's forceful
behind-the-scenes intervention that Truman was nominated instead.
Roosevelt acted under pressure from several important party leaders.
They in turn were moved in part by Wallace's apparent excessive fondness
for the USSR. If that is removed, he's surely going to win the nomination.

But can he win in November? I don't think so. He's not Roosevelt, and
he's got a huge vulnerability - his "Dear Guru" letters to the
expatriate Russian mystic Nicholas Roerich. The Republicans had the
letters. In 1940, they were deterred from using them by Democrat threats
to reveal Wendell Willkie's adulterous affair with Irita Van Doren. But
in 1944, the Democrats have no such counter.

So it's quite likely that Dewey is elected and becomes President in
January 1945.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 19:33:03 -0600, Rich Rostrom
<rrostrom@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 12/2/23 6:27 AM, Jennifer Anne Phillips wrote:
> > Let's say FDR has that fatal stroke exactly one year earlier...
> >
> > 12 April 1944
> >
> > Henry Wallace (popular with farmers but despised by the Democratic
>establishment) etc is obvious.
> >
> > but how does Germany react?
>
>Dismissively.
>
>In 1945, Hitler and IIRC Goebbels passed time in the Bunker by reading
>Carlyle's biography of Frederick the Great. When they heard of
>Roosevelt's death, they focused the passage about the "Miracle of the
>House of Brandenburg". That was when Frederick, facing total defeat in
>the Seven Years War, was was saved when the Tsarina Elizabeth died,
>leading to a reversal of Russian policy. Hitler and Goebbels imagined
>that Roosevelt's death could have a similar effect.
>
>However, in April 1944, they aren't anywhere near as desperate and
>delusional.
>
>They'll just write it off.

Probably true

> > Normandy has not yet happened...
>
>But it's already been decided on. Preparations are mostly complete.
>
> >... neither has the failure of the July 20 Plot.
>
>Butterflies flap here.

I don't see any reason for the plotters to change their planning
simply because FDR (who for them is many thousands of miles away) has
died.

> > Anne Frank and co. are still in the Secret Annex in April 1944 as well...
>
>Nothing likely to change there, sadly.

True

>What does change:
>
>Later in OTL 1944, Wallace toured the USSR. He was taken to GULAG camps
>in Siberia, which were "sanitized" for his visits (he was told all the
>inmates were volunteers) and came away saying the camps were "a
>combination TVA and Hudson's Bay Company".
>
>_President_ Wallace is not going to make that tour. So perhaps he will
>not be as deluded about the USSR as OTL.

Still I see several elements in the "For All Time" timeline to play
out.

>This will help him to get the nomination for President. As a sitting
>President, with Roosevelt's implied endorsement, I don't think he could
>be stopped. OTL he was the favorite among rank-and-file delegates for
>the 1944 VP nomination; it was only by Roosevelt's forceful
>behind-the-scenes intervention that Truman was nominated instead.
>Roosevelt acted under pressure from several important party leaders.
>They in turn were moved in part by Wallace's apparent excessive fondness
>for the USSR. If that is removed, he's surely going to win the nomination.

A lot depends on how Wallace fights the war. If he's closer to Stalin
than FDR was (as per For All Time) he faces a Democratic party revolt
- I don't see him being that naive.

>But can he win in November? I don't think so. He's not Roosevelt, and
>he's got a huge vulnerability - his "Dear Guru" letters to the
>expatriate Russian mystic Nicholas Roerich. The Republicans had the
>letters. In 1940, they were deterred from using them by Democrat threats
>to reveal Wendell Willkie's adulterous affair with Irita Van Doren. But
>in 1944, the Democrats have no such counter.
>
>So it's quite likely that Dewey is elected and becomes President in
>January 1945.

So by that time the Allies are in France and moving eastwards - I
don't see anything in Dewey's character that would affect that
PARTICULARLY since he's elected in November 1944 when the breakout
from Normandy has occured and they're approaching the borders of
Germany.

The real question is whether he would have acted differently from FDR
at Yalta and here I believe he would. FDR gave Stalin his way (often
without Churchill's approval) - I don't think Dewey would be so naive.
He might even have ended Soviet lend lease sometime between Nov 44 and
March 1945 when unconvertible proof of Soviet theft of trade secrets
owned by American industry (note NOT owned by the US government) was
discovered on planes in Alaska bound for Siberia. FDR just shrugged it
off and ordered the planes to leave for Siberia on schedule - would
President Dewey? (I'm skeptical) And by Feb/Mar 1945 I don't see
Stalin making a separate peace with Hitler no way no how (which is
what FDR was afraid of) That may or may not lead to a greater US push
in closing down Soviet espionage in the US which definitely helped the
Soviet nuclear program.

Nor do I necessarily see Dewey being as pro-de Gaulle as FDR was
(Churchill was too but no question by the US election whoever was US
president was calling the shots.

I do see President Dewey being closer to Churchill than FDR but given
Attlee largely won the 1945 British election on the British
"Serviceman Vote" (which went 80% for Labour) I don't see the British
election result turning. (In OTL Dewey's home state of NY went 52-47
for FDR - can I assume your "Dewey victory" scenario include NY in the
GOP column?) Presumably Churchill's 1946 Iron Curtain speech gets made
but somewhere more friendly to Dewey?

edstas...@gmail.com <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>> dama...@gmail.com
>> > Louis Epstein
>> >
>> > How did Wallace get along with Leahy,Marshall,King,Arnold...?
>> > What did he think of the Manhattan Project?(How in the loop
>> > was he in FDR's lifetime?)
>>
>> Wallace was intimately involved in the Manhattan Project. He served
>> as an intermediary between the project management and the President.
>> No reason to think anything changes there. As far as what Germany
>> would think? That's irrelevant because the US was at war with them.
>
> Indeed, the more important question is Wallace (who I'm not hip to)
> and his position towards the USSR?

For that matter,would he have differing relationships with
Churchill and with Attlee?
Would anything Wallace did effect when the war in Europe ended
and consequently when the British election of 1945 was held in
which OTL saw Churchill give way to Attlee just before the Potsdam
Conference,which itself could be rescheduled?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 19:33:03 -0600, Rich Rostrom
> <rrostrom@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On 12/2/23 6:27 AM, Jennifer Anne Phillips wrote:
>> > Let's say FDR has that fatal stroke exactly one year earlier...
>> >
>> > 12 April 1944
>> >
>> > Henry Wallace (popular with farmers but despised by the Democratic
>>establishment) etc is obvious.
>> >
>> > but how does Germany react?
>>
>>Dismissively.
>>
>>In 1945, Hitler and IIRC Goebbels passed time in the Bunker by reading
>>Carlyle's biography of Frederick the Great. When they heard of
>>Roosevelt's death, they focused the passage about the "Miracle of the
>>House of Brandenburg". That was when Frederick, facing total defeat in
>>the Seven Years War, was was saved when the Tsarina Elizabeth died,
>>leading to a reversal of Russian policy. Hitler and Goebbels imagined
>>that Roosevelt's death could have a similar effect.
>>
>>However, in April 1944, they aren't anywhere near as desperate and
>>delusional.
>>
>>They'll just write it off.
>
> Probably true
>
>> > Normandy has not yet happened...
>>
>>But it's already been decided on. Preparations are mostly complete.
>>
>> >... neither has the failure of the July 20 Plot.
>>
>>Butterflies flap here.
>
> I don't see any reason for the plotters to change their planning
> simply because FDR (who for them is many thousands of miles away) has
> died.
>
>> > Anne Frank and co. are still in the Secret Annex in April 1944 as well...
>>
>>Nothing likely to change there, sadly.
>
> True
>
>>What does change:
>>
>>Later in OTL 1944, Wallace toured the USSR. He was taken to GULAG camps
>>in Siberia, which were "sanitized" for his visits (he was told all the
>>inmates were volunteers) and came away saying the camps were "a
>>combination TVA and Hudson's Bay Company".
>>
>>_President_ Wallace is not going to make that tour. So perhaps he will
>>not be as deluded about the USSR as OTL.
>
> Still I see several elements in the "For All Time" timeline to play
> out.
>
>>This will help him to get the nomination for President. As a sitting
>>President, with Roosevelt's implied endorsement, I don't think he could
>>be stopped. OTL he was the favorite among rank-and-file delegates for
>>the 1944 VP nomination; it was only by Roosevelt's forceful
>>behind-the-scenes intervention that Truman was nominated instead.
>>Roosevelt acted under pressure from several important party leaders.
>>They in turn were moved in part by Wallace's apparent excessive fondness
>>for the USSR. If that is removed, he's surely going to win the nomination.
>
> A lot depends on how Wallace fights the war. If he's closer to Stalin
> than FDR was (as per For All Time) he faces a Democratic party revolt
> - I don't see him being that naive.
>
>>But can he win in November? I don't think so. He's not Roosevelt, and
>>he's got a huge vulnerability - his "Dear Guru" letters to the
>>expatriate Russian mystic Nicholas Roerich. The Republicans had the
>>letters. In 1940, they were deterred from using them by Democrat threats
>>to reveal Wendell Willkie's adulterous affair with Irita Van Doren. But
>>in 1944, the Democrats have no such counter.
>>
>>So it's quite likely that Dewey is elected and becomes President in
>>January 1945.
>
> So by that time the Allies are in France and moving eastwards - I
> don't see anything in Dewey's character that would affect that
> PARTICULARLY since he's elected in November 1944 when the breakout
> from Normandy has occured and they're approaching the borders of
> Germany.
>
> The real question is whether he would have acted differently from FDR
> at Yalta and here I believe he would. FDR gave Stalin his way (often
> without Churchill's approval) - I don't think Dewey would be so naive.
> He might even have ended Soviet lend lease sometime between Nov 44 and
> March 1945 when unconvertible proof of Soviet theft of trade secrets
> owned by American industry (note NOT owned by the US government) was
> discovered on planes in Alaska bound for Siberia. FDR just shrugged it
> off and ordered the planes to leave for Siberia on schedule - would
> President Dewey? (I'm skeptical) And by Feb/Mar 1945 I don't see
> Stalin making a separate peace with Hitler no way no how (which is
> what FDR was afraid of) That may or may not lead to a greater US push
> in closing down Soviet espionage in the US which definitely helped the
> Soviet nuclear program.

Would this prolong the war against Japan?

What about the Eastern European countries,would Dewey be more
or less inclined to side with the Soviet puppetry against the
governments-in-exile when it came to taking power after the war?
> Nor do I necessarily see Dewey being as pro-de Gaulle as FDR was
> (Churchill was too but no question by the US election whoever was US
> president was calling the shots.
>
> I do see President Dewey being closer to Churchill than FDR but given
> Attlee largely won the 1945 British election on the British
> "Serviceman Vote" (which went 80% for Labour) I don't see the British
> election result turning. (In OTL Dewey's home state of NY went 52-47
> for FDR - can I assume your "Dewey victory" scenario include NY in the
> GOP column?) Presumably Churchill's 1946 Iron Curtain speech gets made
> but somewhere more friendly to Dewey?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

On 12/2/23 04:27, Jennifer Anne Phillips wrote:
> Let's say FDR has that fatal stroke exactly one year earlier...
>
> 12 April 1944
>
> Henry Wallace (popular with farmers but despised by the Democratic
establishment) etc is obvious.

This is an election year. Is it really so obvious
that Wallace is going to be re-elected in the fall?

This is also pretty late in the election cycle but
not vastly late.

What is the US election going to look like? Is
it feasible that Bricker, Stassen, MacArthur,
or someone else could be the Republican candidate
for President on the ballot?

> but how does Germany react?
>
> Normandy has not yet happened and more importantly, neither has the
failure of the July 20 Plot.
>
> Anne Frank and co. are still in the Secret Annex in April 1944 as
well....

If the Normandy landings happen similarly to our time line, it seems
feasible that the war would end up similarly.

It seems feasible that there could be major shifts from our time
line if they do not happen on schedule in comparison with our own
time line or turn out to be unsuccessful.

I tend to think of Gandhi as the only major figure during that
time period that seemed to think that killing people was wrong,
but I kind of doubt that either the Republicans or the Democrats
would try to field an anti-war candidate or a thinly veiled one
like McClellan in 1864 at this point in time.

Trolidan7 <trolidous@go.com> wrote:
> On 12/2/23 04:27, Jennifer Anne Phillips wrote:
>> Let's say FDR has that fatal stroke exactly one year earlier...
>>
>> 12 April 1944
>>
>> Henry Wallace (popular with farmers but despised by the Democratic
> establishment) etc is obvious.
>
> This is an election year. Is it really so obvious
> that Wallace is going to be re-elected in the fall?
>
> This is also pretty late in the election cycle but
> not vastly late.
>
> What is the US election going to look like? Is
> it feasible that Bricker, Stassen, MacArthur,
> or someone else could be the Republican candidate
> for President on the ballot?

I note that the POD is just a week after Willkie
withdrew from the race...he died that October in OTL
but could butterflies change his fate?
>> but how does Germany react?
>>
>> Normandy has not yet happened and more importantly, neither has the
> failure of the July 20 Plot.
>>
>> Anne Frank and co. are still in the Secret Annex in April 1944 as
> well....
>
> If the Normandy landings happen similarly to our time line, it seems
> feasible that the war would end up similarly.
>
> It seems feasible that there could be major shifts from our time
> line if they do not happen on schedule in comparison with our own
> time line or turn out to be unsuccessful.
>
> I tend to think of Gandhi as the only major figure during that
> time period that seemed to think that killing people was wrong,
> but I kind of doubt that either the Republicans or the Democrats
> would try to field an anti-war candidate or a thinly veiled one
> like McClellan in 1864 at this point in time.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

On 12/11/23 1:57 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 19:33:03 -0600, Rich Rostrom
> <rrostrom@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 12/2/23 6:27 AM, Jennifer Anne Phillips wrote:
>>> Let's say FDR has that fatal stroke exactly one year earlier...
>>>
>>> 12 April 1944
>>>
>>> Henry Wallace (popular with farmers but despised by the Democratic
>> establishment) etc is obvious.
>>
>>> ... neither has the failure of the July 20 Plot.
>>
>> Butterflies flap here.
>
> I don't see any reason for the plotters to change their planning
> simply because FDR (who for them is many thousands of miles away) has
> died.

Not as a knock-on.

But... AIUI, Stauffenberg had some opportunities before 20 July,
but passed them up because neither Goering or Himmler were present,
and the plotters wanted to get them too. By 20 July, the plotters were
getting desperate, and decided that Hitler alone would have to be
enough.

ISTM that could easily change. Also, Hitler survived because someone
happened to move the bomb to the other side of a wide, heavy table leg.
That could also change.

> A lot depends on how Wallace fights the war. If he's closer to Stalin
> than FDR was (as per For All Time) he faces a Democratic party revolt...

The PoD is 12 April; the convention is 19 July. I don't see how in that
short period Wallace could do anything to please Stalin that would spark
a revolt.
>
> The real question is whether he would have acted differently from FDR
> at Yalta and here I believe he would...

The OTL Yalta Conference was 4-11 February. Dewey would be inaugurated
20 January, just two weeks earlier. With the change of administration,
Dewey would almost certainly insist on a substantial delay. Also, he
would bring a different entourage of advisers - not Harry Hopkins, who
was quite delusional about Stalin, nor Alger Hiss.

> ...I don't see the British election result turning.

Nor I.

> (In OTL Dewey's home state of NY went 52-47 for FDR - can I > assume your "Dewey victory" scenario include NY in the
> GOP column?)

Besides the general vulnerability of Wallace, he wasn't from New York
like FDR. So Dewey would have the home state advantage.

As to the larger picture - even a 2.5% swing to Dewey nationally would
flip 9 states, including NY, PA, and IL (the three biggest), for a
275-256 win.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 14:42:15 -0600, Rich Rostrom
<rrostrom@comcast.net> wrote:

>> A lot depends on how Wallace fights the war. If he's closer to Stalin
>> than FDR was (as per For All Time) he faces a Democratic party revolt...
>
>The PoD is 12 April; the convention is 19 July. I don't see how in that
>short period Wallace could do anything to please Stalin that would spark
>a revolt.
>>
>> The real question is whether he would have acted differently from FDR
>> at Yalta and here I believe he would...
>
>The OTL Yalta Conference was 4-11 February. Dewey would be inaugurated
>20 January, just two weeks earlier. With the change of administration,
>Dewey would almost certainly insist on a substantial delay. Also, he
>would bring a different entourage of advisers - not Harry Hopkins, who
>was quite delusional about Stalin, nor Alger Hiss.

I agree pretty much ANY new president (including Truman) would insist
on a delay of Yalta. I personally don't think Hopkins was on the
Soviet payroll but Alger Hiss certainly was and in my opinion at least
so was Harry Dexter White. (Who apparently testified before HUAC in
1948 and had a fatal heart attack shortly afterwards)

>> ...I don't see the British election result turning.
>
>Nor I.

Essentially in the British general election of 1945 the vote was
within 4-5 percentage points within the UK BUT there were
700000-800000 British soldiers stationed outside the UK who voted and
the "serviceman vote" was 80-20 for Labour

I think it's fair to say that the 1945 British general election has
been a favorite topic for theses by political science masters
candidates for most of the last 75 years though one wonders what new
viewpoints that might have come to light by now.

No doubt the same will be said of the 2016 US election in our
childrens' time.

>> (In OTL Dewey's home state of NY went 52-47 for FDR - can I > assume your "Dewey victory" scenario include NY in the
>> GOP column?)
>
>Besides the general vulnerability of Wallace, he wasn't from New York
>like FDR. So Dewey would have the home state advantage.
>
>As to the larger picture - even a 2.5% swing to Dewey nationally would
>flip 9 states, including NY, PA, and IL (the three biggest), for a
>275-256 win.

Interesting. By the way I'd be interested in a good reference on the
1952 US election - I've heard Ike was courted by both parties so would
love to know more.

With a substantial delay in Yalta and therefore Potsdam, What happens with regard to Eastern and Central for several months politically? Definitely more anti and non communists will be able to flee, anti and non communists with combat training and experience might be able to set up boltholes and offer stiffer resistance to Gottwald, Rakosi et al. Certainly semi-important or even important communist leaders might not survive the larger number of fight back attacks. The anti-communists only have to be lucky once.

And the sending soviet troops to invade Japanese occupied Manchuria and Korea with a substantially delayed Yalta and Potsdam??