US in the WW2 under Willkie administration

[buritobr]

How would the American participation in the WW2 have been if Wendell Willkie won in 1940?

He was pro-war too. The US would be in the side of the Allies anyway. But maybe, he would have kept a bigger distance to the USSR. He could be like Winston Churchill. What do you think?

[NewYorkExpress]

I'm not entirely convinced the U.S falls for the bait and declares war on Hitler and Mussolini under Wilikie. We were attacked by Japan, and a Wilikie administration would focus on them.

Most likely, we go to war in the Pacific, Europe remains largely an undeclared war for the U.S until Japan is defeated (at least in 1945 when the nukes are ready, possibly sooner given there are no American troops in Europe), followed by a quick pivot to Europe and declaration of war, just in time to knock out Germany and Italy in one fell swoop in mid-to-late 1945-early-1946.

As for Russia, Lend-Lease continues as is, with no real changes, and probably ramped up with the formal absence of American troops in Europe for both Britain and the Soviet Union.

[Orwell]

I'm not entirely convinced the U.S falls for the bait and declares war on Hitler and Mussolini under Wilikie. We were attacked by Japan, and a Wilikie administration would focus on them.

Most likely, we go to war in the Pacific, Europe remains largely an undeclared war for the U.S until Japan is defeated (at least in 1945 when the nukes are ready, possibly sooner given there are no American troops in Europe), followed by a quick pivot to Europe and declaration of war, just in time to knock out Germany and Italy in one fell swoop in mid-to-late 1945-early-1946.

As for Russia, Lend-Lease continues as is, with no real changes, and probably ramped up with the formal absence of American troops in Europe for both Britain and the Soviet Union.

The US didn't declare war on Germany or Italy, Germany declared war on the United States following Pearl.

[MATTROSE94]

Probably not much different than IRL except that Wendell Willkie would have integrated the US military in 1941 as opposed to 1948. Doing so might have resulted in the Civil Rights movement picking up steam in the early 1940s as opposed to the later 1940s.

[RINO Tom]

Absolutely nothing changes.  The idea we don’t fight in Europe - something inevitable anyway, IMO - assuming Pearl Harbor still happens is crazy.

[Skill and Chance]

I'm not entirely convinced the U.S falls for the bait and declares war on Hitler and Mussolini under Wilikie. We were attacked by Japan, and a Wilikie administration would focus on them.

Most likely, we go to war in the Pacific, Europe remains largely an undeclared war for the U.S until Japan is defeated (at least in 1945 when the nukes are ready, possibly sooner given there are no American troops in Europe), followed by a quick pivot to Europe and declaration of war, just in time to knock out Germany and Italy in one fell swoop in mid-to-late 1945-early-1946.

As for Russia, Lend-Lease continues as is, with no real changes, and probably ramped up with the formal absence of American troops in Europe for both Britain and the Soviet Union.

The one-step-at-a-time strategy seems logical on the surface but:

1. Hitler declared war on us and may have been in a position to actually bomb across the Atlantic if we mostly ignored him for multiple years.

2.  Building on #1, if the US focused almost exclusively on Japan and D-Day is delayed multiple years,  there's a very serious risk that Germany would have also developed nuclear weapons by the time the Allies are ready to liberate Western Europe.  The US would end up in a Cold War with Nazi Europe, which is obviously worse than the actual outcome of WWII.

[NewYorkExpress]

I'm not entirely convinced the U.S falls for the bait and declares war on Hitler and Mussolini under Wilikie. We were attacked by Japan, and a Wilikie administration would focus on them.

Most likely, we go to war in the Pacific, Europe remains largely an undeclared war for the U.S until Japan is defeated (at least in 1945 when the nukes are ready, possibly sooner given there are no American troops in Europe), followed by a quick pivot to Europe and declaration of war, just in time to knock out Germany and Italy in one fell swoop in mid-to-late 1945-early-1946.

As for Russia, Lend-Lease continues as is, with no real changes, and probably ramped up with the formal absence of American troops in Europe for both Britain and the Soviet Union.

The one-step-at-a-time strategy seems logical on the surface but:

1. Hitler declared war on us and may have been in a position to actually bomb across the Atlantic if we mostly ignored him for multiple years.

2.  Building on #1, if the US focused almost exclusively on Japan and D-Day is delayed multiple years.
 there's a very serious risk that Germany would have also developed nuclear weapons by the time the Allies are ready to liberate Western Europe.  The US would end up in a Cold War with Nazi Europe, which is obviously worse than the actual outcome of WWII.

You're assuming that the Soviet Union wouldn't be able to win back Eastern Europe and push on to Berlin regardless. It might take longer since there are no other fronts, but assuming Lend-Lease is still a thing (and Wilikie almost certainly would have kept it),they'd have the materials, and they already had a manpower advantage on the Nazis.

As for the Atomic Bomb, there was never any real danger of the Nazis getting it, because of Hitler's obsessions with pseudoscience and determination to put the Holocaust above everything else.

[(no subject)]

Ole' Field of Roses is overrated in some ways. I''d like to see a Wilkie Administration fleshed out...

[NYDem]

I'm not entirely convinced the U.S falls for the bait and declares war on Hitler and Mussolini under Wilikie. We were attacked by Japan, and a Wilikie administration would focus on them.

Most likely, we go to war in the Pacific, Europe remains largely an undeclared war for the U.S until Japan is defeated (at least in 1945 when the nukes are ready, possibly sooner given there are no American troops in Europe), followed by a quick pivot to Europe and declaration of war, just in time to knock out Germany and Italy in one fell swoop in mid-to-late 1945-early-1946.

As for Russia, Lend-Lease continues as is, with no real changes, and probably ramped up with the formal absence of American troops in Europe for both Britain and the Soviet Union.

The one-step-at-a-time strategy seems logical on the surface but:

1. Hitler declared war on us and may have been in a position to actually bomb across the Atlantic if we mostly ignored him for multiple years.

2.  Building on #1, if the US focused almost exclusively on Japan and D-Day is delayed multiple years,  there's a very serious risk that Germany would have also developed nuclear weapons by the time the Allies are ready to liberate Western Europe.  The US would end up in a Cold War with Nazi Europe, which is obviously worse than the actual outcome of WWII.

There was no risk of the Germans developing the bomb at that point. Their program was underfunded and undermanned, and the scientists had serious misunderstandings about the relevant physics. Project leader Heisenberg seemed to be under the impression that a critical mass of Uranium was ~2 tons, and not 55kg. They never managed to figure out that graphite could be used as a moderator, and they never really managed to find a isotopic separation method that could be scaled up to generate enough 235. At the rate their atomic program was going, I’d be surprised if the Nazis built a working bomb before 1960.

[The Mikado]

The idea that the US doesn't end up at war with Italy and Germany is crazy, given that, well, Hitler and Mussolini declared war on us as already pointed out. You can't just ignore that.

Here's the wild thing, though:

McNary, Willkie's running mate, dies in 1944. No Vice President. Then Willkie himself dies in October 1944. No President, a month before the election.

Their Secretary of State would suddenly become President in Oct 1944 with an election a month away and a suddenly dead GOP nominee. Wild stuff.

[Skill and Chance]

The idea that the US doesn't end up at war with Italy and Germany is crazy, given that, well, Hitler and Mussolini declared war on us as already pointed out. You can't just ignore that.

Here's the wild thing, though:

McNary, Willkie's running mate, dies in 1944. No Vice President. Then Willkie himself dies in October 1944. No President, a month before the election.

Their Secretary of State would suddenly become President in Oct 1944 with an election a month away and a suddenly dead GOP nominee. Wild stuff.

Hmmm...

McNary's cancer was untreatable and still spread even with the best medical care of the day.  It seems reasonable to say his death was inevitable.  He passed months before Willkie, but there was no way to fill a VP vacancy back then.

Willkie's death was from heart disease, which can obviously worsen with an extremely high stress job like being the president during WWII.  On the other hand, it sounds like he ignored his health and basically didn't go to the doctor for multiple years until he got really sick.  That's unlikely to be the case  if he was the sitting president.  At a minimum, McNary being stricken with a disease would have meant Willkie being rushed in for a physical.  So as long as he still outlives McNary, I'm pretty sure the WH doctors would catch the heart disease before it goes off the rails.  He was only in his 50's after all, and the whole saving the free world thing would be a heck of a motivator to take his health more seriously!

[Spark]

Willkie was pro-internationalist, but not exactly "pro-war". As President, I'm sure he'd take similar actions as Roosevelt. One way I think he'd conduct World War II differently is that he'd be more lenient on the war in Europe.

We probably get involved heavily in the Pacific and win outright by the atomic bombings by 1945. The war in Europe rages on until 1946 when the U.K. starts struggling against a large Nazi state. Willkie probably does Lend-Lease to a myriad of allied countries to stave off the Nazi regime.

[(no subject)]

Willkie was a fundamentally decent and idealistic man who in different circumstances could have made a fine President. Roosevelt's attitudes to both African-Americans and Jews remain a striking contrast with his social liberalism and generosity of spirit on most other issues.

[RINO Tom]

Willkie was a fundamentally decent and idealistic man who in different circumstances could have made a fine President. Roosevelt's attitudes to both African-Americans and Jews remain a striking contrast with his social liberalism and generosity of spirit on most other issues.

What source did you find stuff on Roosevelt’s views on Jews?  Or do you just mean taking refugees?

[(no subject)]

Willkie was a fundamentally decent and idealistic man who in different circumstances could have made a fine President. Roosevelt's attitudes to both African-Americans and Jews remain a striking contrast with his social liberalism and generosity of spirit on most other issues.

What source did you find stuff on Roosevelt’s views on Jews?  Or do you just mean taking refugees?

FDR once told Morgenthau and a Catholic economist, Leo T. Crowley: "This is a Protestant country, and the Catholics and the Jews are here on sufferance."

When he met King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia in January 1945, he assured him he did not support a Jewish state in Palestine. He suggested that since the Nazis had killed three million Polish Jews, there should now be plenty of room in Poland to resettle all the Jewish refugees.