Playing with history

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Yes. Both FDR and Bush were planning their attacks before PH and 9/11. Both of those gave them an excuse to execute their plans.

Pearl Harbor caught FDR and his advisors by surprise. They expected an attack, but had planned for it being the Philippines, and Washington thought that they could then send the fleet out from Pearl Harbor and retake the Philippines.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yes, Pearl Harbor was just the straw that broke the camel's back, but as you say, it meant scrambling to come up with new plans and abandoning MacArthur.

Dave, do you think if Roosevelt was as aggressive as Bush, Hitler would have second thoughts? Or a different plan? Not have attacked the eastern front until England had been invaded?

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Dave, do you think if Roosevelt was as aggressive as Bush, Hitler would have second thoughts? Or a different plan? Not have attacked the eastern front until England had been invaded?

Well, that is hard to say. GWB relies heavily on his advisors, and as we have seen, when one leaves, he replaces the person with a sense of urgency. Roosevelt, as every president does, relied on his advisors, but he seems to be a man who could make decisions on his own, and when he thought he was right, he would back his own gut feeling. GWB seems to suffer from a perpetual case of stomach flu, and comes across as uncertain of his own convictions. Has GWB made any decision based on his own experience and expertise (ie. independent)?

A GWB in 38 would have been surrounded by isolationists, and had public opinion against taking any aggressive action - I realise this. I was just wondering if he would have had the balls to go against the majority, and getting the US involved in Europe earlier. As far as Japan goes, he would have done what Roosevelt did - cut trade in raw materials to Japan, and hope that this would give the US time to tackle Japan later. The problem with that thinking is that it is far more difficult to remove an enemy from their entrenched positions, than it is to stop them establishing their hold in the first place. An entrenched, established enemy is always expensive to take on.

We should not forget that while 1938 predates Pearl Harbor, and the bombing of Britain, the President did have some history to consider (WWI), and Japan had been pushing through Korea, into China and Manchuria during the 30s, so its expansionist policies were well known. Also, don't forget that we had the rise of fascism in the 30s, in several countries. Franco was close to winning in Spain, Mussolini was being very vocal in his expansionist views.

I guess I am saying that Bush talks big now, but would he have done so if faced with a world similar to the conditions of 1938. Is 9/11 the only catalyst that was capable of getting Bush moving? If you had not experienced 9/11, would Bush have been an easy going President like Clinton?

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Dave, do you think if Roosevelt was as aggressive as Bush, Hitler would have second thoughts? Or a different plan? Not have attacked the eastern front until England had been invaded?

Sorry Bruce, I just realised that I did not really answer your question. I just repeated much of what I had already written. Yes, I think if Roosevelt had matched Germany's military build-up, and actually sent troops to England and France (and equipment, of course), then the course of history would have been quite different. in 1939 Hitler was around 50, and feeling the pressure of time. He brought forward his war plans several years (originally planned to start in 45). Of course, we would have had a stalemate for a while, and Hitler would have had more time to develop better and stronger weapons, thus making Germany an even more formidable opponent. So, would that have actually worked against us (the free world)? Probably. Russia and Germany may have maintained their anti-aggression pact, though that is difficult to imagine, given their mutual dislike and distrust of one another, but with US forces in Europe, who knows, Hitler may have held off invading Russia. We are lucky that he did invade. Imagine what the effort would have been like, if there was no Eastern front. Normandy could not have happened the way it did.

History is full of "what ifs". We will never know how events might have unfolded if the US had entered the conflict earlier.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I really don't think any president could have convinced congress, industry, and the general population, to gear up for a war they fully intended to stay out of, if at all possible.
Hard to promote a big (and fast) build up when it was all so far away, so abstract, and everything moved slower. It, at the very least, would've taken a hell of a PR campaign.

Bottom line.....no, I don't think much would have changed with Bush there.

[bluesdave]

The other point to consider is that if GWB had been able to pull it off, he would have been seen as the aggressor (and unnecessary risk taker), by many in the US, and in all likelihood would have lost the 1940 election. Roosevelt was one hell of a smart politician. He knew that he had to wait for public support before acting. Pearl harbor gave him that, as 9/11 did the same for GWB.

It's ironic how history plays out, and you look back with the benefit of hindsight.

[Griff]

A problem with doing a "what if?" like this is that W has a different America than Roosevelt. Roosevelt's actions as President helped build the nationalist culture and suppress the native reluctance of the American people to engage in foreign adventures. It is quite possible that Roosevelt in W's place would have been even more aggressive, since he was so willing to break with past practices (Wilson might be an even better example). W in Roosevelt's place may well have been less foolhardy than W in his own place.

Either way, the Presidency itself is on the cusp of full-blown tyranny. Watch the Congress try to express it's opposition to Mid East over-reach. There will be a choice made by the American people Caesar or the Republic.

[bluesdave]

You are correct Griff. The concept seemed a good idea at the time I thought of it, but later, even I realised that it was a silly exercise.