Playing with history

[bluesdave]

Let's do a little playing with history, and use some philosophy and hypothetical thinking to see where this story might end. Assume that the President of the United States in 1938 is George W. Bush. Hitler has reoccupied the Rhineland, and annexed his homeland, Austria, and wants to break up Czechoslovakia and occupy the Sudetenland. Would George have taken the risk to take on Hitler, and in so doing, precipitate the war that so many feared was coming. Or would he have followed Roosevelt's stand, and back off - keeping to America's isolationist policy (at that time). Would he have gone against public opinion in order to restrain Hitler, or would he have let events unfold, as we now know only too well?

If he decided to play safe and backed off, when would he have stepped in when Hitler invaded Poland, and Britain declared war, or would he had waited, and taken action when Hitler invaded Belgium, and then France?

Assuming Bush is still out of the picture when the British and French evacuate from Dunkirk, would he have finally stepped in in 1940 when Hitler started to bomb Britain?

I am not trying to comment on Bush's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am just wondering if Bush could have prevented WW2, or would he have simply provoked action earlier than history records? Which scenario would have been better for the World?

[piercehawkeye45]

What did the US have to gain if they attacked Germany? That is the main factor in my opinion.

[Happy Monkey]

What if Prescott Bush had been president?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Don't think he could have done much different than how it originally played out. '38, we weren't ready, the Army Air Corp was flying WWI leftovers, there was no Armored Division, because we didn't have any armor, to speak of. Industry was just starting to plan how they would ramp up in case of war. If he had jumped into the fray, our remote, thinly maned outposts in the Pacific were in jeopardy, immediately.

But #1, with a bullet, reason? The people didn't want it. The people had been unhappy with WWI and the treatment of the veterans after the war. They wanted no part of a war in far off Europe. Remember that Europe was still half a world away in '38. It was something you'd see in magazines and maybe Pathe News Reels at the movies. You didn't actually know someone that had been there, except Grandpa in WWI, and the immigrants that lived a couple streets over...but you don't talk to them anyway.

The federal government was seeing the handwriting on the wall and gearing up their campaign to convince the people, with the help of Hollywood and the press. I've seen a couple movies that were released in '40 and early '41, that featured Nazi Spies and saboteurs running amok in our factories.

Once we took the hit at Pearl Harbor, the campaign was on, big time, with stories of Japs butchering babies and Krauts driving tanks through schools.

Ted Geisel (Dr Seuss) did an amazing series of political cartoons, ripping the Japs, through the summer of '41. For the months leading up to Pearl Harbor he ridiculed them and warned we'd kick there ass if they started anything. Then the first cartoon after Pearl, he was like, Damn, that hurt, must have been a rock in the sock. But the next cartoon after that was, Oh yeah, well you're really gonna get it now. looking at this stuff in context is interesting.

OK, one more and I'll stop rambling.
During Carters hostage crises in Iran, my brother and I were discussing the ethics of taking civilian hostages. I brought up that even after Pearl Harbor, the Japs in Washington negotiating, were allowed to leave the country.
My mother, after a couple glasses of wine, pipes up, "Well, we threw them right to hell out."
I had to smile.... yeah, no thoughts of jail, no torture, no killing, we threw them right to hell out. That was pre-WWII America. Hardly prepared for what was to come.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

My mother, after a couple glasses of wine, pipes up, "Well, we threw them right to hell out."
I had to smile.... yeah, no thoughts of jail, no torture, no killing, we threw them right to hell out. That was pre-WWII America. Hardly prepared for what was to come.

Wow. Different world.

Let's see, the Germans grab the Rhineland, George invades Sweden because the kinda look alike.

[bluesdave]

I know the history Bruce. I was wondering if GWB would have done things differently to Roosevelt, and I deliberately left out Japan because I did not want to complicate the story. You are right that the US public was not ready for war, and in 38 the armed forces were run down and poorly equipped, but the point is: would GWB have done something about the situation before Roosevelt eventually did (I'm not meaning any criticism of Roosevelt here - I know that American public opinion was vigorously against involvement, and Europe *was* a long distance away in 38)? Would GWB have instituted a draft in 38, and ramped up production of war equipment?

My guess is also that he would not have done anything differently to Roosevelt. He did not have an equivalent of 9/11, so public opinion would have been fixed in its opposition. As you say, the US did not feel "personally" involved in the war until Pearl Harbor. At least Roosevelt had the sense to bring in the draft in 1940, so he was able to increase the army somewhat, though they remained poorly equipped - I have a video of the war games the US army held in 41 (I think), and many of the men did not even carry real guns - they were wooden models!

What got me thinking about this, was GWB's constant claims that he needs to stop Iran, Syria, and North Korea before they become a threat to world peace. If he believes that now, would he have felt the same way about Germany (Hitler), if he was running the US in 38? I heard an interview on NPR with Ted Koppel this weekend, and he is convinced that the US will be at war with Iran by the end of 2007 (he said that it would only be after an act of provocation by Iran - ie. they would have to take some action against the US).

[yesman065]

So are we trying to provoke them into some stupid action against us?

Also with respect to Pearl Harbor - was 9/11 the modern day equivalent? Was that the impetus needed?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by yesman065

Also with respect to Pearl Harbor - was 9/11 the modern day equivalent? Was that the impetus needed?

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.

[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.