What's new
Frozen in Carbonite

Welcome to FiC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

What-if..... FDR

Senmut

Active member
Author
On February 15th, 1933, President-elect Franklin Roosevelt was at a rally in Miami, along with Chicago Mayor Cermak. A deranged man named Guiseppe Zangara opens fire, missing Roosevelt, but hitting Cermak. Cermak later dies of his wounds.
Now, instead of the timeline we know, let us suppose that Zangara had gotten FDR, apparently his intended target. Where might history have gone, then?
 

Eliar

Well-known member
Yea this in not WW1 with the US having 1/3 german route population and powerful Pro German vested interests keeping it from joining the fray.

WW2 was not an issue of if the US would join against the Axis but when no matter the Prez
 

Scottty

Well-known member
Also, funny how people who want to assassinate the POTUS are always nutcase lone wolves. Never sane people with an ideology, operating as part of some larger group.
No, no, they are always just fruitloops.
Funny that.
 

Senmut

Active member
Author
Also, funny how people who want to assassinate the POTUS are always nutcase lone wolves. Never sane people with an ideology, operating as part of some larger group.
No, no, they are always just fruitloops.
Funny that.
Well, Zangara was a nutcase.
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
Also, funny how people who want to assassinate the POTUS are always nutcase lone wolves. Never sane people with an ideology, operating as part of some larger group.
No, no, they are always just fruitloops.
Funny that.
That's because anyone with half a brain knows that killing the leader of a democratic system doesn't change much if anything. It's only in autocracies that killing the chief changes everything. But, as I said, everyone with the smallest bit of education knows this.
 

Scottty

Well-known member
That's because anyone with half a brain knows that killing the leader of a democratic system doesn't change much if anything. It's only in autocracies that killing the chief changes everything. But, as I said, everyone with the smallest bit of education knows this.

Sometimes with Rufus it's hard to tell if he's being serious.
I don't know what his education taught him, but that appeal to intellectual vanity does not impress me.

A modern democracy is not a hivemind. It's not like classical Athens or the Borg Collective. It's a system in which a large number of people delegate political decision-making to a smaller number of people.
And when some crisis comes up, it does make a difference which one of the political factions happens to have their guy in the decision-making spot.
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
Sometimes with Rufus it's hard to tell if he's being serious.
I don't know what his education taught him, but that appeal to intellectual vanity does not impress me.

A modern democracy is not a hivemind. It's not like classical Athens or the Borg Collective. It's a system in which a large number of people delegate political decision-making to a smaller number of people.
And when some crisis comes up, it does make a difference which one of the political factions happens to have their guy in the decision-making spot.
Le Meh. When you murder the head of the executive in a functional democracy, the system survives, because the system is more than the individual, no matter how powerful said individual is within the system. That's why there is a peaceful transfer of power. OTOH, in autocratic systems, the leader is the system, usually as a feature because the infighting and dysfunction is encouraged to reinforce the individual power of said leader. So if you manage to kill them, the system is endangered or collapse entirely.

Anyone educated in political science knows this, so killing the leader in a democracy isn't really productive for their opposition, reducing the plotters to small groups or individuals.
 

Scottty

Well-known member
Le Meh. When you murder the head of the executive in a functional democracy, the system survives, because the system is more than the individual, no matter how powerful said individual is within the system.

The same is true of an old-school absolute monarchy, Rufus. When the king dies they make someone else the new king in his place.

That's why there is a peaceful transfer of power.

See above.
Even when there's no undisputed heir, after all the fighting is done the winner puts the same old crown on his head. The system survives. Democracy has no special claim on institutional stability.

OTOH, in autocratic systems, the leader is the system, usually as a feature because the infighting and dysfunction is encouraged to reinforce the individual power of said leader. So if you manage to kill them, the system is endangered or collapse entirely.

Which is why the Soviet Union imploded into civil war the moment Comrade Stalin was dead, huh?
Even in the case of freaking Nazi Germany, they responded to Hitler's death by making someone else the new Fuhrer in his place - for the brief time they had left.

How is Le Strawman Autocracy at all relevant to the topic anyway?

Anyone educated in political science knows this, so killing the leader in a democracy isn't really productive for their opposition, reducing the plotters to small groups or individuals.

In addition to Le Strawman, you are basically pulling Le Goalpost-move.
Earlier you were claiming that killing an elected head-of-government would not change anything. Now it's that it would not cause the whole system to collapse?

If the people who are considering having their current president - or one of the candidates for the future one - bumped off, they are not trying to burn down the tree in which they themselves are sitting. They want to steer the ship, not sink it.

"If X is elected, he will do this-and-this-and-this, while if Y gets in he will do that-and-that-and-that"
"hmm... let's make sure that Y doesn't get in!"

Is this so hard to follow?
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
Why, yes, royal succession is one hell of a mess in absolute monarchies, that can trigger wars. And when Stalin died, there actually was a pretty large number of deaths, all the way to the top in the struggles for power. Ask Beria how it ended for him.

So, yeah, your derail is fun but not really valuable.
 

Scottty

Well-known member
Why, yes, royal succession is one hell of a mess in absolute monarchies, that can trigger wars. And when Stalin died, there actually was a pretty large number of deaths, all the way to the top in the struggles for power. Ask Beria how it ended for him.

So, yeah, your derail is fun but not really valuable.

My derail? It was you who brought the subject up. But in both the monarchic and the Soviet cases, those succession wars do not cause "the system" to collapse. If anything they are part of it.
 
Last edited:

Scottty

Well-known member
Can you elaborate? What do you foresee?

All of the terms that FDR served as POTUS would have been served by other people. They might not have brought in the amendment to limit each person to just two terms - they had not needed it before then.
That's just a "for example".

Also, every time a "president-elect" gets shot, the people charged with protecting such individuals don't just shrug and say "eh, we'll do better next time" - no, they go over what happened and make sure that they WILL do better if there's a next time.
 

Senmut

Active member
Author
All of the terms that FDR served as POTUS would have been served by other people. They might not have brought in the amendment to limit each person to just two terms - they had not needed it before then.
That's just a "for example".

Also, every time a "president-elect" gets shot, the people charged with protecting such individuals don't just shrug and say "eh, we'll do better next time" - no, they go over what happened and make sure that they WILL do better if there's a next time.
At least the ones whose heads don't roll for blowing it. Good point.
 
Top Bottom