What If? What if Ronald Reagan was inserted into the mind of FDR

[ATP]

Wasn't Ronald Regan friends with Gorbachov? And he visited President Li Xiannian of China in a big historic event. I don't really think he was as anti-communism as most people think. He was pro-capitalism, but he seemed fine coexisting with USSR and CCCP. So long as they didn't have the advantage on the world stage over him.

So I doubt he would have engaged in operation unthinkable.

That being said, I'm a strange person, so the first answer to the question that popped into my head was "FDR/Regan immediately has some sort of anyrusim/stroke because his brain isn't formatted correctly, dies, and we get president Wallace, which kinda sucks balls because Wallace was a bit of a limp noodle from what I remember of history"

Busch was happy with soviets,and even try to save them/Kiev chicken speech/
But Reagan saw soviets for what they were - empire of evil.And would destroy them,with Manhattan program make earlier and without supporting soviets,they would fall quickly after Hitler.
In this timeline - about 1943-44,i think.

China - there he could let Mao take part of it,Czang another - and fight each other.Thanks to that,united China would be no problem for USA.

 

[The Phule]

@The Phule what is your actual opinion on what would happen to the USA in this scenario?

I don't really know, my brain doesn't work the right way to imagine that sort of thing.

 

[Airedale260]

Mostly True.But he still could end war with A bombs in 1942-43,and take Siberia shortly after that.

He’s not going to touch Siberia. There is literally no good reason to do so. Yeah it sucks about the gulags but...Siberia is a fucking wasteland with no strategic value to the U.S. Especially when there are far more urgent priorities.

Now, one thing to keep in mind is that Reagan won’t be able to do a complete 180 on stuff without people thinking he’s gone insane. But he is an actor by profession, so he can at least set things up in such a way that it’ll be difficult to tell what’s actually going on.

Certainly Keynesian economics won’t get the traction it did OTL, nor will the insane expansion of the federal bureaucracy. Instead we’re likely to see some areas tightened in regulations and others loosened, while projects like the Rural Electrification Administration pass with sunset provisions. Same with the CCC & WPA...they’ll go forward as prep for World War II.

Once war rolls around, then it’s defeating both fascism and communism. It won’t be simple, though. And it may very well be bloody. But he can persuade people like Ho Chi Minh and Josip Broz Tito to work with him: The big concern is over threatening the West and how they treat their citizens. As long as they don’t go pulling that, he won’t be fussed.

In the Middle East, he backs a Jewish state but also throws support to the other key players in the region. Especially if the Palestinians back the Nazis again...he can persuade Britain and France to draw down while negotiating a peace so that the area tends to be one of mutual recognition 80 years early. Latin America is tricky, but so long as he takes the position of “Do your own thing just don’t cause trouble” I don’t think he’ll really care. South Africa likely doesn’t go for apartheid because of external pressure, and all of Europe gets covered by the Marshall Plan and NATO. Hell, depending on how things go, if we can make nice with whatever new Russian government pops up (it’s a long shot), we might get a fairly peaceful world this time around.

 

[ATP]

He’s not going to touch Siberia. There is literally no good reason to do so. Yeah it sucks about the gulags but...Siberia is a fucking wasteland with no strategic value to the U.S. Especially when there are far more urgent priorities.

Now, one thing to keep in mind is that Reagan won’t be able to do a complete 180 on stuff without people thinking he’s gone insane. But he is an actor by profession, so he can at least set things up in such a way that it’ll be difficult to tell what’s actually going on.

Certainly Keynesian economics won’t get the traction it did OTL, nor will the insane expansion of the federal bureaucracy. Instead we’re likely to see some areas tightened in regulations and others loosened, while projects like the Rural Electrification Administration pass with sunset provisions. Same with the CCC & WPA...they’ll go forward as prep for World War II.

Once war rolls around, then it’s defeating both fascism and communism. It won’t be simple, though. And it may very well be bloody. But he can persuade people like Ho Chi Minh and Josip Broz Tito to work with him: The big concern is over threatening the West and how they treat their citizens. As long as they don’t go pulling that, he won’t be fussed.

In the Middle East, he backs a Jewish state but also throws support to the other key players in the region. Especially if the Palestinians back the Nazis again...he can persuade Britain and France to draw down while negotiating a peace so that the area tends to be one of mutual recognition 80 years early. Latin America is tricky, but so long as he takes the position of “Do your own thing just don’t cause trouble” I don’t think he’ll really care. South Africa likely doesn’t go for apartheid because of external pressure, and all of Europe gets covered by the Marshall Plan and NATO. Hell, depending on how things go, if we can make nice with whatever new Russian government pops up (it’s a long shot), we might get a fairly peaceful world this time around.

Why bother with Ho chi minh ? he was nobody then,and become important only tkanks to serving first Japan,and later soviets.
If Reagan crush commies early,Vietnam would be ruled by Emperor Bao.Who in OTL was overthrown by CIA.

If he back jewish state,then - paradoxally - his ally would be Hitler,not England.Till 1941 he cooperated with sionists to create jewish state outside of Europe.Till 1942 germans do not decided that jews must be genocided yet.

And about Siberia - it is wasteland with important minerals.And Magadan really was connected with rest of soviets only by sea,and have only NKWD thugs,not proper army to fight.
USA could take it with one marines regiment.And all gold mines there.
Of course,nobody cared about Gulag victims - real purpose would be gold there.

 

[Airedale260]

And about Siberia - it is wasteland with important minerals.And Magadan really was connected with rest of soviets only by sea,and have only NKWD thugs,not proper army to fight.
USA could take it with one marines regiment.And all gold mines there.
Of course,nobody cared about Gulag victims - real purpose would be gold there.

Except that isn’t the U.S. The extent that the U.S. has territorial ambitions is securing our position in North America. Siberia is worthless to us -oh, sure, great, natural resources. That we can’t exploit. In territory already belonging to another major power. That we have never had interest in acquiring. And we’re going to do all this in the middle of the Great Depression.

Also, no, Hitler never supported a Jewish state. The Haavara agreement was all about getting money and such from the Jews. That was it.

Oh, and as for the Chicken Kiev speech...the concern Bush had was that Russia would come completely apart as it wound up doing, resulting a giant clusterfuck for 20+ years until it started to get back on its feet and started causing shit. Not his best move, but also not the worst.

 

[Abhorsen]

Oddly, probably bad stuff. Keynsian economics was what was needed to get out of the depression, and I don't think Reagan would have gone for it, as Keynsian economics was precisely the wrong idea during Reagans time (the difference between a demand side recession vs a supply side recession).

 

[Airedale260]

Oddly, probably bad stuff. Keynsian economics was what was needed to get out of the depression, and I don't think Reagan would have gone for it, as Keynsian economics was precisely the wrong idea during Reagans time (the difference between a demand side recession vs a supply side recession).

Point taken. Though I still think there's less of a push to drastically expand the federal government.

Foreign policy wise other than the changes noted (assuming Britain and France don't decide to go "fuck it" and not decolonize), I don't see much difference. The problem is that the U.S. public will at this point be completely sick of war, so we will still see the massive draw down after 1945. OTOH, if both the Soviets and CCP forces are gone, that won't be as much of an issue..

 

[ATP]

Except that isn’t the U.S. The extent that the U.S. has territorial ambitions is securing our position in North America. Siberia is worthless to us -oh, sure, great, natural resources. That we can’t exploit. In territory already belonging to another major power. That we have never had interest in acquiring. And we’re going to do all this in the middle of the Great Depression.

Also, no, Hitler never supported a Jewish state. The Haavara agreement was all about getting money and such from the Jews. That was it.

Oh, and as for the Chicken Kiev speech...the concern Bush had was that Russia would come completely apart as it wound up doing, resulting a giant clusterfuck for 20+ years until it started to get back on its feet and started causing shit. Not his best move, but also not the worst.

Sorry for being unclear.Take only Magadan region,when both gold mines and death camps were.With only NKWD thugs as guardians.Without any connection to rest of soviets.except sea during summer.
And do that after dropping A bombs on both Germany and Japan.

Fun thing - USA do not need invade soviets to made them irrelevant.Stalin could built modern factories thanks to american money ,technology and engineers.Just take it,show world their death camps which USA liberated - and they could do nothing.

 

[Abhorsen]

Point taken. Though I still think there's less of a push to drastically expand the federal government.

That's literally the problem Reagan wouldn't expand any of the government, not allowing us to keynsian out way out of it. Did FDR go way to far? Yes, obviously. Did FDR do stupid things? Also yes. But rapid spending was what the government needed to do to pull out of the death spiral. The gold standard was also an anchor holding us down.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

even assuming nothing else changed I think we'd go to "War" with Stalin shortly after the bombs dropped and I'd think russia would have a hard time fighting back considering scorched earth only worked in a war of attrition. Put a 3rd nuke or even a mini nuke in the equation and it's all over. Still not convinced the battle of stalingrade wasin't so much about beating the nazis and more about stalin saying "If I can't have russia nobody can."

 

[Airedale260]

That's literally the problem Reagan wouldn't expand any of the government, not allowing us to keynsian out way out of it. Did FDR go way to far? Yes, obviously. Did FDR do stupid things? Also yes. But rapid spending was what the government needed to do to pull out of the death spiral. The gold standard was also an anchor holding us down.

I’m not sure if he wouldn’t expand it at all...the problem is that you need to strike a balance between just enough to be effective but not so much that power is centralized in Washington.

Granted there’s only so much he can do by himself, and he may be under pressure to expand anyway. Certainly with what’s coming down the line there will have to be some expansion of the government if they’re going to be ready for 1939-1945.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

The gold standard was also an anchor holding us down

turned out in the long run though getting rid of that anchor caused more problems in the long run than it helped.

 

[Abhorsen]

turned out in the long run though getting rid of that anchor caused more problems in the long run than it helped.

No, it really didn't. Literally, the gold standard is a potentially ruinous things that means others can control our currency instead, by releasing gold or finding new deposits. Instead, we've got the world's reserve currency, which is much more valuable. Now do I like that the Fed can just print more? Not much, but honestly, thinking that M1 increases is a major driver of inflation is just wrong. Inflation has been at a consistent steady 2% for ages now, and that's good. With gold as a standard, all you get is wobbly, unpredictable inflation rates, which is much worse for the market.

I’m not sure if he wouldn’t expand it at all...the problem is that you need to strike a balance between just enough to be effective but not so much that power is centralized in Washington.

Granted there’s only so much he can do by himself, and he may be under pressure to expand anyway. Certainly with what’s coming down the line there will have to be some expansion of the government if they’re going to be ready for 1939-1945.

That's the thing, there was pressure to not expand the government. FDR did the opposite and helped the country. Ignoring my beliefs that taxation is theft for now, Reagan would have been one of the worst possible choices for his replacement up until the 1940s.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

No, it really didn't. Literally, the gold standard is a potentially ruinous things that means others can control our currency instead, by releasing gold or finding new deposits. Instead, we've got the world's reserve currency, which is much more valuable. Now do I like that the Fed can just print more? Not much, but honestly, thinking that M1 increases is a major driver of inflation is just wrong. Inflation has been at a consistent steady 2% for ages now, and that's good. With gold as a standard, all you get is wobbly, unpredictable inflation rates, which is much worse for the market.

so it's a good thing the standard of living gets lower as the buying power of the dollar continual decreases? Guess you'll tell me next that a forced 15 dollar minimum wage doesn't kill small businesses. saying stuff like inflation is good is in partial what caused people like me to be pro trump in the first place.

 

[Abhorsen]

so it's a good thing the standard of living gets lower as the buying power of the dollar continual decreases?

... This isn't true though. The standard of living for people in the US has consistently improved. Inflation doesn't really matter too much if one invests. Also, this faith in gold is idiotic. It's even less safe than the Fed. Anyone can then affect the power of the dollar by finding new gold reserves or selling your current gold. And it wouldn't be stable either, and unpredictable inflation rates is what kills banks and sends them under. It's a stupid idea.

Also, given that people are mostly in debt (read: have a mortgage), the inflation crises of the 70s made homeowners tens of thousands, as they complained about it.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

... This isn't true though. The standard of living for people in the US has consistently improved. Inflation doesn't really matter too much if one invests. Also, this faith in gold is idiotic. It's even less safe than the Fed. Anyone can then affect the power of the dollar by finding new gold reserves or selling your current gold. And it wouldn't be stable either, and unpredictable inflation rates is what kills banks and sends them under. It's a stupid idea.

Also, given that people are mostly in debt (read: have a mortgage), the inflation crises of the 70s made homeowners tens of thousands, as they complained about it.

I guess it depends on who you talk to. Considering I can't buy a house and a plot without being a multi millionare or can't run a buisness without jumping through hoops, I don't consider my standard of living improved. It probably has improved if you are a city slicker and have low expecations for yourself.

 

[Abhorsen]

I guess it depends on who you talk to. Considering I can't buy a house and a plot without being a multi millionare or can't run a buisness without jumping through hoops, I don't consider my standard of living improved. It probably has improved if you are a city slicker and have low expecations for yourself.

If you think inflation is the cause of that, you are also wrong. Inflation touches everything, including how much you are paid. So back in the early 1900s, your dollars would be worth more, but you wouldn't have as many, so you'd be in the same place.

Second, if you can't afford a house without being a multi millionaire, you're the city slicker. Move out of the city, and houses get cheaper. Move to Alabama, and they are very cheap.

Third, the hoops you have to jump through have nothing to do with leaving the gold standard, and so are irrelevant.

Fourth, yes, literally everyone in America's situation has improved over the past century since we left the gold standard, and leaving the gold standard helped with that a lot.. If you look at the number of people earning less than any inflation adjusted amount per year, that number has shrunk. The amount of people starving has massively declined in the US, as every measure of wealth continues to go up over time.

The only thing you get from the gold standard is the Fed not able to print money. Instead of expanding by someone's plan, the money supply expands or contracts (which is also really bad) by the whims of fate and whoever owns a lot of gold. Money hoarding can also become a problem if people stop believing that the exchange will happen.

Now it might not have been a smart idea at the time, as it helped spur along the distrust in banks, but leaving it was necessary eventually to go to a fiat system, which is much more reliable.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Second, if you can't afford a house without being a multi millionaire, you're the city slicker. Move out of the city, and houses get cheaper. Move to Alabama, and they are very cheap.

Until cali-fops show up and pay 10x what the land is worth because of thier red blooded government. Think prices got that high naturally?

 

[Abhorsen]

Until cali-fops show up and pay 10x what the land is worth because of thier red blooded government. Think prices got that high naturally?

Um, but that's literally how natural pricing works? People buying stuff at a higher price driving up the price?

Also, that's not how economics works at all. They don't want that land because it isn't near the city. The reason why city land is valuable is because people are near it. Could all the people in LA move 100 miles inland and jack up the prices there instead? Sure, but then the prices in what was LA would fall and be affordable.

Meanwhile, none of that has to do with the gold standard.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Also, that's not how economics works at all. They don't want that land because it isn't near the city. The reason why city land is valuable is because people are near it. Could all the people in LA move 100 miles inland and jack up the prices there instead? Sure, but then the prices in what was LA would fall and be affordable.

Meanwhile, none of that has to do with the gold standard.

I'd say you're being naive on the nature of the great escape from California exodus that's going on but that's a different topic as this whole mini derail is. my apologies.