What if FDR Survived His 4th Term? 100 SUBSCRIBER SPECIAL

100 Subscriber Special! Yes I know we're at like 600 now thank you so much

FDR is known as - and was - one of the greatest Presidents in US history. Serving from 1933 to 1945, he would win an unprecedented and now impossible four terms. Over those 12 years, he would stave off a polio epidemic, lead the economic recovery from the Great Depression under the New Deal, and would help us win a little conflict called World War Two. Alongside him was British Prime Minister Winston Churchill - or perhaps more accurately we were alongside him since we joined later on, who took over following the disaster in Norway. However, both of these titans of World War Two would be out of office by war’s end; Churchill lost an election he called after German surrender, and FDR would unfortunately pass away on April 12, 1945. This of course, has led to many questions about what if one or both of these leaders served out the postwar term; what if FDR lived and Churchill won?

[AlternosMundos]

I'm so sorry this video is as late as it is! I was in a car accident Friday night that basically lost me that worknight in regards to YT - ate into Saturday as well. I hope that it's still up to par and that everyone is having a good day. Thanks so much for all the support; i started working on this just over 500 subs (still not late, Poland and 1812 were big) and finished it at 600

EDIT: I and the other person were both uninjured, thankfully.

[The_Counterfactor]

Certified FDR enjoyer here. Dope counterfactual, but there's one problem: Roosevelt did not intend to serve a full fourth term.
In 1945, he told his sixth cousin, Margaret “Daisy” Suckley, "that he thinks he can retire by next year, after he gets the peace organization well started.”
He also told New York Times correspondent Anne O'Hare McCormick that he considered resigning when the war was over and becoming the first United Nations Secretary-General.
(See page 618 of "Franklin D. Roosevelt: A Political Life" by Robert Dallek and page 44 of "The New United Nations: International Organization in the Twenty-First Century" by John Allphin Moore Jr. and Jerry Pubantz)
Of course, while Truman would have still ended up president, Roosevelt's legacy would have been radically different. Resigning after the end of the two greatest crises in American history would be seen as a George Washington-esque move, and could have solidified FDR at the #1 spot, rather than sharing the gold with Washington and Lincoln.

[nblayr]

20:25 as a Puerto Rican who was born on the island and moved to the mainland (US) when I was very little, I am so glad you included us and made us a state. I hope we can eventually become a state irl as we're basically the Carribean equivalent to Hawaii; and I hated always hearing "Go back to your country" or "Speak English this is America" growing up. Like brother I was born an American... Anyways forgive my yapping but you just earned yourself another sub.

[Ali-bulo]

1) While Truman compromising with Stalin had an effect on the end to 1946 Iran crisis, a lot of it was due to prime minister Qavam tricking Stalin by giving him oil rights. Qavam insisted that the treaty can't pass without the parliament and the Iranian parliament was up the air with Azerbaijan under occupation. So Stalin withdraw. However, The Iranian parliament simply rejected the deal, bamboozling Stalin.

2) If the Soviets do get to keep their puppets in Iran, I think it will have the opposite effect of what you think here. In reality the 1946 crisis was already a massive blow to Iran's Socialist party, the Tudeh, they would be even more unpopular here. I see the Nationalists under Mossadegh distancing themselves from the Tudeh and getting closer to the Shah and the religious leaders. Meanwhile, if Churchil is out of office by 1950, the British Labor government might be more open to a new oil deal that gives Iran more share of the revenue similar to the Saudi-American deal. I can see Iran being more stable with the religious, nationalists an monarchists elements avoiding the 1953 disaster. The Shah's power would still increase but it would be less so than in reality.

[Hakar]

This is the first time ive seen this specific scenario and its a good one.

[charliebann]

First time watcher here, Happy 100 subs! (Or 743 subs now lol) Looking forward to more content

[lljkgktudjlrsmygilug]

Thoughts of mine on this video.
-Its great.
-Surprised that there was no talks about Taiwan, particularly questions over whether Mao would be able to conquer it. Mao had plans for it, however much Mao of all people having plans for something is worth, taking Taiwan. This window of opportunity was lost with the Korean War and the divergence of massive amounts of troops to it.
-Speaking of China, and something that would be much more influential, is the possibility of the Chinese Civil War taking a different turn. Stephen Kotkin has, on occasion in his lectures, mentioned that the American government wanted Stalin to solve the threat of the Chinese communists in the civil war, and both Mao and Stalin wanted to have Mao form a government with the nationalists under steep conditions to the communists. Maybe with FDR being the US president, he successfully pressures Chiang to take this deal. This could also be a deal in tandem with other deals, such as...
- A reunified Germany, likely under SPD leadership. I can't remember if the idea was being floated by the USSR leadership before or after 1949, but there was a plan to give up East Germany under certain terms. Maybe these terms are met. Also relating to Germany, much like other post soviet states, I don't know if FDR would place his thumb on the scales of German elections to support Adenauer, with the potential of supporting Schumacher in some way. I think a similar story could happen with Japan, with MacArthur being fired for not following through with political reforms.
-With regard to Iran, why do you think it would be overly conservative? I want a bit more of an explanation on that. Also with regard to Iran, I'm pretty sure most of the oil in Iran is located in the south-west, where the soviet aligned forces failed to get to.
-Something I want to know, as I have been thinking of it for quite a bit the last 2 weeks, is if Dewey would, especially in a scenario where the soviets are notably more powerful, support the British and French in the Suez Crisis. Considering this timeline with American treatment of their colonialism by FDR, Dewey might double down in support of the British and French. This would have massively negative repercussions for the perception of America, with the anti-colonialism of America being a brief fad of FDR. While Eisenhower pressured the British and French to stand down in our timeline, I'm not sure how Dewey would respond.

[imgvillasrc]

Alternate US Civil War: What if the North Seceded from the Union?

[SNCY]

Yo this channel is actually really good. If you ever need a writer, just lemme know

[xaveircombs]

In my personal opinion. A Red Army coup or a resurgence of Stalinist forces seems far more plausible than the USSR fully collapsing. Without a complete economic meltdown or the Afghanistan war to fully undermine trust in the Soviet government, it’s harder to imagine the Union disintegrating. I do, however, see the revolutions of 1989 happening, with the Soviets losing much of their influence in Eastern Europe. However, they would likely retain control over Central Asia, where the Soviet government was relatively popular. Ukraine and Belarus might also remain within their orbit, given that their independence movements only gained significant traction once it became clear the USSR was on its last legs and might face internal conflict.

The Soviets could potentially retain Georgia, though they might lose Armenia and Azerbaijan. There’s a chance they might repeat history and intervene if those two nations fight each other. However, there’s no scenario in which they keep the Baltic states without a brutal crackdown, painting the streets red with blood.

[Bagasa]

Good job countine create alternate history video❤❤

[lljkgktudjlrsmygilug]

BTW, how do you think this video changes compared to FDR managing to keep Henry Wallace as VP, with Wallace succeeding FDR instead of Truman? Past the economic bill of rights being less likely, and the more liberal president causing a greater conservative backlash, both largely due to not having the reputation of FDR, I don't see much changing.

[DynMorgannwg]

Another consequence more for Europe may be a because of the later adoption of the Welfare state in the UK (due to a later Labour victory), other countries in Europe may not implement as clearer reforms as in our timeline due to the fear of communism. Even the UK’s reforms may have been more minor due to that same fear if the USSR performs as well as you predict it to

[lljkgktudjlrsmygilug]

Nah, he should live to 100 and be president for all of it, including when he was a baby. He should also keep Henry Wallace for all of it.

[andrewurista]

Do a scenario about the Spanish empire reforming Rome

[lljkgktudjlrsmygilug]

If we are doing presidential what ifs, I ask what if Obama was everything naive progressives in 2007 and Conservapedia thought he was going to be (Black Bernie way earlier).

[RFBG-ub]

Hope he does not go insane and declares himself god emperor of the holy order of rooseveltia.

[lljkgktudjlrsmygilug]

My comments about FDR and Stalin being lovers are disappearing.

[farwynd]

Bro 6x his sub count on his anniversary

[SNCY]

Also you need a thumbnail maker, i can deliver