The Plot Against America (possible spoilers)

Cafe Society
1

Got this Phillip Roth book for Christmas. I was suprised that I couldn’t find a thread about it, but I know I can’t be the only Doper who’s read it.

As an alternative history, I thought it was really well written. Re-imagining his own childhood and includng a bit of his historical sources made the plot all the more plausible.

While I have studied this particular period in American history, I am not all that familiar with the election of 1940, which is the particular event on which the entire book hinges. Anyone have any thoughts on how else that election might have played out differently and what the actual consequences of a Roosevelt loss might have been?

2

I haven’t read the book yet. Any president other than Roosevelt in 1941 would have been an isolationist bent on keeping America out of the war.

OTOH, such a president–Republican, in all likelihood–would have probably used troops to protect American corporate holdings in Asia and Latin America. Pearl Harbor would still have happened as a result, and WWII would have been perceived as two separate wars, the Pacific war America was engaged in and the European war it wasn’t.

How would Germany have fared without America as an opponent? Hard to say. They were crushed by limitless American resources on the one side and a vast, unholdable Russia on the other. Hitler might have taken his pact with Stalin more seriously to fight a winnable war against the British. America, with more troops and resources to throw at Japan, might have ended the Pacific conflict sooner. And with no US-Soviet alliance, the Yalta talks would not have occurred or Hitler might have had a seat at them. The further you go into a What If? timeline, the hazier things get.

3

Hitler declared war on the U.S. about three days after Pearl Harbor. There was never any question in our world about separate European and Pacific wars.

Asking for meaningful what ifs is a fool’s game. Once the world changes all answers are equally possible, and plausible no longer has any applicability. It’s only our looking backward that makes some scenarios seem more plausible than others, but this is an illusion of perception.

4

If America had not been involved in Europe in WWII, I think the Russians would have overrun the entire continent, except for the UK. We did not save Western Europe from Hitler; we saved it from Stalin.

5

If Hitler had had a sympathetic ally in the White House, he might have done something to separate the two theaters of war. Avoiding a conflict with the US would be worth severing some ties with Japan.

6

One big factor pre-Pearl Harbor was that for most of 1941 the US “neutrality” was blatantly pro-British. Lend-Lease, US naval vessels running convoy for British ships, etc. That may have convinced Hitler that there was little point in avoiding hostilites with the US. A truly neutral US in 1941 might have convinced Hitler to let the Japanese go to Hell if they attacked the US, and that in turn might have swayed the Japanese to risk taking over the British and French colonies in the east without attacking the US first.

I once had a thread on what-if Roosevelt hadn’t won a third term, but I can’t find it now. Link anyone?

7

I haven’t read the book- maybe it’s gripping, thrilling and thought-provoking… but it’ also requires a ridiculous degree of suspension of disbelief.

Did Charles Lindbergh get elected PResident? No.

Well, did he get the GOP nomination? No.

Did he ever ATTEMPT to get the GOP nomination? No.

Well, regardless, if the Republicans had won, we’d have had an anti-semitic, midwestern isolationist as President, right? Uh, no. The Republicans nominated Wendell Willkie, a Northern, liberal internationalist who actually LIKED Franklin Roosevelt (and vice versa- FDR actually gave Willkie several positions in his administration).

Oh, but if Willkie hadn’t gotten the nomination, THEN an isolationist anti-semite from the midwest would’ve gotten the nomination, right? Again, nope. THe runner-up was Thomas Dewey, another liberal, Northern internationalist.

So, I say go ahead and read Roth’s book- it may be a highly enjoyable piece of fiction, like “The Da Vinci Code.” But whether you’re reading Roth or Dan Brown, don’t imagine for a minute that anything you read bears the slightest resemblance to reality.

Postscript: My sense is that opinions on this book will correlate 100% with opinions on our current President. If you think G.W. Bush represents the triumph of fascism (and plenty of SDMB regulars obviously do), Roth is your man. Otherwise, you’ll find the story pretty far-fetched.

8

I didn’t know that about Wilkie or Dewey, so thanks, astorian. You’re right that enjoying the novel does require a certain degree of suspension of disbelief, but I would hesitate to call it ridiculous. As Roth said in a New York Times essay, his hope was to reimagine this time period in meticulous detail, with the exception, of course, that Lindbergh was willing to make a run for the presidency. We can argue about the possibility and consequences of such an event, but, given that one change, the scenario as Roth sees it unfolding before his younger persona’s eyes seems real enough.

There’s also more to The Plot Against America than the larger political picture. Within this framework, Roth tells a story of a family (his own) struggling to come to grips in a society rended by unforeseen changes. It’s a not so subtle commentary on a turbulent time period.

You may be right about the readership and current political views, but I should mention that in the aforementioned essay, Roth denies that his intentions for this work had anything to do with today’s political climate.