A George Kennan Happy Hundreth Birthday What-If

George Kennan, author of the containment doctrine is still alive and had his hundreth birthday on February 16th. He offered up some reasonably lucid comments during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.

Here's a centennary WI for him:

According to John Lewis Gaddis's "Strategies of Containtment", George
Kennan originally proposed that it was a vital US interest to keep the
following centers of industrial production outside of Soviet control:
North America, Western Europe, Britain and Japan. Because so much
industry and skilled manpower was there, they ranked head and
shoulders above the rest of the world in terms of strategic
importance.

Gaddis, representing the historiographical tendency of
"post-revisionism", agreed that this was correct, and tended to
interpret US actions in the industrial core areas of Europe and Japan
as necessary and moral, while US policy towards the periphery was more
often foolish, unnecessary or immoral. Steven Van Evera was also part
of this school.

According to Gaddis's book, Kennan listed some non-industrial areas
that were also vital for western defense because of their location or
petroleum resources. All together, he though the following parts of
the world "mattered":

1. North America
2. Britain
3. Western Europe
4. The Soviet Union
5. Japan
6. the Middle East, from Iran to Morrocco
7. The West Coast of Africa
8. the eastern and northern coasts of South America
9. Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean
10. The Philippines
11. Australia and New Zealand

The rest, according to his thinking, could go hang.1
Notable among these "leftovers" are:
China (including Taiwan), Korea, the Indian subcontinent to include
Afghanistan and Southeast Asia (except for the Philippines)

It wasn't worth fighting over, and would not be easy for any outside
power to control in Kennan's view.

Ironically the Cold War's Hot Wars were fought in the non-vital
regions of Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan.

So, here the challenge, create a *plausible* scenario for the US to
adopt a firm, selective strategy of containment for the vital regions,
while keeping as low a profile for the US as possible in the
peripheral regions. Highest score goes to the lowest possible US
profile, but certainly no US armed forces can end up fighting wars in
the periphery. Also, what knock-on consequences can you think of as a
result of whatever changes you make.


1 While he soon became a dove by Cold War standards, Kennan was no
fan of anti-American third world diatribes, and suggested that the
thrid world should be ignored diplomatically by "serious" powers until
they "grew up".

He also had no problem with the idea of supporting nondemocratic regimes if it was necessary for US interests, although he was later a supporter of many dovish positions, like a nuclear freeze.

Eugene McCarthy in 1968

How about MacArthur getting his way and nuclear weapons being used in Korea, then it being realised that this is 'a bad thing' and that the US will in future keep to where its true interests lie ?

Trying to work out what that would mean for US politics... Truman would go down badly as he failed to rein in MacArthur but the 1952 election is between Adlai Stevenson and whoever the Republicans put up. Having seen what one former war hero can do if unleashed, would the Republicans choose Eisenhower at all ? If not, would their alternative be elected ? It seems possible as all Democrats would to some degree be tainted by what Truman had done.

So, you get a DIFFERENT Republican president in 1952... Who is this ? Nixon is too young, so who were the other front runners for the nomination ?

Grey Wolf

Grey: Without Eisenhower (and I am not sure that anyone would confuse Eisenhower, a decent and relatively moderate individual, with MacArthur, a self-aggrandizing egomaniac), the GOP probably nominates Taft, who is Nixon without the charm (sarcasm here...). I rather doubt that Stevenson wins in almost any TL, so you end up with a truly unpleasant president in the 1950s, one who died during what would have been his first term. That gives us whoever he would choose as VP (probably Nixon, as the electoral calculus is pretty much the same for Taft, an Ohioan, as for Eisenhower, a Kansan), with a much, much, much stronger right wing than in OTL. As I remember your politics, that wouldn't be something you would enjoy...

Well, one doesn't construct ATLs to be utopias, especially if the subject matter is posted by someone else and one is simply replying to it with ideas. I don't have to LIKE what I suggest

I am not sure it would go the way you seem to think it would anyway. OK, let's assume you get Taft and he inherits a position where the overwhelming consensus is that the USA should not consuct operations on the strategic periphery (which after all is the point of this post). Presumably he would bolster defences in the core areas, build up the armed forces and whatever-you-have. He pops off and a younger more energetic but still idiosyncratic Nixon comes into office.

I am forever being told that Nixon wasn't really hard right etc, and one supposes that Detente and rapprochement with China kind of indicate that he had a lot of practicalities about his politics.

Stalin dies in 1953 and though Taft probably won't deal with his successors, there's a possibility that Nixon would. How about a late 1950's Detente ?

Grey Wolf

I think Taft, a neo-isolationist, would be a good idea for a less-expansive containment policy. He opposed NATO and much of the Cold War (as well as WWII, so he's consistent), but the anti-Communist consensus in the GOP would force him to take steps beyond US borders (or even the Western Hemisphere).

Nukes in Korea might be a good start for a more isolationist version of the Cold War, esp. if a Soviet nuke "accidentally" gets into the hands of the Chinese (perhaps Mao doesn't shoot off at the mouth, the Sovs give him a nuke like they originally planned thinking he's sane, and then he goes and uses it) and a great many US soldiers die. The shock of all this leads to a reappraisal of America's foreign policy.

However, if the Chinese use a nuke on US soldiers, then how can we avoid WWIII? Though the Korean War was unpopular (at least towards the end), the actual nuking of US soldiers might get America into full rage-mode. Or, we have a Vietnam-like reflex like in OTL against excessive foreign committments.

Perhaps the Sovs deny everything and cut off Mao and Co? Whither China? If the Communist regime falls and the Nationalists return, or less-wacko Communists mount a palace coup and turn over Mao (or at least his head), the US might not think that "containment" is such a high priority (we lost China, and got it back) and adopt the more circumspect policy (in light of recent Soviet moves in Iran and elsewhere).

What you need here is to get a US President who agrees with Kennan's "containment in the core areas" only strategy near the beginning of the cold war, and it establishes a precedent for how the US reacts to events in the rest of the world.

OK, so let's TL this sucker quick and dirty style;

1945 First Half: US drops three A-bombs on Japan in late May. Japan has coup attempt, but peace party wins and they surrender. Red army has not had time to transfer over to Siberia. Stalin issues DOW, but only border skirmishes.

1945: US occupies Korea and Japan. Helps Chiang move into Manchuria where he emeditaly launches attempt at crushing mao. Mao is hurt, but UN armistecde, and Chiang's incompitence gives him time to recover.

1947; US leaves Korea. Rhee commited to Korean democracy.

1949: Korean democracy wobbling as Mao grows stronger in China. Without Korean War Japanese economy not as good, but Japanese political system also more liberal.

1951: Mao wins in China. Coup in Korea by hard line anti-communist
Army types. US ends Japanese occupation, but alliance signed.

1953: Ike becomes Prez.

1954; Without Korean War to nock things up on the old terror scale Guatemal goes midly pink. Turns out to be no big deal and the guy that the CIA overthrew in OTL shows no loyalty to Moscow and quickly tries to get back into the US's graces.

1955: Mao conquers Taiwan. Japan scared, but US doesn't care much after a month or two.

1956-60: More prosperous than OTL US thanks to a sounder economy. No aftereffects of Korean war. Suez Canal crisis less of a crisis because less of a Cold War. USSR doesn't take as belicose attitude as OTL, but France and Britain still have to pull back. Ike doesn't help french in Vietnam. Castro comes to power in Cuba. Despite better relations with Latin America, the US and Cuba continue downward spiral.

1961; Better economy, and other factors, results in Nixon becoming Prez. He is also not willing to get involved in a land war in Asia.

1961; No bay of pigs. The lack the Guatemalan operation and less powerful cold war cause the CIA to be less cowboy. No Cuban Missle Crisis either. Cold War less hot also has effects in Kremlin.

1964: Vietnam under complete communist control, Laos and Cambodia suffering from increased insurgents. JFK beats Nixon second time around. Charges him as being too soft on Communism and bad luck of a recession at election times results in Nixon's loss. After he leaves office various dirty tricks come out and his political career is dead.

1965 - 1973: Laos and Cambodia fall. JFK provides a lot of aid, funding, and advisors (but not troops) to Thailand which never goes communist. Bidding war between China and USSR over Vietnam and other new communists states for loyalty. Korean generals begin mild redemocraization. Less US aide to Israel, but also less Soviet aide to Arabs results in roughly equal trade off. US has had bad relations with China for years, but they begin to improve as US seaks Soviet counterbalance. "Only JFK can go to China." No Detente.

1973 - 200X: More of Africa goes communist than OTL. Latin America goes pinker and has a worse economy than OTL. The USSR collapses about as OTL.

Perhaps America in this ATL is more paranoid and isolated feeling?