Dewey wins TL (ex-contest entry)

Unfortunately, I had virtually no time to work on this, and now that I think about it I'm probably going to change a lot of what happened after 1964. So, rather than attempting to finish this in time for the deadline, here is some of the TL so far.

1949

Dewey was inaugurated after a narrow victory. He resolved to maintain his moderate position, but attempted to shake off labels as a “do-nothing” by taking a firm stance against communism, and reiterating his pledges to maintain the Truman Doctrine. However, during the lame duck period a group of foreign policy ‘dissidents’ lead by John Foster Dulles approached the president and attempted to convince the President-Elect that containment policy is too soft on the communist threat. They advocated a new policy, one that would be more aggressive and take advantage of the United States’ nuclear superiority (a monopoly at the time). Dulles was later appointed Secretary of Defense, and worked on building up the United States’ capability to wage nuclear war, even after First Lighting in August. Around the time of that fateful Soviet nuclear test, the name of the National Military Establishment was changed to National Defense Establishment. Among other changes, it removed the unfortunate pronunciation of the earlier office.

Dewey also nominated Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., arguably the nation’s best diplomat, to Secretary of State. Lodge tried to bridge the gap between the Truman Doctrine and the more aggressive policies of Dulles, in hopes that the US could stand against the Soviet Union more strongly without the new risk of nuclear war. His first challenge came in Korea, which the United States now considered an important defense for Japan, and of US strength in the Pacific as a whole. Though he would not support Rhee’s calls for an invasion of the north, he did push Dulles and Dewey to make contingencies for the defense of Korea.

When Kim Il-Sung went to ask Stalin for permission to invade the ROK, he replied that with the more aggressive US policy, he would not approve. The People’s Republic of China, however, worried that the US might try and overthrow the DPRK and put a capitalist nation on their border, said they would support such an act, but wanted to wait until the DPRK was better prepared. Mao also believed a victory in Korea might dissuade the plans for attack Mao believed Dewey had in store for China. Time was a double edged sword, though. The US, having put more of a focus on Korea after the border skirmishes, became aware of the attempt and moved troops to South Korea in the winter of 1949-1950. B-29s, both nuclear and conventionally armed, were readied for action. The US was unsure whether or not the Soviets would intervene, and were preparing for the worst. The 7th Fleet was also deployed to the region. When asked why there was such a buildup of forces during ‘peacetime’, Dewey and Lodge cited ‘repeated acts of aggression’ by the DPRK against the ROK, and the need to ‘prevent expansion of communism’ by the PRC.

Fearing their window for an attack was closing as the US mobilized more forces; the DPRK launched their assault on May 2nd of 1950. They captured Seoul, and drove further southward until stopped by MacArthur’s forces on a line slightly north of Taejon. By then, Lodge had secured not only a UN mandate for American actions in Korea, but for an international force to intervene. But realistically, it would be the US providing the vast majority of the forces in Korea, not the international community.

As the US (formally, the UN forces) launched their counteroffensive in the summer, the Chinese and Russians began to throw more of their weight into the situation. As UN forces passed the original borders in September, Chinese ‘volunteer’ forces began to advance into the DPRK, along with the new Mig-15 fighters, likely provided with Soviet assistance later in October. The US advance halted as air superiority disappeared, until the arrival of the F-86 Sabre. There seemed to be a stalemate through most of the winter, and MacArthur warned privately that nuclear weapons might be needed to ensure victory.

The 1950 elections brought Republican control of the Senate, because of a 50-50 split thanks to the razor-thin election of Prescott S. Bush, a Republican from Connecticut. However, many were starting to wonder if the Korean situation required a new approach. Some suggested putting Ridgeway in charge rather than MacArthur, who is growing increasingly aggressive and erratic in his demands. As the mid-term elections end, Democratic Party leaders begin approaching Eisenhower for a bid for the Presidency. However, the General declined, and in his place the Democrats ran Adlai Stevenson.

Elsewhere in the world, the USSR began its program of massive deportation of Baltic peoples, though it did lift the Berlin blockade after pressure from Dewey. They also step up their efforts to create a hydrogen bomb after Dewey, in response to the First Lighting, decides to develop his own “super” as a deterrent. They signed a mutual defense pact with China, in hopes of deterring the US itself from invading China or using nuclear weapons against it.

The NATO alliance was formally created, and in 1949 the communist forces in Greece surrendered. But fears of communism swept the west. Riots broke out in the Netherlands, Paris, and Berlin. The West German government expelled all suspected communists from its ranks. And in the United States, a communist witch-hunting campaign by Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy was stopped only by harsh words from Dewey, who wanted to preserve the moderate Republicans. Dewey was already worried about 1952, and feared that McCarthy’s campaign, whether he was right or wrong, would damage the party and his own chances of reelection.

1951-1952

Dewey relieved MacArthur in the early months of 1951, putting Ridgeway in control.

Ridgeway launched an offensive across the original border, and as the DPRK forces seemed to fall back, the US declared it would accept a ceasefire and was open to negotiations. But it also warned that if the PRC or USSR went too far in attempting to defend the DPRK, the US would be forced to use harsher measures itself. But, much to Stalin’s anger at this point, the PRC and DPRK agreed to negotiations after pressure by the UN and neutral governments.

Another event would transpire and radically change the world political scene. On October 3rd of 1951, Josef Stalin died of food poisoning, possibly because of fear that he would botch negotiations in Korea and bring nuclear war upon the Soviet Union. Soviet records indicate it was around this time the USSR learned of new US nuclear deployments to the region.. Though official Soviet documents seem to put him as murdered, their reliability is suspect and the truth will likely never be known. No peace treaty was signed between the Koreas, and a DMZ was established. The US vowed to maintain a defensive military presence in South Korea, which remained firmly in the Western sphere of influence.

However, victory was more due to the inability of the PRC and DPRK to advance rather than any strength of the US. Russian leadership perceived the PRC as too weak to fulfill its ambitions, and the US had simply benefited from that. They concluded not that the USSR had overstepped its bounds in Korea, but that the USSR could project its power more efficiently given proper execution and direct intervention. It was up to them only to find a more suitable location, where Western interference would be limited.

As Soviet strategists analyzed the war, a witch-hunt for political dissidents began in the Soviet Union. Dozens were claimed as co-conspirators in the murder of Josef Stalin

Out of this mess emerged Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov, the former foreign minister under Stalin. Though his power had been checked, Molotov had formed a conservative coalition and managed to muscle out Khrushchev and the liberal reformists. After Molotov's ascension to power in the Soviet Union, Beria was tried and found guilty of the murder of Josef Stalin. He was quickly executed by Zhukov and buried in an unmarked grave outside of Moscow. It was one of the more prominent episodes of Molotov’s initial phase of ‘cleaning house’. Unlike Stalin, however, Molotov was careful not to go so far as the previous General Secretary did. He had no intention of dying under such mysterious and politically charged atmosphere. While Molotov seemed to be more cold, calculating, and a suitable heir to Stalinist policies, he was far from an ideological clone of his predecessor. Molotov’s ascendancy also helped heal the rift created between the PRC and Stalin at the end of the latter’s reign. He agreed with Mao’s anti-revisionist policy, and did not agree with Stalin’s aims to reconcile with Tito. Molotov also held credibility with the Maoists because of his skepticism about ‘socialism in one country’. Molotov seemed to endorse the idea of spreading socialism in the traditional Russian spheres of influence, and forming a larger socialist bloc to defend against what he called “a conspiracy to encircle socialist nations with capitalist ones and their puppets”.

Molotov’s fears were far from unrealistic. Indeed, the Korean War, which the West considered blatant communist expansionism, had helped give credence to NATO’s fears, and prompted the US to form the ANZUS pact (1951), and begin negotiations for West and Southeast Asian alliances. This, in turn, further alienated India and drew it closer to Russia. It also set in motion various plans by the USSR to weaken Western influence in the region. The first matters of interest were the Arab nationalist and socialist groups. In 1952, the Free Officers Movement seized control of Egypt and deposed King Farouk. President Dewey’s administration labeled a majority of the movement’s members as communists or sympathetic to the cause. This label was not entirely accurate: while many members of the FOM were socialists, at the time they wished to be truly independent – non-aligned – rather than pro-USSR. Ironically enough, it was this sentiment that may have driven the FOM closer to the USSR. Believing they could rely on the tacit support of the USSR, the ‘Cairo Letter’ was written in late 1952, an appeal to the USSR to end support of Israel in exchange for possible concession to Soviet interests in Egypt. More fancifully, it told a tale of an Arab Socialist alliance that would ‘stand with the USSR in fighting imperialism’. Though it was not universally approved and written largely in secret, the idea seemed attractive to many FOM members. They could rid themselves of Israel and solidify their rule with foreign aid. The catch was keeping the US from finding out and interfering with Egypt. So both governments kept it quiet. Rather than allowing the more conservative Ali Maher or autocrat Naguib into power, Gamal Abdel Nasser was voted Prime Minister and official leader of Egypt, to assume power on January first of 1953. However, there was a problem in Nasser’s distrust of communists and left-wing radicals, who Nasser considered a threat to his power. But Molotov was more pragmatic: he believed he could at least bring Egypt into the Non-Aligned movement and take control of the canal out of Western hands.

The Soviets had also been reaching out to the Kurds, who they had supported before the Yalta agreements obliged them to remove forces from Iran. Having made contact with Mustafa Barzani, who had been living in Baku with the remnants of the Mahabad peshmerga, in 1951 Soviet policymakers began to explore the use of the Kurds as a lever to destabilize US interests in the Middle East, believing the US itself had contacts in Iraq and Iran through the British oil interests there.

The Italians followed through with their promise to grant Libya independence: on December 24th of 1951 the nation was free.

In Europe, George VI died and was replaced by Elizabeth II. Churchill formally announced Britain’s possession of nuclear arms, and the European Coal and Steel community was formed. More disturbingly, tensions escalated between the two German states. As West Germany joined the IMF, East Germany grew more volatile, threatening to raise its own military. A West German soldier was shot on the border amid emigration to West German territory. Both sides were nuclear armed and had their forces waiting and ready on the border. But Molotov was not eager to fight a war in Europe, and instead hoped to form solidarity within the communist bloc rather than cause trouble elsewhere. He strengthened COMECON and budged China and the DPRK towards greater participation. While China seemed warmer to the idea of COMECON, Kim Il-Sung was still bitter about the Korean War and declined.

Cuba saw a botched coup attempt during 1952 by Fulgencio Batista. Elections continued, but the United States vowed to keep a closer eye on Cuban politics, lest a communist come to power.

In the United States, the Dewey-Warren ticket won the election of 1952. Claiming success in Korea by staving off the communist threat, Dewey also tried to hold his moderate position. Strom Thurmond ran again as a Dixiecrat, believing that if the Democrats lost another election they would be forced to reassess their relationship with the south and the civil rights movement. The Democratic Stevenson ticket performed admirably given the split vote for the party, but the election further worried member politicians.

1953-1956

1953 brought the beginning of Dewey’s second term, and a strong economy despite fears of recession. The recession was not as hard as it could have been, though the Federal Reserve continued their demand-reducing policies, Dewey had put more money into domestic spending after the conclusion of the Korean War, but still attempted to reduce government size. What seemed more pressing was social, not economic change. In 1954, the Brown decision ravaged the constitutional basis for segregation in America’s schools, and put the entire ideology on the defensive. Some Democratic governors threatened to deploy their National Guard, but Dewey responded that he would not hesitate to send in the Army and federalize their states’ troops later in 1956. Nevertheless, while it strengthened the moderate Republicans’ credibility with the civil rights movement, it exacerbated racial tensions in the south. Dewey’s further opposition to the poll tax and many of the voting tests only deepened the split. The US was not entirely focused on domestic measures, though. In 1954, Dewey covertly stepped up military aid to France for their operations in Indochina, though he preferred an independent, anti-communist state. The campaign there dragged on through 1956; though France was facing increasing pressure to withdraw. The Cold War intensified in 1953 when the United States announced their possession of the hydrogen bomb, and the Workers’ Uprising in the GDR was smashed by Soviet forces in the region. Molotov tried to calm tensions in Europe, and remarked that what the Soviets did was no different than how America had supported France in Vietnam. GDR government also claimed American hands in the uprising, citing the conduct of radio stations in the American sectors of Germany and Berlin in their sensationalized reporting of the incident.

One of the defining moments came when Britain requested the assistance of the United States in preventing the nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in 1954. The United States and the UK, in perhaps the most infamous of the early CIA operations, began their plot to overthrow Mossadegh. But when Molotov heard of it, he was incensed. Having invited the Tudeh Party to participate in Cominform, he felt that continued American interference might lead to the destruction of the Tudeh Party. Deciding to align with the nationalists to prevent the US from keeping yet another ally on the Soviet border, he began plans to supply both the Kurdish communists and the Tudeh Party in 1953, as the CIA was setting up its own guerilla forces in the nation’s south. Neither side understood the full extent of the other’s involvement in Iran. In early 1954, Operation Ajax was put into motion, but not everything went as planned. There was absolute chaos in Tehran, and the Tudeh Party, on its own initiative, had tried to rally the nationalists, saying they had ‘common cause’ in preventing US interference in their politics. Guerilla forces backed by the powers clashed, and soon the conflict itself had exploded into civil war, with pro-West forces clashing with the nationalists and pro-Soviets. Kurds in the Northwest frontier revolted and with many of Iran’s forces drawn into the fighting there was little to oppose them. Barzani re-established the Republic of Mahabad, and Molotov allowed the fighters who had fled to Azerbaijan to return to Iran. The Shah fled the nation, and in the south the old government maintained nominal control, while Kurds and Tudeh forces held the most influence in the north. The British formally intervened in the region when they deployed naval forces to the Persian Gulf. They also negotiated a deal with other European powers, pledging to end the AIOC monopoly if they received support from other nations. France declared support, and as Molotov denounced Western intervention, Dewey began to regret his approval of Operation Ajax most seriously. MacArthur and other defense officials privately argued for formal US military intervention, and now Dewey was faced with a serious dilemma. He was afraid to commit troops to Iran after Korea, and knew that any victory would require US troops at the Soviet border. Such a solution was not tenable, with Dewey aware of reports that said the Soviets had already tested “super” yield weapons, and would have refined versions in production by 1956. So Dewey effectively left Britain and France on a limb, each with sizeable expeditionary forces deployed in southern Iran. In late 1955, both sides were at an impasse. Molotov did not want to fight a war over Iran. So in a series of negotiations, Iran was split into three nations: in the south was the regime controlled by the Shah and the military, while the north was controlled by the Tudeh-Nationalist coalition through Soviet backing. The pro-Soviet Republic of Mahabad was also created as a Kurdish homeland, and fortified with Soviet troops to prevent an invasion by Turkey or Iraq.

Outrage against Dewey reached a high. That he had allowed the Soviets to expand so flagrantly, and that it was the result of an ill-planned CIA coup was a political disaster. But surprisingly, this did not strengthen the foreign policy doves as much as it did the hawks: many said Dewey had not gone far enough, and that Molotov had been planning the communist-nationalist coalition’s ascendancy before the coup had occurred, which to some extent was true. Strategically, the results were mixed. While the Soviets had gained more influence, the majority of Iranian petroleum was now under Western control, at least for then. There were fears of the Baluchistani revolting, but the authoritarian regime seemed to have things under control. There was no formal peace signed between the pro-Western and pro-Soviet Iranian states, though since all the backers of these proxies had agreed to put a stop to escalation, there was little chance of any side waging a successful war against another.

Believing the costly adventure in Iran would discourage the West, Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. What he did not anticipate was the Israeli invasion, and though the British lent air support the war was quickly put to a stop by UN peacekeepers. To solidify the pro-Western forces in the region, the Baghdad Pact was signed between the southern government of Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, which Nasser saw as a direct threat.

The Soviets formed the Council for Mutual Defense, or ComDef, in 1956. It was an expansion of COMECON that included the Eastern Bloc in Europe, communist clients in Iran, and China as an observing member.

Dewey continued aid in Indochina though, and in 1956 France had regained nominal control. But the political toll was far too heavy. As a result, they decolonized the region and installed an authoritarian regime in its wake. France also reserved the right to intervene in the region if necessary, to protect its ‘trading interests’.

The support of the pro-western forces in Iran caused uproar in France, with many believing it was a poor decision by France to support the British and the Americans in the territory, especially with the war in Indochina not proceeding as well as the French Government would hope. At home, the 4th Republic, a weak coalition government was torn by internal squabbling with the De Gaullist Factions, who wished to make France more independent from what they saw as an Anglo-American co-dominance. When in 1956, the 4th Republic was dealt a double blow, with the believed surrendering of Indochina, and the end of the French Intervention in Iran, the 4th Republic began to come apart at the seams. In 1956, France went through 3 Prime Ministers alone.

Soviet, PRC, and US backing of revolutionary movements in Portuguese Africa continued, while the Central African Federation was formed to create a middle ground between radical African nationalism and white oppression in South Africa. But the policies of the Central African Federation were often paternalistic and mildly racist, yet amid the chaos of sub-Saharan Africa, it seemed an attractive option at the time. The support for the SACP increased throughout these years, alarming the United States. Dewey, however, was uncomfortable supporting racist South Africa even covertly.

In 1956, Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. ran as the Republican candidate, but despite his pledges to be ‘hard on communism’, he was marred by the forced compromise in the Iranian crisis. His opponent was Adlai Stevenson, who had stepped up his anti-communist rhetoric. The election was a victory for Stevenson, and Democrats came out with majorities in both houses of Congress.

1957-1960

Adlai Stevenson was sworn with a promise for defending liberty both at home and abroad. Stevenson’s position on civil rights issues enraged the south (despite the fact that Stevenson was really a moderate when compared to the former Progressive Party supporters who’d rejoined the ranks of the Democrats), causing some to turn towards the populist-conservative wing of the Republican Party. But Stevenson seemed determined to shake the perception of weakness that his association with New Politics brought him. Stevenson did not believing in attacking the Soviet Union as some had advocated during the Iran crisis, but he did believe in taking the initiative to show that the United States was a ‘moral, not just an economic and military’ superior to the Soviet Union. But he was forced to admit, after the embarrassment of Iran, that the US would need to maintain a strong military force.

One of the lessons of Iran was that the United States could not fully rely on conventional delivery methods for nuclear weapons. Air Force and national security officials instrumental in the ICBM development program said that the Soviet overthrow and takeover of a nation with US airbases or conventional forces left America vulnerable in comparison to the Soviet Union, and for an effective deterrent, America needed the capability to launch using rockets, secure in the American homeland. They also advised the Soviets were looking into the same project, though it had faced some setbacks of its own. Nevertheless, the US launched its first satellite less than a month after the Soviets launched theirs, in November of 1957. Though the US was not so far behind the Soviet program, Stevenson promised to reinvigorate American education.

Stevenson also encouraged the use of an all-volunteer Army, but because of the near technological parity with the Soviets and the Soviet interventions in Hungary and Poland that year, Americans was unsure the nation could afford to slim down their own military in such a manner.

Anti-Stalinist and Anti-Soviet uprisings shook Poland and Hungary in early 1957, and threatened to spread into other Eastern Bloc nations. Calling for self determination, liberalization and reform, the revolts drew the response of Soviet military forces in the early summer of that year. Though Westerners called Molotov a hypocrite for pursuing such actions, he replied that the uprisings were influenced by Western forces and constituted a threat to the ComDef nations. Poland was similarly suppressed, though its uprisings were less widespread than those in Hungary after the revolutionaries were crushed by Soviet forces. This coincided with continuing levels of emigration from Eastern Europe, worrying many that the professionals and skilled workers would soon flee the country. In 1960 the Soviets stepped up their presence in the region and began construction of a wall, though Molotov tried to reassure the West that it was a ‘defensive measure’, due primarily to fears of foreign infiltrators stirring up insurrection.

China’s ‘Great Leap Forward’ policy was implemented, causing disaster throughout the nation. Molotov, though he admired the revolutionary spirit of the Chinese, reformed some of the USSR’s own economic policies after the jarring effects of the 1957 revolutions and the economic failure of the Great Leap Forward, particularly those relating to agriculture. However, the centralized industry of the Soviet economy performed reasonably effectively throughout the period.

With the perception of the defeats in Indochina and Iran, the French Parliament, in elections called in 1958, brought in a majority De Gaullist party, and With Charles De Gaulle Sworn in as the President of France, he abolished the 4th Republic and brought the dawn of the 5th Republic. However, as 1960 approaches, a new situation is beginning to arise with a new communist insurgency forming in Vietnam, as well as a General Independence movement in Algeria.

Stevenson responded by boosting US foreign involvement in promoting democratic, free nations through US aid and defense. He opposed overthrows of Latin American populist and left-wing governments, stating publicly that it was the right of the people to have self-determination, but privately confiding that the debacle in Iran meant that such adventurism might have disastrous consequences. As Molotov had little interest in actively supporting communist revolutions in Latin America, this policy was largely successful.

1958 marked a firm boost for the liberal Democrats, but largely, pro-Civil Rights legislation was a byproduct of bipartisanship due to socially conservative factions within each party. However, as communists gained strength in Southeast Asia and the Soviets locked down in Europe, many were wondering if the US was doing enough against communism. Over the next two years, Alaska and Hawaii were admitted as US states.

The US and Canada implemented NORAD in 1958, though in 1959, the Cold War powers signed the first arms-control treaty that prevented the militarization of Antarctica. However, the US also began fielding the first submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and both sides continued development of strategic and conventional arms.

In 1958, the political landscape of the Middle East continued to shift. The United Arab Republic of Egypt and Syria was formed, followed weeks later by the Arab Federation of Iraq and Jordan. There was an attempted coup in the latter in 1958, but it was defeated when British forces based in Kuwait and CIA elements prevented the operation, believing the Hashemites would be easier to keep in the Western sphere of influence and were proponents of the anti-Soviet and anti-Nasser Baghdad Pact. In response to instability in the Arab Federation, communist-backed Kurdish insurgencies sprung up in Iraqi Kurdistan and Turkey. The UAR reached out to northern Kingdom of Yemen to form the United Arab States, and in response, Britain formed the Federation of Arab Emirates of the South.

In Asia, the French-backed dictatorship in Vietnam was experiencing the rumblings of communist insurgency once again. Though nominally independent, the government requested France assist in the quelling of this rebellion, and later asked the American CIA for the same help.

As the election of 1960 approached, Democrats hope that the Republican Party will split between the moderate-liberals such as Nelson Rockefeller and Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., and the conservatives, lead by hardliners such as Barry Goldwater. Though Lodge prevailed, there was heavy pressure for him to choose a conservative Vice President. Controversially, that Vice President was Goldwater himself. But ultimately their ticket faltered after another close election. Though many hard-line Dixiecrats did not vote for Stevenson again, they were little interested in New England liberal Lodge either. On the other hand, Stevenson’s civil rights program combined with his liberal economics mobilized the black vote and working class vote nationwide and helped secure his reelection. Lodge’s association with the Iran debacle also helped dissuade many moderate voters.

1961-1964

1961 was a great boost to the American national psyche: Alan Shepherd is the first human in orbit by a week. However, most of the other developments in the Cold War are less encouraging. Kurdish communist uprisings spread to both Turkey and the Arab Federation, while in the Arab Federation, Iraqis protested against the monarchy. As violence intensified, the monarchy in Iraq crashed down and a coalition of military leaders took control of the country. They announced their withdrawal from the Baghdad Pact (renamed to CENTO) and opened up relations with Russia, though they remained steadfastly nationalist and sought support from other Arab nations rather than the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, India crept closer towards the communist sphere when the USSR helped mediate a Sino-Indian border dispute. This brought the US to increase support for Pakistan and cool relations towards Nehru in India, while war between India and Pakistan continued to loom.

Communist insurgency continued in Indochina, though the government of Vietnam was attempting to negotiate a cease-fire and a peace compromise. Eventually, popular protests forced the

In the Soviet Union, Molotov’s plans for liberalization were derailed when evidence of a plot by reformist factions to take control of the government surfaced. But rather than executing them, Molotov simply filed them away into politically worthless positions. More importantly, the 1961 plot lead Molotov to scale back his liberalization plans, as meager as they were already, and solidified the conservatives. Believing that any sign of weakness in foreign or domestic policy would encourage both Americans and internal opposition, they stepped up rhetoric against the United States and the West to try and unify the populace behind the hardliners. This frustrated Stevenson, who found in 1962 that negotiation with the Soviet Union seemed to be going nowhere.

Pressure by the USSR and Maoists helped control the backlash from the failure of the Great Leap Forward. Molotov provided economic assistance and advised Mao on how to more efficiently plan the economy of China. Though some dissented to this, Mao began to take control of Chinese ‘socialist education’, indoctrinating youths with a new cult of personality.

In 1962, there was an internal power struggle in Iraq between the conservatives and socialist aligned generals. Hoping to replay their victory in Iran, Soviets backed the socialist forces and the People’s Socialist Republic of Kurdistan (formerly the Republic of Mahabad) in their efforts to secure independence against the nationalist dominated government. The Soviets promised to aid the Iraqi socialists on the condition they accepted concessions in the north to Kurdistan. Turkey supplied aid to the anti-socialist and anti-Kurdish nationalists, and tensions in the region mounted as both sides massed troops in reserve in case of an outbreak of hot war. It was during this time that Stevenson realized that his efforts to negotiate with Molotov were gaining little ground, and pessimism about Stevenson was reflected in the conduct and outcome of the 1962 Congressional elections: hawkish Republicans and Democrats campaigned and won on the issue of being ‘tougher’ on the expansionist Soviet Union. Realizing that he could not live in fear of repeating Iran forever, Stevenson gave the green-light for several anti-communist operations across the world in 1962 and 1963.

In late 1962, with socialist forces making gains in Iraq, the CIA assassinates one of the pro-socialist generals and begins providing military aid to Kuwait, hoping to prevent it from being added into the growing regional conflagration. Saudi Arabia’s monarchy also receives military support from the United States. When Ne Win, a Burmese socialist, overthrows the government with foreign backing, the United States steps up aid to former Indochina, though Stevenson puts more pressure on the Vietnamese to implement more democratic elements in their government.

In 1963, the CIA began a major boost in cooperation and aid to anti-communist leaders and forces in Latin America. Stevenson was doubtful that this was the best course, but felt that if he used aid in Latin America to prevent communist uprisings, democratic systems could be maintained.

Africa was undergoing turmoil as the Central African Federation entered a time of power-struggle between blacks and whites, with some fearing a pro-communist uprising. Angola also fell into civil war, and chaos erupted in the Congo. In 1963, forces loyal to the government of the CAF from Southern Rhodesia used political coercion to prevent the declaration of independence by Northern Rhodesia, though Malawi declared independence that year with universal suffrage and a black majority government. Britain put increasing pressure on Rhodesia to adopt majority rule, whether it wanted independence or not.

In the Congo, Patrice Lumumba fled the country in 1961 to the United Arab Republic. Soviet support continued for the Stanleyville government. The UN deployed peacekeeping troops to the nation to try and negotiate a political reunification. Stevenson, believing just as much in the rights of blacks in Africa as he did in America, tried to moderate the dispute, but when the crimes (in reality no different than those of any other faction in the Congo) and supposed communist associations of pro-Lumumba elements were revealed, he was forced to step down his support somewhat. Nevertheless, by the time UN negotiations under Hammarskjold were running, it appeared that Congo might be permanently divided between a pro-Western and a more left-leaning government, with the possibility of Katanga remaining independent. By 1964, chances of Katanga’s secession were reduced as they were offered a semi-autonomous political status and Tshombe saw the chance to take over the Congo government. The Rival National Government had changed in form since 1962, though, and now it was more of a rebel force backed by leftist and anti-colonial interests.
 
I don't like posting stuff that just says "cool." But, Cool! :)

Seriously, I haad a chance to do an Honors Independent Study for history my senior year, after taking AP history my junior. I elected for a 2nd study hall. This is the kind of thing, if I had it to do over again, I would have liked to do. Then again, if let me get lots of homework done in school, and you can't get those glorious days back. So, I guess I made the right choice. Still, it's fun to see a TL explored this in depth.
 
Ah, thank you.

Well this actually helped me review for my own USHII AP course. Lots of stuff in the 50s and 60s I had to dig out...

Right now my main hangup is Presidential nominations of '64... Once I finally decide who gets nom'd, I can decide who wins, and then what happens after that. I actually have two parallel TLs outlined, AH within an AH, heh.
 
I need more paragraph breaks, myself, but cool.

1964 nominations? Have we met? :)

On the Democratic side:

JFK, natch, if he's around.
LBJ
Humphrey


On the Republican side:

Lodge may try again, or he may pull a Nixon and go for 1968.

Rockefeller, of course, that man ran for president for over a decade.

Goldwater, probably not. He never really wanted to President and IOTL was drafted into it, really.

NY Mayor John Lindsay, assuming he ends up there by now. He may well be a Democrat, though.

If George Romney is around he's a possibility.

----
What kind of people are you looking for? I can probably come up with them.
 
I need more paragraph breaks, myself, but cool.

1964 nominations? Have we met? :)

On the Democratic side:

JFK, natch, if he's around.
LBJ
Humphrey


On the Republican side:

Lodge may try again, or he may pull a Nixon and go for 1968.

Rockefeller, of course, that man ran for president for over a decade.

Goldwater, probably not. He never really wanted to President and IOTL was drafted into it, really.

NY Mayor John Lindsay, assuming he ends up there by now. He may well be a Democrat, though.

If George Romney is around he's a possibility.

----
What kind of people are you looking for? I can probably come up with them.

Don't forget PA governor Bill Scranton: he wanted the nomination but the Goldwater flood tide prevented that. Given different circumstances, he's a decided possibility if Rockefeller is not the nominee. He would also be a reasonable running mate for someone other than Rockefeller or Lindsay: it wouldn't play well with the midwest, for example, to have two moderate-to-liberal northeasterners on the ticket.
 
Well, the Republican Party of TTL is a bit more liberal than in OTL, but in 1964, the mood is calling for someone really tough on communism. So I'm not sure whether Lodge or Rockefeller would step up to a much tougher foreign policy, or if Republicans would draft Goldwater as in OTL for his foreign policy views.

Democrat wise, I think the candidates would have to harden their foreign policy rhetoric to have a chance... Which the 3 main Dems could probably handle.
 
Well… Scranton kinda ran a campaign against Goldwater because no one else would, not so much because he thought he had a chance. But yeah, popular governor of a major state makes him an automatic possibility at the time.

You want Nixon for the hardline anti-commie bit, then, and he's a moderate of the times (and, amusingly enough, the Democratic Party of 2008 would consider him too liberal to be the nominee :).

However it's probable that without the VP slot he doesn't rise to prominence as more then a sane version of McCarthy. Hmm.

So I don't know. Lodge has the foreign policy cred and is moderate, Rockefeller has no foreign policy experience (Scranton is Rockefeller lite), Goldwater is too conservative for even the Republican Party of OTL 1964 (Rockefeller would have won sans remarriage) so I doubt he'd win.

As for the Democratic nomination, remember that JFK—IOTL—ran on the (erroneous) claim that the Russians had a big advantage in missiles and neither Eisenhower or Nixon were able to smack him down over it because they put national security above an election (shocking, I know). JFK, as long as he wins a non-Catholic state in the primaries is a great candidate with a great team behind him and very little of the changes in your timeline should impact on that.

I'd say Lodge (with someone like Nixon, or even Goldwater, as the VP) in a grudge match against the man who cost him his Senate seat in 1952 (if your TL has the same event)—JFK. He may go with LBJ again for VP, if not there are a few reasonable Democratic candidates floating around.

However… if you want an interesting guy how about William F. Knowland (R-Calif.)?

He was from the Senate, slow to criticize McCarthy (=support from anti-commie Republicans, although his reasons were more about the institution of the Senate), very strong support for Formosa and the Nationalists and ran for Governor of California in 1958 in the Big Switch (he defeated the incumbent Republican Governor, Goodwin Knight, in the primaries who then ran for Knowland's Senate seat).

Let's say in your timeline the Big Switch works instead of failing miserably and Knowland becomes the popular Governor of California. Only 2 years in he declines to run for the 1960 nomination but supports the more conservative establishment and hence gains some support—he's moderate, but not Eastern Liberal.

Assuming he wins a second term he's very positioned to run for President in 1964. Sort of like the Western Rockefeller minus scandal plus Senate experience.
 
Has harold Stassen's consistent running of OTL become the same in the ATL, or would he have a chance to win the nomination?

Earl Warrn is probably a little old, isn't he? ISTR he was born in the early 1890s, right? Though he might be the kind who would throw his support behind Knowland. if he's not on the Supreme Court he might still be popular enough in his home state of California to affect things, thereby perhaps causing the butterfly that makes the Big Switch work. (I hadn't known about it, that's interest.)
 
The problem with Lodge being a strong candidate is that his reputation is still soiled by the foul-up in Iran when he was Dewey's Secretary of State. Maybe his other successes might outweigh that, and he could get the nomination. But I figure if an Easterner runs, Goldwater will probably be the Vice Presidential candidate.

So basically, I have the Republican race between Rockefeller and Lodge.

I have decided that the 64 ticket will still be JFK-Johnson... The race would likely still be close, and Kennedy might be hindered by any problems Stevenson left over.
 
Earl Warren is considered old at the time, though he would live way longer then might otherwise be thought.

Now that I've thought about it a little more (and went back over the last few years of your timeline) I don't think Lodge would get it (although 1968 is a possibility). He's simply not as strong a candidate as in OTL, and although his opposition is weaker (Goldwater minus the Draft movement, Rockefeller… hmm. Actually did Rockefeller remarry in your timeline? Because his remarriage and the kid sunk him in 1964) there's a possibility of…

Knowland.

Frankly I think Knowland's your guy. Just posit that a) the Big Switch works and b) he's a good governor of California. The first is easy with butterflies, the second is rather likely if he had the office.

Like I said a Western Moderate with anti-communist credentials (who has both Senate and Governor experience) is bound to be liked over Eastern Liberals—not least because the SoCal conservatives would like a guy from their state, even if he isn't as conservative as they might otherwise like—, and the conservative forces in the party are probably much more favourably disposed to the guy simply because he doesn't (quite) represent the progressive/Teddy Roosevelt branch of the party and they understand that getting Goldwater through is unlikely.
 
Look at what I found...

1964-1968

In late 1964, the Soviet Army contingent in Kurdistan clashed with Iraqi conservative forces, and Soviet-trained pilots gave Iraqi socialists the cover they needed to take Baghdad, one of the last holdouts of the conservative factions. Meanwhile, tensions between India and Pakistan were rising. India’s ties to the Soviet Union had lead it to be lumped in with communist nations, despite its desire to maintain good relations with both sides in the Cold War. These events, combined with the American Party, narrowly handed the election to Nelson Rockefeller, who in his inauguration promised to ‘take the initiative against communism’.

The opportunity for that policy to be put in place announced itself in March of 1965, when India occupied all of Kashmir and attacked Pakistan, which had earlier deployed saboteurs to Kashmir. Rockefeller immediately announced, based on SEATO and CENTO ties, that he would provide aid to Pakistan. More training for Pakistani tank crews, more of the new F-104 fighters for the PAF, and a myriad of other weapons and support helped push the balance of conflict slightly in Pakistan’s favor, especially with CIA intelligence assistance.

As news of CIA assistance in the bombings of India spread, India became increasingly anti-American. Pro-communist activity was already surging in the region, with Nepal falling to a Maoist revolution in 1964 and many communists in India urging closer ties with the USSR. Anti-Western feelings and pro-Soviet politics were at the norm in the nation as fighting dragged down.

The fighting continued until June of 1965 when India bargained for peace, with mediation by the French, US, and Soviet Union. Geographically, the result was a stalemate, but militarily the Pakistanis were at an advantage. When Shastri died a month after negotiations had ended in January of 1966, Indira Gandhi took control of the nation shortly afterward and increasingly drove India towards the Soviet Union. Fearing the possibility that Pakistan’s SEATO/CENTO membership would help it procure more advanced arms, India began buying more arms from the Soviet Union, straining India’s relations with the West and its claim to be a ‘Non-Aligned’ nation in the international community.

Rockefeller labeled the war as an unfortunate but necessary conflict, and it helped dispel some of the remaining public fear over US intervention in foreign affairs. Domestically, the Rockefeller administration pursued a moderate-liberal agenda, proving successful in Congress to the frustration of the American South. The ‘long, hot summers’ of the mid sixties only further polarized the sides of the civil rights debate.

Then, on July 19th of 1965, disaster struck.
While the President visited New York City to commemorate the launching of the last naval vessel from the Brooklyn Naval Yard, a deranged communist-sympathizer opened fire with a handgun. Originally, the gunman had hoped to kill “that son-of-a-bitch fascist Goldwater,” but upon seeing he wasn’t there decided “the President wasn’t much better.” In shock, the nation cried for blood and riots erupted as people lashed out against a (mostly imaginary) Red menace at home.

A solemn Goldwater declared: “Now is no time to sacrifice our liberties, we must draw on them for strength in the time ahead. But to preserve them, we must be unflinching in our will and duty.” Americans demanded action, and Goldwater would oblige them with gusto.

As fighting in Iraq intensified, Democrats and Republicans alike began to seriously mull military intervention in the nation. Believing the creation of the Socialist Republics of Iran and Kurdistan to be evidence of how communism could spill outward, Goldwater ordered the deployment of US advisors into Kuwait and Iraq in 1966. In retaliation, Arab socialists bombed an airliner at Kuwait’s main airport, targeted against a CIA officer but incidentally killing several Europeans and Americans. Links were traced back to terrorist movements associated with Pan-Arab Socialist political parties, and Goldwater then ordered the bombing and deployment of Special Forces into Iraq to destroy ‘training camps and facilities’ for the groups. Airbases controlled by the Socialists were politically out of reach, as many were in Kurdistan or Iran. The US began operating fighter flights out of Turkey, which was equally concerned with Kurdish separatists, to shoot down socialist air sorties operating from foreign nations over ‘Iraqi’ airspace.

When the elections of 1966 showed a fairly solid bloc of Congressmen were behind military action in Iraq, Goldwater deployed more troops, with Congressional authorization to the region. Goldwater also was determined to expand the US space program, something that received bipartisan support and great praise from Kennedy. Major legislation to authorize NASA funding expansions began before the elections and continued after 1966 in earnest. It was one of the few bright spots in the Cold War for Americans at that time.

Molotov, though he had inspired fear in the Americans, was not happy either. The US decision to deploy troops to Iraq put the Soviet leader in a difficult position. To lose Iraq to the US and have military troops employed might set up a death blow for Kurdistan and northern Iran. Unconditional military support, however, risked driving the aggressive Goldwater into a major war. As a compromise solution, he allowed forces from the Republic of Mahabad and Kurdish ‘volunteer’ brigades, armed and trained by the USSR, to participate in the fighting.

Ideologically, Goldwater’s decision to intervene in the Iraqi civil war may have accelerated any hybridization of the regionally focused Arab Socialist tradition with genuine Marxism. The newer officers and leaders who warmed to Marxism received more support, and even those who were not interested in becoming fully Soviet-aligned saw the support of the Communist bloc as a necessary measure to secure true independence from Western interference. The war had polarized the factions – each side could no longer survive without the support of its foreign benefactor, but no government could emerge without the support of one of the factions and the alienation of the other.

US troops in the region numbered 70,000 by 1967, with policy questions arising as violence in the region intensified. Small Arab Socialist groups began destabilizing the monarchy in Jordan, while the militarization of the United Arab Republic was making Israel, Jordan, and others in the region paranoid.

In South Yemen, the NLF took over in 1967, with an energetic Marxist-Socialist wing. Yemen was declared a People’s Democratic Republic by the end of the year.

In Europe, the Labour Party took control in 1964 under Harold Wilson, who pursued pro-European and generally center-left economic policy. However, he came into conflict with Goldwater over the issue of foreign policy. Wilson thought Goldwater to be an extremist, and never committed significant amounts of British forces to the region. He worried that British deployment into the region would recall all of the worst aspects about British imperial policies. At the same time, however, British and French assets in Southern Iran came under attack from anti-government guerillas, while news that Anglo-French support for the Israeli military was on the rise infuriated the Arab world. Thus, there were still significant elements of the British population which thought Wilson was far too weak on foreign policy matters and were looking for an excuse to replace him with a more aggressive leader.

Ultimately, the final straw came when the extent of Anglo-French involvement in an Israeli nuclear program became publicly known. The United Arab Republic, which previously did not want to admit its knowledge of an Israeli nuclear program for fear of appearing weak to its people, demanded increased support to balance against the ‘Zionist nuclear threat’. As American troops became increasingly involved in Iraqi combat, the UAR petitioned OPEC to embargo all NATO states. OPEC did not oblige. South Iran was dependent on NATO for its existence, while the Saudis were hesitant to anger a power with dozens of thousands of soldiers on its borders.

Upon having secured Soviet guarantees of protection from a ‘sovereignty-threatening’ strike by Israel, Nasser declared he would blockade the Suez Canal to petroleum shipments (with a special exemption to COMECON flagged tankers). A politically desperate move, Nasser hoped the Europeans would grovel at his feet rather than foolishly attempt military action against him. With oil prices spiking around the world, but especially in Europe, the world wondered how the West, and especially American voters, would react.

The Congolese civil war continued, with neither side seeming to make much headway. Support from South Africa and Northern Rhodesia began to prop up the rightist elements of the government, while COMECON continued to funnel support for the Rival National Government. The Chinese were taking a particularly active role, as more and more Soviet resources were funneled into the Middle Eastern conflagration.

China itself, though, was hardly an island of stability. The affinity between Moscow and Beijing had forced Mao to polarize Chinese politics, declaring his political rivals to be tools of the capitalists in Taiwan. Yet increasingly people were warming to Deng’s idea of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and so in 1966 the Cultural Revolution had begun. Unfortunately for Mao, he had not expected resistance to be so significant. Panicking, he broadened the scope and heightened the hysteria of the event to the point where China in 1968 seemed poised to erupt in civil war. Political competency made one a target, and mid-level officials perished while figures such as Mao, Deng, and Liu lived in constant fear of assassination. Despite this, the Soviets continued their support for the Chinese nuclear program. Lingering disputes over the Great Leap Forward were always a sticking point between the two great communist powers, and the Soviets knew Mao would not hesitate to blame the Soviets if the opportunity was available and the scapegoat necessary.
 
It's back!

Heh, you snuck Goldwater in. Would he really get the VP nod twice? He does shoot his mouth off a lot.

Hmm. No 25th means no VP. Goldwater has to pick a moderate if he runs for President again (that is, if he doesn't get challenged/defeated in the primaries which is a strong possibility). Who do the Dems put up in '68?

Civil Rights is going to be nasty with Goldwater as President… with no LBJ and King to push him it's a non-starter; Goldwater himself isn't going to advance that agenda.

School busing? What's the ATL Supreme Court like?
 
Even if it's a bit of stretch (which I don't think it is for reasons too long to mention in a parenthetical), Goldwater as the Johnson-esque VP is great.

Speaking of the 25th (which might be passed under the current circumstances) were the 22nd through 24th ammendments passed as OTL? I'm guess a definite yes for the 24th (no poll taxes) given your mention of Dewey's stance on the issue. The big question to me is whether Dewey's election in 1948 butterflies the support for the 22nd.

Have we had a definitive Civil Rights Act yet? I can't tell; it seems things are proceeding a bit more piecemeal / gradually (you mention the bipartisanship required). Does MLK still rise to prominence?

It also seems like Latin America is humming along without too much mention, save for Batista's failed coup and Stevenson's policy of supporting rights of self-determination. Does this lead to more stability in the region?
 
Nice work Blochead however I do have a small concern. What ever happened to Castro and the revolution? Cuba’s elections were hardly democratic during this period and it seems just because Batista didn’t succeed the revolution is gone. I understand that Castro will not become openly communist in this timeline however the revolution would not just be butter flied away without a major change in Cuban Domestic Politics. America had little effect on the actual war, which Castro and his men waged. It was the Cuban Government, which was the problem. Castro made sure never to offend the Americans during the war. So I see no reason why he would not win. He would actually have an easier time in this Timeline.
 
ATL supreme court is about the same on Civil Rights issues, between Dewey and Stevenson. Goldwater could make it REALLY interesting though.

The OTL 22nd Amendment doesn't exist, the others do in a pretty similar form. MLK is prominent but with the gradualism of the Dewey and Stevenson administrations the more 'radical' leaders are a bit more prominent than in OTL.

As for Latin America, the general agreement is that as long as you aren't doing anything with Communists or blatantly provoking the US, you'll be left alone. As for Cuba, there probably was a revolution or coup but the resultant government is well within the limits of the Stevenson Doctrine's tolerance, essentially its social-democratic and Castro will not achieve anywhere near the longevity his government has in OTL.

EDIT: Of course, the real question is where do I go from here? That last update was one already written but not posted. We'll see how 'exciting' the rest of the TL gets...
 
As for Cuba, there probably was a revolution or coup but the resultant government is well within the limits of the Stevenson Doctrine's tolerance, essentially its social-democratic and Castro will not achieve anywhere near the longevity his government has in OTL.

Well Castro was awful popular. I know his 26th of July Movement would collapse over time however Castro can easily work within a Democratic agenda if the US doesn't pour money in to the opposition. Prime Minister Castro with Figurehead President Manuel Urrutia will be a sure election victory and long-term fixture if events are in anyway similar to OTL. When Castro came down from the mountains in OTL he was a superhero to the people and immensely popular.
 
Again, events really aren't going to be that similar to OTL. The ATL Cuban government isn't going to be as oppressive, the ATL revolution will not be anywhere near as politically significant or romanticized as OTL's, and Castro won't be able to blame everything on the US, or have major political dissidents exiled/imprisoned, or receive oodles of foreign support. He might last longer than the average Latin American leader, but not for decades.
 
ATL supreme court is about the same on Civil Rights issues, between Dewey and Stevenson. Goldwater could make it REALLY interesting though.

The OTL 22nd Amendment doesn't exist, the others do in a pretty similar form. MLK is prominent but with the gradualism of the Dewey and Stevenson administrations the more 'radical' leaders are a bit more prominent than in OTL.

As for Latin America, the general agreement is that as long as you aren't doing anything with Communists or blatantly provoking the US, you'll be left alone. As for Cuba, there probably was a revolution or coup but the resultant government is well within the limits of the Stevenson Doctrine's tolerance, essentially its social-democratic and Castro will not achieve anywhere near the longevity his government has in OTL.

EDIT: Of course, the real question is where do I go from here? That last update was one already written but not posted. We'll see how 'exciting' the rest of the TL gets...

I think the rest of the TL has a lot of potential. As a testament, I've written the following questions. Take them as a sign of my interest. :)

First, Molotov's Soviet Union seems much more resilient than that of Khrushchev and Brezhnev. Containment has not been as successful TTL, particularly in the Middle East. The Goldwater administration seems poised to explore an even more confrontational policy against the Soviets...and of course you haven't had an equivalent of a Cuban Missile Crisis to remind both Cold War powers that the stakes of their competition involve the survival of humanity itself. Goldwater being involved in such a standoff might be very interesting (as long as he doesn't blow anything up). I'd imagine the reaction might be a much stronger detente.

Similarly, if Deng is victorious in TTL's Cultural Revolution and given the drift of India into the Soviet sphere, there's an interesting possibility for a Nixon-esque engagement with China to be coupled with a more overt entrance of India into TTL's Communist bloc (probably not politically, but they could enter ComDEF). This might have the very interesting effect of allowing more democratic methods to creep into the Soviet sphere, by influence of Indian politics.

Next, the alt-history of Civil Rights has very interesting possibilities. If you avoid busing as enforced OTL, then you probably change the nature of American cities, by lessening the incentives that fueled "White Flight". With this kind of gradualism, an explicit ERA may find broader support as the crowning achievement of civil rights. Then you also have the ability to determine what the face of welfare in TTL USA is: does something like the Great Society come about? If not and welfare is delayed until the 1970s, does it take a different form (i.e. Earned Income Tax credit, negative income tax, flat tax, transfer payments)? Does something like National Health Insurance become a reality? What happens to the Environmental movement? If things like the EPA and the Clean Air & Water acts are passed under a genuine believer (rather than Nixon), do they have more teeth?

Given the increased tension in the Middle East, even without an embargo, I'd expect oil prices to be normally higher than they were OTL. Certainly the continual competition in the Middle East might shift the emphasis in exploration to Nigeria, Venezuela, and Mexico. Has North Sea oil been found? OTL, this was responsible for defusing the price increases caused by the Energy Crises of the 1970s.

How has the European integration been affected by TTL's events? Has de Gaulle kept the UK out of the EEC? Has he taken France out of NATO's unified command structure?

Has social change progressed as OTL? Was there a "British Invasion"? Was there a Hippie movement? Will there be a Yuppie movement?

Is technological change progressing per OTL? Who and which company will invent the PC? Graphical User Interface? Will the Internet advance per OTL? Will the space race scale back in the 1970s?

Does Dewey enact an Interstate Highway system? Do the car manufacturers manage to keep the US from developing more widespread support (i.e. government money for) mass transit and rail systems?

I hope these helps. I await the next installment with interest.
 
Top