DBWI Barry Goldwater loses

A good P.O.D. would be Goldwater running against Johnson in '64 rather than '68.
Goldwater said he couldn't bear to run after the death of Kennedy though. They were friends despite their disagreements. Also it would be obvious that there was no way to beat Johnson, and Goldwater would be giving up his Senate seat. Better to let Rockefeller crash and burn against Johnson like OTL.

There are two solutions I see:
1. Vietnam doesn't go anywhere near as badly. Johnson's more popular in '68, enough to win
2. Johnson sees the writing on the wall, decides against running in '68, lets RFK take the nomination and beat Goldwater four years early.
3. Somehow kill the Voting Rights Act. Like kill it before it can be brought up to a vote, so Goldwater doesn't have a chance to vote in favor of it and give himself a better reputation on civil rights.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if either of the Vietnams would have recovered from the fire-bombing campaign Goldwater ordered. At least he didn't follow through with his threat to drop nukes, though the fire-bombing was probably as bad.
 
I wonder if either of the Vietnams would have recovered from the fire-bombing campaign Goldwater ordered. At least he didn't follow through with his threat to drop nukes, though the fire-bombing was probably as bad.

If Goldwater hadn't been president, then there wouldn't have been a firebombing campaign to recover from (at least not on the same scale), so that first sentence is a moot point ;). As I'm sure you know, the ceasefire was pretty much a redux of the end of the First Korean War; North goes to the communists, South goes to the West. At least North Vietnam let itself go out with a whimper when the USSR folded. I don't want to think about what would have happened if it had decided to follow North Korea's lead and go out with a bang.

As for the second part of your post, there was almost enough public sentiment to get Goldie sent up in front of the Hague for war crimes after the firebombing campaign: if he had used nukes, then there would be nothing that could have saved him (though whether the Hague would actually convict a former U.S. president is another matter). RFK would have won in '72 by an even bigger margin than he did, and Reagan would have heartily disavowed Goldwater's support in '76, which - ironically - might have given the Gipper the final push he needed to get over the top.
 
Better to let Rockefeller crash and burn against Johnson like OTL.

1. Vietnam doesn't go anywhere near as badly. Johnson's more popular in '64, enough to win
2. Johnson sees the writing on the wall, decides against running in '68, lets RFK take the nomination and beat Goldwater four years early.

OOC: I'm confused. The first and third sentences make it sound like Johnson dominates in '64 (like the real OTL), but the second sentence makes it sound like he lost.
 
The US doesn't get treated as a pariah in the late 60's and 70's and have to rebuild their reputation and rebuild the trust of their allies. It probably changed europe and the west's perspective from 'yeah we're behind you all the way' to 'we're only with you cause the USSR is worse'.

Don't underestimate the damage that Goldwater's firebombing did to the country either. Yes they won the war and Vietnam avoided communism, but at what cost. Vietnam was highly authoritarian until about 15 years ago and is still one of the poorest countries in Asia and poorer than all their neighbours.

I think to this day he's about the only US president that's been called in front of the Hague (even if nothing came out of it).

From a domestic standpoint. I guess maybe you don't have the huge anti-war sentiment from the US standpoint (and thus, less of a crackdown) and you don't get George McGovern as president.
 
Top