Dewey wins TL (ex-contest entry)

A few of your questions will probably be answered in the next update (which I've started typing up), but as for the rest...

The Civil Rights movement is essentially ending up in the same place as it was in 1968 OTL, but its been done in a different way. The Dewey administration exerted more pressure on the states than Eisenhower did, but the perception among the people is that the government has been going too slowly. There's more tension built up in some respects. The ERA may come to exist in a slightly different form (add 'race' and not just 'sex'), and it'll certainly make for an interesting US. But that may be getting ahead of myself. But I think for interest's sake we'll see different legislation in the US on civil rights and welfare.

The UK still gets its entry into the EEC delayed, but France never dropped out of NATO's unified command, thanks to US support for France in Indochina and other areas.

Oil prices are indeed a great deal higher, and Latin American oil is of vital importance to the US, while Europeans will be leading the way in searches for African oil. Asia will not receive as much exploration early on due to the Suez blockade, which essentially makes the development of Asian oil sources less appealing for European powers.

Social movements so far have been relatively similar, though as the timeline goes on they may start to look more different. In the US, though, they've been less politicized so far.

Technological change has been relatively similar (again, so far). In terms of military technology, each side is probably using different designs than OTL. Goldwater will make the Space Race quite interesting, and having the US and USSR involved in the Middle East rather than Vietnam is definitely going to change military technology from OTL.

The highway system still exists (Moderate Republicans are generally fans of infrastructure improvements), but the main pressure for mass transit is going to come from consumers and some coming... issues... with the oil supply. Though the next VP certainly won't allow the automakers to be ignored.
 
Partial update. It should be... Interesting.


1968-1969: The Mahabad "War"

The Presidential elections of 1968 saw Goldwater maintain power. Sympathy votes for Rockefeller weren’t abundant, but VP George Romney helped maintain the faith that moderate Republicanism was not dead. The Democrats had put up Eugene McCarthy after a bitterly divisive nomination, but ultimately Americans were convinced that the defeat of Soviet interests in the Middle East was vital to their security.

The problem with making that pledge, though, was dealing with the UAR’s chokehold on the Suez and its continued interference in the Iraq campaign. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who was generally skeptical of using offensive force, was convinced they were increasingly a threat to the United States and NATO. Almost immediately after the 1968 elections, he authorized the engagement of Iraqi Revolutionaries across UAR and Mahabadi borders. A massive US strategic bombing campaign choked off Revolutionary strongholds in Nineveh, allowing a joint Iraqi-US force to occupy the region. Kurdish regions were more difficult to deal with, however, and the US engaged in major battles with Mahabadi troops armed with new Soviet equipment.

In early 1969, as more US forces were drawn into Kurdistan, the UAR launched an offensive against Nineveh with top-of-the line Soviet tanks. The Iraqi troops that had been tasked with holding the area were ill-equipped to deal with an armored offensive, lacking ATGMs and using outdated American M48 tanks they had received on surplus. The Americans counterattacked with a combined-arms offensive and modern armor, but the assault brought Kissinger around to Goldwater’s view that the UAR needed to be completely defeated as a military force. At this time, the United Kingdom and France, both facing increasing trouble at home from the Suez tanker blockade, suggested a NATO sponsored operation to destroy its military capabilities.

In March 1969 the French Mediterranean Fleet, assisted by the United Kingdom, began attacking Egypt while American forces pushed into Syria. Kissinger advised Israel to restrain itself from entering the fighting, but an OPEC embargo seemed to be in the cards nevertheless. In a daring assault, British and French paratroops took the Suez Canal before the UAR was able to sink any ships in its midst. However, they paid for their efforts severely, as they attempted to hold off the UAR counterattacks while the Royal Marines established a beachhead. Soviet-built aircraft and air defenses were proving well-matched to their Western counterparts, but ultimately the UAR couldn’t hold. Indeed, the war was effectively ended by the UAR’s dissolution, when Syria seceded after a US backed coup. With the threat from Syria effectively neutralized, NATO decided to curry favor with the new government by withdrawing back to Iraq.

In the summer of 1969, the US decided to launch a major offensive in Kurdistan, in tandem with Turkish forces under NATO command and troops freed up from the successful assault into Syria. As it became clear that the Kurds could not stop the United States from penetrating Mahabad, Molotov was in a bind. Many among the Soviet military establishment believed Mahabad could not be allowed to topple as the UAR did, and that allowing US troops to occupy a nation bordering the Soviet Union was unacceptable. At the same time, Molotov was concerned that Goldwater would be unafraid to fight the USSR there. Soviet generals assured Molotov that he could win a limited war in Mahabad and Iran, and Molotov increasingly felt he would be overthrown if he did not defend Soviet borders.

On June 15th, 1969, as the Americans and Turks began shelling Mahabad, Molotov announced that Soviet forces stationed in the area would not withdraw if the Americans attacked (as 20,000 men in the UAR did after the European paratroops landed). Goldwater then challenged Molotov to use his military influence in the state to rein in the revolutionary Kurdish guerillas and the Mahabadi government. Two days later, NATO troops closed in on Mahabadi borders.

Problems began almost immediately. Helicopter reconnaissance of Mahabadi defenses noted that many Mahabadi troops were outfitted in gas masks. Americans initially thought this was due to fears a nuclear exchange between the Americans and Soviets. The Americans were not aware, however, that Mahabad had access to Soman, NATO designation GD – nerve gas. A Mahabadi commander, believing nuclear war was already imminent, began shelling NATO formations as they crossed the border. Though it was isolated to only one sector, news spread quickly. US forces in-theatre went to DEFCON 1, though Westmoreland would not authorize nuclear attacks – yet. After the chemical was identified as GD, NATO forces were under the impression the Soviets were involved in its deployment. Outraged, Barry Goldwater gave explicit permission to engage Soviet forces, though not with NBC weapons. Within the next few hours, NATO forces overran Mahabadi troops and soon came into contact with Soviet soldiers. The fighting became especially bloody at Miandoab, where US and Soviet armored units clashed directly. Turkish units completed the encirclement of Soviet troops in Mahabad. The commander of Soviet forces in the region demanded reinforcements. Before Molotov could even respond, however, Soviet units crossed from Iranian bases in Tabriz and Nakhchivan to engage Turkish troops. NATO commanders agitated for air support, but they were limited to low-flying ground attack jets and helicopters; American commanders were worried that any use of strategic bombers or other large aircraft would be interpreted as nuclear strikes. However, at the beginning of the engagement Henry Kissinger had sent a message to the Kremlin asserting the US would not use nuclear arms first, and given NATO’s refusal to deploy them after suffering a GD attack, Molotov agreed and gave a similar assertion. Thus, both sides engaged in an extremely limited war in Mahabad over a period of 5 days – the five most terrifying days in history. It was “like watching two men with guns to the other’s head arm wrestling.” However, demoralized at day 5 and with NATO reinforcing the Turkish wing, encircled Soviet forces called for a ceasefire. Molotov opened negotiations with Goldwater, and the Soviets would be allowed to withdraw all forces from Mahabad.

The apocalypse was put on hold. Peace, however, would not be without its consequences.
 
An apocalyptic standoff between Goldwater and Molotov...with Henry Kissinger as the voice of reason! Priceless.

A successful later-day Suez operation by Britain and France under NATO auspices! Again priceless.

With a war like that, I can't tell whether the Peace will be scintillating or terrifying.
 
1968-1971

The price shocks to the European economy brought on political turmoil. High social and defense spending, combined with the effects of oil price increases, had caused severe inflation, leading to the 1968 election of Edward Heath’s conservative government. Heath promised to take on the trade unions and pursue a foreign policy necessary to protect British interests – hence his approval of an assault on the UAR. However, he found himself in an increasingly bloody conflict in Northern Ireland, and soon he was butting heads with DeGaulle and France over the Biafran secession. Britain was initially inclined to support Nigeria, however, the Soviets were doing the same. France and South Africa threw in behind the Biafrans, and eventually France convinced the UK that secure access to the Biafran oil supply was more likely if they could keep the USSR out. While the UK remained neutral, Israeli support and the tacit approval of the US helped Biafra maintain its independence.

In Italy, the Years of Lead began in ’68 with a series of false-flag attacks by fascist terrorist organizations, with counterattacks by the Marxists following afterwards. While there was little outside support initially, it was the beginning of a troubling time for Europe.

In Moscow, Molotov knew his days in power would not last much longer. The conservative faction he fought for was now turning against him. Mahabad had been a terrible embarrassment for the hardliners. Not only did Molotov allow NATO to fight at Soviet borders, but he had let NATO seize the canal, topple two Soviet allies (including a COMDEF member) and worst of all, betrayed Soviet forces in Mahabad. All the world thought America had defeated them, and Molotov himself had shown increasing sympathy to reformism. As Eastern European states began to liberalize slightly, Molotov had elected to do nothing, fearing a NATO response if he used Soviet troops.

Molotov was quietly deposed in October 1969 and replaced by Nikolai Bulganin. While little more than a decade ago many thought Bulganin was a reformist, he had quickly overcome this political liability and was now a staunch conservative and militarist. Bulganin knew he could not counterattack in the Middle East without triggering a major war, but there seemed to be other opportunities for the Soviet Union to show its strength. Bulganin wanted to aid Marxists in Italy, while he sent Soviet troops to crush reformist leaders in Czechloslovakia and Bulgaria. These countries were also chosen, however, to allow the USSR to build up more troops on NATO borders. Turkey especially was on edge, as the Kurdish insurgency continued to rage.

Having ‘won’ Mahabad, there was now a question of what to do with it. Before Molotov was forced from power, a provisional government was installed and the UNSC voted to deploy peacekeepers from neutral states into the region. Both sides were to completely demilitarize the region. UN peacekeepers also received a mandate to cross the border into Iraqi Kurdistan, where slowly Iraq stabilized under a Shiite strongman. However, NATO maintained basing rights in Iraq and strengthened CENTO. Though most of the combat was now over, American soldiers remained in Iraq in the early 1970s.

In Egypt, Britain and France pulled back their soldiers to the canal region which they claimed would operate “free to all.” To their credit, even Soviet ships passed unmolested through the canal, though the fact that European warships sat in the Red Sea and Mediterranean was hardly comforting to communist countries.

In Latin America, Venezuela underwent an economic boom with the rise in oil prices. Argentina’s Radical Civic Union government, on the other hand, began negotiating with Bulganin about a major deal that would exchange Argentine grain for both financial compensation and military or technical aid. Ignored due to the influence of the Stevenson Doctrine, Latin America fell under American eyes thanks to the influence of Kissinger. The US began programs of political and military support for the center-right governments of Chile and Venezuela, while stepping up assistance for Colombian soldiers fighting FARC.

In China, the country seemed to be wracked by barely-controlled civil war. Revolutionary Guards clashed with disaffected Chinese, and Mao seemed to be losing control of the country and even his own movement. Truth was a scarce commodity in Chinese political discourse, and the price was paid in blood. Goldwater and Kissinger had initially hoped to offer reconciliation with the PRC, but at this point they were unsure of who they would even be negotiating with. In 1970, however, Mao died under mysterious circumstances. A final orgy of violence and political convulsion wracked the People’s Republic, but in the end Deng triumphed. While dealing with Mao certainly had its difficulties, Deng was the kind of reformist that Bulganin did not want having any sort of influence within the communist bloc. The final straw came with Bulganin’s support of India in the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War and the subsequent Bangladeshi secession. Though the US is tempted to throw heavy support behind CENTO ally Pakistan, the state is politically unstable and unprepared for the renewed strength of India, which is enjoying access to a good stock of Soviet arms. Instead, the US swoops into Pakistan after the war to help bolster its government and military, while using Chinese anger about support for India to help forge a tacit alliance between the US and the PRC. China’s fears are finally realized when a victorious India detonated its first nuclear bomb in 1971, its program in some part bolstered by Soviet technical assistance. The CPI alliance with the Congress Party only hardened Chinese and American stances against India.
In the United States, Goldwater realized that American support for his international policies would fade if he did not make concessions on Civil Rights. The rise of Black Power, in some areas overtaking the voices of moderates such as Martin Luther King, was threatening to tear the nation’s urban centers apart. Seeing the writing on the wall, Goldwater admitted “I want American soldiers fighting communism, not our own people.” Accordingly, libertarian and moderate Republicans noted a Constitutional amendment would require the government to strongly address issues of minority rights. Thus, the Equal Rights Amendment, that would guarantee equality under law regardless of race or gender, began to circulate through state legislatures.

Welfare and entitlement reform was also on Goldwater’s agenda. In his desire to dismantle ‘obsolete’ New Deal and ‘cumbersome’ Stevensonian programs, Goldwater ran into the moderate Republicans and most of the Democrats. Milton Friedman, one of Goldwater’s trusted economic advisors, helped push through a modified version of his Negative Income Tax, the Earned Income Tax Credit. In exchange for a lowering of tax rates and a reduction of some Federal domestic programs, the EITC became the central tool in American poverty reduction. Other Goldwater compromises included closing loopholes on corporate and individual taxes to allow for an overall reduction. However, on issues such as healthcare and the environment Goldwater was less willing to compromise. He was averse to Friedman’s idea of an emissions tax without cutting taxes in other areas, and he was hardly interested in expanding Stevenson’s subsidies and regulations for healthcare into more direct forms.

Goldwater was an energetic supporter of NASA, and Americans landed on the moon in 1970. He was also interested in developing American military capabilities in space as a way to tip the strategic advantage in American favor. The Soviets accelerated their own efforts to counter, but many states did not like the idea of weaponizing space and lobbied for an international treaty to prevent such an arms race. In general, American advances in space only served to bolster the country’s feelings of strength, but with this feeling came fears of the superpower competition it would invite.

As politicians pondered their fortunes in the 1972 elections, an energetic wing of ‘fighting Democrats’, lead by Henry “Scoop” Jackson, began to take prominence in their party’s politics.
 
Goldwater's domestic reforms are very interesting. I wonder what Conservatives will do without the Great Society against which to rail. Might moderate republicans evolve into a Tory-esque party? Probably difficult since they seem to be the proponents and stewards of the Civil Rights movement.

With greater prosperity in Venezuela and order in Colombia, I imagine a significant amount of OTL's Drug Cartels will find themselves butterflied away. Perhaps Indo-China and Afghanistan become more important in this regard?
 
Yeah, Indochina is going to turn out to be a bit different, I'll probably address that in the next update.

As for American politics, the dynamic is going to be shifted. As you can already see its having some pretty interesting effects on the Democrats as well. Looks like neoconservatism (as we call it) isn't going to 'leave' the Democrats in TTL.
 
An interesting idea. Obviously avoiding OTL's 1968, McGovern, and Carter means that the neoconservative movement is ok sticking with the Democrats[1] and your name drop of Scoop Jackson will probably come to have a fair amount of importance.

I can see that.

Hmm. The question arises: where do the isolationists (of the Republican Taft wing) and the peaceniks (Democrats McGovern wing) go?

The Republicans are pursuing an aggressive forward containment / realpolitik policy (kinda what you'd expect, combining Goldwater with say Kissinger[2]); the Democrats (if Jackson becomes President) will pursue a policy that looks very similar in broad strokes, but will be very different on the ground because they'll be focusing on promoting idealism & democracy while Republicans just want stability.


The Republicans are becoming an interesting mix of Northern moderates (with black/urban support bolstered by civil rights support) with libertarians & (probably) neoliberals. The business conservative ("Main Street") wing can deal with that, but the tensions are probably kinda high on economic issues.

They have no real chance of cracking the South anytime soon. Civil Rights + neoconservative Democratic Party mean they're locked out.


The Democrats are kinda maintaining their traditional coalition, but ITTL the neoconservatives remaining in the party combined with no strong McGovern/peace wing mean they manage to grop towards an RFK style economic need coalition between blue collar, black, and Southern voters papered over by a strong foreign policy.

I imagine this will rapidly cost them the Humphrey style "progressives" on social issues, who will feel more at home in the Republican Party as they can find common ground on social issues with libertarians, and common ground on economic issues with the Rockefeller wing.

Great Society yes, Civil Rights no.



That still leaves those who prefer a non-aggressive foreign policy (be it a peaceful soft power focus by those on the left or isolationists on the right). Might just be lower voter turnout by them, or more of a local/economic focus.


Anyway, that's just my guess. I'm enjoying the timeline and keep up the good work :).


[1] Amusingly enough neoliberals will wind up, as they did IOTL, with the Republicans but neoconservatives will stick with the Democrats. So now the Republicans are conservative & neoliberal, the Democrats are liberal & neoconservative. (Ok, it's really not that simple, but I find it kind of funny.)

[2] Kissinger was a long-time aid to Rockefeller before moving over to Nixon, under the circumstances of your timeline I imagine Kissinger is playing almost as prominent a role as he did IOTL.
 
Last edited:
I'm thinking we'll start to see a lot of isolationist/pacifist candidates running on 3rd party platforms, at least every time an issue with the USSR flares up.

Speaking of the USSR, I'm wondering what's happening to the reformists and advocates of detente. Given that we've had two leaders who've clamped down on their 'softer' contemporaries, is it possible we'd see a a Soviet Union moving closer to North Korea? Or, on the other hand, would the USSR see something closer to China where tight political control ushers in gradual economic liberalization? But, (correct me if I'm wrong), I just can't imagine a figure like Gorbachev or his reforms lasting very long in this system.
 
Speaking of the USSR, I'm wondering what's happening to the reformists and advocates of detente. Given that we've had two leaders who've clamped down on their 'softer' contemporaries, is it possible we'd see a a Soviet Union moving closer to North Korea? Or, on the other hand, would the USSR see something closer to China where tight political control ushers in gradual economic liberalization? But, (correct me if I'm wrong), I just can't imagine a figure like Gorbachev or his reforms lasting very long in this system.

You just need a strong candidate. Reagan ignored his advisors to pursue deals with Gorbachev and that worked out pretty well.

As for the USSR itself, the pressure the US puts it under (kinda like a low grade but longer version of the '80s) could result in anything really. They could go North Korea style, China style, or just follow OTL's path in a modified version.

Liberalization + more guns (which is, after all, what the Chinese are doing) might be able to sell.
 
1971: Europe’s Dark Year

An aging De Gaulle had papered over increasing domestic divides with foreign policy triumphs. His domestic policies had failed to ward off economic stagnation or silence radical agitation. On March 17th, while his plane was returning from a military review, communist dissidents gunned down him and two others as they exited the aircraft. France exploded into chaos. De Gaulle, though severely wounded, was not dead. As reprisal attacks by French rightists began, demands grew for a new government. De Gaulle, however, called Generals Jacques Massu and Alain de Boissieu are essentially given control of the country and imposed martial law. Feelings of sympathy for De Gaulle soon evaporated into outrage at the current state of France, and soon many leftist organizations were protesting the government’s actions. Several communists wanted by the government fled the country to Belgium, the Netherlands, and Austria. While the governments of those states (Austria took the most convincing) did extradite the communists, leftists threw mass protests. The idea of cooperating with a ‘military dictatorship’ in France was not very appealing to these Europeans, especially as the Stalinist tendencies of Bulganin had increasingly driven European leftist-radicals into a Eurocommunist political orientation.

Negotiations about the EEC effectively collapsed. The UK lost interest in joining, and Europe soon became divided between pro-French and anti-French blocs. Italy’s government, in particular Giuseppe Saragat, was firmly in the anti-French bloc. When communists began to travel to Italy, he refused to return them to France until ‘civilian government’ was restored to the country. In Italy, it was the rightist movement that began the unrest. Deciding the public would be behind them now more than ever, the rightist alliance launched a coup against the Italian civilian government. Prominent politicians were arrested, and Saragat hid in Switzerland. In France, there were at least strongmen. In Italy, the notion of ‘Central Government’ appeared to evaporate. The US secured its airbases, but vowed not to intervene.

Violence first began in Rome, but another area of particular intensity was Lombardy, where conservative forces from neighboring regions moved in to suppress its leftist activity. However, as Lombardy became increasingly ‘cleansed’ of communist and leftist activity, violence from Rome boiled over and spread throughout Central Italy. Increasingly, Italians attracted to social democracy and communism moved to North Italian nationalism in the north, part of the reason why northern Italy quieted down so quickly. After a few weeks, however, the military (and the exasperated rich and bourgeoisie of Italy) threw their weight behind stability, and endorsed the rightists provided elections were held. This was arguably instrumental in preserving Italian unity – a de facto “Padanian Unity Government” had set itself up, while in the Mezzogiorno the neo-fascists threatened to secede if Italy reinstated Saragat or anything hinting of the PCI.

So, five months after the coup, in October, Italy held “elections” for Parliament, the victor being the Alleanza per la Nazione Italiana, or Alliance for the Italian Nation a coalition of the rightist Christian Democrats with the Lega Nord (Padania) Party and other, smaller parties. While not the most hard-right faction, the ANI was heavily associated with the coup. Vito Miceli became the Prime Minister of Italy, while Giulio Andreotti became President. The events of the Golpe ’71 had dramatically unsettled the Italian political landscape, and increasingly leftists abandoned democratic processes as a way to assert their beliefs. The Red Brigades grew in number, and the Italian government seemed cemented in a perpetual low-scale war against them.

In parallel with the Italian situation, protestors took to the streets of France in enormous numbers. Even those who had previously been caught up in Gaullist fervor now wanted to ensure that they did not follow the political path Italy seemed destined for. Some even accused the assassination attempt on De Gaulle to be a rightist action, a not-unrealistic claim given his past. Seeing the writing on the wall, De Gaulle knew he could not maintain the status quo. He knew he was near death, and attempted to anoint a successor, Jacques Chirac. Francois Mitterand and centrist Giscard d’Estaing opposed him. The elections themselves took place under a climate of lingering martial law, and there were countless allegations of electoral fraud and coercive activity by the authorities. Chirac emerged victorious in the Presidential races by an incredibly slim margin (even after runoffs), sparking continuing civil discontent. However, he appealed again to French nationalism. He would maintain dirigisme and protect French sovereignty. At the same time, he promised to liberalize France socially and preserve open society. While the US under Goldwater wanted to make room to accommodate both France and Italy, the UK and West Germany were far more skeptical (“It’s easy for you to tolerate them, you don’t have to live on the same continent!” one diplomat reportedly exclaimed to Kissinger). France was on shakier ground with NATO, but the real issues would lie ahead with the EEC.

To be sure, there were some bright spots. Spain’s economy continued its ‘miracle,’ as did West Germany. North Sea oil discoveries started to help the continental economy in general. But the civil instability in France and Italy made the entire continent paranoid, states of each other and their own peoples. Meanwhile, Bulganin continued his clampdown on the other side of the Iron Curtain. In Greece, he helped support a leftist anti-junta insurgency against the ‘Colonels,’ while he eyed Yugoslavia. Movements such as Croatian Spring demonstrated the potential for ethnic tensions, and Bulganin considered exploiting them if it meant the USSR could attain proper Mediterranean access.
 
Nice update. Interesting to see Europe collapse into mild chaos. I guess the US has no choice but not to intervene, but I'd imagine there's some major concern in the White House. The threat of "losing Europe" would be tantamount to losing the Cold War itself. I suppose this might enhance Scoop Jackson's White House bid.

Also, it seems a bit early for Jacques Chirac to climb all the way to the French Presidency, although I suppose he was d'Estaing's PM so with de Gaulle's blessing it's possible. Perhaps a symptom of France's poltical discord.
 
Yes, the idea for De Gaulle was that Chirac is young enough so that the 'old guard' can still influence him behind the scenes. It'll cause some issues later.
 
Warfare and Technology

Key to any understanding of the changes in tactics and technology in the Cold War is the events of the Iraqi Civil War and the subsequent Middle Eastern Wars. For the first time, the forces of each superpower clashed directly, using current technology, training, and tactics. Limited (non-nuclear) direct war became a legitimate option – and thus winning one became a strategic necessity. The militaries of the early 1970s, especially in the US case, will see much of the same developments in technology and doctrine as in OTL, just expressed in a different manner.

Another general point to note is the difference in American leadership. Historically, Eisenhower’s experience, belief in “Massive Retaliation,” and concern with the “military-industrial complex” had a limiting effect on conventional US defense expenditures. Dewey, Stevenson and Goldwater, to differing degrees, have not had such experience. The main influences American leadership had were in form rather than content. Rather than the cataclysmic death of the draft Army post-Vietnam, Dewey’s desire to ‘slim down’ wartime government in the Republican vein and return American men to their homes was one element. Stevenson’s reluctance to engage in military interventions was another. Even Goldwater’s militarism was checked by his (and Milton Friedman’s) libertarianism. Thus, while the armed forces of the early 70s were not explicitly an All-Volunteer Force, it was understood that the draft was a measure of last resort.

Another factor in this “professionalization” of the military was the desire to maintain a “rapid-reaction force.” The tumult of the Middle East in the late 1950s and early 1960s had convinced American leaders they needed to be able to quickly seize and hold strategic regions. With oil resources on the line, draftees simply took too much time to mobilize, while the prospect of Soviet engagement required a large standby force.

Demonstrations of Soviet technological aptitude via client states and the knowledge that a professional force could not yield the quantitative advantages of a drafted force spurred the US to achieve a greater qualitative advantage. These efforts reached their “tipping point” by the Goldwater administration. His funding to NASA was based not solely in civilian interests – he wanted the agency to closely cooperate with the military to achieve a true technological advantage. Additionally, the experience of the Mahabad War was a wake-up call to the American military establishment. Favorable diplomatic maneuvering and battlefield tactics allowed the Americans to overcome what was, in many areas, a technological deficit. Knowing privately that a larger scale engagement, perhaps on literal and political terrain more favorable to the Soviets, would be less successful, changes would continue to be made.

(Naval warfare remains essentially the same, so I won’t address it)

[Land Warfare]

The Middle Eastern battlefield lent itself to an increased focus upon the technology of armored warfare, essentially putting it several years ahead of historical technological levels. The approach by each side was two-tiered – an emphasis on ATGMs for proxy warfare, and heavier tanks for ones’ own forces. Initially, the Soviets held favor in both areas. Potent ATGMs posed a severe problem for the Iraqi government when rebels had them, but when supply lines were cut the Soviets (via their Mahabadi puppets) used T-60 and T-65 tanks to great effect. Recognizing the inferiority of the Patton series tanks, including the M61 despite an admirable performance in 1969, the Army began the development of the Abrams tank, very similar to the actual vehicle but different in one respect. The experience with Russian tanks had spurred the desire to ‘leap ahead’ of the mature 105mm gun technology to something more powerful. The US and Soviets both expected NATO tanks to standardize the 120mm gun in the 1970s, and for this reason the CIA was horrified to learn the next in the T series would have the same emphasis on survivability as the Abrams. Consequently, the (M69, in this timeline) Abrams would also serve as an experimental platform for a 140mm ‘supergun’ in addition to standardizing the 120mm.

As for ATGMs, the Soviets proved to have an indisputable advantage. Soviet anti-tank weapons were more portable, less expensive and just as lethal as their Western counterparts. For the West, survivability, taking advantage of their superiority in gun technologies, and combined arms warfare were the suggested antidote. For this last reason the introduction of the compound helicopter is considered an advance in land warfare. Receiving a trial by fire in the Iraqi conflict, the AH-56 Cheyenne’s speed made it useful as a support aircraft when operating from forward airbases and more survivable than traditional helicopters when faced against superior Soviet AAD.

Infantry technology remained relatively the same, especially for the Soviets. NATO troops, however, found an increased emphasis on NBC warfare training and equipment, while the .223 round (and the M-16) never came to be. The US adopted the T48 (FN FAL) and would incorporate Stoner’s ideas into an even more ‘modern’ bullpup rifle along with several other NATO countries later. The combat environment of the Middle East played a significant part in this – while the FAL was perhaps more cumbersome than Stoner’s design in urban warfare, in the mountainous Kurdish campaign the weapon’s stopping power at range and reliability found great appeal.

[Air, Space and Strategic Arms]

Soviet superiority in small aircraft (fighters, attack aircraft, etc) figured greatly in the initial stages of the Middle Eastern Wars. The development of small atomic weapons in the 1950s and 1960s meant that Soviet toeholds in the Middle East could threaten NATO in the Eastern Mediterranean and Arabia. While these areas were also in the range of Soviet ballistic missiles, low-flying Soviet aircraft could sneak undetected and enhance Soviet first-strike capability. Rather than designing planes to deal just with cumbersome Soviet bombers, the US began to develop faster and more agile fighters and AWACS aircraft to help track them in ‘forward areas’ such as the Middle East.

More important are the developments in space technology unfolding as the Goldwater administration concludes. NASA is hardly a civilian enterprise – the US and Soviets both possess permanent space stations conducting experiments for military gain. The high altitude nuclear tests of the 1950s and 1960s convinced Goldwater that space would become a theater of battle in a superpower war, and consequently he intended to give the US control of that battlefield. Though FOBS was generally regarded as obsolete, Goldwater invested in its guidance and launch technologies to develop a ‘satellite and infrastructure killing’ nuclear weapon. Goldwater also began major research into missile defense, setting up programs that would in time explore a host of antimissile technologies from both land and space based platforms.

The Soviets responded to these programs in similar measure, though they were already somewhat behind the Americans in space technology. Consequently, there was a growing belief among the Soviets that they needed to be prepared to adopt a first strike policy, lest the Americans attempt one at any point. At the same time, the feeling that they would be a ‘victim’ of a first strike was certainly on the rise. Consequently, the Soviets began a massive investment in SSBNs and ICBMs under Bulganin and began a general increase in warheads available, which only further alarmed Americans.

The UK, US, and France, and to a lesser extent the USSR (its confidence in conventional warfare somewhat shook in Mahabad), began serious research of neutron bombs in the ‘60s and ‘70s, to strong effect. India, in its own nuclear program, also took particular interest in these neutron bombs, hoping to employ them against Pakistan without compromising its own territory.

[Energy and Civilian Technology]

The spike in oil prices sustained throughout the ‘60s and early ‘70s was a wake up call to the West, especially the United States. In many ways, the infrastructure-minded moderate Republicans were the benefactors of these events, using political hawkishness and their programs of development to address new American concerns on both foreign and domestic fronts. Believing that oil prices were now prone to increase rapidly, public transportation began to see more political attention.

Auto companies, after realizing that the oil price increase was not a one-time phenomenon, began to respond to consumer demands for more efficient vehicles. To the pleasure of the growing environmentalist movement and worried drivers both, American engines and chasses were geared towards less wasteful designs.

Nuclear reactors began to spring up across the country in increasing number, while research into wind and solar energy found some backing from the US government as a way to power vital US infrastructure in the event of a major disruption to overseas oil supplies in the future. The US was only starting to import more oil from abroad than it produced at home, but already some were concerned of what the future might bring.
 
Very interesting stuff! Few TLs of the post WWI world delve into the potential for so much technological change in detail; they hint at it, but don't flesh it out. I'm a bit worried about the extent of the ramp up in the Cold War, but hopefully the basic motivation to keep writing the story will keep you from offing the human race in a fit of superpower fury.

Any ideas on the kinds of the public transport envisaged? I can imagine some significant impacts on the American landscape, since such emphasis will dramatically alter the exurbs of the 1970s and 1980s, thus avoiding the decay of the American inner city.
 
Don't worry, even if this TL does turn apocalyptic like some of my others it's generally localized to one or two areas.

Public transportation is mostly going to be bus initially, since it doesn't require much infrastructure investment, but over time there's going to be things like light rail in many major US cities.
 
Public transportation is mostly going to be bus initially, since it doesn't require much infrastructure investment, but over time there's going to be things like light rail in many major US cities.

Given the different Presidents and different justice departments simple anti-trust suites against the big car companies would keep most of the American streetcar infrastructure alive and slowly decaying (see Toronto) which would be a major benefit later on.
 
1971-1976

Vice President George Romney seemed to have everything go wrong for him in his campaign against Henry “Scoop” Jackson for President. Firstly, Goldwater’s ‘laissez-faire’ tendencies had their inevitable outcome – the commodities market, fueled by increases in global demand and oil price spikes, took a dive in early 1972, hurting the fortunes of many speculators and businesses. Of course, lower commodity prices were a benefit to many consumers and corporations as well, but nobody was willing to point this out as soon as somebody lost a job. The “Senator from Boeing” also had the advantage of out-hawking Goldwater’s would-be successor, not only in rhetoric, but in credentials. Romney’s record on foreign policy and national security was slim, and in his public statements he was often gaffe prone. Jackson, on the other hand, seemed to have all the right experience and geopolitical interests. While Jackson’s nomination had bitterly divided his party in the process of the nomination, he managed to win 55% of the popular vote nevertheless.

Jackson’s domestic programs did include an expansion of the EITC, some increases in taxes after the ’72 crunch, and in general a center-left approach to finances. Environmental policy was one of his main concerns, however, and he felt the Republicans had done little to address it. Consequently, Jackson and the Democrats, working with a fair number of moderate Republicans, passed a record amount of environmental legislation that covered air quality, hazardous waste, fishery sustainability and a variety of other concerns. Emissions trading markets were created for several air pollutants, though Milton Friedman argued that a tax would be more efficient. Ultimately, Jackson’s environmental reforms were both effective and politically popular among his party, helping to heal some of the wounds his candidacy had created.

Unfortunately, this euphoria did not last long. The ERA (including both gender and racial equality clauses) was ratified by three quarters of the American states, and passed into law. This initially seemed a positive – Jackson could wipe his hands clean of it. Then, however, the Supreme Court cases began to pile in. Jackson’s new judges (two were appointed by 1974) helped set the precedent for the court’s interpretation of the ERA. The last legal vestiges of segregation were blown away, while in federal courts it was determined women indeed had to register for selective service. Immigration law also came under scrutiny, and the 1973 Immigration Act abolished the quota system to avoid a massive legal battle. These moves increasingly alienated conservative Democrats, who were unmoved by Jackson’s opposition to busing. Left untouched, though, was the issue of whether the ERA would force recognition of same-sex marriages.

Outside the United States, Jackson faced more troubling issues. Though France and Italy had nominally returned to democracy, their governments were heavily influenced by the old hardliner. The EEC and the expansion of European unity was already on hold – for Jackson, it now became a matter of preserving NATO itself. In the wake of the bloodshed, it was becoming increasingly apparent to the Western powers that Soviet interlopers were involved in fueling some of the violence – once it had started. The extent of this was heavily exaggerated, but it did help convince European powers that communism was a greater threat than other European nations. Many cynically alluded to the Reichstag fire, but Bulganin’s other activities would soon quiet doubts about Soviet capacities.

In the Congo, the years-long civil war began to swing in the favor of the Stanleyville leftists. One could certainly doubt that ideology was a true discerning factor at this point, but since the assassination of Lumumba in 1969 the Soviets had begun offloading surplus arms to the Congolese rebels. After soundly defeating the Congolese government and making stories of Congolese atrocities well known, the new government of the “Congolese Socialist Republic” in 1973 (Not to be confused with the People’s Republic of the Congo (Congo-Brazzaville), nor the rump second Republic of the Congo). The CSR struggled to gain international recognition outside the COMDEF associated states, but eventually many other 3rd world countries acknowledged it in a demonstration of solidarity. The violence there lead to an increased uptake in conflict in the remnants of the Central African Federation (now Greater Rhodesia), where the Soviets provided assistance to black nationalists and the ANC. Bulganin did not invest immense amounts of energy in these efforts, but especially in Rhodesia’s case he hoped trade deals could be acquired to the benefit of the USSR.

Argentina’s RCU solidified a deal with the USSR, a major component of which was providing Soviet military technology to the Argentinean government beginning in 1971. By 1973, the Chilean government (now lead by a center-right, US friendly government) was increasingly paranoid about Argentina’s ambitions. Only worsening this was Argentina’s decision to help use Soviet expertise to survey the Beagle Channel for resources that year. Soon, a dispute ensued, each nation mobilized their military. Corporations from the United States (many believe under the influence of the CIA) began their own prospecting operations under the guard of the Chilean military, itself a recipient of American and other NATO nations’ arms deals due to its importance as an exporter. Argentina, emboldened by Soviet support, troubled by domestic rumblings, and outraged by Chilean inroads, announced a border closing and made outreaches to Bolivia and other Latin American nations for political support. In January of 1974, with weather playing a significant factor in the confusion, Chilean ships opened fire on an Argentinean coastal patrol vessel, sinking it. Conflict erupted on the front before central governments could move to stop it, though it was mostly contained to Patagonia. Aside from border skirmishes, the only conflict near major population centers was conducted in the air and sea. Each side sent submarines to attack the other’s ports. Bolivia, after being threatened by anticommunist Peru and Chile itself, declined to insert itself into the conflict.

Neither state was particularly interested in UN mediation, for both the US and USSR were significantly hampering the organization’s utility in such politically charged matters. However, as the US deployed military forces ‘on standby’ to Chile and the Falkland Islands, the Argentinean military knew the RCU would lead them into an irrecoverable war if they continued on this path. With the RCU becoming increasingly unpopular, soldiers stationed outside Buenos Aires threw a coup and called for UN mediation, which they quickly received. The CIA conducted a deal to shore up the new Argentine government while the two countries were forced to mediate their borders.

Among other things, the United States realized it could no longer afford to ignore Latin America as it once had. Even with Goldwater’s interest in dealing with communist counterinsurgencies, America had been relatively disinterested in the region. The theory that democratic governments would persist without foreign meddling lacked consistent empirical grounding. Juntas still emerged, and many of them, such as those in Peru and Brazil, were rather militant with regards to their neighbors. Brazil had even begun its own nuclear program in secret, while Venezuela pondered its own play on Guyana. Though Jackson was squeamish about Argentina, he felt he could put more pressure on such a regime to democratize if it were closer to the United States.

The wave of European instability that had troubled France and Italy rolled west into Spain and Portugal. In 1972, ETA’s ‘terror nights’ assassinated Franco and other government officials, resulting in a military junta taking control of Spain. Reformers were told to quiet down as Spain carried out a massive campaign of retaliation. In the neighboring country, things were less grim – a military coup deposed the old authoritarian government and seemed to open the way towards democracy. The new states of East Timor, Mozambique, Angola formed, but Cold War politics only enflamed the conflicts there. Consequently, South Africa moved in to Angola from Namibia to prevent the growing influence of communism in the region. Bulganin, his plans in Argentina frustrated, decided that Africa might hold some potential as a Soviet granary. Many thought this idea far fetched – Africa at the time was having trouble feed itself – but Bulganin felt that and influx of Soviet technical expertise could help develop new agricultural techniques and provide infrastructure for African nations to grow food. Libya’s left-leaning Pan-Arabist Qaddafi began receiving ever-larger influxes of Soviet aid, and his legions hoping to create an Islamic state in the Sahel piqued Bulganin’s interest. Military support and training began for these groups, and a wave of uprisings wracked the Sahel in the early ‘70s – Nigeria, still reeling from the loss of Biafra, seemed to be on the brink of collapse, while the Sudanese Civil War became a potential conflict zone.

In the Middle East itself, conflict in Lebanon lead to the Levant War, where Israeli forces clashed with those of the new (post-71) leftist Syrian government in Lebanon. The 1975 conflict lead to the occupation of the Golan heights and the beginning of the Egyptian, Libyan and Syrian nuclear programs. American troops in Iraq were drawn down to stationing on military bases only. The continued division of Iran continued to pose serious problems for Middle Eastern stability. The liberal reformists in the south were making some progress, but the dysfunctional situation worried many Middle Eastern analysts. Shiite leadership remained an open question, and soon ‘liberationist’ Shiite factions began to emerge in Soviet Iran, though the movement had little love for the United States either. While the movement had a major religious element, also present were ethnic issues – many liberationists were Farsis who disliked the USSR’s preferential treatment of Azeris and Kurds and wished to reunite and create a Persian state.

Nearby, India announced the completion of its nuclear program and the revitalization of its military under Soviet guidance. Angered by America’s heavy support for Pakistan and interest in China, India began negotiations with the USSR for air and naval bases. Flexing its muscles, in 1973 India forced the independence of East Pakistan, making it all too clear India was unafraid to exercise a nuclear veto. This news upset Jackson, who then began negotiations with Deng Xiaoping the next year to bring China into its proper place in American diplomacy. Before these negotiations could begin, however, CCP hardliners took this as evidence that Deng was everything Mao made him out to be and worse – conflict erupted again as Deng was effectively deposed by the military and reformed Red Guards, putting any negotiations on hold as China again descended into civil strife. A series of powerless puppets and would-be rulers claimed leadership of China over the next few years, shocking the world and dragging down the country.
 
Nice...hadn't though that the ERA might be construed to extend to Immigration. Though if it includes only specific clauses guaranteeing racial and gender equality, the specificity of those clause might be construed to limit the scope of the ERA as to other classes of discrimination. (Unless language such as "including but not limited to" is used). I'd imagine you could have some particularly fractious cases on separate bathroom facilities. Abortion rights might take a very different turn if evaluated by ERA-concerned jurists rather than by privacy centered ones.

Also: India with Soviet Bases! China with Deng deposed! Eegads but the Cold War looks rocky!
 
The concern was that hemispheric limitations might constitute 'racial' quotas (which they were in practice). Abortion will indeed be have a more solid legal foundation in the US, but I'll hit on it later when I talk about ATL's social conservative movement (which thus far has been marginalized in the conservative party).

And yeah, I'm keeping things interesting for all parties. I figured someone like Deng who's still very unpopular (his reforms never had time to kick in, and he's already labeled a pro-Western traitor) wouldn't necessarily have the strong political foundations necessary to accept US offers of diplomacy without causing unrest among the hardliners.
 
Top