Effects of a Dewey victory

What would happen if Governor Thomas Dewey became President in 1948? How similar/different would his presidency have been from Eisenhower's? Would it have butterflied away the Dixiecrats eventually joining the GOP?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Well, he would have to deal with Korean War, which would break out anyway. But if he manages to pour billions of dollars into military budget right at the beginning of his presidency, then the US military might be in a better shape by the time of the war.

His presidency might try to send aid to Nationalists, however, a Communist victory was inevitable by then. But, if he could prolong the civil war, the Chinese intervention might be delayed.

Domestically, although Dewey was a liberal Republican and probably pro-civil rights, his Chief Justice would be John Edgar Hoover. Other domestic policies might not be different.

Politically, unlike Eisenhower, Dewey was a politician, so he would attempt to strengthen his wing at the expense of the conservative wing. Anyway, his victory would strengthen the liberal wing. Besides, worse performance in elections during the early 1950s could butterfly away Goldwater, who only won narrowly IOTL.
 

bguy

Donor
Well, he would have to deal with Korean War, which would break out anyway. But if he manages to pour billions of dollars into military budget right at the beginning of his presidency, then the US military might be in a better shape by the time of the war.

Dewey's leading foreign policy advisor and likely Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, supported using atomic weapons in Korea, so if the Korean War still happens there's a good chance President Dewey ends up authorizing MacArthur to use nuclear weapons.
 
What would happen if Governor Thomas Dewey became President in 1948? How similar/different would his presidency have been from Eisenhower's? Would it have butterflied away the Dixiecrats eventually joining the GOP?

1) With very few exceptions, the Dixiecrats never joined the Republican Party. They died off or retired and were replaced by Republicans.

2) Dewey's presidency changing this is not a "butterfly effect", it is a knock-on. "Butterfly effects" are changes in highly contingent events, such as the conception of a particular child or a particular soldier being killed in a battle with light or moderate casualties.


Az to differences:

Dewey would have entered the Presidency before the Cold War had really started. There had been incidents (the Berlin Airlift) and NATO was being formed in late 1948 (established April 1949). But the US was still largely indifferent to the Communist threat. The US armed forces had been almost entirely disbanded after WW II; serious rearmament didn't start until 1950. At that point the Korean War broke out and the US confronted its military weakness. By the time Eisenhower took office in 1953, military spending was triple the 1950 level.
 
1) With very few exceptions, the Dixiecrats never joined the Republican Party. They died off or retired and were replaced by Republicans.

2) Dewey's presidency changing this is not a "butterfly effect", it is a knock-on. "Butterfly effects" are changes in highly contingent events, such as the conception of a particular child or a particular soldier being killed in a battle with light or moderate casualties.


Az to differences:

Dewey would have entered the Presidency before the Cold War had really started. There had been incidents (the Berlin Airlift) and NATO was being formed in late 1948 (established April 1949). But the US was still largely indifferent to the Communist threat. The US armed forces had been almost entirely disbanded after WW II; serious rearmament didn't start until 1950. At that point the Korean War broke out and the US confronted its military weakness. By the time Eisenhower took office in 1953, military spending was triple the 1950 level.

Strom Thurmond was a Dixiecrat. He then joined the GOP.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
The US armed forces had been almost entirely disbanded after WW II; serious rearmament didn't start until 1950. At that point the Korean War broke out and the US confronted its military weakness.
Maybe Dewey would increase military spending right after entering the WH. After all, by 1948, the GOP already had a majority in Congress.
 
Thurmond was one of the very few exceptions. The number of Southern Democrat Senators and Representatives who were elected before 1970 and "crossed the aisle" can be counted on one hand.

But it’s fair to say that the Old Dixie block switched to the GOP overtime in response to civil rights. My question is that would a Dewey administration have led to a different result?
 
There's an interesting forecast of the presumed new administration's policies ("What Dewey Will Do") from the November 1948 Kiplinger's Magazine: https://books.google.com/books?id=3wUEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA10 No great surprises. John Foster Dulles will be the key man on foreign policy. More aid to China (when this was written, few Americans realized how soon Chiang Kai-shek would be routed; in retrospect, we can see that by the time Dewey was inaugurated China would be past "saving" except by a massive injection of US troops which would be politically impossible). No tax cuts, and maybe even some increases--Dewey believed in a balanced budget, and felt that defense spending needed to be increased. Taft-Hartley will be kept with some mild pro-labor revisions. Union leaders will have to deal with the Department of Labor instead of getting special treatment at the White House. Dewey will advocate anti-lynching and anti-poll-tax legislation but the article gives the impression he will not press for them very hard, lest they lead the South to oppose the rest of his program. The Communist Party will not be outlawed, but Communists will be removed from government. No theorists or professors for the Supreme Court, but seasoned practicing lawyers and judges. And so on...
 
Maybe Dewey would increase military spending right after entering the WH. After all, by 1948, the GOP already had a majority in Congress.

The Republicans were not the same defense hawks as today. The fiscal conservative elements in the party were working for the sort of defense budgets that existed i the 1920s or 1930s. Of those who did support a larger defense budget many had drank the Kool Aid served up by Sec Def Louis Johnson and were favoring all the funds to the new USAF, reducing the Army & Navy to something less than the 1930s level of man power. Barely even a training cadre in the case of the Army. Many in both parties were fine with the Navy reducing its aircraft carrier force below the 1930s fleet to fund more B36 bombers & jet fighter planes.
 

bguy

Donor
The Republicans were not the same defense hawks as today. The fiscal conservative elements in the party were working for the sort of defense budgets that existed i the 1920s or 1930s. Of those who did support a larger defense budget many had drank the Kool Aid served up by Sec Def Louis Johnson and were favoring all the funds to the new USAF, reducing the Army & Navy to something less than the 1930s level of man power. Barely even a training cadre in the case of the Army. Many in both parties were fine with the Navy reducing its aircraft carrier force below the 1930s fleet to fund more B36 bombers & jet fighter planes.

Per the Kiplinger's Magazine article David T posted, Dewey intended to increase defense spending for the Army, Navy and Air Force. Moreover, Robert Lovett (the man who was going to be Dewey's Secretary of Defense) advocated for expanding the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps IOTL. Thus it seems unlikely that the Dewey Administration would neglect the other services in favor of the Air Force.
 
The Republicans were not the same defense hawks as today. The fiscal conservative elements in the party were working for the sort of defense budgets that existed i the 1920s or 1930s. Of those who did support a larger defense budget many had drank the Kool Aid served up by Sec Def Louis Johnson and were favoring all the funds to the new USAF, reducing the Army & Navy to something less than the 1930s level of man power. Barely even a training cadre in the case of the Army. Many in both parties were fine with the Navy reducing its aircraft carrier force below the 1930s fleet to fund more B36 bombers & jet fighter planes.

I could be wrong, but I think that was more the isolationist Taft-Bricker faction of the GOP.
 
But it’s fair to say that the Old Dixie block switched to the GOP overtime in response to civil rights.

No, it is not. The lockstep loyalty of Southern whites to the Democratic Party was an extreme and unnatural condition. It arose as a response to the threat of domination by black Republican majorities in some states and many localities, during and after Reconstruction.

It was sustained because the national Democratic Party protected the white supremacy regime in the South - blocking any Republican efforts for civil rights legislation, even anti-lynching laws, and appointing only Dixiecrat whites to Federal offices in the South (Judges, US Attorneys).

This ended in 1948, when the Democrat convention adopted a civil rights plank at the behest of liberal northern Democrats, who were a majority in the party and no longer willing accomplices in Jim Crow.

(It occurs to me that this may have been affected by the Roosevelt landslides in the 1930s; from 1880 to 1930, the Democrats outside the South were a minority party and at times almost vestigial. For instance, after the 1928 elections, there were 97 Democrat Representatives from the South and only 62 from the rest of the country, compared to 261 Republicans. (NOTE: these numbers may not be exactly right. I used the Congressional Biographical Dictionary's list of Representatives in the 71st Congress, and there were more than 435, due to Representatives dying or resigning in mid-term and being replaced in special elections.) But from 1932, non-Southern Democrats became the majority in the party.)

The institutional loyalty of Southerners to the Democrats remained. There were mutinies at the presidential level, right up through 1968's Wallace campaign. But there was very little change at the state level. Republicans did make progress in the South in the 1950s and 1960s, but it was mainly in areas that were outside the traditional "Solid South": Texas and Florida, and also Tennessee, which had always had a relatively strong Republican Party (electing governors in 1910, 1912, 1920).

There wasn't any great shift to the Republicans, because the Republican position on civil rights was essentially the same as the non-Southern Democrats. Then, with the 24th Amendment, the Voting Rights Act, and the Civil Rights Act, the white supremacy regime was overthrown - abolished, wiped out. This happened in the mid-1960s, and was not revoked by Republicans.

White Southerners were no longer constrained in their voting by the defense of white supremacy, and began to consider other issues. On these other issues, most of them were not in sympathy with non-Southern Democrats. In the 1972 election, Democrats nominated a relatively far-left Democrat for President, spurning mainstream liberals. They even expelled Chicago Mayor Richard Daley from the convention as insufficiently progressive. This allowed Republican Richard Nixon to paint the Democrats as the party of "Acid [drugs], amnesty [for draft evaders], and abortion" - i.e. not mentioning race. Nixon easily swept the South, along with the rest of the country. However, it should be noted that five old-bull Dixiecrat Senators that were up that year were all easily re-elected as Democrats. Republicans won a seat in NC, where the old-bull had been defeated in the primary, and defeated a first-term incumbent in VA.

That was the pattern for the next 50 years: the Dixiecrats died off, retired, were primaried by other Democrats. Many of the "yellow-dog" Democrat voters died off as well. New cohorts of white Southern voters entered the voting population. They had no interest in white supremacy (it was dead), and most had no sympathy for the increasingly liberal tone of the Democrats. So they became Republicans, and began to elect Republican state and local officials.

It should be noted that this process took about 35 years. Texas still elected more Democrat Representatives than Republicans as late as 2002, thirty years after Nixon's sweep.
 
Last edited:
No, it is not. The lockstep loyalty of Southern whites to the Democratic Party was an extreme and unnatural condition. It arose as a response to the threat of domination by black Republican majorities in some states and many localities, during and after Reconstruction.

It was sustained because the national Democratic Party protected the white supremacy regime in the South - blocking any Republican efforts for civil rights legislation, even anti-lynching laws, and appointing only Dixiecrat whites to Federal offices in the South (Judges, US Attorneys).

This ended in 1948, when the Democrat convention adopted a civil rights plank at the behest of liberal northern Democrats, who were a majority in the party and no longer willing accomplices in Jim Crow.

(It occurs to me that this may have been affected by the Roosevelt landslides in the 1930s; from 1880 to 1930, the Democrats outside the South were a minority party and at times almost vestigial. For instance, after the 1928 elections, there were 97 Democrat Representatives from the South and only 62 from the rest of the country, compared to 261 Republicans. (NOTE: these numbers may not be exactly right. I used the Congressional Biographical Dictionary's list of Representatives in the 71st Congress, and there were more than 435, due to Representatives dying or resigning in mid-term and being replaced in special elections.) But from 1932, non-Southern Democrats became the majority in the party.)

The institutional loyalty of Southerners to the Democrats remained. There were mutinies at the presidential level, right up through 1968's Wallace campaign. But there was very little change at the state level. Republicans did make progress in the South in the 1950s and 1960s, but it was mainly in areas that were outside the traditional "Solid South": Texas and Florida, and also Tennessee, which had always had a relatively strong Republican Party (electing governors in 1910, 1912, 1920).

There wasn't any great shift to the Republicans, because the Republican position on civil rights was essentially the same as the non-Southern Democrats. Then, with the 24th Amendment, the Voting Rights Act, and the Civil Rights Act, the white supremacy regime was overthrown - abolished, wiped out. This happened in the mid-1960s, and was <i>not</i> revoked by Republicans.

White Southerners were no longer constrained in their voting by the defense of white supremacy, and began to consider other issues. On these other issues, most of them were <i>not</i> in sympathy with non-Southern Democrats. In the 1972 election, Democrats nominated a relatively far-left Democrat for President, spurning mainstream liberals. They even expelled Chicago Mayor Richard Daley from the convention as insufficiently progressive. This allowed Republican Richard Nixon to paint the Democrats as the party of "Acid [drugs], amnesty [for draft evaders], and abortion" - i.e. not mentioning race. Nixon easily swept the South, along with the rest of the country. However, it should be noted that five old-bull Dixiecrat Senators that were up that year were all easily re-elected as Democrats. Republicans won a seat in NC, where the old-bull had been defeated in the primary, and defeated a first-term incumbent in VA.

That was the pattern for the next 50 years: the Dixiecrats died off, retired, were primaried by other Democrats. Many of the "yellow-dog" Democrat voters died off as well. New cohorts of white Southern voters entered the voting population. They had no interest in white supremacy (it was dead), and most had no sympathy for the increasingly liberal tone of the Democrats. So they became Republicans, and began to elect Republican state and local officials.

It should be noted that this process took about 35 years. Texas still elected more Democrat Representatives than Republicans as late as 2002, thirty years after Nixon's sweep.
As the south became less racist, it became more Republican
 
As the south became less racist, it became more Republican

Let us say, as white Southerners became less concerned with race as a political issue (because there was nothing to be done about it), they became open to voting Republican.

And one must acknowledge that when Southern blacks regained the vote, they voted Democrat; many racist whites went over to the Republicans in reaction. Even if the Republican Party did nothing for them in supporting white supremacy or segregation, by voting Republican they voted against black candidates. There have been some genuine slimeballs calling themselves Republicans.
 
IntellectuallyHonestRhino wrote:
What would happen if Governor Thomas Dewey became President in 1948?

A lot actually, I can't recommend the cited journal articles (https://books.google.com/books?id=3wUEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA10#v=onepage&q&f=false) "What Dewey Will Do" enough. How much he actually accomplishes is of course a question. There's also at least one "Dewey Wins" thread which discussed several 'non-public' aspects of the Dewey Campaign, (such as his 'deal' to move Hoover to the Supreme Court when the opportunity arose*) along with some discussion of specific cabinet appointments. I'll post a link if I can re-find it :)

How similar/different would his presidency have been from Eisenhower's?

A lot probably since while Dewey was for a 'balanced' budget he was also committed to stopping the Truman lead "freefall" of defense spending, more concerned with Organized Crime than Communists, (which was one reason he wanted Hoover out of the FBI) and while he appreciated the "Truman Plan" of economic aid was adamant it had to be backed by military power OTHER than 'just' the A-bomb. He was honest and straightforward about no tax cut and that there would likely be a tax increase to restore the military and stabilize the economy. He not only wanted more defensive spending he wanted more control over the policy and direction of that defense which the Republican Congress had been hesitant to give Truman but (initially at least) would be more favorable towards a GOP President.

As note his probable Secretary of Defense, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Lovett) was very critical of the WAY Truman spent defense money and was not at all convinced that either the Navy or Army were in fact "obsolete" as Truman's SoD Johnson was. Like Marshall he advocated a 'balanced' military force capable of responding to various threats in a credible manner rather than depending on "massive retaliation" alone. (A stance he passed on to Eisenhower and the incoming Charles Wilson which they both you will note ignored)

Lastly you do realize that Eisenhower won't be elected in such a timeline as the ONLY reason he considered running in 1952 was because the main GOP contender was Isolationist Taft who had risen SPECIFICALLY because of Dewey's loss in 1948. No loss, no traction for Taft and no reason for Eisenhower to consider a run. I suspect Dewey, (who greatly respected Eisenhower and suggested 'drafting' him once he came out as a Republican) might offer Eisenhower a post somewhere along the line and will definitely listen to his suggestions, (a Federal Highway system is likely to be proposed and credited to Eisenhower) neither Dewey or his administration will buy into the "New Look" as we know it as it was counter to their preferred and stated goals for US defense policy.

Would it have butterflied away the Dixiecrats eventually joining the GOP?

Dewey wasn't as 'for' Civil Rights as Truman but he wasn't against them either. Having said that he was solidly aiming to make political inroads with the "Solid South" Democratic machine but he wasn't all that willing to take a firm "Dixicrat" stand either. The "Dixicrats" were always going to break with the Democrats over Civil Rights, but as noted the majority of them simply 'died/retired' off rather than switch parties. I don't think a Dewey Presidency is going to change that trajectory much it at all. That's not to say some of the more outrageous 'incidents' of the times might push Dewey to a more aggressive stance as frankly Truman HAD to 'play-nice' with the Dixicrats whereas Dewey does not. On the Gripping hand such action would also make the "Solid" south that much more "solid" in nature so it would greatly depend on the circumstances.

In general the integration of the military will be touted and shown as a (rather passive but the Military is all for it) example of how "easy" integration would be. (Though I'm going to point out how 'amused' I am that in 1948 the first African-American officer nurse appointed to the Regular Army Nurse Corps from the Reserves was Lt. Leftenant, I'm sure to the amusement of the Brits :) (http://www.blackenterprise.com/african-american-women-who-made-u-s-military-history/)

The "Dixicrats" were all "New Deal" and favored labor but were against "Civil Rights" and while they had issues with the main Democratic push for Civil Rights under Truman they never considered switching to the GOP because Eisenhower pushed them as well. It was only when Kennedy really started hammering the issue that the die-hard "Dixicrats" finally lost to opponents who said they were "Republican" but were really just not 'Democrats' like Kennedy. As a voting block they had lost just to much power over time and even if Nixon had won, (another OTL outcome that probably won't happen TTL) they were going to split from the Democrats eventually but would have had no incentive to join the GOP. Thrumond was going GOP as that was the 'trend' going on in the South at the time. In reality it didn't matter what party he claimed it was his name and stance that got him elected.

As noted he'd have to deal with several 'crisis' very early on:

1) The revelation and consequences of the Soviet Atomic Bomb, (August 1949) with all the shock and panic that happened OTL. Of course this can be laid at the feet of the 'previous' Democratic administrations with some justification so I suspect it won't hurt him to badly depending on his response.

2) Communist win China in October of 1949. Again not a lot he can do to change this at this point, and again this can easily be blamed on the Democrats.

3) Korea is a question as we began withdrawing troops in June of 1949 as part of the general 'draw-down' under the Truman's defense policy which included reductions in Navy ships, Marine and Army units demobilized or sent to the reserves and such which Dewey was directly opposed to. Pressure and an obvious focus on defense spending and re-organizing the US military "should" put some doubts in Stalin's mind, (it won't change Mao's but he was hesitant for other reasons) especially as I can see Dewey pushing for an earlier (OTL July 29) end to the Berlin Blockade and Airlift.

OTL Kim Il-sung used communications difficulties between Moscow and Bejing to facilitate his arguments that each of the OTHER leaders agreed to his proposed invasion of the South and the ease of victory. Even if not much directly has happened yet, (by June 25 1950) there has been two years of Dewey's stated policy and rhetoric of rearmament and increased defense to consider which I would think would make both Stalin and Mao a bit more wary. It may be that they would insist on a 'face-to-face' meeting before approval at which time it is unlikely Kim gets the go-ahead he did OTL.

Something to keep in mind is that the initial idea was to stage withdrawal of the US troops through Japan but MacArthur nixed that plan so as not to 'upset' the Japanese, He'd also 'guaranteed' the forces already in Japan were more than adequate to deploy and defend South Korea if needed but he assured Truman that North Korea had no plans to use military force on the South and that all opinions to the contrary were produced by the South Korean government which he felt was building up to invade the North.

Nukes in Korea: The "support" of nukes in Korea by John Foster Dulles needs to be kept in contextual sense, he only 'supported' such use once it was clear the Chinese were engaging UN forces and he did not agree to a general use but only specific circumstances.

Having said that he'd developed a counter policy to the Truman doctrine of 'containment' towards a more direct confrontational system of 'rollback' direct opposition to Communist expansion. As Eisenhower's Secretary of State he agreed with Ike's 'defense on a budget' policy of the "New Look" and the use of non-military, (covert operations) means to oppose communism but this had been a development from his earlier outlook which he would have brought to a Dewey Administration. In the 1950 to 1952 period he was more supportive of a direct military intervention while still staying away from massive retaliation and total commitment to a nuclear based "total war or nothing" strategy. It was after Ike appointed him that he began to agree that 'covert operations' which up to that point had been a relative failure in the hands of the CIA. It wasn't until the success' of the Coup in Iran (1953) and Guatemala (1954) that "covert operations" began to look more 'cost effective' than military use. It needs to be kept in mind that either of those operations could have easily failed in some instead or may not have been authorized to the same extent if Dewey had been elected.

4) McCarthy: His 'campaign' was useful for the GOP against the Democratic Truman administration, it was quickly shut down once the GOP had a Republican president so I would see him having little or no traction from the start with trying to pull the same stunts under Dewey. Once it was clear he was actually 'finding' no Communists and worse that he in fact had no 'list of names', (he didn't which was rapidly found out but buried) his campaign is going to get shut down. Hard. This is not any kind of publicity the GOP is going to want when they are in charge. As the whole mess kicks off with the supposed 'list" in February 1950 it will not be in Dewey's interests to let this explode as it did OTL, (If it even happens because it was originally aimed at decrying the Democrats allowing Communist infiltration of the government) even if a Korean war kicks off as scheduled by June of 1950.

5) Assuming a two-term Dewey Administration, (1949-1953 then 1953-1961) is interesting because a LOT of the history around that time depends so much on who's President. As we've discussed Dewey was going to immediately propose a more balanced spending INCREASE for the US military, including if need be an increased tax rate. OTL the Congressional and Senate GOP was willing to go along with the continued cuts due to Truman and Wilsons spinning of various events as supporting a single policy of "Massive Retaliation" which Dewey and Lovett did not agree with. It can be argued that the GOP therefore would oppose such spending but the question is why would they do so? They did so under Truman for the obvious reason it was in fact the ONLY proposal on the table and opposing it would not go over well with the public. As I've noted before Truman took his re-election as a mandate from the public to not only continue what he'd been doing but to increase and accelerate the process. This backfired when the Korean war broke out of course but it's not a fully 'logical' course in the first place.

The Truman policy was "containment" of Communism and it had been a failure, (which Dewey argued as did the Congressional GOP) and which Dewey specifically called a failure and was proposing a reversal of that policy in specific if not in general. So everyone was assuming Dewey would win and THIS would become official policy when Truman won and everyone, (except Truman) suddenly found they needed to re-examine their assumptions. Congressional and Senate GOP members who had been supporting and advocating increased spending and defense expansion had been shown that (apparently) the public agreed more with Truman than Dewey and so adjusted their stances and advocacy. This does not happen if Dewey actually wins.

If Dewey wins then the public appears to agree with HIS policies which are for increased spending and possibly increased taxes to pay for it all hence the GOP won't feel the need to 'appease' the public as much. By late 1949 military spending is back up so there will be 'trickle-down' effects all over.

Priorities had to be assigned to R&D programs even by the Air Force between 1946 and 1948. The Atlas missile had been limping along since inception in 1946 but the election of Truman was the nail that got it shunted down to a "paperwork" only program due to further cuts in spending AND the Air Force being given the choice of "bombers" and a little R&D or "bombers" and nothing for R&D. The AF chose the former and since air-breathing cruise missiles were considered a higher chance of deployment 'soon' they got what little R&D was left over.

And so things stood until the Korean war opened up the spigots of defense spending, but even then the majority of the AF brass considered the ICBM to be a 'far-future' weapons system. Even with all the money now available the Atlas didn't get 'refunded' until a compromise was worked out in 1953 to get the Atlas moved up in priority to that of the Snark and Navaho at which point it became clear that with enough effort the Atlas could be just as viable, (and operational on the same schedule) as either of those so in 1954 it was given a higher priority... At the same time both the Titan and the Minuteman began development both of which promised even more capability. But by 1957 all of them were far behind schedule and nowhere near operation. Then the Soviets announced they had an ICBM AND launched Sputnik to prove it.

And suddenly the Atlas, Titan and Minuteman get PRESIDENTIAL priority and everything leaps forward...

But let's go back to 1948 and Dewey in the White House instead of Truman. By late 1949 the Air Force has a bit more money AND is not given a direct choice between "bombers" OR "R&D" but both AND some little more cash to spend. It was very true that a majority of the Air Force brass saw ICBMs as future "Buck Rodgers" weapons, however, they were also well aware that description included the Atomic bomb so funding is likely not going to dry up as completely as it did OTL. More to the point Lovett's proposed defense spending was towards "preparedness and deterrence" rather than "reactive and massive retaliation" so he was likely more open to possible 'future' weapons systems like the ICBM.

But wait there's more! Lest we forget the Navy had the USS United States in planning with the keel laid on April 18 1949. Arguably with more funding in the works, (and no Wilson around) it is likely that they can be convinced to 're-think' the concept and to delay at least construction. (They will after all now have funding to look into other alternatives to an atomic bomber carrier) Which in and of itself could mean no need for the 'Revolt of the Admirals" and all the public trust that cost the Navy. (And which was gained by the Air Force)

Oh and then there is this "IRBM" concept which the Air Force specifically had NO interest in but the Army did.
Actually they had been working on several different version of the "Hermes" test since 1944 including the A-1 liquid fueled surface-to-air missile, the A-2 solid propellant surface-to-surface missile, and the A-3 liquid propellant "longer range" surface-to-surface missile.

As noted the Truman budget cuts, (seriously spend on domestic programs and divide what is literally "left over" among the military with the majority going to the Air Force JUST because they are the only ones who can deliver an atom bomb... And not many if any of those considering they MISSED Cleveland Ohio during a 'practice' run by several miles, in fact SAC only possessed 60 nuclear capable bombers in October of 1948 none of which possessed long range capability to hit the USSR even from European airstrips**) greatly affected ALL military R&D but more specifically those services that were not directly tied to the delivery of atomic weapons. Hence from 1946 to 1948 most funding for 'advanced' research and development dried up.

Still some work was able to be done, on a shoe-string and with a lot of "bailing wire and scotch tape". (No duct tape yet so that explains a lot of the early failures I suppose) The A-1 was superseded by the Nike missile with the vehicles already built regulated to test vehicles. The A-2 was canceled in 1947 but revived OTL in 1948 as a 'tactical' missile which eventually became the Sergeant. The A-3 puttered along but constantly changing requirements and redesigns along with chronic lack of funding and eventually died for lack of mission as technology and development from the program were used in the operational Redstone missile.

Initially the Hermes C-1 for a "liquid, long-range tactical nuclear missile" like every advanced program not being done by the Air Force the program sputtered along till (OTL) 1950 and the funding rush from the Korean war. In a Dewey timeline we can expect an injection of funds by late 1949 which makes a difference because the funding would ramp up about two years earlier than OTL meaning less having to 're-learn and re-build'.

So you can see some significant changes in the background from a Dewey win would occur and we haven't even gotten into some of the "good" ones yet. Like, would Dewey "recognize" Israel? (Marshall and Lovett were against it) Despite having the Truman government 'authorize' Covert Operation through the CIA up until the Korean war it had neither the budget nor manpower to actually do anything. Given a more 'military' focus of the Dewey Administration could that mean the CIA actually never becomes more than the Central coordinating and Intelligence "library" it was originally supposed to be? That assuredly means that MI6 has to take a more active role in Iran, (which was the US OTL specifically if things fell apart so we could take the "fall" as well as the "credit") and United Fruit might have to get "hired" help if the US government isn't in a position to help in Guatemala.

Interesting stuff...

Randy
 
Dean Acheson, who was Truman's Secretary of State, in 1949 omitted South Korea in a description of the US's "defense perimeter" in Asia. In conjunction with the U.S. pullout of troops that, this was taken by the Communists as the U.S. indirectly saying it didn't consider Korea a vital interest and wouldn't intervene in the region. Without a Truman Administration in power, you could thus avoid the Acheson speech as well as have an ongoing U.S. buildup, which should deter the Communists and thus prevent the Korean War.
 
Dean Acheson, who was Truman's Secretary of State, in 1949 omitted South Korea in a description of the US's "defense perimeter" in Asia. In conjunction with the U.S. pullout of troops that, this was taken by the Communists as the U.S. indirectly saying it didn't consider Korea a vital interest and wouldn't intervene in the region. Without a Truman Administration in power, you could thus avoid the Acheson speech as well as have an ongoing U.S. buildup, which should deter the Communists and thus prevent the Korean War.

Maybe, but maybe not actually :) See leaders in both the North AND South were convinced they had a limited opportunity window in which to use force to unite the nation. A possibility is that with increased US military readiness (though to be honest MacArthur is still going to divert a lot) which will probably include military aid, the South might actually be the ones who jump fully expecting the US to back them.

OTL both the Korean and Vietnam wars were VERY important "learning experiences" for the US military which was both preparing to fight WWII again with atomic weapons while being starved of funding and support and without which there would be very large 'butterflies' down the line.

Randy
 
Ike might be recruited by the Democrats in 1952. Dewey gets blamed for "losing" China and possibly Korea, unless he gets us into the unpopular Korean War and is vulnerable.
 

bguy

Donor
But let's go back to 1948 and Dewey in the White House instead of Truman. By late 1949 the Air Force has a bit more money AND is not given a direct choice between "bombers" OR "R&D" but both AND some little more cash to spend. It was very true that a majority of the Air Force brass saw ICBMs as future "Buck Rodgers" weapons, however, they were also well aware that description included the Atomic bomb so funding is likely not going to dry up as completely as it did OTL. More to the point Lovett's proposed defense spending was towards "preparedness and deterrence" rather than "reactive and massive retaliation" so he was likely more open to possible 'future' weapons systems like the ICBM.

Lovett was a big proponent of missiles over bombers, so I would expect Atlas to get a big funding boost.

https://books.google.com/books?id=U...&q=Lovett rockets rather than bombers&f=false

Any thoughts on Dewey's likely Supreme Court picks?
 
Top