Eisenhower dies in 1955

MrHola

Banned
Alright, based on you're suggestions, I've made of lists of VP's and Presidents.

Presidents of the United States (since 1945)

Franklin Roosevelt (1933 – 1945)

Harry Truman (1945 – 1953)

Dwight Eisenhower (1953 – 1955)

Richard Nixon (1955 – 1965)

Robert Kennedy (1965 – 1973)

Ralph Yarborough (1973 – 1977)

Vice Presidents of the United States (since 1945)

Harry Truman (1944 – 1945)

Allen Barkley (1949 – 1953)

Richard Nixon (1953 – 1955)

Douglas MacArthur (1957 – 1961)

Nelson Rockefeller (1961 – 1965)

Ralph Yarborough (1965 – 1973)

Henry Jackson (1973 – 1977)
 
Alright, based on you're suggestions, I've made of lists of VP's and Presidents.

Presidents of the United States (since 1945)

Franklin Roosevelt (1933 – 1945)

Harry Truman (1945 – 1953)

Dwight Eisenhower (1953 – 1955)

Richard Nixon (1955 – 1965)

Robert Kennedy (1965 – 1973)

Ralph Yarborough (1973 – 1977)

Vice Presidents of the United States (since 1945)

Harry Truman (1944 – 1945)

Allen Barkley (1949 – 1953)

Richard Nixon (1953 – 1955)

Douglas MacArthur (1957 – 1961)

Nelson Rockefeller (1961 – 1965)

Ralph Yarborough (1965 – 1973)

Henry Jackson (1973 – 1977)

Very interesting! Seems plausible to me. I'd imagine that RFK manages to out flank Rockefeller (plus 10 years of Nixon is probably enough of the Republicans); he also probably leads a charge for greater civil rights within the Democratic Party. I'd love to see the political evolution of the parties.

Also, I'd thought that MacArthurt would die 1960 (he collapsed in OTL on his birthday due to an enlarged prostate; I'm thinking the increased stress of being VP might push him over the edge).
 
Last edited:
Dwight Eisenhower (1953 – 1955)
Richard Nixon (1955 – 1965)
Robert Kennedy (1965 – 1973)

No reason for Kennedy to run, as RFK only became interested in elected office after his brother died.

Far more likely for that to be JFK, assuming no scandals (also assuming he doesn't run in '60). Humphrey, LBJ, and a couple others are also outside chance possibilities.

Vice Presidents of the United States (since 1945)

Nelson Rockefeller (1961 – 1965)

I don't think Rockefeller would accept. VP in 1960 was not the springboard to the Presidency it would be later (IOTL). He's only been Governor of New York a couple years, and has no real reason to give that up.
 
No reason for Kennedy to run, as RFK only became interested in elected office after his brother died.

Far more likely for that to be JFK, assuming no scandals (also assuming he doesn't run in '60). Humphrey, LBJ, and a couple others are also outside chance possibilities.

I've always thought the Kennedys motivated by Joseph's driving ambitions. Plus, by 1964 it's possible that JFK's Addison's has advanced to such a stage that running for office isn't feasible. You might be right, however, that 1964 is a bit earlier for RFK to run, particularly with the like of Humphrey and LBJ.


I don't think Rockefeller would accept. VP in 1960 was not the springboard to the Presidency it would be later (IOTL). He's only been Governor of New York a couple years, and has no real reason to give that up.

You're right that the VPcy in 1960 was viewed in a far different light in 1960 than it is now, but I think it all depends on how MacArthur works out as VP. There's a chance, however, for Rockefeller to accept: Nixon will be looking to cultivate an orderly succession for Republican policies, I think. He thought of the VPcy as such a role; I suppose then the question is whether Rockefeller decides to accept, given the differences between Nixon and Rockefeller. I'd expect those differences are fairly small or at least overcome-able.
 
I was going to ask about possible VPs... So, Nixon as President from 1955-60, and possibly to '64. But is this really the relatively pragmatic, "only Nixon could go to China," version we know from OTL?
I would presume that 15 years earlier than OTL, he has differing views to those he would later hold. Some of this has already been covered - might he in fact come down one way or the other with the Red Scare, either encouraging it or ridiculing McCarthyite excesses?

Honestly, I don't know Nixon's views at this period.

MacArthur, on his deathbed, warned LBJ and said that we shouldn't get involved in Vietnam. However, newsflash, we were already involved in Vietnam by the 1960s. Have you ever seen the movie Go Tell The Spartans? It's about our involvement in Vietnam as "advisers," before the Gulf
of Tonkin Resolution.

Not to be confused with Meet the Spartans... ;)
 
I was going to ask about possible VPs... So, Nixon as President from 1955-60, and possibly to '64. But is this really the relatively pragmatic, "only Nixon could go to China," version we know from OTL?

I would presume that 15 years earlier than OTL, he has differing views to those he would later hold. Some of this has already been covered - might he in fact come down one way or the other with the Red Scare, either encouraging it or ridiculing McCarthyite excesses?

Nixon got in and gained power under the "red scare", which is why conservatives could put up with him, but in a general sense he was always quite the pragmatic man.

Without the defeats of 1960 & 1962 that should be a plus that hopefully outweighs the plus of his OTL successful law career.

I've always thought the Kennedys motivated by Joseph's driving ambitions. Plus, by 1964 it's possible that JFK's Addison's has advanced to such a stage that running for office isn't feasible. You might be right, however, that 1964 is a bit earlier for RFK to run, particularly with the like of Humphrey and LBJ.

I do think that it was JFK's death that propelled RFK. If you look at RFK in an even light most days he's not a great campaigner, not terribly likeable in public, and his best speeches are motivated by urgency and tragedy—I can't imagine him stumping during a normal campaign (see, for example, his fairly average '64 Senate race which was won because of money and staff, not his ability).

You're right that the VPcy in 1960 was viewed in a far different light in 1960 than it is now, but I think it all depends on how MacArthur works out as VP. There's a chance, however, for Rockefeller to accept: Nixon will be looking to cultivate an orderly succession for Republican policies, I think. He thought of the VPcy as such a role; I suppose then the question is whether Rockefeller decides to accept, given the differences between Nixon and Rockefeller. I'd expect those differences are fairly small or at least overcome-able.

Nixon might, as he did in '68, find the person whose blandness effects the ticket not a whit and that would leave Rockefeller with the second highest Republican profile around.

I think it boils down to a couple competing factors. The conservative activist faction, than in its infancy, will object to Rockefeller. Goldwater, as he did over the civil rights Nixon-Rockefeller deal of OTL 1960, will object. The progressive faction wants Rockefeller. The Main Street faction is probably happy with Nixon, and doesn't care. Southerners don't matter yet.

I could see Rockefeller having the stature that Nixon is forced to offer him the VP slot, but Rockefeller agrees to stay off in return for? Likewise I could see Rockefeller accepting, in return for a new civil rights or city compromise.

Frankly, Nixon has enough clout (depending if he wants to use it) for all sorts of VP scenarios.
 
One thing Nixon almost certainly would have done would have been to ensure that the USA kept ahead in the number of nuclear missiles kept by the military to make certain that they were ahead of the USSR.

Wasn't the missile gap just a false alarm?

At this point, though, Nixon probably having to weight events in Cuba and elsewhere, so his reaction to helping the French may be dicated by other answers. If he gives the French some arms and money, though, perhaps that could tip the scales in some way? Certainly if events on the ground can prevent Diem's emergence as a corrupt leader, the communists may not gain the upper hand. If Britain has not been humiliated at Suez and that incident creates an amenable precedent, perhaps the British help the French out? They were quite effective in Malaysia.

This is '55 and after, the French were out of Indochina in '54.
 
Top