Johnson president in1968 (no vietnam war) : who's president in 1972 ?
- Thread starter Archibald
- Start date
i think like this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1968
Democrats
Robert Kennedy (if not Killed)
Hubert H. Humphrey (Vize President under Johnson)
Edmund S. Muskie as Vice Presidential tally for Humprey
Republicans
Robert Nixon
Ronald Reagan
Nelson Rockefeller
American Independent party
George Wallace
Curtis LeMay as Vice Presidential tally for Wallace
(he say "We shall use Atombomb on Vietnam" )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1968
Democrats
Robert Kennedy (if not Killed)
Hubert H. Humphrey (Vize President under Johnson)
Edmund S. Muskie as Vice Presidential tally for Humprey
Republicans
Robert Nixon
Ronald Reagan
Nelson Rockefeller
American Independent party
George Wallace
Curtis LeMay as Vice Presidential tally for Wallace
(he say "We shall use Atombomb on Vietnam"
)First you have to determine how far back in time you'd need to go w/a POD to make LBJ a viable candidate for re-election. By mid-1967 1/2 million US troops were in Vietnam and we had more tonnage of bombs then had been used by our air force in WW2 and still that "pissant power" hadn't been defeated. By then he had put his "great society" agenda on hold and was beseiged by a growing anti-war movement here at home. In hindsight, his only chance for victory in '68 would be if at some time in mid '67 he had changed course and said to the American people, "I will no longer permit our young men to be dragged through that meatgrinder of a civil war in SE Asia. We have been a thrid party to this conflict long enough and we have done all we can do to bring democracy and stability to the region. Now, the Vietnamese must do it on their own. I am ordering our troops our pull out, except for a small force to guard our embassy in Saigon, within 300 days from today. Our diplomatic presence will remain in the region and I hope that we can continue to work for peace between South and North vietnam." With vietnam off the table, he probably wins.
As for 1972, I see:
Reagan-Romney (he never made his "I was brainwashed" comment) for the Republicans
Humphrey OR Kennedy-Sanford for the Democrats (keep in mind that LBJ died just weeks after his 2nd term would have ended. HHH may have been POTUS if the stress of the 2nd term triggered his fatal heart attack earlier than in OTL.)
As for 1972, I see:
Reagan-Romney (he never made his "I was brainwashed" comment) for the Republicans
Humphrey OR Kennedy-Sanford for the Democrats (keep in mind that LBJ died just weeks after his 2nd term would have ended. HHH may have been POTUS if the stress of the 2nd term triggered his fatal heart attack earlier than in OTL.)
Last edited:
The POD almost certainly has to be a delayed or perceived as American victory Tet offence. Anything further back than that and we run into major butterflies.
As for 1972, I concur with the Reagan-RFK match-up. In 1972 Humphrey will not get the establishment support he got in 1968, and Reagan will be much better prepared and that negates Nixon's only real advantage. McCarthy will not run after Johnson crushed him in 1968.
Rockefeller was, let's face it, an outside shot anytime past 1964 given how much the GOP activists hated him. Nixon won in 1968 because neither Reagan nor Rockefeller ran great campaigns (also Nixon got Thurmond on board, and that prevented the South swinging to Reagan).
(Romney was never a great candidate, and I see few Democrats willing to go head-to-head with RFK. This does leave room for Rockefeller or somebody on the left of the Republican Party to run.)
As for who wins? It depends on Johnson's second term, and it depends on the campaign both candidates run.
As for 1972, I concur with the Reagan-RFK match-up. In 1972 Humphrey will not get the establishment support he got in 1968, and Reagan will be much better prepared and that negates Nixon's only real advantage. McCarthy will not run after Johnson crushed him in 1968.
Rockefeller was, let's face it, an outside shot anytime past 1964 given how much the GOP activists hated him. Nixon won in 1968 because neither Reagan nor Rockefeller ran great campaigns (also Nixon got Thurmond on board, and that prevented the South swinging to Reagan).
(Romney was never a great candidate, and I see few Democrats willing to go head-to-head with RFK. This does leave room for Rockefeller or somebody on the left of the Republican Party to run.)
As for who wins? It depends on Johnson's second term, and it depends on the campaign both candidates run.
Archibald
Banned
Thank you for the input.
He he, in my alt-history there's no Vietnam war at all because France find an agrement with Ho-Chi-Minh in 1946, thus avoiding Vietnam devastation over the next 30 years...
That's why I supposed that Johnson was reelected in 1968.
From what I understood he was candidate until march 1968 before withdrawing from the race. Vietnam seemed to be the cause.
He he, in my alt-history there's no Vietnam war at all because France find an agrement with Ho-Chi-Minh in 1946, thus avoiding Vietnam devastation over the next 30 years...
That's why I supposed that Johnson was reelected in 1968.
From what I understood he was candidate until march 1968 before withdrawing from the race. Vietnam seemed to be the cause.
Like I said if we reach that far back butterflies become a major factor. No French involvement changes French foreign policy, this alters the situation in Europe, this alters things in America, this may effect a Presidential election, etc….
You simply cannot assume that the situation in America will remain the same all the way to Johnson.
For example: Greater French resources from not getting involved in Indo-China mean their invasion to seize the Suez Canal is altered (assuming they even do one) and the Americans decide not to intervene against their close allies[1].
Adlai Stevenson uses this as an issue and manages to beat Eisenhower. JFK might still wind up President but in 1964, and Johnson will likely never be VP or President.
[1] IOTL Eisenhower used the Suez Canal as an election issue to help his victory, when the sensible policy would have been support of the Anglo-French invasion.
You simply cannot assume that the situation in America will remain the same all the way to Johnson.
For example: Greater French resources from not getting involved in Indo-China mean their invasion to seize the Suez Canal is altered (assuming they even do one) and the Americans decide not to intervene against their close allies[1].
Adlai Stevenson uses this as an issue and manages to beat Eisenhower. JFK might still wind up President but in 1964, and Johnson will likely never be VP or President.
[1] IOTL Eisenhower used the Suez Canal as an election issue to help his victory, when the sensible policy would have been support of the Anglo-French invasion.
It sounds better, but as long as I'm nitpicking the details—Johnson would never do that, and it still doesn't work for your timeline unless you've changed the POD. Not only did he believe that JFK intended to escalate[1], but he strongly thought that the US needed to win to keep their overall position in SE Asia (aka the domino effect) stable.
If the French never get sucked into Viet Nam, the Americans will never even think about getting involved.
How about this: You post your POD and a quick rough draft, and we throw out advice for the US if that's the part you're having trouble with.
[1] This is a very arguable point, but certain evidence seems to indicate that JFK was fine with escalation up to, but not including, American troops on the ground since he well remembered what happened to the French. (Incidentally I am not under any illusions to JFK's overall performance as President, but in this specific case I don't really think he wanted to get deeply involved in Viet Nam.)
If the French never get sucked into Viet Nam, the Americans will never even think about getting involved.
How about this: You post your POD and a quick rough draft, and we throw out advice for the US if that's the part you're having trouble with.
[1] This is a very arguable point, but certain evidence seems to indicate that JFK was fine with escalation up to, but not including, American troops on the ground since he well remembered what happened to the French. (Incidentally I am not under any illusions to JFK's overall performance as President, but in this specific case I don't really think he wanted to get deeply involved in Viet Nam.)
randomkeith
Banned
No American Involvment in Veitnam
What if America never became milatry involved in Veitnam, sure they supplied the South Veitnamese with guns and ammunition but never actually went in on the ground themselves.
I think we can asume that the communists would still have won, but a few years and thousands of casulties earlier.
Now what does the Khmer Rouge still come to power in Cambodia? and the communtists in Laos?? Given that they did in OTL i'd say yes.
But does Communism spread further in SE Asia, Thailand?? (Probally not) Burma (Distinct possabilty) Malaysia? (possible) Even East Bangladesh??? (Tricky one)
What if America never became milatry involved in Veitnam, sure they supplied the South Veitnamese with guns and ammunition but never actually went in on the ground themselves.
I think we can asume that the communists would still have won, but a few years and thousands of casulties earlier.
Now what does the Khmer Rouge still come to power in Cambodia? and the communtists in Laos?? Given that they did in OTL i'd say yes.
But does Communism spread further in SE Asia, Thailand?? (Probally not) Burma (Distinct possabilty) Malaysia? (possible) Even East Bangladesh??? (Tricky one)
randomkeith
Banned
OOPPPSSS
That got me thinking about what if No American involvment in Vietnam. Obviousley. So i started a new thread, unfortuantly wasn't looking where i created it. Oh well.
BUMP
That got me thinking about what if No American involvment in Vietnam. Obviousley. So i started a new thread, unfortuantly wasn't looking where i created it. Oh well.
BUMP
Archibald
Banned
Thanks for your patience - after all you're a monk, even if you're an electric one -
Let's try this
Spring 1964
Johnson took the presidency after Kennedy murder in Dallas. And he inherited a very bad situation in south vietnam. after Diem murder, chaos was spreading, fueled by the communist insurgency. Even if he was willing to stop communism expansion in asia, Johnson had doubts on vietnam.
He perfectly remembered french difficulties, and had he not, march 1964 marked the tenth anniversary of the Dien-Bien-Phu disaster.
In such context french PM Georges Pompidou went to the USA and met Johnson. this was a long planned trip.
the two men met on the oval office on an afternoon late march 1964.
Johnson appreciated more Pompidou than De Gaulle, as Kennedy before him.
Pompidou was much less turbulent than the french president, in fact a rift had started to appeared between the two. It will lead to a breakdown in their relation after events of may 1968. Seems that Pompidou understood better youth revolt than de Gaulle, and press De Gaule to quit the presidence.
In july started the Markovic case.
Markovic was linked with french star Alain Delon and was murdered by unknown men. De Gaulle tried to prove that Pompidou was implied in the murder, even if he was not.
On this afternoon Johnson exposed its doubts to Pompidou, saying "I don't really want escalation and send troops there, but we are already commited to war. If only..."
"I know what you feel, it remind me situation we were in 1946. i remind that Leclerc talked to Ho chi minh at the time, but they didn't managed to avoid war. I've reminded thes events with Jean Saintenay recently, he was the man which tried to negociate peace with Ho.
"You mean you have a card to talk with this old communist leader? Was he really at the time the commie he is today?"
"Not really. More a nationalist which wanted to unite its country. By the way we had some old socialists leaders in france which knew him from 1920 onwards.
"Don't if a conference could help avoiding this war. It won't be easy to negociate with North Vietnam..."
"We have to try."
They separated shortly thereafter. Pompidou left the USA with Jonhson approval. Three days later he took contact with Saintenay again.
Contact was taken with Ho-chi-Minh.
Three months later negociations between the two Vietnam started in Paris. They were to last three years...
Let's try this
Spring 1964
Johnson took the presidency after Kennedy murder in Dallas. And he inherited a very bad situation in south vietnam. after Diem murder, chaos was spreading, fueled by the communist insurgency. Even if he was willing to stop communism expansion in asia, Johnson had doubts on vietnam.
He perfectly remembered french difficulties, and had he not, march 1964 marked the tenth anniversary of the Dien-Bien-Phu disaster.
In such context french PM Georges Pompidou went to the USA and met Johnson. this was a long planned trip.
the two men met on the oval office on an afternoon late march 1964.
Johnson appreciated more Pompidou than De Gaulle, as Kennedy before him.
Pompidou was much less turbulent than the french president, in fact a rift had started to appeared between the two. It will lead to a breakdown in their relation after events of may 1968. Seems that Pompidou understood better youth revolt than de Gaulle, and press De Gaule to quit the presidence.
In july started the Markovic case.
Markovic was linked with french star Alain Delon and was murdered by unknown men. De Gaulle tried to prove that Pompidou was implied in the murder, even if he was not.
On this afternoon Johnson exposed its doubts to Pompidou, saying "I don't really want escalation and send troops there, but we are already commited to war. If only..."
"I know what you feel, it remind me situation we were in 1946. i remind that Leclerc talked to Ho chi minh at the time, but they didn't managed to avoid war. I've reminded thes events with Jean Saintenay recently, he was the man which tried to negociate peace with Ho.
"You mean you have a card to talk with this old communist leader? Was he really at the time the commie he is today?"
"Not really. More a nationalist which wanted to unite its country. By the way we had some old socialists leaders in france which knew him from 1920 onwards.
"Don't if a conference could help avoiding this war. It won't be easy to negociate with North Vietnam..."
"We have to try."
They separated shortly thereafter. Pompidou left the USA with Jonhson approval. Three days later he took contact with Saintenay again.
Contact was taken with Ho-chi-Minh.
Three months later negociations between the two Vietnam started in Paris. They were to last three years...
I'm not quite sure how we reconcile this:
with this:
If we're just trying to keep the USA out of Viet Nam, have JFK live.
I honestly can't see Johnson not escalating Viet Nam. It was so seductive an idea, for the times. A gradual, scientific response. The enemy steps up pressure, the US adds a few more troops and a few more bombing raids. The enemy hit an airbase, move in a carrier. Etc…. The personality of Johnson, the conditions on which he took office, and the geopolitical situation he was presented with (and believed in) all lead almost inexorably to American boots on the ground in the jungles of Indochina.
It is simply nearly impossible to change things. JFK living and not escalating Viet Nam is easy. Johnson winning in 1968 is hard, but possible (Tet) but that just leads to more Viet Nam war. Johnson not escalating Viet Nam? Without altering Johnson the man (which would require butterflies decade back that might prevent him even becoming a Senator, let alone VP and then President) or drastically altering his advisors (which would involve altering JFK's advisors, and in of itself butterfly JFK's assassination) I can't see a way to do it.
Does it have to be Johnson?
What's the POD for the timeline? What are your goals—roughly speaking?
'Tis a Douglas Adam's labour saving invention.
with this:
If we're just trying to keep the USA out of Viet Nam, have JFK live.
I honestly can't see Johnson not escalating Viet Nam. It was so seductive an idea, for the times. A gradual, scientific response. The enemy steps up pressure, the US adds a few more troops and a few more bombing raids. The enemy hit an airbase, move in a carrier. Etc…. The personality of Johnson, the conditions on which he took office, and the geopolitical situation he was presented with (and believed in) all lead almost inexorably to American boots on the ground in the jungles of Indochina.
It is simply nearly impossible to change things. JFK living and not escalating Viet Nam is easy. Johnson winning in 1968 is hard, but possible (Tet) but that just leads to more Viet Nam war. Johnson not escalating Viet Nam? Without altering Johnson the man (which would require butterflies decade back that might prevent him even becoming a Senator, let alone VP and then President) or drastically altering his advisors (which would involve altering JFK's advisors, and in of itself butterfly JFK's assassination) I can't see a way to do it.
Does it have to be Johnson?
What's the POD for the timeline? What are your goals—roughly speaking?
'Tis a Douglas Adam's labour saving invention.
Archibald
Banned
No need for Johnson in particular - just a president nice enough to replace Vietnam war by a decent space program around 1967.
Presidential election was in november 1968, the new president taking its role in January 1969.
Now that we have ousted the idea of POD in Indochina around 1946
my POD would be in 1961.
June 1961.
USAF decide to give priority to suborbital DynaSoar, DS-1 and DS-2. That what was planned in Eisenhower era.
It is now a suborbital recon spaceplane launched by a Titan II.
Orbital variants are pushed aside.
At least this didn't conflict with NASA Gemini, thus pissing of Mc Namara in 1963. He doesn't cancell it, thus the program keep on and DynaSoar enter service in 1967.
This strongly influence NASA post-apollo program from 1966. I've discussed the subject on this board.
That's the first divergence.
Second difference is, as there's no Vietnam war (or at least a shortened one) , an ambitious post-Apollo program replace the shuttle.
The shuttle itself is replaced by a fantastic spacecraft, Big Gemini. Truly an outstanding concept...
So the guy elected president in 1968 (and probably re-elected in 1972) has to be a strong supporter of the space program...
Hope it's clear enough...
Hmmm more CIA and special forces to back South-vietnam troops. Add F-5A Tigers, a bunch of COIN planes and lots of Bell UH-1. But no commitment of "regular" army in south Vietnam.
Now I understand better why Stephen Baxter kept Kennedy alive in his book.
Last edited:
JFK then Rockefeller (out of the collection, he seems like the best possible guy for supporting NASA).
Rockefeller:
JFK lives because he goes to see a DynaSoar test or something and he goes to Dallas on a different day. Rockefeller doesn't believe he can win in 1964 and so stays out of the race. Goldwater wins the nomination, but loses to JFK. Thus, Rockefeller is not hated by Republican activists like he was IOTL
JFK decides not to put American troops in Viet Nam but keeps a lot of advisors there and elsewhere in SE Asia. He chooses Civil Rights and tax cuts over Medicare and the Great Society (IOTL Johnson got everything, but he was better with Congress and had JFK's recent death as political influence).
Rockefeller defeats Reagan in 1968 (Nixon doesn't run, or is defeated) and then beats whoever in the general. He decides that part of his "grand vision" will include a permanent US presence in space, and therefore NASA keeps getting money. With no Nixon there are no entitlements, and therefore the US budget will remain in much better shape for the future—add to that no Great Society/Medicare and no Viet Nam and there is plenty of money for a robust space program.
Rockefeller probably pushes nuclear power (1973 Yom Kipper War) and, being from New York State, probably infrastructure projects: roads, rail, city funding, that sort of thing.
Anyway, my guess is that that JFK living followed by Rockefeller in 1968 would be the best way to keep high funding for NASA. Further those two Presidents should leave the US in far better budgetary shape than the actual Presidents which will leave more money for NASA regardless.
Rockefeller:
JFK lives because he goes to see a DynaSoar test or something and he goes to Dallas on a different day. Rockefeller doesn't believe he can win in 1964 and so stays out of the race. Goldwater wins the nomination, but loses to JFK. Thus, Rockefeller is not hated by Republican activists like he was IOTL
JFK decides not to put American troops in Viet Nam but keeps a lot of advisors there and elsewhere in SE Asia. He chooses Civil Rights and tax cuts over Medicare and the Great Society (IOTL Johnson got everything, but he was better with Congress and had JFK's recent death as political influence).
Rockefeller defeats Reagan in 1968 (Nixon doesn't run, or is defeated) and then beats whoever in the general. He decides that part of his "grand vision" will include a permanent US presence in space, and therefore NASA keeps getting money. With no Nixon there are no entitlements, and therefore the US budget will remain in much better shape for the future—add to that no Great Society/Medicare and no Viet Nam and there is plenty of money for a robust space program.
Rockefeller probably pushes nuclear power (1973 Yom Kipper War) and, being from New York State, probably infrastructure projects: roads, rail, city funding, that sort of thing.
Anyway, my guess is that that JFK living followed by Rockefeller in 1968 would be the best way to keep high funding for NASA. Further those two Presidents should leave the US in far better budgetary shape than the actual Presidents which will leave more money for NASA regardless.
Archibald
Banned
Allelujah!
Interestingly having Kennedy not killed in Dallas was an early idea I had.
I had imagined that a minute before Oswald open fire, Kennedy is stabbed by the awful pain in its back and has to sit down in emergency.
As a consequence Oswald third bullet just thunder 1 cm above Kennedy's head leaving a scar. He's hurt by the second bullet, but this one was not lethal (ask Connelly)
Let's try Rockfeller after that.
Interestingly having Kennedy not killed in Dallas was an early idea I had.
I had imagined that a minute before Oswald open fire, Kennedy is stabbed by the awful pain in its back and has to sit down in emergency.
As a consequence Oswald third bullet just thunder 1 cm above Kennedy's head leaving a scar. He's hurt by the second bullet, but this one was not lethal (ask Connelly)
Let's try Rockfeller after that.
Kennedy only gets two terms and neither RFK nor EMK are going to run in 1968. You could have Rockefeller Vs. Kennedy in 1964, but I do believe Rockefeller would lose and then you'd have Nixon or Johnson in 1968—neither suitable for your purposes.
Oh Nixon can run in 1968, it's no big deal. The main difference is that Rockefeller has spent 1964-68 being nice to Republicans and so forth (instead of them hating him over the Goldwater-Rockefeller fracas in '64) and so, having seen Goldwater go down without Rockefeller being around, I imagine it comes down to a South/Far West/Rocky Mountain Reagan against the North/Mid-Atlantic/Great Lakes Rockefeller with Nixon squeezed out.
Their hearts are with Reagan, but as IOTL their heads will compel them to go with somebody else. In the ATL that's Rockefeller. I doubt Reagan would accept VP at the time, but Rockefeller will need a fairly conservative VP.
Nah, Reagan's fine. He'll be President in 1976 or 1980 in the ATL, he ran and lost OTL 1968 & 1976 and only finally won in 1980. In your ATL Goldwater will lose in 1964, but it will be less than he lost by IOTL.
Archibald
Banned
who's EMK ? (I know MLK, the RFK/JFK/ EFK brothers, but EMK is new to me)
Why not RFK in this case ? (aside being killed by Sirhan of course)
Who's on the democrat side along RFK?
from reading threads on this board I understood that, despite the legend which spred after its death, RFK was not really in position to win against Humphrey in august 1968.
Would the 1968 election be Humphrey Vs Rockefeller in the end ?
That's a lot of question I agree.
What about Diem not being killed in november 1963 ? Seems the guy had a LOT of defauts, vut at least its two known qualities were
- he ruled SVN for years
- he was nationalist enough to keep south vietnam afloat
Why not RFK in this case ? (aside being killed by Sirhan of course)
Who's on the democrat side along RFK?
from reading threads on this board I understood that, despite the legend which spred after its death, RFK was not really in position to win against Humphrey in august 1968.
Would the 1968 election be Humphrey Vs Rockefeller in the end ?
That's a lot of question I agree.
What about Diem not being killed in november 1963 ? Seems the guy had a LOT of defauts, vut at least its two known qualities were
- he ruled SVN for years
- he was nationalist enough to keep south vietnam afloat