I like Eisenhower, just wondering what the changes would have been with out him.you are a sick sick man for even proposing this.
ike was one of the better leaders
you are a sick sick man for even proposing this.
ike was one of the better leaders
He's basically Nixon but hates Communist China.Knowlands bio is looking a bit thin...
he also seemed to be cool with mobsters and had gambling issues. but yeah he was a big fan of the nationalists Chinese. Don't know much more about the man personally except a few minor bios and Wikipedia.He's basically Nixon but hates Communist China.
The issue with 1952 is, if Taft were to be nominated by the Republicans against Stevenson, Eisenhower in all likelihood would endorse Stevenson considering Taft's stance on foreign policy. I'm not sure however if that would violate what you are asking though by him staying 100% out of politics.Just what it says. Eisenhower stays 100% out of politics in 1952. He never runs for President. What takes place?
he also seemed to be cool with mobsters and had gambling issues. but yeah he was a big fan of the nationalists Chinese. Don't know much more about the man personally except a few minor bios and Wikipedia.
the large question would be how would the death of Taft effect knowlands, would being his running mate and VP spur him to be more isolationist as Taft? also the public might start electing younger leaders as FDR had died in office, followed by Truman who gets reelected, than Taft who would die in office.
I would think that Knowlands would probably get us involved in French indo-china as he doesn't seem the isolationist type, he may as he did with Johnson and be open to pushing the civil rights agenda
Duke 4 said:I am thinking that Warren may get the GOP nomination.
On Vietnam Knowland's OTL position was that he would support U.S. intervention but only if other countries were willing to go in with the U.S. (And even then he seemed to just want the U.S. to provide air and naval support while America's Asian allies would provide any ground forces that were needed.) I kind of doubt that President Knowland will be able to persuade South Korea, Nationalist China, Thailand, or the Philippines to commit ground troops to Vietnam when the U.S. itself isn't willing to, so most likely no intervention happens.
And I agree that President Knowland will most likely support civil rights legislation. (OTL he supported the 1957 civil rights bill, and there is no reason for him not to support similar legislation in a timeline where he is the president.)
Warren couldn't even deliver his own state for the Dewey/Warren ticket in 1948, so he would not be a very attractive prospect to the GOP for 1952.
That's good point. In "52 reality" Stevenson lost Illinois his home state and got the nomination again in 56. Our current President lost his home state. Could Taft win Ohio for the GOP in 52? Bricker could not in 44. LBJ barely held Texas for JFK in 60. I think one reason why the GOP went looking for Ike was that they did not believe Taft could win , and UNSILI is right Ike would had supported Stevenson over Taft when it came to foreign policy
depends on how divided the republicans are if IKE said nope, no way and stayed clear of things. Taft has the name, but Stassen was pretty well known as well.Anybody think Stassen can beat Taft ?