No war in Vietnam
- Thread starter lounge60
- Start date
lounge60 said:
1. A Johnson Presidency lasting until 1972.
2. A Great Society programme, that, without the huge amount of money being spent on Vietnam, would have ended up approaching a proper Welfare State.
3. A more ambitious space programme. More moon missions, space station, early shuttle.
4. An extension of the Truman Doctrine (ie the policy which had been in place since 1948, when Truman committed the US to matching and countering communist expansion militarily all over the globe). By the early 70s, with Vietnam a failure. Nixon amended the Truman Doctrine so that the US was much more selective about where and when and how it intervened.
Perhaps
Perhaps a longer draft? After all, what killed the draft was the Vietnam War. This is still reverberating through American politics today. With the draft there was a sense of everyone sharing a common burden.
Perhaps a longer draft? After all, what killed the draft was the Vietnam War. This is still reverberating through American politics today. With the draft there was a sense of everyone sharing a common burden.
Xen
Banned
A very different 1960's and 1970's.
Culturally the west would be very different. Imagine Rock-n-roll without the Vietnam War, imagine the movies that Hollywood would produce with out a war going on. Probably a healthier economy in the 1970s in the United States.
Maybe if its not butterflied away we will see a US-Iran war in 1979.
Culturally the west would be very different. Imagine Rock-n-roll without the Vietnam War, imagine the movies that Hollywood would produce with out a war going on. Probably a healthier economy in the 1970s in the United States.
Maybe if its not butterflied away we will see a US-Iran war in 1979.
More aggressive Soviet Union. Without an American effort to show how serious they were, and to tie down Soviet aid, the Soviet Union is more active worldwide. Possibly a conflict over Czechoslovakia in 1968.
Um...no and no. Soviet aggression in the 1970s, which was their largest expansion besides the immediate post-war era, was only possible because of the staggering loss of American prestige and confidence following Vietnam. Brezhnev, Kosygin (at first), and Andropov (as head of the KGB not his brief stint as General Secretary) were not the least bit intimidated by American willingness to throw away lives and treasure on a quagmire. If anything, they were hoping that America would continue to be stuck in other pointless bear traps.Amerigo Vespucci said:
As far as a conflict over Czechoslovakia, I have just three words Hungary in 1956. Throw in East Germany in 1953 if you want. Americans were perfectly prepared to have the Soviets do as they wished among their captive people rather than risk a Third World War. In any event, the US was hardly likely to intervene on behalf of a country that offered no resistance to the occupation (they had good reasons not to, but the fact remains that Hungary resisted more than Czechoslovakia).
kitjed, Bulldawg, and Xen are probably right. I would suggest that the Democratic majority would continue without interruption or serious decline (though there would be a shift to the GOP in the South). RFK would likely be the successor to LBJ, although Humphrey can't be completely counted out. The northern ghetto riots would likely be less, though it's hard to say how much less.
Johnson would only have 2 terms. He finished off JFK's term, then would be elected for 2 terms (1964 and 1968). I think the law states that you can serve as much as half of another president's term before serving two terms in your own right (immaterial since that law was passed after 1963 in any event).Aracnid said:
Don't forget that LBJ was running for re-election in 1968 until Eugene McCarthy scared the crap out of him by winning the New Hampshire primary. That's why he didn't run in 1968, not because he was ineligible.
Hard to say. There were a lot more things besides Vietnam that had an anti-society message. Several of the neo-cons that emerged in the 80s were actually former socialists shocked by the violence in the country.
It's possible, and ironic that the neo-cons could actually have less power than they do in OTL
It's possible, and ironic that the neo-cons could actually have less power than they do in OTL
There was a lot of anti-establishment rhetoric in the 50s and early 60s, but most of it was of the dull talking heads variety (tellingly most neo-cons trace their break with the Left to dinner and cocktail parties). The real street level radicalism was more a function of students and other young people angry at the prospect of being turned into ground chuck for no good reason (spare me the geopolitical argument).JP_Morgan said:
African American radicalism may well have developed without the war. The Nation of Islam had been around since the 1940s and had been growing ever since. Numerous SNCC members joined the Panthers and other radical groups. However, white youth radicalism probably wouldn't happen without the war.
As far as the neo-cons go, if liberalism hadn't blown itself to pieces in the late 60s and early 70s, many of the neocons probably would have stayed on the progressive end of the spectrum.
Oldish joke- Neo-con to leftist: If people like you had won in the 60s, people like me would have been shot. Leftist responds: If people like me had won in the 60s, people like you would still be on our side.
Either that, or another POD:
Harry Truman was not breifed very well on international affairs by FDR. He wasn't even breifed on the Manhattan Project until after Roosevelt died.
The POD can be that Truman is fully briefed (or at least better briefed) on the war situation, including the fact that the USA has been aiding Ho Chi Minh's nationalists against the Japanese. This means that when Ho Chi Minh declares independence and asks for American support against the French, Truman supports him (recognizing that Ho is a pragmatist and a nationalist before being a Communist, having being briefed fully during his time as Veep). So he pulls a big stick on the French, and supports Ho, in return for increased aid under the Marshall Plan. Vietnam becomes independent, and eventually becomes quite friendly to the USA.
Just an idea.
Harry Truman was not breifed very well on international affairs by FDR. He wasn't even breifed on the Manhattan Project until after Roosevelt died.
The POD can be that Truman is fully briefed (or at least better briefed) on the war situation, including the fact that the USA has been aiding Ho Chi Minh's nationalists against the Japanese. This means that when Ho Chi Minh declares independence and asks for American support against the French, Truman supports him (recognizing that Ho is a pragmatist and a nationalist before being a Communist, having being briefed fully during his time as Veep). So he pulls a big stick on the French, and supports Ho, in return for increased aid under the Marshall Plan. Vietnam becomes independent, and eventually becomes quite friendly to the USA.
Just an idea.
Without the Vietnam War, Lyndon Johnson would go down as one of America's greatest presidents. He would be able to focus much more on the Great Society, and would probably be reelected in 1968.
The conservative movement would be much weaker (unless the economic woes of the '70s are just as bad). Just my thoughts.
The conservative movement would be much weaker (unless the economic woes of the '70s are just as bad). Just my thoughts.
The French focus much more energy on Algeria (but would probably still lose in the end). Relations between the USA and France would be stained, to say the least.
vandevere said:They have a more legitimate reason to hate America?
France don't hate America, man. Don't listen to teh common 'wisdom'.
They are just annoyed at the typical american ignorance and selfishness that the country leaders all too often shown.
No Trudeau? The darn cur is a product of his era, canadian flared-up nationalism and the defiance toward USA.