Let's say that within a few days or weeks of Eisenhower being inaugurated as POTUS in 1953, the man drops dead from a heart attack or freak accident, leaving Richard Nixon in charge for nearly a full term before the 1956 presidential election. How does he handle things, both in foreign policy and domestically?

When discussing this sort of scenario, people oftentimes discuss Nixon's eagerness to use nuclear weapons on behalf of the French in Indochina, but beyond that, how might such a young Nixon handle the Cold War at such an early stage? Furthermore, while certain events such as the Hungarian Revolution and the Suez crisis may or may not be butterflied, generally speaking, how might Nixon respond to revolts against communist rule in Central Europe and decolonization?

Domestically, how does Nixon handle the Civil Rights movement and the latter stages of McCarthyism? Critically, who might he appoint as Chief Justice upon the death of Vinson, and what impact might that have had broadly?

Finally, much is made of Nixon's paranoia, which developed over the course of his political career, and how it affected his presidency after he won in 1968. However, in a world where he rapidly rose from a U.S. representative to become U.S. president in a much, much shorter period of time, with the only major snag being resolved by the Checkers speech, how might the man's personality be different, and how might that affect his presidency?
 
IMHO, Nixon, even lacking his trademark paranoia from OTL, would not have been ready to be President at this point. From what I understand (which could be totally inaccurate), Eisenhower didn't think very much of him during their time together as President and Vice President, and I think if Ike had succumb to a heart attack or freak accident, the electorate would agree. I think many would also be quite upset that the man they idolized for his service in WW2 was replaced by such a man as "Tricky Dick." There's also the fact that Nixon was rather close to McCarthy, and while he was no idiot, I think he might indulge the man more than Eisenhower did, which could be very ugly for him. As far as foreign policy goes, I don't have much to base this on, but I do get the feeling Nixon would be far more aggressive (though not as competent) in responding to the Hungarian Revolution and Suez Crisis; which would be a disaster, in all likelihood. I'm not sure what would happen in 1956, to be honest, but I do get the feeling that the Democrat (be it Adlai or someone else entirely) would win.
 
I'm not sure what would happen in 1956, to be honest, but I do get the feeling that the Democrat (be it Adlai or someone else entirely) would win.

In that case:
34. Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953)
35. Richard Nixon (1953-1957)

36. Adlai Stevenson I (1957-1961)
37. Nelson Rockefeller (1961-1969)
38. John F. Kennedy (1969-1974)*
39. Terry Sanford (1974-1977)

40. Charles H. Percy (1977-1985)
41. George Bush (1985-1989)

*Died in office
 
Last edited:
IMHO, Nixon, even lacking his trademark paranoia from OTL, would not have been ready to be President at this point. From what I understand (which could be totally inaccurate), Eisenhower didn't think very much of him during their time together as President and Vice President, and I think if Ike had succumb to a heart attack or freak accident, the electorate would agree. I think many would also be quite upset that the man they idolized for his service in WW2 was replaced by such a man as "Tricky Dick." There's also the fact that Nixon was rather close to McCarthy, and while he was no idiot, I think he might indulge the man more than Eisenhower did, which could be very ugly for him. As far as foreign policy goes, I don't have much to base this on, but I do get the feeling Nixon would be far more aggressive (though not as competent) in responding to the Hungarian Revolution and Suez Crisis; which would be a disaster, in all likelihood. I'm not sure what would happen in 1956, to be honest, but I do get the feeling that the Democrat (be it Adlai or someone else entirely) would win.

There are about 50/50 opinions from people who knew them both regarding what Eisenhower's true opinions on Nixon were. Given how Nixon reacted to others who stood against him, ive always had problems seeing that it could as bad as some of the worst accounts. As Nixon appeared to genuinely idolize and like Ike.

Nixon was also a popular Vice Presidential candidate from what I can recall. While fund micromanagement claims hurt him, the Checkers speech recovered him greatly and caused a mass outpouring of support.

Nixons handling of Khrushchev in the kitchen debate as well as his performance in a large number of diplomatic trips during his time as senator and VP are good indications that he would handle international diplomacy well.
 
Nixons handling of Khrushchev in the kitchen debate as well as his performance in a large number of diplomatic trips during his time as senator and VP are good indications that he would handle international diplomacy well.

Better or worse than Eisenhower? Either way, what would be the substantive effects?
 
Nixon would have just turned 40 in January, 1953, so he would have been a very young president. He would not have Eisenhower's military wisdom, but he will have a cadre of advisers. Big question, how would he have handled Vietnam and/or the tensions in Cuba?
 
Big question, how would he have handled Vietnam and/or the tensions in Cuba?

Nixon would push for a Vietnam intervention in 1954. The problem is that Churchill was opposed, and as a result so were the Democrats in the Republican controlled Congress. These two factors caused Eisenhower to back off, Nixon wouldn't be so hestitant.

Nixon might not cut off aid to Batista, and as a result he would hold on longer.
 
Eisenhower kind of distanced himself from the Cold War because the U.S. had such military superiority. Kennedy, on the other hand, dove right into it; but then again, Khrushchev saw an opportunity with a young Kennedy. Would he act the same way with a young Nixon, or were the Soviets still too far behind before 1955?
 
Eisenhower kind of distanced himself from the Cold War because the U.S. had such military superiority. Kennedy, on the other hand, dove right into it; but then again, Khrushchev saw an opportunity with a young Kennedy. Would he act the same way with a young Nixon, or were the Soviets still too far behind before 1955?

Any WWIII in the 1950s would result in a badly damaged Soviet Union and a United States that comes out essentially unscathed, no?
 
BTW, the easiest way to make Nixon president in 1953 would be to have a successful Taft-Nixon ticket in 1952; I assume Taft will die on schedule of cancer. So there's no need to cut Ike's life short by sixteen years...
 
BTW, the easiest way to make Nixon president in 1953 would be to have a successful Taft-Nixon ticket in 1952; I assume Taft will die on schedule of cancer. So there's no need to cut Ike's life short by sixteen years...

If Taft wins, though, wouldn't it be reasonable to suspect he'd do so by a smaller margin than Eisenhower did, thus meaning weaker coattails for downballot races? If so, it seems very possible that Nixon would be dealing with a Democratic House and Senate in such a scenario, whereas in the scenario laid out in the OP, he'd have a Republican Congress. What would be the substantive differences between the two scenarios?
 
If Taft wins, though, wouldn't it be reasonable to suspect he'd do so by a smaller margin than Eisenhower did, thus meaning weaker coattails for downballot races? If so, it seems very possible that Nixon would be dealing with a Democratic House and Senate in such a scenario, whereas in the scenario laid out in the OP, he'd have a Republican Congress. What would be the substantive differences between the two scenarios?

I'm not sure it matters much which party has theoretical control of Congress in 1953-4. The conservative coalition of Republicans and southern Democrats will probably be dominant even if both Houses have nominal Democratic majorities.
 
Any WWIII in the 1950s would result in a badly damaged Soviet Union and a United States that comes out essentially unscathed, no?
The U.S. had a "secret" plan called Dropshot to sabotage the Soviet command system and essentially stymie communication. It was drafted in the late forties and remained strategic until the ICBM came along. I don't think the U.S. would get off unscathed, but Europe would have been punished badly.

According to Wikipedia:

At the time the US nuclear arsenal was limited in size, based mostly in the United States, and depended on bombers for delivery. Dropshot included mission profiles that would have used 300 nuclear bombs and 29,000 high-explosive bombs on 200 targets in 100 cities and towns to wipe out 85 percent of the Soviet Union's industrial potential at a single stroke. Between 75 and 100 of the 300 nuclear weapons were targeted to destroy Soviet combat aircraft on the ground.

The morale in Europe would have sunk to record low levels. The only consolation is that it would have been a quick war, not a long, drawn-out one. Free governments could have been established in the former Soviet satellite countries, but what about the Soviet Union itself. The border between Poland, Belarus and Ukraine would probably be returned to its 1939 position. The logistics of trying to keep order in Russia would have been very formidable. The country had no historical experience with a "free" government.
 
If Taft wins, though, wouldn't it be reasonable to suspect he'd do so by a smaller margin than Eisenhower did, thus meaning weaker coattails for downballot races? If so, it seems very possible that Nixon would be dealing with a Democratic House and Senate in such a scenario, whereas in the scenario laid out in the OP, he'd have a Republican Congress. What would be the substantive differences between the two scenarios?

If Taft is nominated and he puts Nixon on the ticket, he would probably lose the election. Taft was considered unelectable even by the Republican establishment, not just because of his far right views but because he was a terrible speaker with little popular appeal. Putting Nixon on the ticket would end up being a bad idea too, since the fund crisis would still happen. Depending on how Taft handles that, it could completely sink the ticket. For example, he could dump Nixon (and remember what happened when McGovern dumped his running mate) or not pressure Nixon into coming clean. Eisenhower's team came very close to axeing Nixon, and it was only Tom Dewey's personal intervention that spurred Nixon to deliver his Checker's speech. Dewey and Taft were mortal enemies, so the Checkers speech itself might be butterflied away resulting in Nixon being dumped. If Taft doesn't think it's a big deal and doesn't put the pressure on Tricky Dick, then voters would associate the Republican ticket with corruption. Either option most likely results in Stevenson defeating Taft.
 
Nixon was anti communist, but I don't see him giving in to McCarthy's insanity. But seeing as how Nixon was on the un-American Activities Committee with him he might keep him around until after his reelection , just to prevent any potential embarrassment.
As soon as Richard Nixon is sworn in as president the Dulles brothers are fired, Nixon hated them. Not having a Nazi collaborator as Secretary of State would do wonders in the improving the relationship with the Soviet Union.
 
Better or worse than Eisenhower? Either way, what would be the substantive effects?

I think Nixon put it best when he said in an interview in the early 1990's that Eisenhower had held the position of a larger than life military leader, and therefore had the reputation that came with such a position. A reputation that brought people in line with a few words and caused enemies to think heavily on crossing him. Nixon wouldn't carry that reputation at his young age. Which is why I think he is likely to surround himself with advisers closer to that status as to boost himself into such a reputation on the shoulders of their combined wisdom.

There are mixed sources on Nixon's early interpretations of the situation in Vietnam. Given his later opinions on the matter, you either have a similar ramp up as to OTL, or a more removed involvement focused on supply and training rather than taking over the battlefield role. You would probably see Diem come into/stay in power, or at least a more designated replacement would be chosen when the time came to replace. This would almost entirely depend on who is advising him once he takes office.

Nixon was also vehemently against Castro and made several speeches during his Vice-Presidency likening him to a cancer and Hitler. If he comes to power, you would likely see American involvement in Cuba prior to Soviet Relations budding with the Cubans. He may attempt to oust Batista for a more stable government before that occurs however.

Some of what I've read would also indicate that Nixon viewed McCarthy similarly to the way Eisenhower did.
 
Top