What if Eisenhower dies in 54?

[Mad Bad Rabbit]

In that case, is it before March 1954, and does Acting President Nixon withdraw Earl Warren's recess appointment to the Supreme Court, out of spite?

 

[RanulfC]

That's true for the OTL 1955 heart attack. But the ATL has IKE die in 1954, so Nixon is ineligible in 1960.

Young Nixon might use nukes in Vietnam. Now, where does that POD lead?

Why would Nixon even consider it? It is an unnecessary escalation and frankly "young" Nixon wasn't really interested in getting into a land war in Asia anymore than Ike was. Supplying arms and training sure but he wasn't looking to start WWIII anymore than anyone else.

Randy

 

[Mort the Reaper]

Who might Nixon choose as Vice President?

 

[David T]

In 1954 Dwight Eisenhower had a heart attack and barely survived right in the middle of his first term

No. Eisenhower's first heart attack was in September 1955. https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/president-eisenhower-14-billion-heart-000000730.html

There are many reasons this makes a difference. One obvious one; If Nixon became president in 1954, and was elected in 1956, he woud not be eliigible to run again in 1960 (or thereafter), having served more than half of Eisenehower's 1953-57 term. But if Ike's September 1955 heart attack had been fatal, Nixon could be elected in 1956 and run again in 1960.

 

[Chris Nation]

Nixon definitely opposed the invasion itself, though it's doubtful he would have come down as hard on Britain and France as Eisenhower did.

The Conrad Black biography of Nixon says that Nixon would later claim that Eisenhower should have offered to mediate the crisis, and advanced Nasser a loan to compensate the shareholders of the Suez Canal Company while securing the withdraw of the invaders in exchange for a renewed guarantee of access to the canal. Black also says that Nixon said the United States should not have threatened to destabilize the British economy which Nixon felt just needlessly embarrassed a long-standing US ally and emboldened Nasser.

Now whether that approach is what Nixon would have come up with in 1956 who can say. It's obviously much easier to come up with an alternate plan years after the fact when you've got the benefit of hindsight and aren't facing the immediate pressure of a massive international crisis days before an election.

He may have said this later on, but at the time he certainly enjoyed dancing on Britain's grave publicly.

“For the first time in history, we have shown independence of Anglo-French policies towards Asia and Africa which seemed to us to reflect the colonial tradition. This declaration of independence has had an electrifying effect throughout the world.”
- Richard Nixon

 

[JDGiant]

Would the 1950s become as glorified if Nixon (a far more controversial figure than Eisenhower even as early as 1952, let alone in 1974) had been president for a majority of it?

 

[Chris Nation]

Would the 1950s become as glorified if Nixon (a far more controversial figure than Eisenhower even as early as 1952, let alone in 1974) had been president for a majority of it?

Regardless of what happens in the White House, the 1950s are still going to be a period of previously unimaginable economic growth and an explosion in home ownership, the wide availability of an assortment of consumers goods (washing machines, cars, televisions, vacuum cleaners, etc.). The American economy is still going to soar on the back of rebuilding Europe, combined with the destruction in its previous main economic competitors, and this is going to result in American pre-eminence overseas that would have been unimaginable just a short time ago.

So, yes, the 1950s would still be remembered fondly.

 

[ZeroFrame]

Would the 1950s become as glorified if Nixon (a far more controversial figure than Eisenhower even as early as 1952, let alone in 1974) had been president for a majority of it?

Yes. Nixon back in the 50s wasn’t nearly as much of a paranoid mess than he was in the 70s. The 50s would unless Nixon somehow started a massive war be fondly remembered due to the economy booming post WWII. The same economic conditions would exist and be in action at the time Nixon assumes the presidency in ‘55. Sure he’d be less popular than Eisenhower due to not being a war hero but he’d still be a good president during one of if not the greatest economic boom in American history. The only way to stop it is WWIII which is very unlikely Nixon would randomly start it.

 

[Garrison]

Probably see a different "invasion" of Cuba and no Cuban Missile Crisis, (Nixon and Khrushchev had "looked each other in the eye" and he felt he 'knew' Nixon)
Nixon likely is just as blind-sided by the propaganda coup from Sputnik as anyone but I think he'd have had fewer issues with the Army satellite proposal (due to Von Braun being a part of it as Ike disliked the "damn Nazi") on the other hand he IS Navy And overall the main situational question of overflights remains so likely Sputnik still goes up first. I see him putting pressure on Von Braun to get Sheppard into space sooner rather than later. (OLT in an uncharacteristic move Von Braun went against the other engineers and astronauts and delayed Sheppard's launch which ended up putting him after Gagarin)

In this case I'm willing to be that Nixon serves two of his own terms along with the remainder of Eisenhower's

Randy

Well if Shepard goes first I think you can forget Apollo happening by the end of the 60's. Without the perception that US is lagging behind I can't see Nixon feeling the need to make such a bold commitment. I can see a Moon landing ending up rather like the proposals for a Mars landing in the last few decades, a lot of talk and pretty graphics but no actual funding, unless of course it actually looks like the Soviets might make it.

 

[RanulfC]

Well if Shepard goes first I think you can forget Apollo happening by the end of the 60's. Without the perception that US is lagging behind I can't see Nixon feeling the need to make such a bold commitment. I can see a Moon landing ending up rather like the proposals for a Mars landing in the last few decades, a lot of talk and pretty graphics but no actual funding, unless of course it actually looks like the Soviets might make it.

Nixon already had some significant "credit" built in places that Kennedy did not so he can afford to be somewhat more "lax" on certain issues. If he doesn't lean on Von Braun and Sheppard does not go up first then he's going to get just as hammered as Kennedy was and he'd also have the Eisenhower lack of 'action' vis-a-vis Sputnik versus Vanguard hanging over his head.

Having said that I agree that OTL's Apollo Moon Landing is likely off the table even if Shepard doesn't fly as Nixon is much more likely to look to a more near-term and cheaper goal to shoot for. An earlier and more capable "Apollo" might be in the cards, (unfortunately eliminating Gemini for all those fans ) flying on the new "Saturn" (OTL Saturn 1/1B) "super-booster" would very rapidly 'match' Soviet capability and allow a 'cooling' of the Space Race. We'd probably even see a more 'cooperative' space effort rather than a competitive one. (There's kind of a reason all my "CoDominum" timeline notes have Nixon and Khrushchev involved in the start)

Randy