WI: Dwight Eisenhower Runs as a Republican in 1948?

In 1948, there were movements in both the Democratic and Republican Party to convince General Dwight Eisenhower to run for President of the United States. He resisted these efforts, but what if he had been successfully persuaded to run as a Republican that year?

How might the primary season and Republican National Convention have gone differently in such a scenario? Assuming he wins the nomination (which is likely), how does the general election go? While Eisenhower's personal popularity would have benefited him greatly, the Republicans were rated as likely to win in 1948 before Truman's energetic campaign pulled out an upset win - would Ike have significantly more difficulty defeating Truman than he did Stevenson in OTL's 1952 election?

Finally, assuming Eisenhower wins, what would be the implications, both domestically and overseas?
 
Eisenhower would have won going away.
Period, end of sentence(remember for one
thing that except for a few months, Truman
did not become popular IOTL until after he
left office. Eisenhower, OTOH, was popular
all throughout the 8 years of his presidency.
Americans DID like Ike. His running in 1948
would not have changed this equation)
 
Eisenhower would have won going away.
Period, end of sentence(remember for one
thing that except for a few months, Truman
did not become popular IOTL until after he
left office. Eisenhower, OTOH, was popular
all throughout the 8 years of his presidency.
Americans DID like Ike. His running in 1948
would not have changed this equation)

Okay, but what would his presidency have looked like, given the OTL events in China, Korea, and elsewhere?
 
Ike is very unlikely to run unless it seems that MacArthur or Taft would win the GOP nomination if he doesn't challenge them. As long as the GOP seems likely to nominate an internationalist like Dewey or Stassen, he will see no reason to run. (Indeed, even in 1952 he only decided to run after a conference with Taft, who failed to give him adequate assurances he was for collective security and NATO.)
 
Ike is very unlikely to run unless it seems that MacArthur or Taft would win the GOP nomination if he doesn't challenge them. As long as the GOP seems likely to nominate an internationalist like Dewey or Stassen, he will see no reason to run. (Indeed, even in 1952 he only decided to run after a conference with Taft, who failed to give him adequate assurances he was for collective security and NATO.)

Okay, let's say this condition is somehow satisfied - what next?
 
Ike is very unlikely to run unless it seems that MacArthur or Taft would win the GOP nomination if he doesn't challenge them. As long as the GOP seems likely to nominate an internationalist like Dewey or Stassen, he will see no reason to run. (Indeed, even in 1952 he only decided to run after a conference with Taft, who failed to give him adequate assurances he was for collective security and NATO.)

He was also apparently hesistant to run against an incumbent President, given that Truman was Commander-in-Chief.
 
Okay, but what would his presidency have looked like, given the OTL events in China, Korea, and elsewhere?

It is possible that there would have been no
Korean War. IOTL one reason Truman went
to South Korea's aid in 1950 was his fear that if he didn't, the G.O.P. would be all over
him for losing another country after China.
Eisenhower, as a Republican, did not have to
worry about such brickbats(IOTL he was able
to settle Korea in 1953 on terms that would
have gotten a Democrat lynched). Had he
gone before the country & said Korea was not vital to American interests, people would
have believed him(his credibility was that high).
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
It is possible that there would have been no
Korean War. IOTL one reason Truman went
to South Korea's aid in 1950 was his fear that if he didn't, the G.O.P. would be all over
him for losing another country after China.
Eisenhower, as a Republican, did not have to
worry about such brickbats(IOTL he was able
to settle Korea in 1953 on terms that would
have gotten a Democrat lynched). Had he
gone before the country & said Korea was not vital to American interests, people would
have believed him(his credibility was that high).

Well Ike could have had the political credibility to survive the loss from a domestic electoral point of view.

But would he and his probable Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and the Joint Chiefs think that losing South Korea in the summer of 1950 was geopolitically and strategically acceptable to the US?
 
Well Ike could have had the political credibility to survive the loss from a domestic electoral point of view.

But would he and his probable Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and the Joint Chiefs think that losing South Korea in the summer of 1950 was geopolitically and strategically acceptable to the US?

A very, VERY good point raharris1973. I
should have stated in my post that I could
indeed envision Eisenhower & Dulles- both
staunch Cold warriors- of concluding(as
Truman did IOTL- another reason he went
into Korea)that Stalin was behind the North
Koreans & they thus had to be resisted. Can
I just say that I stated it was "possible"- not
"certain"- that Eisenhower would have
acted differently than Truman did.
 
Nixon could find himself in a second term Eisenhower cabinet position that allows him forward direction, he'd also be in a similar position to Kennedy by 1960
 
Top