WI: Nixon victory in 1960

[lerk]

The 1960 US Presidential Election was awfully close. Had Nixon won in 1960, how would his presidency turn out?

 

[Elephant_trail]

cuban missle crisis never happens.

 

[TheIO]

cuban missle crisis never happens.

Why would that be? You think Nixon wouldn't try anything akin to Bay of Pigs? You think Castro wouldn't let the Soviets put missiles in Cuba? I'm not sure there'd be much difference in their (Nixon & Kennedy's) Cuba policies, truth be told, but I'm not too familiar with the topic either.

 

[Beata Beatrix]

The consensus, as far as I know, has always pretty much been that Nixon would've invaded Cuba, much as Kennedy did - the idea behind Bay of Pigs had been floating around since Eisenhower - but Khruschev may well have viewed Nixon, his Kitchen Debate opponent, as less of a stuffed shirt than he did Kennedy, and so Nixon might succeed a bit more than Kennedy did; of course, Bay of Pigs was so poorly planned that I doubt much would save it.

 

[Ciclavex]

It’s less, I think, that Nixon would be more successful, but that he would be perceived as a more dangerous opponent, and so the Soviets wouldn’t have risked the provocation of placing missiles in Cuba. I don’t think this is certain, but I think it’s a reasonable and credible read on the situation

 

[Milo]

Bay of Pigs might not have happened as Kennedy felt he had to do it, to prove himself. Nixon has a strong foreign policy and anti-communist CV so might be more sceptical of the plan and probably push for more us of US forces. If Cuba remains Communist I doubt we will see a missile crisis as Soviet thought Nixon wouldn't be a pushover and wouldn't have risked war.

What I am most interested in his Civil Rights and if Nixon can push anything through Congress and whether he can win re-election which I'm sceptical of , seeing parallels with 1992

 

[Japhy]

On one hand as noted, there's no floundering as we saw when Kennedy tried to look tough and was found wanting. So no Cuban Missiles.

On the other hand Nixon and the people he brings in are liable to go into Laos full force in 1961 which I can't even guess as to the results of.

And as for his domestic stuff I'd expect that Civil Rights would be watered down again, with Nixon just as liable to fall into his usual patterns in regards to a Southern Strategy, Domestic sabotage of political opponents, piecemeal concessions to The Liberal Hour and Paranoia. Most likely dumps Lodge in 64. May do better in the cultural era in covering up his shady dealings and avoiding impeachment, might not.

 

[Creekmench]

I wonder what would happen to Soviet Politics if there was no Cuban Missile Crisis, Khrushchev was a dead man walking but without that thing to have the Politiburo throw him out just who will replace him is just up in the air. It could be Brezhnev, Podgorny, Suslov, Kosygin, or Shelepin.

 

[Creekmench]

Hell, I could see something akin to Watergate be like a semi-conspiracy theory if he could keep it under wraps, and combine that with COINTELPRO and if it leaks out in the early 70s like OTL. The impact on former President Nixon would be immense.

 

[AndrewH]

I wonder what would happen to Soviet Politics if there was no Cuban Missile Crisis, Khrushchev was a dead man walking but without that thing to have the Politiburo throw him out just who will replace him is just up in the air. It could be Brezhnev, Podgorny, Suslov, Kosygin, or Shelepin.

Most of those candidates are sound except for Suslov - he never actually wanted the job of General Secretary, was always more content working behind the scenes, and was a big supporter of democratic centralism. If he actually wanted it he could get it, but Suslov never had the ambition.

 

[Beata Beatrix]

I wonder what would happen to Soviet Politics if there was no Cuban Missile Crisis, Khrushchev was a dead man walking but without that thing to have the Politiburo throw him out just who will replace him is just up in the air. It could be Brezhnev, Podgorny, Suslov, Kosygin, or Shelepin.

Khruschev's heir apparent was a fellow by the name of Frol Kozlov, but he was something of an alcoholic, which makes his succession admittedly unlikely, although I suppose he could be a sort of proto-Yeltsin.

 

[napoleon IV]

It’s less, I think, that Nixon would be more successful, but that he would be perceived as a more dangerous opponent, and so the Soviets wouldn’t have risked the provocation of placing missiles in Cuba. I don’t think this is certain, but I think it’s a reasonable and credible read on the situation

To add to this: Khrushchev believed that Kennedy was weak and would fold easily. This perception was based in large part on their summit in Vienna, where Kennedy really dropped the ball. IIRC Khrushchev had a lot more respect for Nixon, who had managed to hold his ground during their meetings.

I wonder what would happen to Soviet Politics if there was no Cuban Missile Crisis, Khrushchev was a dead man walking but without that thing to have the Politiburo throw him out just who will replace him is just up in the air. It could be Brezhnev, Podgorny, Suslov, Kosygin, or Shelepin.

Khrushchev's chosen successor by the end was Podgorny. However, Khrushchev didn't particularly respect many of the people in the Politburo (for instance he considered Podgorny unimaginative and Brezhnev dumb), so he probably would fire some people like he'd done in the past.

Brezhnev's decision to go after Khrushchev was partially made because of the choice of Podgorny as heir. I suspect Brezhnev might still try a coup even without the Crisis, but Khrushchev's power base would still be a bit too secure (and Khrushchev would be more on top of things), so it would fail. That ends Brezhnev's career, and any other coup plotters. Though I think a liberal like Podgorny or Kosygin securing power after Khrushchev finally falls in unlikely, simply because the Politburo was sick of liberalism.

Khruschev's heir apparent was a fellow by the name of Frol Kozlov, but he was something of an alcoholic, which makes his succession admittedly unlikely, although I suppose he could be a sort of proto-Yeltsin.

Kozlov also died in 1965, and in 1963 he was replaced as Second Secretary by Brezhnev. According to some old news articles I dug up, he eventually became part of the conservative opposition to Khrushchev.

 

[Creekmench]

To add to this: Khrushchev believed that Kennedy was weak and would fold easily. This perception was based in large part on their summit in Vienna, where Kennedy really dropped the ball. IIRC Khrushchev had a lot more respect for Nixon, who had managed to hold his ground during their meetings.

Khrushchev's chosen successor by the end was Podgorny. However, Khrushchev didn't particularly respect many of the people in the Politburo (for instance he considered Podgorny unimaginative and Brezhnev dumb), so he probably would fire some people like he'd done in the past.

Brezhnev's decision to go after Khrushchev was partially made because of the choice of Podgorny as heir. I suspect Brezhnev might still try a coup even without the Crisis, but Khrushchev's power base would still be a bit too secure (and Khrushchev would be more on top of things), so it would fail. That ends Brezhnev's career, and any other coup plotters. Though I think a liberal like Podgorny or Kosygin securing power after Khrushchev finally falls in unlikely, simply because the Politburo was sick of liberalism.

Kozlov also died in 1965, and in 1963 he was replaced as Second Secretary by Brezhnev. According to some old news articles I dug up, he eventually became part of the conservative opposition to Khrushchev.

So in the event that Brezhnev fails, its more likely for a Shelepin-Suslov duopoly to oust Nikita Khrushchev? From my limited knowledge of Soviet Politics, Shelepin made Brezhnev look like Mikoyan.

 

[napoleon IV]

So in the event that Brezhnev fails, its more likely for a Shelepin-Suslov duopoly to oust Nikita Khrushchev? From my limited knowledge of Soviet Politics, Shelepin made Brezhnev look like Mikoyan.

Assuming that Khrushchev doesn't oust them when Brezhnev fails, yes. Suslov would probably lead the next coup (he was the closest thing the USSR had to a leader of the opposition). As @Avalanches noted, Suslov wouldn't want to seize the brass ring for himself, but as coup leader and one of the most veterans members of the Politburo he would be kingmaker. Shelepin is unlikely to become General Secretary; he was too nakedly ambitious and hardline for many Politburo members.

 

[Creekmench]

Assuming that Khrushchev doesn't oust them when Brezhnev fails, yes. Suslov would probably lead the next coup (he was the closest thing the USSR had to a leader of the opposition). As @Avalanches noted, Suslov wouldn't want to seize the brass ring for himself, but as coup leader and one of the most veterans members of the Politburo he would be kingmaker. Shelepin is unlikely to become General Secretary; he was too nakedly ambitious and hardline for many Politburo members.

I wonder who would be Suslov's sockpuppet Kirilenko or Kulakov?