• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

WI: President Nixon (1961-???)

JFK did the massive uptick of troops into Vietnam because he and LBJ for that matter had utterly internalized the "Who Lost China?" debate that crippled Truman. Inherently any Republican would have more room to not just blindly go into a war they knew they couldn't win. Not to say Nixon wouldn't but he has more of a chance of not.

That said unlike Kennedy there's a considerably larger chance that he goes to war in Laos.
 
That said unlike Kennedy there's a considerably larger chance that he goes to war in Laos.
I remember seeing you talk about this somewhere before, but in my own reading I haven’t found a lot about this. Can you go more in-depth?
 
I remember seeing you talk about this somewhere before, but in my own reading I haven’t found a lot about this. Can you go more in-depth?
The Cliffnotes version is that Laos had been smoldering for a while but in 1960 the Thais and US supported an Anti-Communist Coup in the country that ironically claimed the title on the world stage of being the "Neutralists". But these guys sucked and spent most of 1960 falling apart hard and fast. On New Years Day 1961 North Vietnamese forces crossed the border, claiming to the world it was to protect themselves but really it was to support the Laotian Communists and to use the chaos to develop the Ho Chi Mihn Trail more. Not that crazy seeing how the rest of the Second Indochina War would go but at the time a rather shocking deal on the world stage.

All through January you had increasing NVA forces (Division strength combat units, with more in the way of logistical and construction outfits) in the country, you had Soviet planes flying supplies into the country, you had the In country Communists moving in force and against that the US had, a handful of Special Forces teams that were about to be pulled out because they situation was too unstable, a collapsing military dictatorship, Air America and the small amount of forces Thailand was willing to deploy in country.

And so it was that the Eisenhower and Kennedy Administrations were basically convinced for a time that regular US forces or at least large and open special forces contingents needed to be sent in country via Thailand. Ike actually IIRC was advising Kennedy that it was basically unavoidable at the inauguration. And IIRC the Rand Corporation said it would require 100,000 troops sent in country to just end the conventional threat since it was very much appearing to be a slow motion copy of the Korean War again. But in the end, the NV Government wasn't willing to devote enough of its forces to actually see the total collapse of the Laotian Government and so things kind of petered out. The Kennedy Administration shifted focus to Cuba and South Vietnam, the Russians weren't interested in flying anymore supplies in, and a Ceasefire was eventually signed in the Spring that was worthless but ended the big focus. The main takeaway from it wound up being that the CIA/MACV-SOG decided to cut its efforts at building up the Laotian Army and started focusing on the Degar (Known as Montagnard at the time by the Americans) tribes in the Central Highlands instead.

Its not much of a crisis as far as the Cold War, or even the Road to the Tet Offensive was. But at the start of it things were fucking nuts and itchy fingers held the trigger. Nixon being Nixon I think its fairly likely that he might actually go for it. Its enough of a mess though I can't really suggest how it would go, except that Bangkok would be the primary logistical/CCC point for it rather then Saigon, though it doesn't end that war.
 
So in a Nixon '61 timeline, it could be the Laos War instead? This also seems like it'd be easier to sell (unless and until a Tet equivalent hit) - "Why are we here?" "Because the Commies are invading this country, the brave Laosians have to be helped!"
 
So in a Nixon '61 timeline, it could be the Laos War instead? This also seems like it'd be easier to sell (unless and until a Tet equivalent hit) - "Why are we here?" "Because the Commies are invading this country, the brave Laosians have to be helped!"
Maybe.

It's Indochina so, you know, it'll be an Indochina thing. Could go a lot of way, unintended consequences are thick on the ground there.
 
funnily enough in french cabot means dog. Salete de cabot !! and in spanish el cabo means... penis.
 
so in 64 i guess Nixon's opponent"s would be either Lyndon Johnson OR H.H.h.

Without being VP and then ascending to the presidency, a potential Johnson candidacy would be a long shot. Humphrey would probably be the 1964 nominee - the man who had the second-best shot probably would have been Pat Brown.

As for who would the VPs in the 1964, LBJ might have a shot at being VP (his chances are certainly better than being a presidential nominee), depending on how close the 1960 election was. RFK might be another strong contender, again depending on how well Kennedy did. If Humphrey gained the nomination, I could see either Pat Brown or Sam Yorty rounding out the Democratic ticket.

At the same time, Nixon may want to switch vice presidents - in OTL 1960, he grew to dislike Lodge as he felt that Lodge "stole the spotlight". Switching vice presidents when one is running for re-election certainly isn't an unprecedented move. As for who he'd pick, it would really depend on what Nixon's policies had been and what would have happened while Nixon was in office. I assembled a bit of a list below. The top three, along with Lodge, would be the most likely choices. Keep in mind that two of the last three presidents (Truman and Nixon) had been vice president immediantely before taking office, so Nixon would probably realize that anyone he chose would be a strong contender for TTL 1968.

  • William E. Miller - The OTL 1964 Republican vice-presidential candidate, he was a relative unknown (like Agnew), which would certainly address the point of Nixon being overshadowed. Miller's also Catholic, and in a race where no president or vice president has been Catholic yet, that may win some votes, and dispel any arguments that JFK had made against Republican anti-Catholic bias in 1960.
  • Barry Goldwater - The OTL 1964 Republican presidential candidate, he would probably be someone who could balance out a more liberal-leaning Nixon ticket, or accentuate a conservative Nixon ticket. He may once again run the risk of overshadowing Nixon, but with Nixon having four years in office, it might work out.
  • Nelson Rockefeller - In terms of electoral strategy, Rockefeller would be the anti-Goldwater - someone who could balance out a conservative Nixon or accentuate a liberal Nixon. At this point, I'm assuming he'd be one of the leading figures of the Republican Party between Nixon and Lodge, so he may be even more of a threat of overshadowing Nixon.
  • Margaret Chase Smith - This one is a long shot. She was a moderate Republican senator and a woman. In OTL 1964, she did throw her hat into the ring, and did not do well. I'm including her more because it would be an interesting option to have a woman as a Republican running mate in 1964. As for electoral strategy, she'd be similar to Rockefeller, but she'd also lock down the Republican woman vote, as well as chip a bit of support away from the Democrats, but she would face some opposition for her gender.
  • George Romney - In OTL 1964, he was the popular governor of Michigan. Another moderate Republican and a firm supporter of civil rights (as well as a presidential contender for 1968), he was also a devout Mormon, which may or may not given him the religious aspect that Miller had. If he even got elected governor of Michigan ITTL, he may want to stay there for the time being. (Yes, he's Mitt's dad. This may have butterflies later on).
If Nixon did get assassinated or die in some other way, then Lodge would probably pick from someone else in this list, unless there's someone really important that I'm forgetting. However, the decision would make the choice of who would be vice president all the more important. I'm also assuming that if Nixon did get assassinated, Lodge would win in a landslide in 1964, similar to LBJ.
 
Nixon's firm personal distaste for those he viewed as "elites" and the fact that most of the candidates mentioned most likely turned the position down (Romney and Miller would've most likely accepted although I doubt Nixon would offer Romney given the whole mormonism thing, Smith is a maybe, and Goldwater and Rockefeller's mixture of ego and ambition would've prevented them from accepting) means that Nixon would turn to some less-prominent candidates - your Cottons and Judds, instead of your Rockefellers and Goldwaters. Ford is a probable candidate, given how he campaigned for the position in 1960 and would answer the call if there's an opening come 1964.

The only way Lodge would win in a landslide in '64 (assuming, of course, that Nixon's Administration was successful - which is a big ask) is if the Democrats nominate an absolute kook like Wayne Morse or if Humphrey is in full-blown left-liberal campaign mode. Johnson won his majority not on the memory of JFK (although that certainly was a big help), but on making himself the moderate candidate in comparison to Goldwater. Lodge isn't half the politician LBJ was, so I'm not sold that he'd be able to pull that off.
 
Last edited:
Nixon's firm personal distaste for those he viewed as "elites" and the fact that most of the candidates mentioned most likely turned the position down (Romney and Miller would've most likely accepted although I doubt Nixon would offer Romney given the whole mormonism thing, Smith is a maybe, and Goldwater and Rockefeller's mixture of ego and ambition would've prevented them from accepting) means that Nixon would turn to some less-prominent candidates - your Cottons and Judds, instead of your Rockefellers and Goldwaters. Ford is a probable candidate, given how he campaigned for the position in 1960 and would answer the call if there's an opening come 1964.

The only way Lodge would win in a landslide in '64 (assuming, of course, that Nixon's Administration was successful - which is a big ask) is if the Democrats nominate an absolute kook like Wayne Morse or if Humphrey is in full-blown left-liberal campaign mode. Johnson won his majority not on the memory of JFK (although that certainly was a big help), but on making himself the moderate candidate in comparison to Goldwater. Lodge isn't half the politician LBJ was, so I'm not sold that he'd be able to pull that off.

Ford is another probable candidate - I completely forgot about him. However, I wouldn't exactly call Goldwater elite, and although it might have been a long shot if Nixon offered, Rockefeller might have been receptive to the Vice Presidency - after all, he accepted Ford's offer in the '70s. Of course, a lot can change over a decade, so I might be wrong about that one.

I would say that Lodge had more going for him than you give him credit for. While I think that Kennedy was a good president, his administration was not too successful - the Civil Rights Act was passed under Johnson and the moon landings that Kennedy had advocated for took place half a decade after his death. What actually happened during his tenure was not impressive - it was marked by the blunder that was the Bay of Pigs, and its ramifications led to the Cuban Missile Crisis. If Nixon was president, Bay of Pigs would have turned out better (either it never happening or it being at least somewhat more successful than it was OTL) due to more communication with the Eisenhower administration, and therefore it's unlikely that the Cuban Missile Crisis would have happened.

In addition, a Nixon elected in 1960 would have been at least somewhat moderate, and Lodge was definitely a moderate Republican, given that in OTL he did work with the Kennedy and Johnson administrations (albeit as a diplomat) and a Democratic Party / Humphrey trying to distinguish themselves from Nixon/Lodge might have pivoted to the left. Even if they didn't, Lodge would probably be at least somewhat popular with the American people (unless he did do something that ruined his reputation, which might have happened).
 
In addition, a Nixon elected in 1960 would have been at least somewhat moderate, and Lodge was definitely a moderate Republican, given that in OTL he did work with the Kennedy and Johnson administrations (albeit as a diplomat) and a Democratic Party / Humphrey trying to distinguish themselves from Nixon/Lodge might have pivoted to the left. Even if they didn't, Lodge would probably be at least somewhat popular with the American people (unless he did do something that ruined his reputation, which might have happened).
I wasn't trying to disparage Lodge, and assuming Nixon's term goes well I don't see why he can't win in 1964. I just don't think he would win a landslide, given the special circumstances of LBJ's victory in OTL - given that Nixon pivoted to the left in the OTL 1960 Election and the growing influence of the conservatives within the GOP, I'd find it unlikely that Nixon or Lodge would further risk alienating an increasingly crucial part of the GOP electorate.

And the elites comment was referring to people like Rockefeller and Romney (hell, Nixon held Lodge in low regard over the 1960 campaign over this), not Goldwater. Barry I think would've just turned Nixon down.
 
Judging from the congressional shenanigans of 1957, I see no reason to doubt that Nixon will push for Civil Rights as President in the sixties. His motivation may very well be entirely pragmatic and cynical and opportunistic, but hey, if pushing for Civil Rights is the pragmatic, cynical, opportunistic thing to do, you can bet that Nixon’s going to do his very best to try to accomplish it.

Whether or not he’s going to have much luck in accomplishing it is another issue. Since LBJ is still in the Senate, and still Majority Leader, you can bet that he’s going to do his darndest to try to water down the bill as much as he can.
 
Never finished and then deleted along with all his other stuff IIRC. Bit strange.
Last I recall he went on hiatus due to doing an MA.

It might've been that the project looked too overwhelming to come back to (he was branching into a lot of sections of history during the 1960s), or he's now doing stuff that he thought the TL even being up would interfere with.
 
Back
Top