Discussion:
WI the Vietnam War never happened?
(too old to reply)
John Wilson
2004-02-25 17:55:44 UTC
Permalink
PoD-late 1940's: The Communist Party wins a majority in the government
of France and turns that country into a semi-ally of the USSR. The
French insist on administering their sector of Germany independently,
thus East and West Germany never come into being, rather there is
American Germany, British Germany, French Germany and Soviet Germany.

The French Communist government imposes its system on its
colonies, including French Indo-China. Ho Chi Minh is appointed
Governor. In ATL, Vietnam remains unified and French and becomes
Communist at the same time; thus there is no conflict for the USA to
get involved in.

Side effects: Lee Harvey Oswald still becomes disillusioned with the
USA in ATL, however instead of moving to the USSR, he defects to
France and marries a French girl. The cultural differences are easier
for him to cope with than if he moved to Russia as in OTL, so he never
reverses his decision. He lives out his life peacefully in Red France.
John F. Kennedy is never assassinated. Therefore in ATL:

1963: John F. Kennedy goes back to DC after his trip to Dallas. He
still supports civil rights but goes about it at a slower pace than
Johnson did in OTL.

1964: Kennedy reelected. Phony "coin shortage" of OTL doesn't occur.
90% silver remains standard for dime, quarter, and half dollar.

1965: Civil Rights act passed.

1967: "Hippie" movement of OTL never happens. Drugs never become more
popular than they were in the 1950s. Sexual freedom gradually
increases as a logical result of birth control, but there is no sudden
"sexual revolution". Young radicals do become common, but in the form
of "traditional" radical groups like the Communist Party, USA.

1968: Voting Rights act passed. Hubert Horatio Humpherey elected
president. Conservative backlash from OTL doesn't happen. Moderate
liberalism carries the day for several decades. Price of silver
finally reaches level where silver content of coins has to be reduced
to 40%.

1972: Humpherey reelected. Silver content of coins reduced to 35%.

1974: Silver finally eliminated from U.S. coins. Gold becomes legal to
own, but is divorced completely from the value of the dollar (same as
OTL).

1975: The Civil Rights movement is declared a success, as Mississippi
becomes the last state to repeal all racist laws.

1976: Billy Carter is elected President. Not much happens until....

1979: Revolution in Iran! Americans held hostage, etc. (as in OTL).

1980: Billy Carter runs neck-and-neck with Ronald Reagan for the
Presidency, but independent John Anderson makes off like a bandit in
the midst of the chaos, and is elected President.

1981: As President Anderson is inaugurated, Congress declares war on
Iran.
War lasts eight years, killing tens of thousands of American troops.
Unbenownst to the Americans, the hostages were executed before the war
even began. The war ends as a stalemate.

1990's and beyond: America becomes extremely isolationist, withdrawing
from all alliances, even with Canada.
Dan Goodman
2004-02-25 19:08:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wilson
1967: "Hippie" movement of OTL never happens. Drugs never become more
popular than they were in the 1950s. Sexual freedom gradually
increases as a logical result of birth control, but there is no sudden
"sexual revolution".
I don't think the Vietnam War was responsible for these things. I think
it was more a matter of differences between generations.
Post by John Wilson
Young radicals do become common, but in the form
of "traditional" radical groups like the Communist Party, USA.
Very doubtful. The old Marxist and semi-Marxist groups weren't very
attractive at that point. And they were run by older people.

Offhand, I would say they would pick up some young recruits, as happened
in our timeline. And some originally "nondenominational" groups would
turn Marxist, as happened in our timeline. But no more than in our
timeline, and perhaps fewer.

Anarcho-socialist groups might do better. But I think the young radicals
would start their own groups.
--
Dan Goodman
Journal http://dsgood.blogspot.com or
http://www.livejournal.com/users/dsgood/
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address)
2004-02-27 02:15:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wilson
1967: "Hippie" movement of OTL never happens.
In OTL 1963, *BEFORE* JFK's assassination, the Orlons were singing...

Where do all the hippies meet?
South Street, South Street
Where the dancing is elite
South Street, South Street

so you need an earlier POD. BTW, 50's rock 'n roll scandalized the
older generation.
Post by John Wilson
Drugs never become more popular than they were in the 1950s. Sexual
freedom gradually increases as a logical result of birth control,
but there is no sudden "sexual revolution". Young radicals do become
common, but in the form of "traditional" radical groups like the
Communist Party, USA.
I think that a major driver of the hedonistic trend was the Cold War
and the thought that we could all die in a nuclear war. I was born in
1951. During the Cuban missile crisis, kids in school like me went
through nuclear attack drills just like fire drills.

Try this as a POD, the Granma is swamped on its famous trip to Cuba,
with all aboard lost. No more Castro or Guevera. Kennedy's election
may be butterflied out of existance. No Cuban missile crisis, and the
Cold War doesn't seem so threatening so there is less "eat, drink, and
be merry, for tommorrow we may die" attitude.
--
Walter Dnes; my email address is *ALMOST* like ***@waltdnes.org
Delete the "z" to get my real address. If that gets blocked, follow
the instructions at the end of the 550 message.
Peter Heichelheim
2004-02-27 06:46:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address)
Post by John Wilson
1967: "Hippie" movement of OTL never happens.
In OTL 1963, *BEFORE* JFK's assassination, the Orlons were singing...
Where do all the hippies meet?
South Street, South Street
Where the dancing is elite
South Street, South Street
so you need an earlier POD. BTW, 50's rock 'n roll scandalized the
older generation.
Post by John Wilson
Drugs never become more popular than they were in the 1950s. Sexual
freedom gradually increases as a logical result of birth control,
but there is no sudden "sexual revolution". Young radicals do become
common, but in the form of "traditional" radical groups like the
Communist Party, USA.
I think that a major driver of the hedonistic trend was the Cold War
and the thought that we could all die in a nuclear war. I was born in
1951. During the Cuban missile crisis, kids in school like me went
through nuclear attack drills just like fire drills.
I am older than you. I was born in 1939. The Cold War was active in the 1950's
as well with its fears. Of course sex existed in the 1950's (when did it not exist)
but it was more underground. Drugs though were not generally used by the middle
class, even the youth. So I dont think your explanation is fully valid.

Peter
Post by Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address)
Try this as a POD, the Granma is swamped on its famous trip to Cuba,
with all aboard lost. No more Castro or Guevera. Kennedy's election
may be butterflied out of existance. No Cuban missile crisis, and the
Cold War doesn't seem so threatening so there is less "eat, drink, and
be merry, for tommorrow we may die" attitude.
--
Delete the "z" to get my real address. If that gets blocked, follow
the instructions at the end of the 550 message.
The Old Timer
2004-02-27 13:20:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address)
Post by John Wilson
1967: "Hippie" movement of OTL never happens.
In OTL 1963, *BEFORE* JFK's assassination, the Orlons were singing...
Where do all the hippies meet?
South Street, South Street
Where the dancing is elite
South Street, South Street
so you need an earlier POD. BTW, 50's rock 'n roll scandalized the
older generation.
I recall hearing that the term "Hippies" was an old Black Jazz term, and meant
(I think) someone that was cool and an insider.
Post by Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address)
Post by John Wilson
Drugs never become more popular than they were in the 1950s. Sexual
freedom gradually increases as a logical result of birth control,
but there is no sudden "sexual revolution". Young radicals do become
common, but in the form of "traditional" radical groups like the
Communist Party, USA.
I think that a major driver of the hedonistic trend was the Cold War
and the thought that we could all die in a nuclear war. I was born in
1951. During the Cuban missile crisis, kids in school like me went
through nuclear attack drills just like fire drills.
If "The Pill" is not allowed because of social conservative values, and drugs
generally remain the province of the lower social classes (Robert Mitchum
notwithstanding), you ~might~ get an extension of the 1950s conservativism. But
that might butterfly Hippies out of existance, not Vietnam.
Post by Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address)
Try this as a POD, the Granma is swamped on its famous trip to Cuba,
with all aboard lost. No more Castro or Guevera. Kennedy's election
may be butterflied out of existance. No Cuban missile crisis, and the
Cold War doesn't seem so threatening so there is less "eat, drink, and
be merry, for tommorrow we may die" attitude.
Vietnam was going well before the Cuban Missile Crisis, you'd need something
more on the order of no involvement after the fall of Din Ben Pheu, but I don't
know how to bring that about.


-- John ___
__[xxx]__
(o - )
--------o00o--(_)--o00o-------

The history of things that didn't happen has never been written - Henry
Kissinger
Chris Mark
2004-02-27 19:17:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Old Timer
I recall hearing that the term "Hippies" was an old Black Jazz term, and meant
(I think) someone that was cool and an insider.
As a minor data point, I flipped through my 1960 edition of Wentworth's
Dictionary of American Slang and found this entry:

hippy--n. A person who is hip, 1957; "Hippy--Generic for a character who is
super-cool, over-blase', so far out that he appears to be asleep when he's
digging something the most." [cite] E. Horne, For Cool Cats and Far-Out Chicks.

This entry is under the long entry for "hip," which is traced to "before
c1915." Notes the difference between "hep" and "hip," the former being
associated with jive and swing lifestyle while the latter is associated with
"cool, far-out and beat use."

Before I hang up I have to quote the dict's looong definition of hippy:

"A member of the beat generation; in the extreme, one who has removed himself
from commercial, material, political, and all physical and intellectual
reality, intensely believing in and protecting only his true, nonemotional,
nonsocial, amoral identity; such a pure hippie has no formal or permanent
contact with fellow human beings and has only spontaneous relationships with
those with whom he feels in rapport. There are few pure hippies, so that a
hippie may be merely an extreme cynic, amoral, disliking permanent
relationships, obsessed by the futility and mendacity of modern life, having a
strong psychological death urge, or be extremely cool or gone. Socialogically,
a typical hippie has to have a background of being born during or after the
depression of the 1930s, reared during a period when his family and most
middle-class U.S. families were obsessed with regaining financial and social
security under the New Deal, been a teenager during or a veteran of WWII or the
Korean War, and spent at least two sensitive years in a liberal arts college.
The hipster may love speed in the form of motorcycles and be cool when it comes
to jazz and art, but the only things he trusts are rapport and silence. A pure
hippie may actually be seeking a nirvana-like state, and his concern with his
true nonintelletual, nonemotional, nonsocial, amoral identity resembles that of
a Zen Buddhist monk...The surest reflex of the hipster is the refusal to
discuss the rationality of what he believes. You're with it or you're not.
You either dig what it is all about or you go back to Squaresville." [cite]
E[ugene] Burdick, The Innocent Nihilists Adrift in Squaresville, 1958.

Another definition following the above:

"The hippy is powered by sex without passion; the sole passion is for the
murder of feeling, the extinguishing of the jitters. The hippie came in with
bop, which is a way of keeping cool musically, at the same time as narcotics
addiction burgeoned--a way of keeping cool sexually. The drug-taking hippie is
not a sexual anarchist; he is a sexual zero, and heroin is his mama. The
hipster has decided to quit--resign. He gives up on the issues of being human
in society.... He disaffiliates." [cite] Herbert Gold, The Beat Mystique, 1958.





Chris Mark
Jack Linthicum
2004-02-27 20:00:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Old Timer
Post by Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address)
Post by John Wilson
1967: "Hippie" movement of OTL never happens.
In OTL 1963, *BEFORE* JFK's assassination, the Orlons were singing...
Where do all the hippies meet?
South Street, South Street
Where the dancing is elite
South Street, South Street
so you need an earlier POD. BTW, 50's rock 'n roll scandalized the
older generation.
I recall hearing that the term "Hippies" was an old Black Jazz term, and meant
(I think) someone that was cool and an insider.
Post by Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address)
Post by John Wilson
Drugs never become more popular than they were in the 1950s. Sexual
freedom gradually increases as a logical result of birth control,
but there is no sudden "sexual revolution". Young radicals do become
common, but in the form of "traditional" radical groups like the
Communist Party, USA.
I think that a major driver of the hedonistic trend was the Cold War
and the thought that we could all die in a nuclear war. I was born in
1951. During the Cuban missile crisis, kids in school like me went
through nuclear attack drills just like fire drills.
If "The Pill" is not allowed because of social conservative values, and drugs
generally remain the province of the lower social classes (Robert Mitchum
notwithstanding), you ~might~ get an extension of the 1950s conservativism. But
that might butterfly Hippies out of existance, not Vietnam.
Post by Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address)
Try this as a POD, the Granma is swamped on its famous trip to Cuba,
with all aboard lost. No more Castro or Guevera. Kennedy's election
may be butterflied out of existance. No Cuban missile crisis, and the
Cold War doesn't seem so threatening so there is less "eat, drink, and
be merry, for tommorrow we may die" attitude.
Vietnam was going well before the Cuban Missile Crisis, you'd need something
more on the order of no involvement after the fall of Din Ben Pheu, but I don't
know how to bring that about.
I had the fortune or misfortune to be a student at two of the
birthplaces of the Vietnam protest movement: Reed College and UC,
Berkeley. Reed was famous for its protests in the earlier 50s
(Rosenbergs at least, Pete Seeger and farm workers) and many Reed
former students gravitated to UC because it was good and cheap. The
Free Speech thing seems to have been a grad student versus fraternity
thing to start with, evolved through the closing of Sather Gate as a
'mini Hyde Park' of neutral grounds.

There were 700 or so 'advisors' in Vietnam when Kennedy took office
and some 2-3000 more were added before 1963. I would think that some
form of student protest, the silent generation was getting restive,
would have taken place, probably in California to start with. I am
open to what the object of protest would have been, without wars and
draft and the CIA poking around--- maybe something frivilous. I know
Berkeley had a very strict dress code for female students, that would
have been interesting: free the coeds from their Keds.
Ivan Hodes
2004-02-27 21:04:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Old Timer
Post by John Wilson
1967: "Hippie" movement of OTL never happens.
Vietnam was going well before the Cuban Missile Crisis, you'd need something
more on the order of no involvement after the fall of Din Ben Pheu, but I don't
know how to bring that about.
I still rather like the French capturing Ho and Vo way back in 1946.
But this causes all kind of wacky butterflies.

Ivan Hodes
Old Toby
2004-02-29 15:05:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Old Timer
If "The Pill" is not allowed because of social conservative values, and drugs
generally remain the province of the lower social classes (Robert Mitchum
notwithstanding), you ~might~ get an extension of the 1950s conservativism. But
that might butterfly Hippies out of existance, not Vietnam.
There are a number of problems with that idea, but lets start with the
fact that that that "1950s conservativism", well, wasn't.

Sure, social attitudes in the 1950s were more conservative
than today, but the idea that because they were more conservative,
people in the 1950s must have been conservatives (or, to be more
clear, we should perhaps say conservativists) is a mistake.

The fact is, if you look at the popular culture, the leading
intellectuals, the overall social trends, the cutting edge
new ideas, and even the overall population, you find them
all staunchly progressive. The fact that many of these
progressives still held views we now regard as conservative
only shows that, though progressive, they hadn't yet
progressed. It doesn't show that they were against progress,
or that didn't like the progress that was happening to them,
let alone that they were successfull in halting progress.

Or to put that as facts on the ground: The 1950s saw the
dissolution of old religious and ethnic prejudices, increasing
(though quite incomplete) acceptance of racial minorities,
expansion of women in the professions, increasing freedom
accorded to youth, liberalization of sexual values, religious
ecumenism, rising secularism, declining social formality,
increasing standards for civil liberties, rising interest
in foreign art, music, and cuisine, and a general attitude
that American conditions had not reached some perfect state
that must be saved from decay, but rather were improving,
and would continue to do so.

Conservative voices were marginalized and stigmatized as
ignorant and backward. And, while few were genuinely
radical, most politicians had a generally progressive
outlook. It was not conservatives that '60s radicals
assailed, conservatives were an obscure and marginal
possition, although resistance to the Civil Rights
Movement had brought some of them back. Rather, the
radicals attacked the "liberals" and "gradualists"
who were actually in power.

As for drugs? When were they ever really just "lower
class"? Sure, the poor dominate social stereotypes
of drug users, as they are less able to afford the
habit, more likely to resort to desperate means to
get drugs, and make a more pathetic picture for
"reformers" to point to as a demonstration of the
evils of drugs. But drugs have always had middle
and upper class appeal.

Marijuana may have had genuine lower class roots, and
heroin was associated with jazz and the black underclass,
entering beat circles through that route, but most other
drugs weren't really lower class at all. Cocaine and
"pills" were big in Hollywood. Amphetamines and barbituates
were abused perscription drugs, and had mainly middle class
roots, bored housewives being stereotyped abusers. LSD
started in universities, and had the endorsement of Harvard
professors, most other holucinogens were LSD replacements,
and often inspired by ethno-botanical research...

As far as the pill goes, it's impact is far overstated.
Sexual values had been loosening up since at least the
turn of the century and by the end of the 1950s the
sexual barriers were more about refusing to say what
was going on than major restraints on behavior. Already
Playboy had begun advocating a casual, commitment free,
sexual attitude and "dirty novels" with explicit sex
were widely available. It was now widely accepted that
a young, unmarried woman could live on her own. And
women in movies could have pre-marital sex and get
away with it. The image of the '50s as a time of
rigorously traditional sexuality is quite false, things
hadn't yet gone as far as today, but they were going
there.

Old Toby
Least Known Dog on the Net
Peter Heichelheim
2004-02-29 19:14:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Old Toby
Post by The Old Timer
If "The Pill" is not allowed because of social conservative values, and drugs
generally remain the province of the lower social classes (Robert Mitchum
notwithstanding), you ~might~ get an extension of the 1950s conservativism. But
that might butterfly Hippies out of existance, not Vietnam.
There are a number of problems with that idea, but lets start with the
fact that that that "1950s conservativism", well, wasn't.
Sure, social attitudes in the 1950s were more conservative
than today, but the idea that because they were more conservative,
people in the 1950s must have been conservatives (or, to be more
clear, we should perhaps say conservativists) is a mistake.
The fact is, if you look at the popular culture, the leading
intellectuals, the overall social trends, the cutting edge
new ideas, and even the overall population, you find them
all staunchly progressive. The fact that many of these
progressives still held views we now regard as conservative
only shows that, though progressive, they hadn't yet
progressed. It doesn't show that they were against progress,
or that didn't like the progress that was happening to them,
let alone that they were successfull in halting progress.
Or to put that as facts on the ground: The 1950s saw the
dissolution of old religious and ethnic prejudices, increasing
(though quite incomplete) acceptance of racial minorities,
expansion of women in the professions, increasing freedom
accorded to youth, liberalization of sexual values, religious
ecumenism, rising secularism, declining social formality,
increasing standards for civil liberties, rising interest
in foreign art, music, and cuisine, and a general attitude
that American conditions had not reached some perfect state
that must be saved from decay, but rather were improving,
and would continue to do so.
Conservative voices were marginalized and stigmatized as
ignorant and backward. And, while few were genuinely
radical, most politicians had a generally progressive
outlook. It was not conservatives that '60s radicals
assailed, conservatives were an obscure and marginal
possition, although resistance to the Civil Rights
Movement had brought some of them back. Rather, the
radicals attacked the "liberals" and "gradualists"
who were actually in power.
As for drugs? When were they ever really just "lower
class"? Sure, the poor dominate social stereotypes
of drug users, as they are less able to afford the
habit, more likely to resort to desperate means to
get drugs, and make a more pathetic picture for
"reformers" to point to as a demonstration of the
evils of drugs. But drugs have always had middle
and upper class appeal.
Marijuana may have had genuine lower class roots, and
heroin was associated with jazz and the black underclass,
entering beat circles through that route, but most other
drugs weren't really lower class at all. Cocaine and
"pills" were big in Hollywood. Amphetamines and barbituates
were abused perscription drugs, and had mainly middle class
roots, bored housewives being stereotyped abusers. LSD
started in universities, and had the endorsement of Harvard
professors, most other holucinogens were LSD replacements,
and often inspired by ethno-botanical research...
As far as the pill goes, it's impact is far overstated.
Sexual values had been loosening up since at least the
turn of the century and by the end of the 1950s the
sexual barriers were more about refusing to say what
was going on than major restraints on behavior. Already
Playboy had begun advocating a casual, commitment free,
sexual attitude and "dirty novels" with explicit sex
were widely available. It was now widely accepted that
a young, unmarried woman could live on her own. And
women in movies could have pre-marital sex and get
away with it. The image of the '50s as a time of
rigorously traditional sexuality is quite false, things
hadn't yet gone as far as today, but they were going
there.
Old Toby
Least Known Dog on the Net
I agree with you somewhat but not completely. While I am sure that there were middle
class drug users, their use was considered unusual. The prevailing opinion not only
publically but privately that their use would ruin your life. Marijuana was included
in this class. I was a teenager during the 1950's so I should know. Also LSD
experiments did not start until 1962. See

http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/lsd05.htm

Peter Heichelheim
Ivan Hodes
2004-02-29 21:40:28 UTC
Permalink
Old Toby <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<Icn0c.26489$***@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>...

[snip good points]
Post by Old Toby
Or to put that as facts on the ground: The 1950s saw the
dissolution of old religious and ethnic prejudices, increasing
(though quite incomplete) acceptance of racial minorities,
expansion of women in the professions, increasing freedom
accorded to youth, liberalization of sexual values, religious
ecumenism, rising secularism, declining social formality,
increasing standards for civil liberties, rising interest
in foreign art, music, and cuisine, and a general attitude
that American conditions had not reached some perfect state
that must be saved from decay, but rather were improving,
and would continue to do so.
I found it endlessly fascinating that Andy Warhol began his career not
in, oh, 1965 but rather 1952, and even the Marilyn Monroe stuff was
1962, before most people generally believe "the Sixties" to have
begun. Not only that, but his work (plus Rothko, Schnabel, etc. etc.)
was purchased not ty long-haired bohemians (where would they get the
money?) but rather prosperous upper-middle-class professionals/leisure
classes.
Post by Old Toby
Conservative voices were marginalized and stigmatized as
ignorant and backward. And, while few were genuinely
radical, most politicians had a generally progressive
outlook. It was not conservatives that '60s radicals
assailed, conservatives were an obscure and marginal
possition, although resistance to the Civil Rights
Movement had brought some of them back. Rather, the
radicals attacked the "liberals" and "gradualists"
who were actually in power.
I think you're ignoring the American South/Midwest a little bit too
much here, but your point stands.
Post by Old Toby
As for drugs? When were
they ever really just "lower
Post by Old Toby
class"? Sure, the poor dominate social stereotypes
of drug users,
Do they, even now, though? ISTM the popular conception of powder
cocaine is, and has been for a while, some rich socialite snorting a
line at a party. And I invariably think of wealthy suburban
highschoolers when I think of marijuana, but maybe that's just me.

Good post.

Ivan Hodes
Coyu
2004-03-03 20:36:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Old Toby
As far as the pill goes, it's impact is far overstated.
Sexual values had been loosening up since at least the
turn of the century and by the end of the 1950s the
sexual barriers were more about refusing to say what
was going on than major restraints on behavior.
I should note that 1946 was the local maximum for the
US divorce rate until the 1970s.

The Pill, on the other hand (and not the condom and not
Roe vs. Wade) does seem to have had significant effects
on US women's higher education and the workplace.
Jack Linthicum
2004-03-04 16:18:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Old Toby
Post by The Old Timer
If "The Pill" is not allowed because of social conservative values, and drugs
generally remain the province of the lower social classes (Robert Mitchum
notwithstanding), you ~might~ get an extension of the 1950s conservativism. But
that might butterfly Hippies out of existance, not Vietnam.
There are a number of problems with that idea, but lets start with the
fact that that that "1950s conservativism", well, wasn't.
Sure, social attitudes in the 1950s were more conservative
than today, but the idea that because they were more conservative,
people in the 1950s must have been conservatives (or, to be more
clear, we should perhaps say conservativists) is a mistake.
The fact is, if you look at the popular culture, the leading
intellectuals, the overall social trends, the cutting edge
new ideas, and even the overall population, you find them
all staunchly progressive. The fact that many of these
progressives still held views we now regard as conservative
only shows that, though progressive, they hadn't yet
progressed. It doesn't show that they were against progress,
or that didn't like the progress that was happening to them,
let alone that they were successfull in halting progress.
Or to put that as facts on the ground: The 1950s saw the
dissolution of old religious and ethnic prejudices, increasing
(though quite incomplete) acceptance of racial minorities,
expansion of women in the professions, increasing freedom
accorded to youth, liberalization of sexual values, religious
ecumenism, rising secularism, declining social formality,
increasing standards for civil liberties, rising interest
in foreign art, music, and cuisine, and a general attitude
that American conditions had not reached some perfect state
that must be saved from decay, but rather were improving,
and would continue to do so.
Conservative voices were marginalized and stigmatized as
ignorant and backward. And, while few were genuinely
radical, most politicians had a generally progressive
outlook. It was not conservatives that '60s radicals
assailed, conservatives were an obscure and marginal
possition, although resistance to the Civil Rights
Movement had brought some of them back. Rather, the
radicals attacked the "liberals" and "gradualists"
who were actually in power.
As for drugs? When were they ever really just "lower
class"? Sure, the poor dominate social stereotypes
of drug users, as they are less able to afford the
habit, more likely to resort to desperate means to
get drugs, and make a more pathetic picture for
"reformers" to point to as a demonstration of the
evils of drugs. But drugs have always had middle
and upper class appeal.
Marijuana may have had genuine lower class roots, and
heroin was associated with jazz and the black underclass,
entering beat circles through that route, but most other
drugs weren't really lower class at all. Cocaine and
"pills" were big in Hollywood. Amphetamines and barbituates
were abused perscription drugs, and had mainly middle class
roots, bored housewives being stereotyped abusers. LSD
started in universities, and had the endorsement of Harvard
professors, most other holucinogens were LSD replacements,
and often inspired by ethno-botanical research...
As far as the pill goes, it's impact is far overstated.
Sexual values had been loosening up since at least the
turn of the century and by the end of the 1950s the
sexual barriers were more about refusing to say what
was going on than major restraints on behavior. Already
Playboy had begun advocating a casual, commitment free,
sexual attitude and "dirty novels" with explicit sex
were widely available. It was now widely accepted that
a young, unmarried woman could live on her own. And
women in movies could have pre-marital sex and get
away with it. The image of the '50s as a time of
rigorously traditional sexuality is quite false, things
hadn't yet gone as far as today, but they were going
there.
Despite peanut gallery comments I am going to leave your post intact.

Two things to remember about the late 1950s and the early 1960s as
times of change: The Beats and the stand-up comedians. The beats were
offering a tune-out drop out mentality for years before the LSD and
other acids became popular.
Jack Kerouac, Allen Ginsberg, City Lights, Neal Cassiday, guest star
Henry Miller, and host of others.

The comedians like Lenny Bruce, Mort Sahl, Redd Foxx, Cheech and
Chong, Woody Allen and the forgotten ones at the Purple Onion, hungry
i and in the streets. For those who lived or visited SF in those days:
Carol Doda. In June of 1964, Carol Doda launched her 44 attack,
wearing a topless bathing suit designed by the legendary Rudi
Genreich, and danced her way into infamy. A part of Carol's act called
for her to gyrate while descending to the dance floor atop a piano
that was powered by hydraulics. The girl in the Goldfish Bowl at
Bimbo's 365 Club was also a part of the tour.

[Footnote: One night after closing, one of the bouncers of the Condor
Club, along with one of the clubs dancers, decided to make beautiful
music together while lying atop the hydraulic piano. At some point
during this symphony, the switch was hit and the piano began its slow
rise to the ceiling. In time, the bouncer and the dancer were pinned
to the ceiling, the dancer cushioned protectively by the bouncer who
lay atop her, both of them squeezed between the ceiling and the piano
like a bartender squeezing a lemon. The dancer was discovered alive in
the morning by a janitor. As for the bouncer, it was the last concert
performance of his career! ]


Finnochio's as a break-out point for the gay community, which became a
cultural center for all the cross-dressers and right out fag acts. If
you want a DBWI sometime try the the act where the closing line is:
"You ever see tits like these on a faggot?"



The focal points were San Francisco and New York's Greenwich Village,
if the Vietnam War hadn't taken the steam away from this groundswell
it could have reached out to other cities. Chicago's Second City dates
from this time. Washington DC had the Shadows with Bill Cosby cracking
jokes about women going to the ladies room in pairs, the jock jokes,
and his revelation at one point or another (starling in 1962) that he
was a black African American and not some white guy in makeup.
Coyu
2004-03-05 00:38:01 UTC
Permalink
Jack Linthicum wrote:

[snip 84 lines of someone else's post, quoted verbatim]
Post by Jack Linthicum
Despite peanut gallery comments I am going to leave your post intact.
Tsk. Quoting 84 lines in a fit of pique?

There's a reason why I suggest you edit yourself better, Jack. Some
posters pay by the byte, especially the ones in foreign parts.

When you pull stunts like that, they pay for your lack of restraint.
Jack Linthicum
2004-03-05 12:21:59 UTC
Permalink
***@aol.com (Coyu) wrote in message news:<***@mb-m13.aol.com>...
Which way do you want it? You just spent someone else's money telling me off.
Coyu
2004-03-05 17:03:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
Which way do you want it? You just spent someone else's money
telling me off.
And I didn't quote eighty-odd lines to do it.

Get it? Think telegraph.
David Johnston
2004-02-29 20:49:22 UTC
Permalink
On 27 Feb 2004 02:15:44 GMT, "Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my
Post by Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address)
Post by John Wilson
1967: "Hippie" movement of OTL never happens.
In OTL 1963, *BEFORE* JFK's assassination, the Orlons were singing...
Where do all the hippies meet?
South Street, South Street
Where the dancing is elite
South Street, South Street
so you need an earlier POD. BTW, 50's rock 'n roll scandalized the
older generation.
Post by John Wilson
Drugs never become more popular than they were in the 1950s. Sexual
freedom gradually increases as a logical result of birth control,
but there is no sudden "sexual revolution". Young radicals do become
common, but in the form of "traditional" radical groups like the
Communist Party, USA.
I think that a major driver of the hedonistic trend was the Cold War
and the thought that we could all die in a nuclear war.
I'd have to disagree. The major drivers of the hedonistic trend seem
to me to be

1. Increased material prosperity in the middle class
2. The explosion of college admissions
3. The invention of the birth control pill
4. The demographic bulge
5. The sheer tight assedness of the mainstream
50s culture.

Keep those, and you'll still have the hippies or something
like them.
Stanislaus Boleslawski
2004-03-01 07:37:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On 27 Feb 2004 02:15:44 GMT, "Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my
Post by Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address)
Post by John Wilson
1967: "Hippie" movement of OTL never happens.
In OTL 1963, *BEFORE* JFK's assassination, the Orlons were singing...
Where do all the hippies meet?
South Street, South Street
Where the dancing is elite
South Street, South Street
so you need an earlier POD. BTW, 50's rock 'n roll scandalized the
older generation.
And the Beats weren't exactly beloved by the establishment,
Kerouac's praise of Ike notwithstanding.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address)
Post by John Wilson
Drugs never become more popular than they were in the 1950s.
IOW, widespread use of cheap and legal methamphetamine.

Sexual
Post by David Johnston
Post by Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address)
Post by John Wilson
freedom gradually increases as a logical result of birth control,
but there is no sudden "sexual revolution".
Already under way beginning with Hefner founding Playboy.

Young radicals do become
Post by David Johnston
Post by Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address)
Post by John Wilson
common, but in the form of "traditional" radical groups like the
Communist Party, USA.
Extremely doubtful. The CPUSA had no appeal.
Anarchist groups are a different story.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address)
I think that a major driver of the hedonistic trend was the Cold War
and the thought that we could all die in a nuclear war.
I'd have to disagree. The major drivers of the hedonistic trend seem
to me to be
1. Increased material prosperity in the middle class
2. The explosion of college admissions
3. The invention of the birth control pill
4. The demographic bulge
5. The sheer tight assedness of the mainstream
50s culture.
How much of #5 was related to the Cold War?
Without McCarthyite paranoia, would the 50s culture
have been so tight assed?

ObWI: No Joe McCarthy.
Post by David Johnston
Keep those, and you'll still have the hippies or something
like them.
Is there a way, barring nuclear holocaust, to prevent
the "Baby Boom" ? There will be an increase in births
after WWII regardless, but can the increase be less
than OTL?
Jack Linthicum
2004-03-01 11:47:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stanislaus Boleslawski
Is there a way, barring nuclear holocaust, to prevent
the "Baby Boom" ? There will be an increase in births
after WWII regardless, but can the increase be less
than OTL?
No GI Bill, ungrateful country says 'make it own your own' I just came
out of a depression and a war and I need a breathing spell. No cheap
college no help with home loans and everybody ends up waiting for the
soup kitchen to open or never leaves Springfield or Leesburg.
Larry M Headlund
2004-03-01 20:56:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Stanislaus Boleslawski
Is there a way, barring nuclear holocaust, to prevent
the "Baby Boom" ? There will be an increase in births
after WWII regardless, but can the increase be less
than OTL?
No GI Bill, ungrateful country says 'make it own your own' I just came
out of a depression and a war and I need a breathing spell. No cheap
college no help with home loans and everybody ends up waiting for the
soup kitchen to open or never leaves Springfield or Leesburg.
Expanding on that, a major depression following WWII in the US would
also work. This is going to be hard to manage unless some one gets
an attack of brains to the head and we get, say, massive tax increases
to pay off the WWII debt, very tight money to kill the post WWII inflation,
and some real protectionism in Europe to keep out US goods. All and all,
hard to manage.

Maybe we can have the boom but divide it up: No GI Bill plus no other
educational expansion leaves the college bound fraction something
like it was in the thirties. This balkanizes the youth culture more.
--
--
Larry Headlund ***@world.std.com Mathematical Engineering, Inc.
(617) 242 7741
Unix, X and Motif Consulting Speaking for myself at most.
Stanislaus Boleslawski
2004-03-04 20:46:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry M Headlund
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Stanislaus Boleslawski
Is there a way, barring nuclear holocaust, to prevent
the "Baby Boom" ? There will be an increase in births
after WWII regardless, but can the increase be less
than OTL?
No GI Bill, ungrateful country says 'make it own your own' I just came
out of a depression and a war and I need a breathing spell. No cheap
college no help with home loans and everybody ends up waiting for the
soup kitchen to open or never leaves Springfield or Leesburg.
Expanding on that, a major depression following WWII in the US would
also work. This is going to be hard to manage unless some one gets
an attack of brains to the head and we get, say, massive tax increases
to pay off the WWII debt, very tight money to kill the post WWII inflation,
and some real protectionism in Europe to keep out US goods. All and all,
hard to manage.
And an isolationist leaning GOP Administration.

Two PoDs here:

1942. Democratic Attorney General John Bennett defeats Thomas
Dewey in the election for Governor of New York.

June 1944. At the Republican National Convention in
Chicago, Robert Taft is nominated as the party's
candidate to run against FDR, with Sen. Gerald
Nye of North Dakota as his VP. The assumption here
is that FDR will defeat whoever is nominated, so
the Old Right predominates.

October 1944. FDR's polio catches up with him, and he dies
a month before the election. Henry Wallace assumes the
Presidential nomination. At the spur of the moment,
Robert Wagner is chosen as VP.

While one would expect that the Democrats would have
an advantage, with the war on and FDR highly revered,
Wallace is an inherently weak candidate. A Wallace/
Wagner ticket is a hard sell in the South. The
election turns out quite close.

(Sub-WI: The effects of an extremely close election
during WWII.)

Either way, things are not likely to go too well in
the postwar era. Assuming Taft wins, expect a
return to the economic policies of the 1920s, with
little aid to Europe. One might have a Communist
France and/or Italy in this TL. New Deal programs
are rolled back, and general economic incompetence
prevails.

With a Wallace victory, expect plenty of foreign
policy incompetence and extremely high taxes, although
there will be more social programs.

I don't expect much impact on the war in Europe -
it was pretty clear what was going to happen by
January 1945. Taft might cut funding for the
Manhattan Project, so expect a rather haphazardly
planned land invasion of Japan if he wins.

Further thoughts?
Brendan Guy
2004-03-05 00:32:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stanislaus Boleslawski
And an isolationist leaning GOP Administration.
1942. Democratic Attorney General John Bennett defeats Thomas
Dewey in the election for Governor of New York.
June 1944. At the Republican National Convention in
Chicago, Robert Taft is nominated as the party's
candidate to run against FDR, with Sen. Gerald
Nye of North Dakota as his VP. The assumption here
is that FDR will defeat whoever is nominated, so
the Old Right predominates.
Taft was up for reelection in 1944. He's not going to give up his
Senate seat for a pointless run against FDR. A better choice would
be Taft's fellow Ohioan, John Bricker. (OTL he was Dewey's veep.)
Bricker was also far more conservative than Taft. If you want to get
a distopic GOP post-war administration, he's the best candidate
available.
Post by Stanislaus Boleslawski
October 1944. FDR's polio catches up with him, and he dies
a month before the election. Henry Wallace assumes the
Presidential nomination. At the spur of the moment,
Robert Wagner is chosen as VP.
Wagner wasn't a native born American was he?
Post by Stanislaus Boleslawski
While one would expect that the Democrats would have
an advantage, with the war on and FDR highly revered,
Wallace is an inherently weak candidate. A Wallace/
Wagner ticket is a hard sell in the South. The
election turns out quite close.
I don't think even Wallace could blow an election with only a month to
do it.
Post by Stanislaus Boleslawski
Either way, things are not likely to go too well in
the postwar era. Assuming Taft wins, expect a
return to the economic policies of the 1920s, with
little aid to Europe. One might have a Communist
France and/or Italy in this TL. New Deal programs
are rolled back, and general economic incompetence
prevails.
Agreed about aid to Europe. Taft will also sharply curtail defense
spending. On the other hand federal spending and taxes will probably
be lower than OTL and Taft might actually get more federal aid for
housing, education, and health care than happened OTL. He won't be
able to seriously roll back the New Deal because the Democrats are
bound to make big gains in the midterm elections.
Post by Stanislaus Boleslawski
With a Wallace victory, expect plenty of foreign
policy incompetence and extremely high taxes, although
there will be more social programs.
Agreed about the foreign policy incompetence. I don't think Wallace
will be able to accomplish much domestically though. If FDR couldn't
budge the conservatives in Congress there is no way Henry Wallace will
be able to. (Especially after the GOP retakes Congress after the midterms.)
There's also a good chance Wallace gets himself impeached after its found
out he has appointed Communist spies to his Cabinet.
Post by Stanislaus Boleslawski
I don't expect much impact on the war in Europe -
it was pretty clear what was going to happen by
January 1945. Taft might cut funding for the
Manhattan Project, so expect a rather haphazardly
planned land invasion of Japan if he wins.
OTL, Taft in 1945 called for making concessions to the Japanese
(including letting them keep Formosa) to try and convince them to surrender.
I would expect him to do the same as President, so he is probably able
to talk the Japanese into some sort of conditional surrender that prevents
the need for invading the home islands or using atomic weapons.


Brendan W. Guy
President Chester A. Arthur
2004-03-05 17:15:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brendan Guy
Taft was up for reelection in 1944. He's not going to give up his
Senate seat for a pointless run against FDR. A better choice would
be Taft's fellow Ohioan, John Bricker. (OTL he was Dewey's veep.)
Bricker was also far more conservative than Taft. If you want to get
a distopic GOP post-war administration, he's the best candidate
available.
I dunno, one can write a dystopic scenario about Taft in '44. ;)

But I agree, Bricker is much more likely. Keep the original POD of FDR
dying in late 1944 and add Dewey dying in a plane crash in January of
1945, and you've got yourself a Bricker.
Brendan Guy
2004-03-06 00:59:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by President Chester A. Arthur
I dunno, one can write a dystopic scenario about Taft in '44. ;)
To be fair FAT didn't get truly dystopic until after Taft was
killed. (Indeed it
could be argued Taft's assassination is the point where things start to
go off the
rails.)


Brendan W. Guy
Stanislaus Boleslawski
2004-03-06 04:57:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by President Chester A. Arthur
Post by Brendan Guy
Taft was up for reelection in 1944. He's not going to give up his
Senate seat for a pointless run against FDR.
Taft was a candidate for the nomination in '44. See
http://politicalgraveyard.com/parties/R/1944/index.html

A better choice would
Post by President Chester A. Arthur
Post by Brendan Guy
be Taft's fellow Ohioan, John Bricker. (OTL he was Dewey's veep.)
Bricker was also far more conservative than Taft.
Is this possible?
For really reactionary GOP senators, there were also
Vandenberg and Nye. Hiram Johnson would be too old
by 1944.

If you want to get
Post by President Chester A. Arthur
Post by Brendan Guy
a distopic GOP post-war administration, he's the best candidate
available.
I dunno, one can write a dystopic scenario about Taft in '44. ;)
But I agree, Bricker is much more likely. Keep the original POD of FDR
dying in late 1944 and add Dewey dying in a plane crash in January of
1945, and you've got yourself a Bricker.
If Dewey is defeated for the governorship, he won't run
in 1944. Even considering that he ran before he was
governor, in 1940, he will have shown himself to be
unable to move up to higher office.

ObWI: Other Manhattan DAs trying for the White House
without experience in holding another office.
Rich Rostrom
2004-03-06 07:49:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brendan Guy
Wagner wasn't a native born American was he?
Nope.

Wagner, Robert Ferdinand (1877-1953) of New York, New York County,
N.Y. Born in Nastatten, Hessen-Nassau, Germany, June 8, 1877

Besides which, by October 1944, Wallace had been denied
renomination for VP. It's unlikely he would be the
substitute Presidential nomination after that.
--
Were there eight kings of the name of Henry in England, or were there eighty?
Never mind; someday it will be recorded that there was only one, and the
attributes of all of them will be combined into his compressed and consensus
story. --- R. A. Lafferty, _And Read the Flesh Between the Lines_
Stanislaus Boleslawski
2004-03-07 21:27:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Brendan Guy
Wagner wasn't a native born American was he?
Nope.
Wagner, Robert Ferdinand (1877-1953) of New York, New York County,
N.Y. Born in Nastatten, Hessen-Nassau, Germany, June 8, 1877
In doing subsequent research I found this out.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Besides which, by October 1944, Wallace had been denied
renomination for VP. It's unlikely he would be the
substitute Presidential nomination after that.
OK, wrong POD.

So have FDR die right before the convention, which would
become a sort of memorial service to him.

Would a Wallace-Truman ticket be feasible?
If not, Wagner is obviously ineligible. What other
northeastern liberal would be plausible? (That
would sink the ticket faster than a midwesterner
like Truman)
Dan Childers
2004-03-01 16:46:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stanislaus Boleslawski
Post by David Johnston
5. The sheer tight assedness of the mainstream
50s culture.
How much of #5 was related to the Cold War?
Without McCarthyite paranoia, would the 50s culture
have been so tight assed?
ObWI: No Joe McCarthy.
Actually, to get no McCarthyism, you probably need
to have no Soviet Union.

Remember, the 50s were right after the 40s. In the 40s,
a superpower ideologically opposed to the West, that
had been announcing that it would destroy the West and
take over the world, went out and attempted to destroy
the West and take over the world. This made people nervous
in the late 40s and early 50s when a superpower
ideologically opposed to the West was announcing that it
would destroy the West and take over the world. We might
know now that that nice Stalin fellow would never do
anything mean like that, but people then had fairly recent
memories of mistakenly believing Hitler was kidding.

And worse yet, after 1948 people were afraid of being
nuked.

McCarthy rode the trend, and successfully got himself
considered the embodiment of anticommunism (impressively,
he retains this reputation to this day)--but if no
McCarthy, someone else would have been the leading
spokesman for anticommunism.
Dan Childers
2004-02-27 17:37:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wilson
The French Communist government imposes its system on its
colonies, including French Indo-China. Ho Chi Minh is appointed
Governor. In ATL, Vietnam remains unified and French and becomes
Communist at the same time; thus there is no conflict for the USA to
get involved in.
Lots of objections to this ATL, but here are
the two big ones:

1) France going Communist means there is no Cold War?
I seriously doubt it. More likely it means a worse
Cold War. "Who lost France?" would have been a much
scarier question than "Who lost China?"

2) France ordering it's colonies to go Communist means
no sentiment for independence from France? My doubt
becomes so massive it collapses into a neutron star.
As Soviet history shows, people don't like being bossed
around by a colonial overlord any better just because
the overlord has little red stars on the policeman's
caps. Even more, remember that a government going
Communist in the late 40s almost certainly means that
government is going Stalinist, and thus is likely to
be more enthusiastic about the secret police and
concentration camps and censorship and stuff than the
old government--and thereby annoy the colonized people
more.

More likely, the *Viet Cong is quite pointedly not
Communist, and the U.S. is backing the insurgents.
I believe your title is incorrect; this POD would
lead to a *Vietnam War.
Peter Heichelheim
2004-02-29 03:31:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Childers
Post by John Wilson
The French Communist government imposes its system on its
colonies, including French Indo-China. Ho Chi Minh is appointed
Governor. In ATL, Vietnam remains unified and French and becomes
Communist at the same time; thus there is no conflict for the USA to
get involved in.
Lots of objections to this ATL, but here are
1) France going Communist means there is no Cold War?
I seriously doubt it. More likely it means a worse
Cold War. "Who lost France?" would have been a much
scarier question than "Who lost China?"
2) France ordering it's colonies to go Communist means
no sentiment for independence from France? My doubt
becomes so massive it collapses into a neutron star.
As Soviet history shows, people don't like being bossed
around by a colonial overlord any better just because
the overlord has little red stars on the policeman's
caps. Even more, remember that a government going
Communist in the late 40s almost certainly means that
government is going Stalinist, and thus is likely to
be more enthusiastic about the secret police and
concentration camps and censorship and stuff than the
old government--and thereby annoy the colonized people
more.
More likely, the *Viet Cong is quite pointedly not
Communist, and the U.S. is backing the insurgents.
I believe your title is incorrect; this POD would
lead to a *Vietnam War.
I agree with you that France going Communist would produce more severe crises in the Cold War. However Ho Chi Minh was a
communist and had become one when a student in France. Therefore Vietnam would go immediately communist with Ho Chi Minh
the first president and any anti-communists there immediately suppressed. Vietnam would be under the control of the
U.S.S.R.; the only independent communist country in the late 40's was Yugoslavia. Therefore there would no Vietnam War
as Vietnam would be already communist.

Peter
Dan Childers
2004-03-01 16:53:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Heichelheim
I agree with you that France going Communist would produce more severe crises in the Cold War. However Ho Chi Minh was a
communist and had become one when a student in France. Therefore Vietnam would go immediately communist with Ho Chi Minh
the first president and any anti-communists there immediately suppressed. Vietnam would be under the control of the
U.S.S.R.; the only independent communist country in the late 40's was Yugoslavia. Therefore there would no Vietnam War
as Vietnam would be already communist.
And in this case, Ho Chi Minh is, quite literally, a stooge
of the French colonial overlords selling out his own people to
foreign domination. Do you really believe that the only
objection the Vietnamese people had to being a French colony
was that the French were not Communist?
Jack Linthicum
2004-02-29 21:49:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Childers
Post by John Wilson
The French Communist government imposes its system on its
colonies, including French Indo-China. Ho Chi Minh is appointed
Governor. In ATL, Vietnam remains unified and French and becomes
Communist at the same time; thus there is no conflict for the USA to
get involved in.
Lots of objections to this ATL, but here are
1) France going Communist means there is no Cold War?
I seriously doubt it. More likely it means a worse
Cold War. "Who lost France?" would have been a much
scarier question than "Who lost China?"
2) France ordering it's colonies to go Communist means
no sentiment for independence from France? My doubt
becomes so massive it collapses into a neutron star.
As Soviet history shows, people don't like being bossed
around by a colonial overlord any better just because
the overlord has little red stars on the policeman's
caps. Even more, remember that a government going
Communist in the late 40s almost certainly means that
government is going Stalinist, and thus is likely to
be more enthusiastic about the secret police and
concentration camps and censorship and stuff than the
old government--and thereby annoy the colonized people
more.
More likely, the *Viet Cong is quite pointedly not
Communist, and the U.S. is backing the insurgents.
I believe your title is incorrect; this POD would
lead to a *Vietnam War.
Is there any impetus towards sending a long-range jungle patrol,
Anglo-American, into Vietnam to disrupt the Japanese, making contact
with Ho Chi Minh and his patriots, getting along as allies? The
Chinese would have been against any diminuation of what they saw as a
client relationship with the people of Vietnam in 'normal' (ie
non-French) times. After all the Chinese fought a war with Vietnam
after our Vietnam, in 1979. We had contacts and support in WWII with
Tito and his Communists, is there a strategic reason to get inside
Vietnam and act similarly?
Chris Mark
2004-03-01 18:21:06 UTC
Permalink
From: jacklinthicum
Is there any impetus towards sending a long-range jungle patrol,
Anglo-American, into Vietnam to disrupt the Japanese, making contact
with Ho Chi Minh and his patriots, getting along as allies?
US Navy Group China, under the command of Captain Milton Miles, established an
intelligence network inside Indochina beginning in 1943 working with everyone
from the Deuxie'me Bureau to the Viet Minh. There was also the shadowy "GBT"
group, founded by Frank Tan (the "T" in GBT), a Chinese-American long-time
resident of Vietnam. The GBT ran a network of spies, couriers and clandestine
radio transmitters throughout Indochina. By 1944 it had become the most widely
used (by the US) and reliable intelligence agency in the colony, thoroughly
infiltrating the French colonial government and armed forces, as well as
Japanese occupation forces and native revolutionary and resistance
organizations.
The OSS worked directly with Ho Chi Minh, whereby his people supplied
intelligence and rescued downed allied air crew in exchange for communications
equipment, small arms and ammunition, medical supplies and military advisors to
train them in guerrilla warfare (!!!). Against the Japanese, of course.
President Roosevelt's administration kept as much distance as possible from
Adm. Jean Decoux's French colonial government in Indochina. FDR and his State
Department Far East experts hoped to see French rule in Indochina replaced by a
UNO Trusteeship once the war was over. (for details of this, see "Foreign
Relations of the United States 1944," Vol. 3)
The Milton E. Miles papers at the ONH have much of interest on this subject, as
do OSS records in the NA.
"Franklin Roosevelt and Indochina" in the Journal of American History, Vol. 59
is interesting, especially in speculating about might-have-beens and what-ifs.
14th Air Force records at the Simpson Historical Center at Maxwell are also
interesting, detailing supply drops and agent insertions to Ho and pick-ups of
airmen rescued by his people.
Also of great interest are the Hearings on Causes, Origins and Lessons of the
Vietnam War, 92nd Congress Senate, Second Session. This is actually a gold
mine for what-iffing. This was definitely one war that didn't have to happen.
It really didn't.


Chris Mark
Jack Linthicum
2004-03-02 00:42:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Mark
From: jacklinthicum
Is there any impetus towards sending a long-range jungle patrol,
Anglo-American, into Vietnam to disrupt the Japanese, making contact
with Ho Chi Minh and his patriots, getting along as allies?
US Navy Group China, under the command of Captain Milton Miles, established an
intelligence network inside Indochina beginning in 1943 working with everyone
from the Deuxie'me Bureau to the Viet Minh. There was also the shadowy "GBT"
group, founded by Frank Tan (the "T" in GBT), a Chinese-American long-time
resident of Vietnam. The GBT ran a network of spies, couriers and clandestine
radio transmitters throughout Indochina. By 1944 it had become the most widely
used (by the US) and reliable intelligence agency in the colony, thoroughly
infiltrating the French colonial government and armed forces, as well as
Japanese occupation forces and native revolutionary and resistance
organizations.
The OSS worked directly with Ho Chi Minh, whereby his people supplied
intelligence and rescued downed allied air crew in exchange for communications
equipment, small arms and ammunition, medical supplies and military advisors to
train them in guerrilla warfare (!!!). Against the Japanese, of course.
President Roosevelt's administration kept as much distance as possible from
Adm. Jean Decoux's French colonial government in Indochina. FDR and his State
Department Far East experts hoped to see French rule in Indochina replaced by a
UNO Trusteeship once the war was over. (for details of this, see "Foreign
Relations of the United States 1944," Vol. 3)
The Milton E. Miles papers at the ONH have much of interest on this subject, as
do OSS records in the NA.
"Franklin Roosevelt and Indochina" in the Journal of American History, Vol. 59
is interesting, especially in speculating about might-have-beens and what-ifs.
14th Air Force records at the Simpson Historical Center at Maxwell are also
interesting, detailing supply drops and agent insertions to Ho and pick-ups of
airmen rescued by his people.
Also of great interest are the Hearings on Causes, Origins and Lessons of the
Vietnam War, 92nd Congress Senate, Second Session. This is actually a gold
mine for what-iffing. This was definitely one war that didn't have to happen.
It really didn't.
we are still waiting for those dominos to fall. Instead we get a dying
Laos, deforested to stay alive, and Cambodia has such current issues
as
illegal logging activities throughout the country and strip mining for
gems in the western region along the border with Thailand resulting in
habitat loss and declining biodiversity (in particular, destruction of
mangrove swamps threatens natural fisheries); soil erosion; in rural
areas, a majority of the population does not have access to potable
water; toxic waste delivery from Taiwan sparked unrest in Kampong Saom
(Sihanoukville) in December 1998
Chris Mark
2004-03-02 00:54:51 UTC
Permalink
From: jacklinthicum
we are still waiting for those dominos to fall. Instead we get a dying
Laos, deforested to stay alive, and Cambodia has such current issues
as
illegal logging activities throughout the country and strip mining for
gems in the western region along the border with Thailand resulting in
habitat loss and declining biodiversity (in particular, destruction of
mangrove swamps threatens natural fisheries); soil erosion; in rural
areas, a majority of the population does not have access to potable
water; toxic waste delivery from Taiwan sparked unrest in Kampong Saom
(Sihanoukville) in December 1998
Such a damned shame. All of it.


Chris Mark
Jack Linthicum
2004-03-04 12:22:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Mark
From: jacklinthicum
we are still waiting for those dominos to fall. Instead we get a dying
Laos, deforested to stay alive, and Cambodia has such current issues
as
illegal logging activities throughout the country and strip mining for
gems in the western region along the border with Thailand resulting in
habitat loss and declining biodiversity (in particular, destruction of
mangrove swamps threatens natural fisheries); soil erosion; in rural
areas, a majority of the population does not have access to potable
water; toxic waste delivery from Taiwan sparked unrest in Kampong Saom
(Sihanoukville) in December 1998
Such a damned shame. All of it.
But, if you accept the theory that Vietnam and Afghanistan were
substitutes for an all-out WWIII and were a casualty wash (60,000
deaths each) it was cheap. The second question is whether that was the
intention or merely a very useful side effect.
Chris Mark
2004-03-05 02:41:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
But, if you accept the theory that Vietnam and Afghanistan were
substitutes for an all-out WWIII and were a casualty wash (60,000
deaths each) it was cheap. The second question is whether that was the
intention or merely a very useful side effect.
That's more or less the thesis of Michael Lind in his book, "Vietnam: The
Necessary War." Below is a link that contains a fairly extensive NY Times
review of it:

http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=book_Rev&pubID=1032


Chris Mark
Coreleus Corneleus
2004-03-07 14:32:59 UTC
Permalink
...
There was more going on in the 1960s and early 1970s than the Vietnam
war, and I tend to think that it would have been harder to modify
those trends than to change the sequence of events in Indochina.

Vietnam was south of China just as Korea was northeast of China,
however if some other phenomenon with the French had happened in the
1950s it seems to me possible that the Vietnam war might not have
occurred.

Probably the two most major effects if the Vietnam war were
butterflied away would have been a somewhat greater propensity for the
U.S. to consider a significant use of the draft and a less
professional U.S. military, and the voting age in the U.S. would have
remained higher.

There were an array of other social trends, however, that might have
been much harder to butterfly away than the Vietnam war, and to have
gotten rid of the Vietnam war, may not have necessesarily meant the
removal of these trends.
Stanislaus Boleslawski
2004-03-07 21:47:21 UTC
Permalink
To get rid of the social trends of the 1960s, you
would have to butterfly away the Baby Boom.

With a Baby Boom, the trends surface whether
there is a Vietnam war or not.

Some increase in the birth rate after WWII
is inevitable. As other posters have pointed
out, to prevent the birth rate from reaching
1945-57 OTL levels, there would have to be
no GI Bill and/or a depression after WWII, or
some sort of major catastrophe like nuclear
war.

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...