Ironic would be an alt-Cuban Missile Crisis style confrontation.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Ironic would be an alt-Cuban Missile Crisis style confrontation.
Nabendu: Thank you very much.
trekaddict: Ah, Cuba. Another questionmark I will have to raise when the time comes.
trekaddict: Ah, Cuba. Another questionmark I will have to raise when the time comes.
I spent July 4th watching "John Adams" on HBO. It's a good mini-series. Watching the lead-up to the American Revolution made me realize that if I was alive back then, I might have been a Loyalist. I would rather have a despotic King 3,000 miles away than have 3,000 unruly mobsters not a mile away.
In any event...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reaction
By coincidence, the President was scheduled to speak at the Democratic National Committee's annual dinner in D.C. on the night of May 4th. Given that history had been made earlier that morning, Sparkman scrapped his original prepared remarks and instructed chief speechwriter Arthur Schlesinger to draft a new speech highlighting the significance of Explorer I and why every American should be proud of it. Working on a tight schedule, Schlesinger handed his boss the new speech just minutes before he took to the podium. In it, the President said that the satellite “is a symbol of that great thing we call the American spirit. One of the qualities that define who we are as a people is our never-ending hunger for progress. From the transcontinental railroad to the light bulb, from the airplane to atomic energy, we have always pushed the envelop of what was achievable. Of course, once we achieve a milestone, we never stop there.
Thirty years ago this very month, a young man named Charles Lindbergh showed the world what the American spirit looks like when he took one look at an airplane and said, ‘I can fly that across the Atlantic.’ Taking off from New York in a single-engine plane, it took Mr. Lindbergh thirty-four exhausting hours to reach Paris all by himself. What the people of Paris saw when he descended from the plane was our can-do spirit. There is nothing we Americans cannot achieve if we put our minds to it.”
Mingling with fellow Democrats afterwards, Sparkman expressed his belief that it would be months before the Soviet Union would counter with a satellite of their own:
“I do not expect to see one of theirs up in orbit any time soon. It always takes them a while to catch up to us.”
That sentiment was echoed the next day by his former Republican Presidential rival. Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press” with moderator Ned Brooks, Lodge was asked about Explorer I and the Soviet response to it. Lodge thought that “every American should be celebrating what happened yesterday” and that he was “very much in favor” of putting more satellites into space and eventually humans. As for what the Soviets would do:
“I think it is fair to say it is only a matter of time before we see a Communist satellite next to ours. It may even be that they will achieve certain milestones before we do. However, as long as we remain vigilant, I do not believe we will ever fall too far behind in moving forward with our understanding of space.”
With Explorer I now orbiting the Earth, momentum accelerated towards the establishment of a government space agency to manage America’s efforts in the new frontier. Within days, both houses of Congress passed the Brooks-Houser Space Act (named after bill sponsors Democratic Representative Overton Brooks of Louisiana and Republican Senator Frederick F. Houser of California) and it was signed into law by the President on May 16th. The Act established the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (better known by its’ acronym NASA), which would unify America’s various aeronautic and aerospace research into a central space program. Going into effect three months later, NASA would be civilian in nature and would be run by a President-appointed administrator. Upon start-up, NASA had 8,000 employees scattered across the country and an annual budget of $100 billion to work it. Among the major research laboratories which would now operate under the NASA umbrella:
-Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia
-Ames Research Center in Mountain View, California
-Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory in Cleveland, Ohio
-Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama (today the home of the John J. Sparkman Space Flight Center)
-Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C.
-Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California
Once the rockets were assembled, they would be launched from the Cape Canaveral Missile Test Annex (today known as the Henry M. Jackson Space Center) in Merritt Island, Florida. A couple years following the establishment of NASA, in light of America’s seriousness about putting men in space, a center was established in Houston, Texas (today known as the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center) for human spaceflight training, research, and flight control.
Living long enough to see manned missions to the Moon, the Skylab space station, and the Space Shuttle, Sparkman would cite establishing NASA as his proudest achievement in office. What many people today don’t know about NASA is that her establishment in May 1957 took place at a time of political turmoil for America’s Cold War adversary: the Soviet Union. For the Soviets, the launching of Explorer I and the subsequent establishment of NASA served as a one-two punch against the status quo. Whereas Americans were looking up at the sky with pride, the Soviets were looking up at the sky with anxiety and a scary thought:
“If the Americans can put a simple satellite into orbit, what could stop them from putting weapons into space aimed straight at my home?”
Anxiety about the American position in space and the Soviet lack of one fueled fear about the state of national security; in turn, fears about the state of national security gave rise to anger. How could this have happened? If government propaganda portrayed the Soviet Union as being the most powerful country in the world, how come the Soviets didn’t have any technological trophies to show off? How come the United States was always one step ahead of them in technological development? From the atomic bomb to the ICBM, America always seemed to have it first and in a higher quality than whatever the Soviets could field. Why couldn’t the Soviets break out of being in second place and produce something that would demonstrate her status as a superpower? All these questions streamed into a much larger one: whose fault is it that the Soviet Union isn’t as superior as it should be? Increasingly, fingers were pointed directly at one man.
Vyacheslav Molotov, the sixty-seven-year-old leader of the Soviet Union, found himself under fire in the wake of America’s entry into space. The opposition, led by Politburo member Nikita Khrushchev, blamed the General Secretary for the humiliation and embarrassment brought on by the satellite launch. They even declared that the time had come for a change in leadership. According to them, Molotov’s four-year tenure as leader of the country had been a miserable failure. Ever since the death of Joseph Stalin in March 1953 propelled him into the top job, Molotov seemed too small for the job. A dour, unbending, plodding, and unimaginative “Stone-Arse” (his unflattering nickname), Molotov proved to be a dismal leader – he didn’t even dress the part, preferring to look more like an office businessman than a Soviet Head of Government. Doggedly loyal to Stalinism, Molotov stubbornly clung to his predecessor’s domestic policies…even though it was becoming quite obvious in the late 1950s that Neo-Stalinism equaled stagnation and that reform might be the only way to break out of the rut. Dragging his feet on making progress, Molotov kept the country on a sluggish course. For every American achievement, he always hid behind tough-guy talk about how the West was trying to enslave the Soviet people. By 1957, that talk was wearing thin on people who wanted action and not words. Aside from some foreign policy successes (most notably neutralizing the Czech Republic), the incumbent leader didn’t really have much to offer in his defense. It is therefore no surprise that in the aftermath of Explorer I, Khrushchev and others were calling for his head. However, he wasn’t the only Neo-Stalinist in their crosshairs.
Lavrenti P. Beria, Molotov’s ruthless second-in-command, also became a target for the Soviet “Young Turks” (a term meaning ‘any groups or individuals inside an organization who are progressive and seek prominence and power’; originated in the Ottoman Empire [today known as Turkey] during the 1900s). Hugely ambitious, it was Beria who killed off Stalin in order to prevent a purge of senior leaders. Having helped Molotov become General Secretary, Beria was awarded absolute power over all security matters and a say in national decision-making. Even though he ran security with an iron fist, Beria soon discovered to his dismay that his “say in national decision-making” was lacking in actual influence. Much more pragmatic than Molotov, Beria had advocated easing tensions with the West, revving up Soviet technological research, and implementing liberal domestic policies to generate internal growth. The General Secretary largely ignored him, partly due to nationalism. Beria was Georgian, Molotov was Russian; since Georgia was a Soviet republic and not part of Russia proper, the latter looked down on the former and treated his advice with contempt. In response, Beria was often frustrated by what he perceived to be Molotov’s lack of imagination and stubbornness. Far from being a solid, lock-step partnership, the relationship between the two men was strained and disillusioned...ripe for a collapse in a time of crisis.
In any event...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reaction
By coincidence, the President was scheduled to speak at the Democratic National Committee's annual dinner in D.C. on the night of May 4th. Given that history had been made earlier that morning, Sparkman scrapped his original prepared remarks and instructed chief speechwriter Arthur Schlesinger to draft a new speech highlighting the significance of Explorer I and why every American should be proud of it. Working on a tight schedule, Schlesinger handed his boss the new speech just minutes before he took to the podium. In it, the President said that the satellite “is a symbol of that great thing we call the American spirit. One of the qualities that define who we are as a people is our never-ending hunger for progress. From the transcontinental railroad to the light bulb, from the airplane to atomic energy, we have always pushed the envelop of what was achievable. Of course, once we achieve a milestone, we never stop there.
Thirty years ago this very month, a young man named Charles Lindbergh showed the world what the American spirit looks like when he took one look at an airplane and said, ‘I can fly that across the Atlantic.’ Taking off from New York in a single-engine plane, it took Mr. Lindbergh thirty-four exhausting hours to reach Paris all by himself. What the people of Paris saw when he descended from the plane was our can-do spirit. There is nothing we Americans cannot achieve if we put our minds to it.”
Mingling with fellow Democrats afterwards, Sparkman expressed his belief that it would be months before the Soviet Union would counter with a satellite of their own:
“I do not expect to see one of theirs up in orbit any time soon. It always takes them a while to catch up to us.”
That sentiment was echoed the next day by his former Republican Presidential rival. Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press” with moderator Ned Brooks, Lodge was asked about Explorer I and the Soviet response to it. Lodge thought that “every American should be celebrating what happened yesterday” and that he was “very much in favor” of putting more satellites into space and eventually humans. As for what the Soviets would do:
“I think it is fair to say it is only a matter of time before we see a Communist satellite next to ours. It may even be that they will achieve certain milestones before we do. However, as long as we remain vigilant, I do not believe we will ever fall too far behind in moving forward with our understanding of space.”
With Explorer I now orbiting the Earth, momentum accelerated towards the establishment of a government space agency to manage America’s efforts in the new frontier. Within days, both houses of Congress passed the Brooks-Houser Space Act (named after bill sponsors Democratic Representative Overton Brooks of Louisiana and Republican Senator Frederick F. Houser of California) and it was signed into law by the President on May 16th. The Act established the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (better known by its’ acronym NASA), which would unify America’s various aeronautic and aerospace research into a central space program. Going into effect three months later, NASA would be civilian in nature and would be run by a President-appointed administrator. Upon start-up, NASA had 8,000 employees scattered across the country and an annual budget of $100 billion to work it. Among the major research laboratories which would now operate under the NASA umbrella:
-Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia
-Ames Research Center in Mountain View, California
-Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory in Cleveland, Ohio
-Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama (today the home of the John J. Sparkman Space Flight Center)
-Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C.
-Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California
Once the rockets were assembled, they would be launched from the Cape Canaveral Missile Test Annex (today known as the Henry M. Jackson Space Center) in Merritt Island, Florida. A couple years following the establishment of NASA, in light of America’s seriousness about putting men in space, a center was established in Houston, Texas (today known as the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center) for human spaceflight training, research, and flight control.
Living long enough to see manned missions to the Moon, the Skylab space station, and the Space Shuttle, Sparkman would cite establishing NASA as his proudest achievement in office. What many people today don’t know about NASA is that her establishment in May 1957 took place at a time of political turmoil for America’s Cold War adversary: the Soviet Union. For the Soviets, the launching of Explorer I and the subsequent establishment of NASA served as a one-two punch against the status quo. Whereas Americans were looking up at the sky with pride, the Soviets were looking up at the sky with anxiety and a scary thought:
“If the Americans can put a simple satellite into orbit, what could stop them from putting weapons into space aimed straight at my home?”
Anxiety about the American position in space and the Soviet lack of one fueled fear about the state of national security; in turn, fears about the state of national security gave rise to anger. How could this have happened? If government propaganda portrayed the Soviet Union as being the most powerful country in the world, how come the Soviets didn’t have any technological trophies to show off? How come the United States was always one step ahead of them in technological development? From the atomic bomb to the ICBM, America always seemed to have it first and in a higher quality than whatever the Soviets could field. Why couldn’t the Soviets break out of being in second place and produce something that would demonstrate her status as a superpower? All these questions streamed into a much larger one: whose fault is it that the Soviet Union isn’t as superior as it should be? Increasingly, fingers were pointed directly at one man.
Vyacheslav Molotov, the sixty-seven-year-old leader of the Soviet Union, found himself under fire in the wake of America’s entry into space. The opposition, led by Politburo member Nikita Khrushchev, blamed the General Secretary for the humiliation and embarrassment brought on by the satellite launch. They even declared that the time had come for a change in leadership. According to them, Molotov’s four-year tenure as leader of the country had been a miserable failure. Ever since the death of Joseph Stalin in March 1953 propelled him into the top job, Molotov seemed too small for the job. A dour, unbending, plodding, and unimaginative “Stone-Arse” (his unflattering nickname), Molotov proved to be a dismal leader – he didn’t even dress the part, preferring to look more like an office businessman than a Soviet Head of Government. Doggedly loyal to Stalinism, Molotov stubbornly clung to his predecessor’s domestic policies…even though it was becoming quite obvious in the late 1950s that Neo-Stalinism equaled stagnation and that reform might be the only way to break out of the rut. Dragging his feet on making progress, Molotov kept the country on a sluggish course. For every American achievement, he always hid behind tough-guy talk about how the West was trying to enslave the Soviet people. By 1957, that talk was wearing thin on people who wanted action and not words. Aside from some foreign policy successes (most notably neutralizing the Czech Republic), the incumbent leader didn’t really have much to offer in his defense. It is therefore no surprise that in the aftermath of Explorer I, Khrushchev and others were calling for his head. However, he wasn’t the only Neo-Stalinist in their crosshairs.
Lavrenti P. Beria, Molotov’s ruthless second-in-command, also became a target for the Soviet “Young Turks” (a term meaning ‘any groups or individuals inside an organization who are progressive and seek prominence and power’; originated in the Ottoman Empire [today known as Turkey] during the 1900s). Hugely ambitious, it was Beria who killed off Stalin in order to prevent a purge of senior leaders. Having helped Molotov become General Secretary, Beria was awarded absolute power over all security matters and a say in national decision-making. Even though he ran security with an iron fist, Beria soon discovered to his dismay that his “say in national decision-making” was lacking in actual influence. Much more pragmatic than Molotov, Beria had advocated easing tensions with the West, revving up Soviet technological research, and implementing liberal domestic policies to generate internal growth. The General Secretary largely ignored him, partly due to nationalism. Beria was Georgian, Molotov was Russian; since Georgia was a Soviet republic and not part of Russia proper, the latter looked down on the former and treated his advice with contempt. In response, Beria was often frustrated by what he perceived to be Molotov’s lack of imagination and stubbornness. Far from being a solid, lock-step partnership, the relationship between the two men was strained and disillusioned...ripe for a collapse in a time of crisis.
Last edited:
Surely Molotov knew the first rule of the Soviet Union - You can only annoy one of the three pillars of the state at any one time, those three pillars being the Army, the Party and the KGB. With Beria angry that's the KGB enraged and with all these American triumphs, especially in Space, I don't imagine the army is too happy.
On that basis Molotov is clearly a dead man walking and will be lucky to get a Crimean dacha, hell he'll be lucky if he lives long enough to even cut Siberian salt.
On that basis Molotov is clearly a dead man walking and will be lucky to get a Crimean dacha, hell he'll be lucky if he lives long enough to even cut Siberian salt.
Kurt_Steiner: If they get that lucky.
El Pip: He should have known, but given his personality, he seems bound to piss off people.
Exactly. The $36,000 Question: will Beria's "Hey! Look! I am still alive!" luck hold out this time?
El Pip: He should have known, but given his personality, he seems bound to piss off people.
Exactly. The $36,000 Question: will Beria's "Hey! Look! I am still alive!" luck hold out this time?
Last edited:
Given Beria's IRL fate, I feel his luck will be running out, because whoever replaces Molotov will probably try and get rid of him. Also, Molotov would never have been a good leader. His Poker face was great for diplomatic negotiations, but Russian's are emotional: that's why they liked Krushchev(for a little while) and later Putin.
Unless of course Beria is the replacement. He's making the right noises on hi-tech and space to bring the military with him and as boss should have the KGB on side, he could be 2/3rds of the way to being the next General Secretary already, only the Party to win over or neutralise.
Problem with Beria is that he's smelling far too much of another Stalin and the Red Army might not like that.
J.J.Jameson: That might explain why Putin gets away with not wearing shirts.
El Pip: Hmm...perhaps Beria could overthrow Molotov and make overtures to the Soviet Young Turks (such as giving into their demands and giving Krushchev a high-level position) in order to placate their "But you're Neo-Stalinist" concerns.
trekaddict: That's the problem I am facing in trying to figure out what to do with Beria. He might be more in-line with Krushchev's thinking, but he is still one of Stalin's right-hand cronies. That smell alone might be enough to drive people away from him.
El Pip: Hmm...perhaps Beria could overthrow Molotov and make overtures to the Soviet Young Turks (such as giving into their demands and giving Krushchev a high-level position) in order to placate their "But you're Neo-Stalinist" concerns.
trekaddict: That's the problem I am facing in trying to figure out what to do with Beria. He might be more in-line with Krushchev's thinking, but he is still one of Stalin's right-hand cronies. That smell alone might be enough to drive people away from him.
Last edited:
I think Krushchev's going to be confronted with a big problem when it comes to Beria if/when he takes power. If he lets him stay, he'll be a Stalinist thorn in his side that would prevent his faction from having the image of rally moving on and making progress. If Beria is gotten rid of, there's the question of who's going to take on all that power that would be left open. Nikita could take it all, but how would that make his fellow 'Young Turks' feel? Very tricky...
On the other side of the Iron Curtain, I'm really liking Sparkman now. It seems that he's made the office his own after the disasters of his early term following Stevenson's death. I think once he created more to base his reputation on that just the scandals and questions over civil rights, he's now got a good solid base of support and positive achievements that mean people will vote for him.
The power doesn't have to be handed to one person. AFAIK Khrushchev's destalinization policies were popular because they balanced political power in the USSR between the three pillars of the party, the military and the secret police. Meaning that the head of the secret police would not be a super powerful guy any more, but just one of several high powered people in the politburo.
Everyone knows who Beria was, or Yagoda, or Yeshov. But few people remember who followed Beria. Or who was the KGB head under Breshnev.
Andreios III: I have checked the Minister file and I have a candidate for the post-Beria Minister of Security position: Nikolay Dudorov. Research says Dudorov was a Khruschev loyalist, so I think that would help. It would make sense for Khruschev to share power with his followers.
Who knows? At the rate Sparkman is going, the Democrats might keep control of the White House in 1960 after he steps down since the Constitution won't allow him to run again.
Leviathan07: That's a smart idea: give everyone a piece of the pie.
Who knows? At the rate Sparkman is going, the Democrats might keep control of the White House in 1960 after he steps down since the Constitution won't allow him to run again.
Leviathan07: That's a smart idea: give everyone a piece of the pie.
Just a quick question, how does the constitution determine how many times a vice-president who suceeds to the presidency can run for election. Say there is an election in 2060 and the president is assinated in 2061, can the vice president only run for 2064, whereas if the president is assassinated in 2063, the vice president can run in 2064 and 6068?
talt: First: wow, we are going way off into the future, aren't we?
The easiest way to understand how long a Vice President serves as President is by when the midterm election took place. Let me use historical examples to illustrate.
In 1960, Lyndon B. Johnson was elected Vice President. The Kennedy Assassination took place in November 1963, a year after the 1962 midterm election. This meant Johnson could run in 1964 and 1968. Accordingly, he could have served as President from 1963 until 1973, when he would have been forced to step down. Johnson could have ran in 1968 but dropped out because of a tough political climate.
Gerald Ford became Vice President in 1973 following the resignation of Spiro Agnew. He then became President in August 1974 following the resignation of President Richard Nixon. Since Ford became President before the 1974 midterm election, that means he could only run for President in 1976. Had Ford beaten Jimmy Carter, he would only have served as President from 1974 to 1981. He would have been ineligible to run again in 1980.
My scenario for Sparkman's Presidency is based on Ford's. Sparkman became President in March 1954 before that year's midterm election. Having won the 1956 election, Sparkman will be ineligble to run again in 1960 and will have to step down in 1961.
In Vice President Joe Biden's case, if President Barack Obama died right now, he would be eligible to run in 2012 and 2016 since he became President after the 2010 midterm election. On the other hand, if Biden became President before the 2014 midterm election, he would only be allowed to run in 2016.
To recap: if the Vice President becomes President after a midterm election, he can run twice. If the Vice President becomes President before a midterm election, he can only run once.
The easiest way to understand how long a Vice President serves as President is by when the midterm election took place. Let me use historical examples to illustrate.
In 1960, Lyndon B. Johnson was elected Vice President. The Kennedy Assassination took place in November 1963, a year after the 1962 midterm election. This meant Johnson could run in 1964 and 1968. Accordingly, he could have served as President from 1963 until 1973, when he would have been forced to step down. Johnson could have ran in 1968 but dropped out because of a tough political climate.
Gerald Ford became Vice President in 1973 following the resignation of Spiro Agnew. He then became President in August 1974 following the resignation of President Richard Nixon. Since Ford became President before the 1974 midterm election, that means he could only run for President in 1976. Had Ford beaten Jimmy Carter, he would only have served as President from 1974 to 1981. He would have been ineligible to run again in 1980.
My scenario for Sparkman's Presidency is based on Ford's. Sparkman became President in March 1954 before that year's midterm election. Having won the 1956 election, Sparkman will be ineligble to run again in 1960 and will have to step down in 1961.
In Vice President Joe Biden's case, if President Barack Obama died right now, he would be eligible to run in 2012 and 2016 since he became President after the 2010 midterm election. On the other hand, if Biden became President before the 2014 midterm election, he would only be allowed to run in 2016.
To recap: if the Vice President becomes President after a midterm election, he can run twice. If the Vice President becomes President before a midterm election, he can only run once.
Last edited:
trekaddict: What can I say? We're operating on a Constitution written way back in 1787.
Kurt_Steiner: I guess in the future, a President can run for another term 4,000 years later. That should give hope to George H.W. Bush and the other one-termers.
trekaddict: *pauses for a moment* Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade?
By the way, I am almost done with the next update. I finally figured out Molotov and Beria's fates...not pretty for either one, I am afraid.
Kurt_Steiner: I guess in the future, a President can run for another term 4,000 years later. That should give hope to George H.W. Bush and the other one-termers.
trekaddict: *pauses for a moment* Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade?
By the way, I am almost done with the next update. I finally figured out Molotov and Beria's fates...not pretty for either one, I am afraid.
Last edited: