The Presidents: The Vietnam War Edition

[Nathan Madien]

Kurt_Steiner: By the way, Stevenson's quote at the end of the update are his real words. He really did support the Domino Theory.

soulking: You're exactly right, soulking.

Nice picture.

Leviathan07: True, but it captures the essence quite nicely.

Davout: It's a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. If you don't support the French, they will lose Vietnam. If you do support the French, they will probably still lose Vietnam. No matter what America does, Vietnam is still a lost cause. However, as long as America keeps supporting the French, they can make the PR argument, "Oh, well. At least we tried. It isn't our fault the French lost. They lost despite our help."

Besides, Generals tend to see their advice get ignored by the Commander-in-Chief.

As we will see later when Stevenson visits the UK, Malaya is giving PM Eden quite a headache.

By the way, the next update will cover the Middle East. That's going to be fun, because I have two contradicting paths I can take here.

 

[Andreios II]

Ahh my gahd the Middle East! No matter what one does there, something goes wrong! I'm guessing the two paths concern Israel and Egypt? I wonder how Stevenson feels about funding the Aswan Dam... if he's in keeping with the whole 'Multilateral Action' idea he might see more sense in keeping Nasser on side with money for the Dam. Why have just one ally in the region when you can have two!

Besides, not only would that make him think twice about taking over the Canal, but it means that the US could potentially stop Israel and (Allied) Egypt from buggering up the whole situation over Gaza etc...

 

[c0d5579]

Ah, Aswan. Looks like there might be soem work for an Austrian emigre named Terzaghi somewhere in there.

 

[unmerged(169228)]

Looks like Vietnam will be Vietnam, a quagmire sucking up vast amounts of soldiers without a clear goal. Hope your future presidents manage to handle it better than reallife.

Out of curiousity: how are the Brits doing in Malaya?

 

[volksmarschall]

I can foresee a helicopter roaring in with Gump and Bubba off on the side with "Fortunate Son" playing in the background!

Air Cav! Can't wait to see them in action in the hills and mountains of Vietnam!

 

[soulking]

You'll have to change the names around a bit, though, since Korea is anti-communist in this story and most of China isn't communist either.

True. But it makes great sense for the domino theory.

 

[Ciryandor]

What would happen if the domino theory held would be that the Malaysians and the Indonesians would be squeezed more by the US, with the Indonesians having the Aussies breathing down their necks. The question then goes, which of the island allies would the Americans rely on the most, and what would they do for it? Would the Brits be pressured to giving up Malaya if they can't handle it? Can the Singaporeans break away from them much earlier than would be the case? What about the dilemma in Borneo?

 

[Davout]

I see what you are driving at. By maintaining the staus quo, Stevenson can hope the French hold out long enough that it will his successor's fault when it all goes to hell in a handbasket. I wonder whether Gen Abrams is going to be given a chance to try his way in TTL before things deteriorate beyond the tipping point.

 

[Nathan Madien]

Andreios II: Your guess is correct! My two paths do concern Israel and Egypt (two countries that don't like each other).

The question is: can I work with both Israel and Egypt? I mean, Jimmy Carter's peace-making effort with those two countries is about twenty-five years away. What can I do in 1953?

c0d5579: Good times, Aswan.

FlyingDutchie: That will be up to my eventual Vietnam game to decide.

The Brits still control Malaya at the moment. I am not sure if there is an "Independent Malaya" event for this mod.

volksmarschall: I love "Forrest Gump"!

Me neither!

soulking: It does.

Ciryandor: Those are good questions.

Davout: Assuming Stevenson serves two terms, I don't see the French holding out until 1961. They will probably fold about 1955-1956 (if it's 1956, it might or might not be an election issue). As for General Abrams, we will see.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To help illustrate my problem regarding the Middle East, here is America's relationship with those countries via July 1953:
Iran: -29 (British Puppet) (Allied)
Iraq: +199 (Allied)
Saudi Arabia: -23 (Allied)
Oman: +174 (Allied)
Yemen: +194 (Allied)
Syria: +39
Lebanon: -86
Jordan: +13
Israel: +199
Egypt: +199

Gamewise, I have strong relationship with Egypt. Storywise, this gives me an opporunity to get them on my side. The problem is that I also have a strong relationship with Israel. As mentioned before, Israel and Egypt are enemies. Can I work with both? Or is it one or the other? Storywise, if I work with Israel, then the Arabs still resent the US. If I work with Egypt, I can improve my standing with the Arabs but Israel would get the short-end of the stick. That can present problems at home with the pro-Israel lobby and the Jewish voters. If I work with both, that presents a tight-rope situation. What should I do?

 

[soulking]

Well, one: how did you end up with nearly 200 relations with Israel and Egypt?

and two, you could engineer and "event" that causes the explosion of one of your military vessels or the capture of some American nationals.

 

[Nathan Madien]

soulking: In the course of playing the game, I somehow have nearly 200 relations with Israel and Egypt.

How would that help?

 

[volksmarschall]

To help illustrate my problem regarding the Middle East, here is America's relationship with those countries via July 1953:
Iran: -29 (British Puppet) (Allied)
Iraq: +199 (Allied)
Saudi Arabia: -23 (Allied)
Oman: +174 (Allied)
Yemen: +194 (Allied)
Syria: +39
Lebanon: -86
Jordan: +13
Israel: +199
Egypt: +199

Gamewise, I have strong relationship with Egypt. Storywise, this gives me an opporunity to get them on my side. The problem is that I also have a strong relationship with Israel. As mentioned before, Israel and Egypt are enemies. Can I work with both? Or is it one or the other? Storywise, if I work with Israel, then the Arabs still resent the US. If I work with Egypt, I can improve my standing with the Arabs but Israel would get the short-end of the stick. That can present problems at home with the pro-Israel lobby and the Jewish voters. If I work with both, that presents a tight-rope situation. What should I do?

I don't suppose we'll ever see those Arab "Friendly" relations anytime in our lifetime in RL! As for a storyline, not to be a shrewd to American history at this time, there is still a lot of Israeli and Jewish resentment from the conservatives and Republicans at this time in American history, and with the internationalist wing of the party coming to fruit, they'd probably push an Arab friendly foreign policy while the Democrats would push a Jewish friendly foreign policy to keep the Jewish bloc with the Democratic Party and seek new liberal reforms in American politics with the current Democratic Administration.

 

[soulking]

soulking: In the course of playing the game, I somehow have nearly 200 relations with Israel and Egypt.

How would that help?

Well, if they are being held by say Egyptian extremists or the explosion could be traced back to either Egypt or Israel, then that would make the American resentment of either countries grow. Especially with yellow journalism.

 

[Nathan Madien]

volksmarschall: That's a good point. Even though Israel is a sticking point with all the Arabs (some to greater degrees than others), Egypt is willing to look past that in exchange for getting American funding for the construction of the Aswan High Dam and perhaps American pressure on the Eden Government to withdraw from the Suez Canal (both are major points in the next update). I think Stevenson has some wiggle room in reaching out to Egypt while continuing to support Israel at the same time. Of course, it would be an balancing act since Israel and Egypt don't like each other. Getting money for the dam might be enough to make the Egyptians happy; but, would the pro-Israel lobby and the Jewish voting bloc be okay if America helped build a dam on the Nile?

soulking: I will keep that in mind.

 

[c0d5579]

If they're not willing to look past "GAH ARABS BAD" to secure Israel an if not friendly, at least neutral neighbor and secure the vast (compareed to the country of Israel) open flank of the Sinai, they're exceptionally shortsighted. Plus, it benefits the Israeli government to keep at least the Egyptians friendly, since Israel's claim to the region rests on Biblical interpretation, and the Sinai's one of the prime spots for Biblical archaeology. It seems like a minor, abstruse point, but Israel's legitimacy is disputed, and any cultural prop they can find helps them out.

 

[Nathan Madien]

c0d5579: It makes sense.*

*Then again, I am not in charge of the Israeli government.

 

[unmerged(75409)]

Well, the British mandate for Palestine was supposed to be turned into two states, one Arab, one Israeli. But in our history that did not come to pass, and the Israelis enjoyed military successes that let them found their state as an exclusively Jewish nation. Those wildly successful wars also gave them dreamy ideas about a super Israel that should stretch from the Sinai to the Golan, and in which the native Arab populations (Christian and Muslim) did not count for much.

Was there a war for Israeli independence in your story? How exactly did the country come into being in your story? Your map on page 2 has Gaza belonging to Egypt, and Jerusalem belonging to Jordan, so I suppose there was an attempt by Egypt and Jordan to intefere with the foundation of Israel, and they ended up making a cease fire with the Israelis? Or did this happen through a peaceful transfer of power?

With WW2 brought to an earlier end, and less Jewish refugee immigration, and some butterflies in the dissolution of the Palestine mandate, Israel could become a somewhat less expansionist country. For one thing, with less immigration they would have less pressing need to expand. Also, if the founding of the country happened in less tumultous circumstances, the mass expulsion of the Arab population may not have taken place (due to British/US pressure, and lack of opportunity to create fait accomplis). Then the Arab neighbours would not be nearly as hostile against the new country as in OTL.

If Israel/Palestine was a country with a 33%/33%/33% split in Jewish, Christian and Muslim populations, with the Jewish element being the politically dominant one, I don't see why the Arabic countries should have such a terrible quarrel with them. Lebanon was a multiethnic country dominated by Christians until the 1970s and they got along fine with their neighbours.

 

[Asalto]

USSR is probably also interested in Middle East. If USA will chose one of sides, Soviets can then decide to support the opposite side (you support Israel, Soviets support Arab nations, or vice versa, both is plausible). There also probably won't be any Non-Aligned movement (Yugoslavia is pro-Western, situation in India is still very unclear), so you can expect that nations which went Non-Aligned IOTL will get more pro-Soviet if they won't get US support.

The best recipe would probably be to ecourage cooperation between Israel and Arab nations. You could support the right of Jews to settle in Palestine, but you could also encourage all sides to live in peace. Instead of basing the policy on division, maybe US could achieve that Israel would be more similar to Lebanon in first decades, as Leviathan07 suggested. However, try to make the things in a way which would prevent the rise of Soviet influence in Middle East. Both Democrats and Republicans should be aware of that.

 

[Davout]

In reality, it was impossible to have your cake and eat it to in the post-WW2 Middle East. Again, from my Soviet studies, the USSR leadership had a natural antipathy towards the Israelis who were seen as the local Western proxy which made the Soviets very willing to offer aid on exceedingly good terms to the neighbouring Arab states. The West played into the Soviet strategy by intensifying their support for Israel to the exclusion of the Arabs (compared to the British who still maintained ties with the more moderate members of the Arab League) but even on an alternative history approach, it is not so much a choice by the US whether to keep Egypt on their "team" but rather a decision to seek to match the Soviets' offers and to play the Grand Game in Cairo. In the long term, the Russian strategy failed because the Egyptian leadership were never sympathetic to the Communist cause and the military aid supplied never lived up to the promises but it took 20 years and three failed wars to reach that conclusion.

 

[Nathan Madien]

Leviathan07: Not a very good dream, if you ask me.

Yes, there was a war for Israeli independence in my story. Israel came into existent along the same lines as it did historically. The biggest difference between OTL and TTL Israel was that American support under the Dewey Administration was much stronger than under the Truman Administraton (it got to the point where Eisenhower had to talk Dewey out of sending forces to Israel to help defend her). The map is the result of the AI waging the Arab-Israeli War, resulting in a cease-fire.

That's a very good point. I might be able to convice Israel to adopt a mutual "live and let live" policy with Egypt.

Another good point.

Asalto: The USSR is interested in Middle East, which is one of the reasons why Dewey got so active in getting Israel on the map. As for India, America is building up a good relationship with her.

Good idea. That's probably how I will approach things.

Davout: Ahh...the plot thickens.

I plan to have the Middle East Update up by tomorrow. It's mostly summing up the facts on the ground, seeing the attitude of each Middle East Nations. The update after this one will look into how the current Administration will handle the Middle East. The readers' input will definitely influence the writing of that update.