What if: A nuclear war happened in 1956?

[marathag]

I don't know about that. I've seen several books where the USA is made a pariah state after the Cuban missile crisis goes hot even with the US capital blown up first.

Post WWIII, I don't believe a still standing USA would put up with very many shenanigans from any remaining countries.
USA is the sole Hyper-Power. Superpower USSR is in the literal ashheap. France and UK are in a catastrophic shape from Soviet nukes. W.Germany is a wasteland, as are all parts east of there to the Urals.
Its hard to make the baddest ape in the monkey house a pariah.

 

[KuboCaskett]

Post WWIII, I don't believe a still standing USA would put up with very many shenanigans from any remaining countries.
USA is the sole Hyper-Power. Superpower USSR is in the literal ashheap. France and UK are in a catastrophic shape from Soviet nukes. W.Germany is a wasteland, as are all parts east of there to the Urals.
Its hard to make the baddest ape in the monkey house a pariah.

Then wouldn't that mean they would try to rebuild the regions in questions to some extent? Sure, it would not be on par with the Marshall Plan at the least, given that there wouldn't be any threat to the US on par with the USSR whatsoever, unless the US decides to go back into isolationism of which might cause problems in the Western hemisphere geopolitics-wise.

 

[MaxGerke01]

I don't know about that. I've seen several books where the USA is made a pariah state after the Cuban missile crisis goes hot even with the US capital blown up first.

Well in the Cuban Missile Crisis the US could claim it was provoked by the Soviet missiles in Cuba but the Soviets could say the same about the US missiles in Turkey.What would make the USA a pariah is that it killed millions of people and basically wiped out a nationality. The Soviets would have killed millions in the war as well but not close to the same number or extent and that has to matter if you care at all about right and wrong.

 

[MaxGerke01]

Then wouldn't that mean they would try to rebuild the regions in questions to some extent? Sure, it would not be on par with the Marshall Plan at the least, given that there wouldn't be any threat to the US on par with the USSR whatsoever, unless the US decides to go back into isolationism of which might cause problems in the Western hemisphere geopolitics-wise.

The USA still has a massive nuclear arsenal-more than enough to take care of the Western hemisphere,Asia and Africa if it needed to. Why worry about geopolitics ? It could have its cake and eat it to. It doesnt need to pay to rebuild anything and could be isolationist UNTIL you did something to piss it off . Given the US at the time which would have its blood up after destroying the Soviets and/or Chinese for years after why wouldnt they do it again ? Wouldnt be right to deprive Junior and his friends they same feelings eventually would it ?

 

[Athelstane]

Well in the Cuban Missile Crisis the US could claim it was provoked by the Soviet missiles in Cuba but the Soviets could say the same about the US missiles in Turkey.What would make the USA a pariah is that it killed millions of people and basically wiped out a nationality. The Soviets would have killed millions in the war as well but not close to the same number or extent and that has to matter if you care at all about right and wrong.

Again, this doesn't take place in a vacuum, like Ike wakes up one morning and decides to dump several thousand megatons on Eurasia. *How* the crsis erupts is going to have some bearing on how it is perceived.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Well in the Cuban Missile Crisis the US could claim it was provoked by the Soviet missiles in Cuba but the Soviets could say the same about the US missiles in Turkey.What would make the USA a pariah is that it killed millions of people and basically wiped out a nationality. The Soviets would have killed millions in the war as well but not close to the same number or extent and that has to matter if you care at all about right and wrong.

Who kills more is likely to matter less than who is perceived to have started the killing. The Great Leap Forward killed many more people than the Holocaust by almost all estimates, but is considered much less bad because those deaths were from incompetence in trying to improve the Chinese economy, rather than pure malice like the latter. Intent matters a great deal more than death toll in what is considered worse, and it all depends on how the escalation is perceived to play out


Also there is the fact that the US will be around postwar to shape the narrative, the USSR won't be. Americans will be writing books to justify what they did, and people outside the US will want to believe them, because the US is still the world's biggest economy by far and they want to trade with the US. American cultural dominance is still likely to be a thing. The *Internet is still likely to be created by and dominated by Americans. All of these mean the American view that it was all the Soviet's fault is more likely to be accepted

 

[Athelstane]

The Great Leap Forward killed many more people than the Holocaust by almost all estimates, but is considered much less bad because those deaths were from incompetence in trying to improve the Chinese economy, rather than pure malice like the latter.

I don't know about "considered much less bad." I think the real issue in the GLF's treatment, at least in the West, is that it is still far less well known than the Holocaust.

It's fair to say it wasn't a planned genocide in the way the Shoah was, but it nonetheless reflects a gross and even vicious valuation of human life, since Mao (and plenty of other party leaders) continued it long after the human costs had become apparent to him: and after all, many of the victims were likely or potential class enemies. "Casualties have indeed appeared among workers, but it is not enough to stop us in our tracks. This is the price we have to pay, it's nothing to be afraid of. "

But the rest of your points are well taken.

 

[marathag]

Well in the Cuban Missile Crisis the US could claim it was provoked by the Soviet missiles in Cuba but the Soviets could say the same about the US missiles in Turkey.What would make the USA a pariah is that it killed millions of people and basically wiped out a nationality. The Soviets would have killed millions in the war as well but not close to the same number or extent and that has to matter if you care at all about right and wrong.

After WWIII, the Soviets won't be saying anything, to anybody.

 

[marathag]

The *Internet is still likely to be created by and dominated by Americans. All of these mean the American view that it was all the Soviet's fault is more likely to be accepted

Was all an outgrowth of the original distributed network, the air defence SAGE network.

In this postwar world, anyone espousing the Soviet Position is likely to get lynched or severely beaten in the USA for many years after 'The Event'.
Would be seen as treasonous behavior at worst, being a stooge or useful idiot at best.
To stay in Uncle Sams good graces, many countries would follow that path of pushing the US 'History of the Last War'

 

[Conveyancer]

I made a comment upthread about what Soviet reactions to Suez/Hungary might have been if Stalin had still been alive and one reply to my post was to point to those parts of his character as could be cautious. Absolutely agree with that.

It then got me thinking about how (probably inadvertently) a more bellicose western attitude might affect the chances of escalation and war. Say, for some reason we have to handwave, that the US encourages the Anglo-French/Israeli actions?

Again, unlikely with Eisenhower at the helm from what I understand about his character. A cursory look at Wikipedia told me that he had had a heart attack in 1955. If that had been fatal and the vice president, Mister Nixon, became the "leader of the free world" do those with more knowledge of US Presidents than me think he might have been more supportive of the Suez campaign and generally more warlike? Perhaps (if this is not overly ASB) the USSR put some advisers and SAMs into Nasser's Egypt.

Am I barking up the wrong tree?

 

[marktaha]

Eleanor was a former First Lady anything but popular with Republicans. After the US had won,someone like Ike would surely have favoured picking up the pieces by rebuilding as far as possible.

 

[marktaha]

Nixon would have supported us over Suez. Nuclear war-say US came to the rescue in Hungary, possible might erupt. US victory as stated above. Would have had to concentrate on domestic rebuilding to start with but would have helped rest of Europe. Wonder if defeat of Russia would have resulted in slower decolonisation eg French deciding to keep Algeria?

 

[Gillan1220]

Nixon would have supported us over Suez. Nuclear war-say US came to the rescue in Hungary, possible might erupt. US victory as stated above. Would have had to concentrate on domestic rebuilding to start with but would have helped rest of Europe. Wonder if defeat of Russia would have resulted in slower decolonisation eg French deciding to keep Algeria?

Nuclear war would probably mean decolonization goes faster because the colonies would take advantage of the chaos of their colonial masters is experiencing. We would see early independence among most African nations. This could destabilized the region as early independence would mean violence since there is no proper transition.

 

[Joku_]

Being an American in this world likely means you arent a good guy for a long time ....

And? Most Great powers have never been good guys to begin with. If you think otherwise, you are probably deluded.

I don't know about that. I've seen several books where the USA is made a pariah state after the Cuban missile crisis goes hot even with the US capital blown up first.

How would that happen, as rest of the world would be even worse shape in case of nuclear war in 1962 as opposed to 56?

 

[Gillan1220]

How would that happen, as rest of the world would be even worse shape in case of nuclear war in 1962 as opposed to 56?

Because nuclear weapons in 1956 is weaker compared to the new ones that were being produced by 1962. Plus, ICBMs were not yet available in 1956 and were definitely at their infancy in 1962.

 

[Joku_]

Because nuclear weapons in 1956 is weaker compared to the new ones that were being produced by 1962. Plus, ICBMs were not yet available in 1956 and were definitely at their infancy in 1962.

Yes, but the post I quoted mentioned US being made a pariah state in books where the Cuban missile crisis goes hot. In that scenario, nobody would probably be in the position to make that happen.