Category talk:World War III-1956

From Alternative History

The background to this althist came from a line I read about how the Nobel Peace Prize selection committee in 1957, awarding Lester Pearson of Canada the prize, noted that "Pearson had saved the world".

Upon investigation into his life, I discovered that he WAS in a bus accident in 1916 while in the Royal Flying Corps, but survived and had to be sent home in 1917.

Ergo, I supposed...."What if Pearson HAD died in that crash...and no one had stepped up with a negotiated settlement of the Suez Crises?" (Note: Canadian contributers to this wiki might also postulate the history of Canada without Pearson, who was one of the more influential Prime Ministers in the 20th Century)

That crises overlooked by many today VERY closely came to World War-III, with the British, French, and Soviets going "eyeball to eyeball" over Egyptian seizing of the canal and the European response.

President Eisenhower also played an important role, using American economic power to force the French and British to back-down. That too is a POD in this althist.

Before any charges of "America-centric" or American chauvinism are leveled, due to the relative ease of the recovery of the United States in this althist...it should be noted that America possessed a superior conventional AND nuclear arsenal to the Soviets in 1956. There was little if any Soviet nuclear missile technology and American anti-aircraft defenses were quite strong.

Given the "limited nuclear exchange" I postulate, there is a case to be made that the USA could survive it and recover in as little as a decade or so. The Soviets with their top-heavy leadership and vast land-mass would find it more difficult, as well as the hypothesized subsequent war with China.

The devastation and continueing poor quality of life in Europe was based on the lack of a "New Marshall Plan", and of course the massive use of nuclear artillery rounds and bombing by NATO forces against the Soviet armor divisions invading Germany.

-Given your scenario it is possible that USA recovers even more quickly. The loss of New York and Washington DC would be serious but not debilitating.

---True, no disparagement of New York or DC. Financially important (as well as culturally) the loss of either city wouldn't effect infrastructure or industrial/agricultural capacity.

-Why do you have southern politicians pushing to rebuild northern and western cities?

---Patriotism, I suppose. I would think that ANY American politician would seek to re-build ANY city in the USA, regardless of regional background.

-Jimmy Carter was unlikely to become president in any timeline. Are you using him just because of name recognition? He left the navy a few years before WW3 so he wouldn't be a war hero or anything. AirshipArmada

---President Carter won in 1976 on Watergate, but he also was as ambitious as any other politician. I grant him that ambition and eventual rise to national prominence.

Actually, as good a case, I suppose, could be made for the failure of Reagan to become President, given the "shake-up" in the Republican and Democratic Parties post-war.