Post by stevep on Nov 24, 2020 13:18:18 GMT
So we have JFK as president late 1945 and he, knowing WHY Mao recovered from Chiang's brilliant use of airlifted battle-hardened, U.S.-equipped troops to Manchuria, where the Chinese Red Army had made its main base. JFK first relieves relieves Stillwell, then tells Marshall to go pound sand. He then does everything in his power not only NOT to stop him but substantially upgrades supplies and other assistance to ensure the communists are not only defeated but utterly destroyed at Harbin. I think we can trust Chiang, and more so lady Chiang, to ruthlessly hunt down the communist leadership and dispose of them. A world without Mao gives Asia a big chance of peacefully making it's transition from colonies to sovereign states.
So if we also delay Soviet nuclear program by 7 years we avoid the Korean war.
Now if JFK can just keep the Brits from selling their jet engines to Stalin the Soviet air force is dead meat.
As far as turning on our valiant Soviet allies goes. I don't think it would be any trouble in the USA. McCarthy had a very strong anti commie backing here but I'm not so sure about the UK.
Your earlier idea of invading Europe through the south and saving the Balkans from the Soviets might be pushed into central Europe?
This in mind, I’m wondering how the 1944 election would probably look with an JFK as the incumbent and obvious Democratic nominee? On the one hand, there’s innate personal attributes like his charisma and handsomeness, as well as his track record as both a war hero and resolving the Cuban Missile Crisis in the future that he came from. But on the other, his Catholicism will make it harder to win over less open-minded voters. And, as pointed elsewhere, he and his cabinet will have a know-it-all attitude to them that’ll stick in the craw of various people (such as those in positions of power). That, and he’ll probably also try to push Civil Rights through a couple decades earlier, which will be met with swift backlash from the Solid South (as well as plenty of racist northerners).
I would say if the ASB has ensured his acceptance as Roosevelt's replacement then a young, confident war leader, especially with US forces on the offensive and on the back of the Democrats popularity for the ending of the depression and earlier victories he should be fairly confident of winning in 44. 48 would be another factor as even if he wasn't assumed to have done two terms already - a bit uncertain what is the situation there - there could be voter fatigue with the party after being in power since 32 especially if his policies are seen by many as having caused increasing tension or even war with the Soviets. Also if some of his drug issues or womanising becomes known.
Not a great expert on the period but get the impression that while Kennedy gave a fairly liberal world view he wasn't really a great supporter of the civil rights movement and was more driven by events. That more actually occurred under Johnson. [Although that could be simply because things were only really gaining traction by the time Kennedy was assassinated so he might have been more active if he lived.
However would agree with what oscssw, said in that in the 46-48 period he might be more active. Especially in terms of protecting black veterans against abuse and violence, which could be painted as repaying war heroes by protecting them and their families. Still going to be a very fraught issue however and he might not seek to push civil rights in the late 40's.
Steve