pericles
Warrant Officer
Posts: 266 
Likes: 23
|
Post by pericles on May 10, 2016 5:28:02 GMT
What if JFK was not killed and lived at least 5 years longer than IOTL? How would his presidency go? How would the 1960s go differently? A lot of people think things would have been better, but perhaps there's a downside to JFK living. The Civil Rights Act only passed Congress after a very bitter fight because of the LBJ treatment, under Kennedy it would probably fail and civil rights would then be ignored by him seeing it as too risky and the civil rights movement would be drastically altered. Also, does Vietnam happen? Kennedy was hawkish but might be more cautious than LBJ. How do you think JFK living would have effected history? What if?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,381
Likes: 12,001
|
Post by stevep on May 10, 2016 10:06:18 GMT
Pericles
I have heard such suggestions in terms of civil rights mentioned before. If so things could become a lot more violent possibly and the US have more social division?
The other point is that without the assassination he's less likely to be seen as the glamorous maryter. If he lives longer details of his womanising and drug use are likely to be more widely known and the Camelot image of the early 60's would be weaker or possibly non-existent. Not sure what impact that would have.
Uncertain about the effects on Vietnam. He might be more cautious than Johnson or, after the failure of the Bay of Pigs he might feel he needs to be more hawkish to prove he's not weak on defence, although the Cuban missile crisis might have proved his credentials there. If he is less cautious would that prompt a more conservative Republican to be elected in 68 say, or at least one who without the Johnson period of expansion of support for S Vietnam, goes that way themselves?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 64,716
Likes: 45,793
|
Post by lordroel on May 10, 2016 14:38:56 GMT
What if JFK was not killed and lived at least 5 years longer than IOTL? How would his presidency go? How would the 1960s go differently? A lot of people think things would have been better, but perhaps there's a downside to JFK living. The Civil Rights Act only passed Congress after a very bitter fight because of the LBJ treatment, under Kennedy it would probably fail and civil rights would then be ignored by him seeing it as too risky and the civil rights movement would be drastically altered. Also, does Vietnam happen? Kennedy was hawkish but might be more cautious than LBJ. How do you think JFK living would have effected history? What if? Question would he not just be targeted a different time, as many conspiracy theories are about him being killed by parties as varied as the CIA, the Mafia, sitting Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, Cuban President Fidel Castro, the KGB, or some combination of those entities. |
|
pericles
Warrant Officer
Posts: 266
Likes: 23
|
Post by pericles on May 10, 2016 21:29:18 GMT
What if JFK was not killed and lived at least 5 years longer than IOTL? How would his presidency go? How would the 1960s go differently? A lot of people think things would have been better, but perhaps there's a downside to JFK living. The Civil Rights Act only passed Congress after a very bitter fight because of the LBJ treatment, under Kennedy it would probably fail and civil rights would then be ignored by him seeing it as too risky and the civil rights movement would be drastically altered. Also, does Vietnam happen? Kennedy was hawkish but might be more cautious than LBJ. How do you think JFK living would have effected history? What if? Question would he not just be targeted a different time, as many conspiracy theories are about him being killed by parties as varied as the CIA, the Mafia, sitting Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, Cuban President Fidel Castro, the KGB, or some combination of those entities. Let's say he lives at least until 1969. I personally am not sold on these conspiracy theories and anyway this is JFK living. |
|
pericles
Warrant Officer
Posts: 266
Likes: 23
|
Post by pericles on May 10, 2016 21:38:16 GMT
Pericles I have heard such suggestions in terms of civil rights mentioned before. If so things could become a lot more violent possibly and the US have more social division? The other point is that without the assassination he's less likely to be seen as the glamorous maryter. If he lives longer details of his womanising and drug use are likely to be more widely known and the Camelot image of the early 60's would be weaker or possibly non-existent. Not sure what impact that would have. Uncertain about the effects on Vietnam. He might be more cautious than Johnson or, after the failure of the Bay of Pigs he might feel he needs to be more hawkish to prove he's not weak on defence, although the Cuban missile crisis might have proved his credentials there. If he is less cautious would that prompt a more conservative Republican to be elected in 68 say, or at least one who without the Johnson period of expansion of support for S Vietnam, goes that way themselves? Perhaps civil rights would be much more violent. Maybe a hardliner on civil rights is elected in 1968, say George Wallace, who promises to crack down on the blacks and hippies. I think it would go much worse in that area. I doubt JFK's personal affairs trouble his presidency, that didn't concern the media in the 1960s. Only until Gary Hart did politician's personal affairs matter. Vietnam could be avoided and a liberal elected in 1968, but it might not be. Remember the 'domino effect' and all that. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 64,716
Likes: 45,793
|
Post by lordroel on May 11, 2016 3:20:22 GMT
Pericles I have heard such suggestions in terms of civil rights mentioned before. If so things could become a lot more violent possibly and the US have more social division? The other point is that without the assassination he's less likely to be seen as the glamorous maryter. If he lives longer details of his womanising and drug use are likely to be more widely known and the Camelot image of the early 60's would be weaker or possibly non-existent. Not sure what impact that would have. Uncertain about the effects on Vietnam. He might be more cautious than Johnson or, after the failure of the Bay of Pigs he might feel he needs to be more hawkish to prove he's not weak on defence, although the Cuban missile crisis might have proved his credentials there. If he is less cautious would that prompt a more conservative Republican to be elected in 68 say, or at least one who without the Johnson period of expansion of support for S Vietnam, goes that way themselves? Perhaps civil rights would be much more violent. Maybe a hardliner on civil rights is elected in 1968, say George Wallace, who promises to crack down on the blacks and hippies. I think it would go much worse in that area. I doubt JFK's personal affairs trouble his presidency, that didn't concern the media in the 1960s. Only until Gary Hart did politician's personal affairs matter. Vietnam could be avoided and a liberal elected in 1968, but it might not be. Remember the 'domino effect' and all that. Thus one conclusion i can come, JFK dying in Dallas was and is still the best thing for the US. |
|
pericles
Warrant Officer
Posts: 266
Likes: 23
|
Post by pericles on May 11, 2016 4:56:14 GMT
Perhaps civil rights would be much more violent. Maybe a hardliner on civil rights is elected in 1968, say George Wallace, who promises to crack down on the blacks and hippies. I think it would go much worse in that area. I doubt JFK's personal affairs trouble his presidency, that didn't concern the media in the 1960s. Only until Gary Hart did politician's personal affairs matter. Vietnam could be avoided and a liberal elected in 1968, but it might not be. Remember the 'domino effect' and all that. Thus one conclusion i can come, JFK dying in Dallas was and is still the best thing for the US. That's likely. Vietnam may well have been avoided. And given the momentum behind civil rights it will probably get through at some point, though perhaps in a rougher way. US-Soviet relations might be better. Overall I don't buy the Camelot mythology. |
|
deltaforce
Petty Officer 2nd Class
Posts: 45
Likes: 1
|
Post by deltaforce on Mar 13, 2017 23:26:22 GMT
I'm not sure why people think that Kennedy would have avoided escalating the Vietnam War when he ran as a defense hawk and sent advisors and special forces to the RoV. If he's faced with a Gulf of Tonkin type incident (note that even President Johnson didn't know the full story when he made an announcement) it seems likely he would do something to escalate things to assert American sea rights and avoid looking weak. I've heard from experts that President Kennedy went forward with the "quarantine" of Cuba based on inaccurate intelligence indicating that there were no Soviet nuclear weapons in Cuba (tactical weapons were already in place) and that ironically enough if he had been provided with accurate intelligence he would have gone along with the rest of his cabinet who were urging him to conduct operations against the nuclear sites in Cuba. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 64,716
Likes: 45,793
|
Post by lordroel on Mar 14, 2017 4:54:48 GMT
I'm not sure why people think that Kennedy would have avoided escalating the Vietnam War when he ran as a defense hawk and sent advisors and special forces to the RoV. If he's faced with a Gulf of Tonkin type incident (note that even President Johnson didn't know the full story when he made an announcement) it seems likely he would do something to escalate things to assert American sea rights and avoid looking weak. I've heard from experts that President Kennedy went forward with the "quarantine" of Cuba based on inaccurate intelligence indicating that there were no Soviet nuclear weapons in Cuba (tactical weapons were already in place) and that ironically enough if he had been provided with accurate intelligence he would have gone along with the rest of his cabinet who were urging him to conduct operations against the nuclear sites in Cuba. Wich would have resulted in this: What if the Cuban missile crisis led to war |
|
