JFK not shot, escalates Vietnam

[The Slytherin Mudblood]

What if JFK was never shot, and still escalates the Vietnam war like LBJ did after the peace talks fail? Would he be opposed by an anti war faction of Dems? Also would the Bobby Baker LBJ scandal still be investigated?

I got the idea from this article.

The truth about JFK and Vietnam: Why the speculation is wrong-headed

Unlike his skilled behavior during the Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy was indecisive at best about Vietnam in 1963

www.salon.com

 

[Sekhmet_D]

He deescalated the Bay of Pigs. I see no indication that he would escalate Vietnam.

 

[Bellacinos]

Honestly, he goes down as a very mediocre president. You have essentially the same result IOTL as this in terms of Vietnam, and JFK may not have had the political acumen that LBJ did to pass his civil rights, and anti poverty legislation. As long as the US was too afraid to invade N Vietnam in an effort to not provoke Chinese intervention, Vietnam was unwinnable.

 

[C2sg]

Realistically -

Vietnam
I believe JFK would have started peace talks with the North Vietnamese in 1965. He was already privately talking about withdrawal after the 1964 election, with Senator Wayne Morse. Also, the South Vietnamese were so corrupt and the generals were fighting each other, there was no way they could save themselves.

From his time as a senator, JFK - a well learned man, understood that Ho Chi Minh and the Communists were seen in Vietnam as fighting for independence, free of colonial and Western influences.

This may mean early withdrawal of American forces and also, early downfall of South Vietnam and Saigon before 1969.

LBJ and Bobby Baker
Bobby Baker and LBJ were investigated by a Senate committee, allegations were probably serious enough to remove him from the ticket in 1964.
The investigation died because nobody would want to come after a new president following the national trauma of a popular president getting murdered.

Civil Rights
Civil rights would have passed under JFK (regardless of whether in 1964 or 1965), because the efforts to pass the bill fell on Bobby, and Dirksen, and Humphrey.

 

[Bellacinos]

Realistically -

Vietnam
I believe JFK would have started peace talks with the North Vietnamese in 1965. He was already privately talking about withdrawal after the 1964 election, with Senator Wayne Morse. Also, the South Vietnamese were so corrupt and the generals were fighting each other, there was no way they could save themselves.

From his time as a senator, JFK - a well learned man, understood that Ho Chi Minh and the Communists were seen in Vietnam as fighting for independence, free of colonial and Western influences.

This may mean early withdrawal of American forces and also, early downfall of South Vietnam and Saigon before 1969.

LBJ and Bobby Baker
Bobby Baker and LBJ were investigated by a Senate committee, allegations were probably serious enough to remove him from the ticket in 1964.
The investigation died because nobody would want to come after a new president following the national trauma of a popular president getting murdered.

Civil Rights
Civil rights would have passed under JFK (regardless of whether in 1964 or 1965), because the efforts to pass the bill fell on Bobby, and Dirksen, and Humphrey.

Do we see the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia getting butterflied away as a result of this?

 

[C2sg]

Do we see the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia getting butterflied away as a result of this?

Not so positive about that. It would be likely to exist and continue, and I suspect that after American withdrawal, either in the late 60s or a subsequent administration would face calls to intervene there. It will come down to which faction is in control (the anti-communist, or leftist wing of the royalist government) of that country, and where the Cambodian head of state Sihanouk would side with too.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

This is why I've come to the conclusion that a live JFK would be a less successful, less popular version of LBJ. Reagan-Rumsfeld wins 1968. US more polarized and Politicized than OTL.

 

[C2sg]

This is why I've come to the conclusion that a live JFK would be a less successful, less popular version of LBJ. Reagan-Rumsfeld wins 1968. US more polarized and Politicized than OTL.

Why Reagan? And why Rumsfeld? Rumsfeld was not prominent yet in 1968 despite his service in the House, he would only gain prominence in the Nixon administration.

 

[TimTurner]

JFK would get less done domestically than LBJ. However, he would get less done in Vietnam beyond pulling out in 1965 or so, which saves his legacy and makes him a solidly upper-mid-tier president.

 

[brunohusker]

This is why I've come to the conclusion that a live JFK would be a less successful, less popular version of LBJ. Reagan-Rumsfeld wins 1968. US more polarized and Politicized than OTL.

Interesting. Would Reagan escalate the war again? Also does he not scare off those afraid of another Goldwater?

 

[Sam R.]

Sihanouk / VWP social democratic alliance versus KPP nationalist nomenklatura movement sounds like a “fun” situation for everyone.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

Interesting. Would Reagan escalate the war again? Also does he not scare off those afraid of another Goldwater?

Wtih the "sword of the afrikan nation" terrorist group setting off bombs in major cities plus the Communists mounting a third party challenge in atl 1968, the Reagan/Goldwater ticket will be viewed by the "silent majority" as what America needs...

 

[RanulfC]

This is why I've come to the conclusion that a live JFK would be a less successful, less popular version of LBJ. Reagan-Rumsfeld wins 1968. US more polarized and Politicized than OTL.

Not sure why it would be more polarized and politicized in that situation as Kennedy would likely still be popular just not outstanding. He still likely wins reelection in 1964 with LBJ running in 1968 (and likely voter fatigue gaining a Republican win but I'm not seeing Reagan at that time winning) and loosing.

Wtih the "sword of the afrikan nation" terrorist group setting off bombs in major cities plus the Communists mounting a third party challenge in atl 1968, the Reagan/Goldwater ticket will be viewed by the "silent majority" as what America needs...

This doesn't make any sense since it's not very likely you have a large internal terrorist issue given you probably still get the Civil Rights bill passed most likely in his second term. An actual "Communist" organization mounting a credible challenge on ANY level is pretty much ASB in 1960s America, labeling themselves AS "Communist" would preclude them being taken seriously or gaining any favor so that's not going to happen.

The American public feared Goldwater's rhetoric and after his defeat (which would happen even if he ran against a lack-luster JFK legacy, JFK himself is still going to energize the opposition) the Republican's backed away from it so Reagan would not run with or use Goldwater's stances at that time. (The late 70s where many in the US public felt the USSR was not only a threat but surpassed the US in many aspects was a quite different time, very much not the same background in the mid-to-late 60s especially without Kennedy being assassinated)

Keep in mind that at the time Kennedy was killed a LOT of his initial stances were in fact changing. He was less confident of the outcome of American involvement in Vietnam, and actually was becoming less worried about his "anti-Communist" credit which had been severely damaged by the Bay of Pigs but had significantly bounced back after the Cuban Missile Crisis. He was also heavily re-thinking the commitment to the Moon goal given the cost of the entire effort and was considering pushing a joint US/Soviet mission instead along with a less confrontational stance towards the USSR.

Of course that assumes his scandals don't blow up in his face or some other 'side-issue' end up taking him down

Randy

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

Really don't see JFK passing civil rights. Sure, he was sympathetic in 1961-1963 but that was before you saw riots/draft protests. People's opinons can change. Honestly if you want a TL where civil rights is like national healthcare, as in something the US comes close to getting but never quite does by 2023 JFK living is a pretty good pod imo.

 

[OldScifi]

JFK would get less done domestically than LBJ. However, he would get less done in Vietnam beyond pulling out in 1965 or so, which saves his legacy and makes him a solidly upper-mid-tier president.

People won't know how it would have turned out. For everyone who speculates that it would have gone badly for the US, there will be someone who will speculate it would have gone well.

Admittedly, I'm less convinced than some that JFK would have de-escalated, based on what I've read of some historians' opinions, but I've read only a little.

 

[Bad@logic]

He will also have to deal with the massive random earthquakes starting for no reason of course and Hokkaido falling into the ocean

 

[Deleted member 145219]

"Hey hey JFK how many kids did you kill today?"

- Anti war hecklers, in ATL 1967.

I think it's a coin toss on how Kennedy would have handled Vietnam. I lean towards him deescalating.

But it's possible that continued attacks by the Vietcong, especially in 1965, combined with the South Vietnamese being incompetent and corrupt forces Kennedy to escalate the conflict. If he escalates, I think he pursues a smaller American presence and doesn't implement Search and Destroy tactics. Instead he adopts a strategy proposed by the Marines. Which was to use an inkblot strategy to gradually gain control of the country side and to work with locals to build anti communists resistance and only fighting the Vietcong and North Vietnamese when attacked. Kennedy would be much more willing to stand up to the Generals, whom would be even more irritated with Kennedy than they were with Johnson. Kennedy had grown to really distrust the military brass after the Bay of Pigs, I think it's possible that Westmoreland is forced out. The number of draftees sent to Vietnam number far fewer than OTL. Kennedy, and likely Secretary of Defense Robert Kennedy, are likely blamed for not doing enough to combat Communism. But the anti war movement is smaller, and less radicalized, meaning a smaller backlash and split within the Democratic party.

By 1966, Kennedy likely realizes that continued American presence in South Vietnam is not going to work and he begins looking for a way to deescalate.

 

[BeardedHoplite]

Reading American Tabloid by James Ellroy, and the preface to the book has him positing that JFK died at the exact right time to be made into a legend.

Without him getting ventilated by LHO, Kennedy escalates vietnam and gets all of OTL LBJs drawbacks without the great society.

 

[The Slytherin Mudblood]

Based on this footage of him, I am convinced little would have changed from our timeline. Especially once the Gulf of Tonkin incident happened.

 

[Deleted member 145219]

I've had a scenario in my head for years where Oswald either kills Walker, or isn't allowed back in the US (he absolutely should not have been), Kennedy has a successful trip to Dallas, wins reelection by 10 - 12 points, but his hand is forced to escalate the Vietnam War. But no where near to the extent Johnson did.

The other scenario is he survives the attempt on his life, wins reelection by 15 points, and gets the US out of Vietnam in 1965. But that doesn't mean the 1960's is a Land of Milk and Honey, or Camelot Forever.