The parallels between Nikita Khrushchev and John F. Kennedy have been talked about at length. But I'd like to see their fates reversed.
Khrushchev is widely seen as one of the few men who could've prevented the Soviet Union's issues with Eastern Europe. The fact that a Hungarian assasinated him almost seems paradoxical. Even though elements of De-Stalinization continued unabated further independence outside Russia died with Khrushchev.
Meanwhile John F. Kennedy certainly had good intentions but ran into a lot of trouble with his domestic and foreign policy, and his failing health didnt help matters. His narrowly avoiding assasination in Dallas empowered him to a second term but he is widely seen as fairly mediocre for bungling Civil Rights and Vietnam. Generally seen as not as bad as Nixon, but not as good as Carter.
In short what if Khrushchev survives his assassination attempt, or it just doesnt happen, and Kennedy dies in Dallas?
Khrushchev is widely seen as one of the few men who could've prevented the Soviet Union's issues with Eastern Europe. The fact that a Hungarian assasinated him almost seems paradoxical. Even though elements of De-Stalinization continued unabated further independence outside Russia died with Khrushchev.
Meanwhile John F. Kennedy certainly had good intentions but ran into a lot of trouble with his domestic and foreign policy, and his failing health didnt help matters. His narrowly avoiding assasination in Dallas empowered him to a second term but he is widely seen as fairly mediocre for bungling Civil Rights and Vietnam. Generally seen as not as bad as Nixon, but not as good as Carter.
In short what if Khrushchev survives his assassination attempt, or it just doesnt happen, and Kennedy dies in Dallas?