DBWI: Lee Harvey Oswald only shoots JFK, not LBJ?

What if Lee Harvey Oswald had only shot JFK and not Vice President LBJ, killing him? What would an LBJ administration look like? Would he support the Civil Rights Acts of 1965 and 1966 like President Humphrey or stand with the Conservative Coalition? Would he escalate the Conflict in Vietnam and if he does will it still end in a Cease-Fire? and would Johnson run in 1968?
 
I don't think President Johnson would be any more likely to run for re-election than President McCormack was IOTL. He would step aside and let Humphrey run in 1964, and things would continue roughly as OTL.
 
He would get everything Kennedy set out to do done and more, give Johnson some credit. Heck with his quick tongue he could get Satan elected. We lost ont of the great politicians on November 22.
 
What if Lee Harvey Oswald had only shot JFK and not Vice President LBJ, killing him? What would an LBJ administration look like? Would he support the Civil Rights Acts of 1965 and 1966 like President Humphrey or stand with the Conservative Coalition? Would he escalate the Conflict in Vietnam and if he does will it still end in a Cease-Fire? and would Johnson run in 1968?

I have a few questions OP:

1) Why would you assume LBJ would become president? After all, it was a close call in 1964, and LBJ might have lost that election. He is not JFK, and was certainly not the saint he is described now.
No one know for sure that he would have done a better campaign than Humphrey.

2) And why would it be Oswald. Haven't you seen the movie Dallas? It is not evident it was him, and that he was alone. There are a lot of conspiracies theories, and the bullet which killed LBJ made an almost impossible trajectory from where Oswald was supposed to be. "Lucky bullet", right?

3) Would he actually be allowed to run in 1968? Wouldn't it mean that he would get to serve three terms?

4) Why would he escalate the conflict in Vietnam? OTL shows that South Vietnam managed quite well with just support from the USA, though they still lost a lot in the end, it wasn't until 1968 the situation really degraded for them.
The French showed that it was not manageable to fight there, so why on earth would he commit the army in this place, as I assume you imply? It might even become a bigger disaster than the Korean wars were for the Americans.
 
I have a few questions OP:

1) Why would you assume LBJ would become president? After all, it was a close call in 1964, and LBJ might have lost that election. He is not JFK, and was certainly not the saint he is described now.
No one know for sure that he would have done a better campaign than Humphrey.

2) And why would it be Oswald. Haven't you seen the movie Dallas? It is not evident it was him, and that he was alone. There are a lot of conspiracies theories, and the bullet which killed LBJ made an almost impossible trajectory from where Oswald was supposed to be. "Lucky bullet", right?

3) Would he actually be allowed to run in 1968? Wouldn't it mean that he would get to serve three terms?

4) Why would he escalate the conflict in Vietnam? OTL shows that South Vietnam managed quite well with just support from the USA, though they still lost a lot in the end, it wasn't until 1968 the situation really degraded for them.
The French showed that it was not manageable to fight there, so why on earth would he commit the army in this place, as I assume you imply? It might even become a bigger disaster than the Korean wars were for the Americans.

1. It's the line of succession. In 1963, If The President died, The Vice President took over and then to The Speaker of the House, who was John William McCormack. I would hardly call Humphrey's 466 EVS to Goldwater's 72 close... Johnson would probably do even better than HHH. He'd definitely win in the Mountain States and maybe in Arkansas, Georgia, and Florida.
LBJ Certainly wasn't JFK, and I don't deny LBJ wasn't a Saint, he rigged most of his early elections.

2. I just went with the general consensus, which is the Warren Report. The trajectory was nearly impossible and Oswald was a skilled marksman, according to his fellow soldiers in the Army. Maybe there was a second shooter, but to say the conspiracy theories are true is a bit far fetched.

3. LBJ would've only served a little over a year between November 1963 and January 1965, which is allowed by the 22nd Amendment.

4. LBJ was a war-hawk and a supporter of the now untrue "Domino Theory" so he would want to stop the "spread of communism" based on his beliefs, as well as not wanting to become unpopular for letting Communism "spread," (which it didn't OTL)
 
I would hardly call Humphrey's 466 EVS to Goldwater's 72 close... Johnson would probably do even better than HHH. He'd definitely win in the Mountain States and maybe in Arkansas, Georgia, and Florida.

I a sorry, but many states were a close call: I remind you that the national score of HH was 51.1%. Sure he ended up winning almost every states, but it was far closer than the number of delegate might make you think. In a lot of states, HH only won by 1 to 3 points. In California, he won by just two thousands votes.

I just went with the general consensus, which is the Warren Report. The trajectory was nearly impossible and Oswald was a skilled marksman, according to his fellow soldiers in the Army. Maybe there was a second shooter, but to say the conspiracy theories are true is a bit far fetched.
I didn't mean that the conspiracy theories are true. What I mean is that it might have been far more difficult for LBJ to survive Dallas than what you may think. Even if he was sick, he would have been there, unless it was serious enough to be a true danger to his health.

And by the way, I would call the shot impossible: it was proven that the shot needed a wind of nearly 12 m/s for the shot to succeed, when it only was of only 1 m/s in average. The Warren Report claims that there might have been a sudden burst which would allow that shot, but how Oswald would have known that?
Multiple marksmen seems more likely when you look at the entry angle of the bullet, it's just that they didn't found the other son of a b*tch, and didn't want to lose face. This is why there are theories florishing, because that report explained nothing and went with implausible explenation to accuse a lone marksman, and seems as if they were hiding things.

3. LBJ would've only served a little over a year between November 1963 and January 1965, which is allowed by the 22nd Amendment.
Ok, thanks for this information, I didn't knew that subtlety (though I hope this rule will never have to be applied).

4. LBJ was a war-hawk and a supporter of the now untrue "Domino Theory" so he would want to stop the "spread of communism" based on his beliefs, as well as not wanting to become unpopular for letting Communism "spread," (which it didn't OTL)
But then, I think the South Vietnamese would have actually lost. Their narrative was that the US gave them weapons and training, but they were a true nation which could decide their fate themselves, and didn't want to have communism forced on them. The North Vietnam however claimed that the South was only a puppet of the US, and they were actually liberating the poor Vietnamese from foreign influence. If the US intervene, I think it will give a lot more credibility to the narative of the North, and they might rally a lot more South Vietnamese to their cause.

That means a faster unification of Vietnam, and with the North on top instead of the South after the fall of communism.

Do you think a failure in Vietnam would have stopped later foolish US interventions? Or would the hawkish faction would still be strong enough for them to happen?
 
What I mean is that it might have been far more difficult for LBJ to survive Dallas than what you may think.

Yes, LBJ did have some very shady connections, but the general public won't believe it. Citizens actually trusted the government really up until the Bundy Scandal, which led to President Daniel Evans' resignation in 1975.

And by the way, I would call the shot impossible: it was proven that the shot needed a wind of nearly 12 m/s for the shot to succeed, when it only was of only 1 m/s in average. The Warren Report claims that there might have been a sudden burst which would allow that shot, but how Oswald would have known that?


It's really a paradox... a wind burst could've happened, making the shot possible, but it can't be predicted since it's so random. Oswald couldn't have known, so why would he shoot knowing most likely in his mind that it wouldn't work, maybe it was just luck. We'll never really know I guess.

Multiple marksmen seems more likely when you look at the entry angle of the bullet, it's just that they didn't found the other son of a b*tch, and didn't want to lose face. This is why there are theories florishing, because that report explained nothing and went with implausible explenation to accuse a lone marksman, and seems as if they were hiding things.

I agree with you on this.

Do you think a failure in Vietnam would have stopped later foolish US interventions? Or would the hawkish faction would still be strong enough for them to happen?[/QUOTE]

Yes absolutely, they're would have been a strong backlash against military intervention following the deaths of thousands of young soldiers for basically nothing, almost exactly what happened in the early 80's after the Persian War.
 
Top