Due Opposition - Capitulation Over Cuba

Chapter Null - Intrologue New
“...According to our sources, the Blockade on the Isle of Cuba is at and end. We will bring you more information as it comes in”
  • News Coverage, October 30th

“The Cuban Missile Crisis’ resolution precipitated a collapse of confidence that shook the Kennedy administration to its core…”
  • Loch Morrows, ‘Kennedy Under Siege: the Cuban Crisis and its Aftermath’

“President Kennedy is expected to address the Country shortly on the end of the Blockade of Cuba”
  • News Coverage, October 31st, 1962

“Kennedy had faced down Khrushchev head on, and he failed to see what consequences would transpire in case of his failure”
  • Loch Morrows, ‘Kennedy Under Siege: the Cuban Crisis and its Aftermath’

“His Retreat, his surrender, his capitulation to the forces of communism is an unparalleled betrayal of not only President Kennedy’s professed beliefs, but a failure of such a magnitude that has not been seen in a century. It is time for some due opposition in California. Vote Richard Nixon for Governor on November 8th”
  • Richard Nixon for Governor Advert
Due_Opposition.png


Welcome to Due Opposition - Capitulation Over Cuba, my first attempt to create a proper timeline of this sort. If it isn’t clear, the PoD is a series of micro-decisions leading up to the resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis resolved not in a resolution favourable to America’s prestige, but to the Soviet’s. Is it the most realistic thing? Perhaps not, but I do hope to explore the consequences, and bring you an interesting world as well.

-JustStars
 
Welcome back, Dick Nixon. Christ, Goldwater could win 1964 with that. Khrushchev also shores up necessary support and legitimacy.

Basically, you shore up the piece meal liberalization of a totalitarian regime in the USSR. And the USSR will never be anything of a liberal democracy, meaning the bad is better but still worse than the good, and therefore bad. Meanwhile the US in the 1960s is a lot more complicated. The American public lives with a sword of Damocles over its head from now on, on the island of a mad man who would kill every American and Cuban for Marxism if he had to. That's not exaggerated. Castro proposed that to Khrushchev's horror. Kennedy's legacy is in taters. And pragmatic diplomacy looks like weakness and defeatism, which is horrifyingly consequential for the future of the Cold War. I expect no detente, absolute brinkmanship, and the US in Southeast Asia as soon as boots can hit the ground. Lord, I think this US would push Vietnam to the edge of a nuclear conflict if it has too. And the world is likely to go over that edge.

It's a world where the psychology of America is fear, resentment and brinkmanship.
 
Last edited:
There was a myth Cuba was the end of Khrushchev if anything was just a little blip on the radar vs the fiasco of the virgin lands project, improve soviet agriculture and Khrushchev will be fine
 
Chapter One - While They’re Down New
Due_Opposition_Chapter_1.png

Due Opposition - Chapter One: While They’re Down

“President Kennedy got a lot of undeserved flak for the move to withdraw the navy from Cuba. It was withdrawal or war, and a lot of people just didn’t understand that, least of all the party leaders of the time.”
  • Michael Tandy, Interview

“The Fury of the American Populace was unleashed in a tidal wave, drowning the Kennedy administration’s hopes in a single moment. 1962 would not be a good year for Democrats, and they knew who to blame.”
  • Unknown, Source not Provided

“Good People of California, members of the Press. I have just discussed the matter of the result with Governor Brown, we discussed the result, and he had conceded. We discussed the feeling of close loss, a feeling as you all certainly know, I have experienced before.”
  • Richard Nixon, excerpt from his Victory Speech following his Victory over Pat Brown

1962_Elections_Senatorial.png


Republicans would be propelled to a number of victories in the wake of the Cuban Crisis. To the surprise of many national observers, the State of Alabama delivered a shock victory for Republican James Douglas Martin over Senator J. Lester Hill, the first Republican in the Deep South since reconstruction. Across the Nation, the results would not be the collapse of the Democratic Senate Stronghold, but the cracks in the Solid South began to show once more.

“Shock and awe! Senator Hill ousted! Republicans take victory in Alabama Senate Race!”
  • Headlines covering the Alabama Senate Election Result

“Bayh comes up short, Capehart re-elected!”
  • Headline covering the Indiana Senate Election Result

“Bottum Beats McGovern, re-elected!”
  • Headline covering the South Dakota Senate Election Result

“Wiley weathers Gaylord Nelson’s challenge”
  • Headline covering the Wisconsin Senate Election Result

“Senator Magnuson narrowly ousted, Minister Christensen set for D.C.”
  • Headline covering the Washington Senate Election Result

“Seely-Brown Jr. set to succeed Senator Bush”
  • Headline covering the Connecticut Senate Election Result

“Bass bests McIntyre, will take over Bridges’ Senate Seat”
  • Headline covering the New Hampshire Senate Special Election Result
1962_Elections_Gubernatorial.png

The Gubernatorial elections would mark a series of overwhelming victories across the North, with Republicans picking up 12 States, compared to Democrats three pickups, with Iowa and New Mexico narrowly being won. Many of the victories were all overshadowed by the prime victory of the night, Richard Nixon.

“Mr. Nixon, now Governor-Elect, has triumphed over Governor Pat Brown by a margin of, as the current count shows, about two thousand votes. While it is likely the results will be reviewed, both competitors seem sure in the results. Governor Brown had conceded, and Governor-Elect Nixon has proclaimed victory…”
  • News Coverage of the California Gubernatorial Election Result

“The California Gubernatorial Election marked the summit of a series of defeats for the Kennedies over the night, only dulled by Ted’s victory in the run to succeed his brother…”
  • Daniel Reenwader, ‘1962: Backlash’

“I’d like to thank President Kennedy for his generous contribution to my campaign’s victory.”
  • Unknown, commonly misattributed to Richard Nixon
Due_Opposition_Chapter_1_Endcard.png

Thus concludes Chapter One, covering the 1962 Election results in brief. I hope you all enjoyed it.

-JustStars
 
The American public lives with a sword of Damocles over its head from now on, on the island of a mad man who would kill every American and Cuban for Marxism if he had to.

Considering that it all started with the deployment of American missiles in Turkey (according to the location-approximately as if Cuba was located opposite New York), it's okay. The US will simply put a few more missiles somewhere in Japan and continue to be afraid. We lived under such a sword of Damocles and nothing happened because of it.
 

dcharleos

Donor
“...According to our sources, the Blockade on the Isle of Cuba is at and end. We will bring you more information as it comes in”
  • News Coverage, October 30th

“The Cuban Missile Crisis’ resolution precipitated a collapse of confidence that shook the Kennedy administration to its core…”
  • Loch Morrows, ‘Kennedy Under Siege: the Cuban Crisis and its Aftermath’

“President Kennedy is expected to address the Country shortly on the end of the Blockade of Cuba”
  • News Coverage, October 31st, 1962

“Kennedy had faced down Khrushchev head on, and he failed to see what consequences would transpire in case of his failure”
  • Loch Morrows, ‘Kennedy Under Siege: the Cuban Crisis and its Aftermath’

“His Retreat, his surrender, his capitulation to the forces of communism is an unparalleled betrayal of not only President Kennedy’s professed beliefs, but a failure of such a magnitude that has not been seen in a century. It is time for some due opposition in California. Vote Richard Nixon for Governor on November 8th”
  • Richard Nixon for Governor Advert
Due_Opposition.png


Welcome to Due Opposition - Capitulation Over Cuba, my first attempt to create a proper timeline of this sort. If it isn’t clear, the PoD is a series of micro-decisions leading up to the resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis resolved not in a resolution favourable to America’s prestige, but to the Soviet’s. Is it the most realistic thing? Perhaps not, but I do hope to explore the consequences, and bring you an interesting world as well.

-JustStars

This seems like a really promising work.

I really love all the pictures you've used. The design is quite striking.

I'm definitely keeping my eye on this.
 
Feedback items:
1) Why did America back down? Why did Kennedy back down?
2) Strange as it sounds, I feel that Kennedy backing down shows more incompetence than even an escalation to nuclear war. The escalation is obvious. The deescalation demonstrates a careful diplomatic maneuvering, masterfully carried out in the OTL. An unconditional surrender demonstrates complete incompetence. Hell, I'd vote for Goldwater or Nixon in this universe, and I'm Norton.
3) I feel like you just turned Kennedy into Carter and jumpstarted the Reagan Revolution 20 years early.
4) American psychology kind of needs Kennedy. I'd briefly ask, who do the young people of the 1960s look up to? And how hard a hit is it going to be that a figure of optimism and hope turned into what will be known as a complete let down and failure? This may be psychologically pretty rough.

These aren't criticisms, by the way. I very much approve of your timeline.
 
Last edited:
Feedback items:
1) Why did America back down? Why did Kennedy back down?
2) Strange as it sounds, I feel that Kennedy backing down shows more incompetence than even an escalation to nuclear war. The escalation is obvious. The deescalation demonstrates a careful diplomatic maneuvering, masterfully carried out in the OTL. An unconditional surrender demonstrates complete incompetence. Hell, I'd vote for Goldwater or Nixon in this universe, and I'm Norton.
3) I feel like you just turned Kennedy into Carter and jumpstarted the Reagan Revolution 20 years early.
4) American psychology kind of needs Kennedy. I'd briefly ask, who do the young people of the 1960s look up to? And how hard a hit is it going to be that a figure of optimism and hope turned into what will be known as a complete let down and failure? This may be psychologically pretty rough.

Honestly, I don’t think I could ever really present a realistic answer to why Kennedy would back down, as you cover in 2, it’s simply not a good decision, especially from a point of view of political expediency especially. In lieu of a proper answer, I’ll simply say he got hit very hard by a book about the Buchanan Presidency, and it caused him to decide to withdraw.

To 3 and 4, is it simply too much of a cop out to say “coming soon, alongside the newest edition of the heaviest book about the Buchanan Presidency, ‘Handwaving Away Your Problems Doesn’t Work’”?

-JustStars
 

dcharleos

Donor
Honestly, I don’t think I could ever really present a realistic answer to why Kennedy would back down, as you cover in 2, it’s simply not a good decision, especially from a point of view of political expediency especially.

Not politically a wise thing, no. (And maybe about the worst of all possible worlds, in terms of his public image) But I would say that allowing the CMC to escalate to the point it did OTL was a colossally irresponsible and reckless thing to do. Risking mass annihilation over a pissing contest was one of the lamest things that either Khrushchev or Kennedy did. * So maybe he just has an attack of non-toxic masculinity and takes one for the team. (The team being the earth and all the people on it.)

He can be an entry in Profiles in Courage 2: The Other Side. Which is probably an inevitable thing TTL. He's going to have to make money somehow. : -D

*That being said, Jack the K pulled his foolishly risky end of the pissing contest off. Nicky the K did not.
 
Last edited:
Risking mass annihilation over a pissing contest was one of the lamest things that either Khrushchev or Kennedy did
To be honest, it would have been just annihilation for the Soviets, and 'Hair Mussed' for the US since the whole gambit was to give the USSR a chance to get warheads on CONUS.
The safe way for Khrushchev is to simply play 'Nice Doggy' with the USA til 1964 when there were enough SS-7 Saddlers to put the 'M' in front of Assured Destruction
 
3) I feel like you just turned Kennedy into Carter and jumpstarted the Reagan Revolution 20 years early.
Well, sort of. The "Reagan Revolution" had the long term effects it did largely because the one-two punch of the Vietnam crisis (regarding Nixon being Nixon as part of that) followed by the global stagflation crisis, capstoned by stuff like the OPEC oil squeeze in the wake of the Yom Kippur War and then the Iranian Hostage Crisis (which also came bundled with another oil crisis--the thing about gasoline squeezes is that it hits every typical American consumer every week or so, right in the tight budget, and people so poor they aren't gasoline consumers via car ownership (something like 5-15 percent of USAians) get hit with other spiraling costs in the wake of the hike in basic transport costs) combined with sheer generational distance from the Depression and WWII years led to a major realignment.

JFK just might have broken the Democrats' hegemonic streak (in Congress anyway; obviously Eisenhower broke it at the Presidential level) versus OTL that lasted, in Congress, until 1994. But in turning the revolving door of power away from a perceived liberal momentum in the early '60s, the moderates and conservatives, especially the latter, are setting themselves up to be the ones who reap the whirlwind of the late '60s and early '70s.

Obviously one's predictions depend on one's predilictions, on one's analysis of the basic dynamics at work in society. People who accept some version of the conservative argument would logically suppose that much of the malaise of the later 1960s and '70s (Abbie Hoffmann claimed the Sixties lasted until 1974 or so, in this sense anyway) was due precisely to liberal overreach, and even worse, leftist radicalism releasing a bunch of demons in a basically sound society that would have been happier and stronger if only sensible restraint had forestalled all of that. Therefore, discrediting Kennedy early on and leading to a Goldwater or Nixon '64 victory might mean that this Republican, running for reelection in 1968, will not face any of the massive backlash LBJ did by that year. Conservatives might presume that a "sensible" policy in Vietnam can lead to acceptable victory there, and that if American conscripts are still serving in dangerous roles in Southeast Asia in the fall of 1968, that they patriotically accept it as their duty, and that the hippie movement got properly preempted by locking up these long-hairs for various violations of public decency long before they became a fad, and there was no SDS to radicalize good sober American college youths, and that sensible and quiet solutions to the race problem would be accepted with greater cheer by both "blacks" and "whites" both north and south, and that the economy would roll along with the sort of prosperity Americans had come to take for routine and normal in the 1950s, and either such organizations as OPEC would never dare anger an obviously strong America or strong US leadership would either make them back down or work around the crisis more effectively, and that there would be no wave of Marxist takeovers in Africa and in Nicaragua, etc etc.

And that might look exactly like what Ronald Reagan promised to deliver in 1980, two decades early.

On the other hand, I have a different world view, and don't believe the conservative consensus is either as founded in common sense and the way the world really works, or as widely accepted and loved, as conservatives like to assume. In fact, I think the post-WWII boom period had certain concrete bases which were nearing their limits as the 1960s wore on and the stagflation wave would break with great certainty in the early '70s no matter whether liberals of the tax and spend or any other variety were in power, or if allegedly sensible conservatives were managing tighter government budgets. The basis was deeper than any state policy touched. Meanwhile, discrediting the somewhat more liberal wing of the very centrist Democrats of the later '50s and 1960s might make predictions of an ultra-nanny state future in which the Best and Brightest, the same geniuses who were going to apply American know-how to winning in Vietnam, would lay out semi-planned prosperity for all, even the poor in a corporate friendly welfare state seem quaint and quixotic, and thus make hard-nosed conservatism more fashionable in mainstream dominant culture...but as Abbie Hoffmann also noted, the hippies of the '60s were kids who took the American Dream at its word, and got all their references from that same mainstream society--repurposed. Being drafted to the 'Nam is not going to feel any better because the President cheerleading it is more consistently hard-nosed--and to be fair to Lyndon Johnson, in terms of personality he was quite a match for Nixon's sort of "toughness."

I do think that any sort of policy that strives for more effective and/or glorious victory in Vietnam does skirt the danger of a general global thermonuclear exchange, unless it is carried out with a kind of astute wisdom not at all evident OTL, and it is a speculative long shot such a path for victory exists at all. Certainly by means of quite brutal police state tactics, it is possible in the long run to stabilize the Saigon regime--in fact this was pretty much done OTL. By the time South Vietnam collapsed OTL, its domestic government (though it is a stretch to call it that as it was heavily dependent on Yankee support in various ways) had control of the Southern population, hardly by democratic or peaceful means of course. Where they fell down was gross incompetence of their regular military forces to fight off a conventional Northern invasion, combined of course with the refusal of US politics to allow American intervention against this gross violation of every treaty ever signed relating to the region. However such results are not obtainable during the 1960s--the sort of insurgency eradication that US draftees were sent in to do in that decade would be the only alternative to a "Viet Cong" takeover I think. (I used scare quotes because that term was not what the insurgents called themselves, it meant "Communist Vietnamese" and was made up by Diem). South Vietnamese conscript forces could not be relied on to do it, and the elites who most naturally supported the Saigon regime were neither numerous nor very reliable in a tough spot themselves. I have heard of one US scheme that just possibly might have worked. It involved Marine squads learning Vietnamese, and, deployed to individual villages, lending themselves to all sorts of non-military Peace Corps sort of work to gain trust and confidence, and then drilling up local cadres of villagers to be a self-defensive militia presumably not interested in simply joining the "VC" when the Yankee and Saigon backs were turned; this scheme allegedly worked on a small scale trial basis, but I have to wonder if it could have been undertaken on the necessary mass scale, and suspect its success would hinge on empowering the villagers politically to do stuff like defy their regime-supporting landlords to collect rent, being ad hoc land reform with no compensation for the ruling elites, and wonder if the village militias would be able to get ammunition and other supplies reliably once the Marines moved on, or if they would sell or anyway fail to keep these arsenals from the "National Liberation Front," as they called themselves, insurgents. In the rosiest scenario this approach would amount to turning South Vietnam into a loose confederation of self-governing villages, which might be fine from an idealistic point of view I could share--but not at all the sort of thing either the Saigon elites or the American masterminds was aiming for. More obvious approaches such as invading and conquering North Vietnam might well trigger general Ragnarok. So, much as scorn is poured on the LBJ administration's bizarre notions of controlled combat, it seems to me that a Goldwater or Nixon administration would be facing the same stark MAD constraints the Best and the Brightest did, and they too would go down the same rabbit hole and strive to control the South without invading the North, by sheer devastation of the countryside and terroristic police state in the cities (and "strategic hamlets" the villagers would be relocated to). So it comes down to a choice between a) OTL quagmire; b) Armageddon, or c) ignominious defeat by one prong or another. There is an option D--"a", the quagmire, with ongoing police state terrorism eventually grinding South Vietnam into a nation of sorts, combined with unwavering resolve to cover South Vietnam with whatever degree of US (and SEATO ally; the Australians in particular were present in some numbers for instance) intervention necessary to deter the sort of overt conventional war invasion and conquest the North was eventually able to do OTL. I think it is possible the "twenty year early Reagan Revolution" might lead to such a status quo by the mid-70s.

But my point is, it would not be politically popular--at any rate, it might be possible to get measurable majorities in favor of it on patriotic and other related ideological grounds, but the alienated minority (which might even become a majority) would be deeply embittered by it. They would not be playing nice in 1968. It was not because they were coddled and mollified by misguided liberals that anti-war sentiment grew so pervasive especially among the classes of Americans most likely to be drafted and sent straight to the Big Muddy. A more conservative dominant culture might deny peaceniks social patronage; it would not lower the stakes for the young men of draft age one bit.

As a general thing the sort of right-wing backlash the author portrays in the November 1962 elections might possibly be a short-term flash in the pan, but if it digs in and has enough grass roots to deny Kennedy re-election (I assume his assassination is butterflied away here, at least the OTL Oswald shooting--perhaps quite different gangs in quite different times and places shoot him instead) then indeed, the composition of the backlash will have at its core the motley crew of conservatives who most strongly supported Reagan in the '80s OTL.

Therefore, while in this earlier generation there are quite a lot of "moderate" Republicans who might wish to rein in extremism, the fact is, the far right would have a considerable amount of power within the overall conservative majority coalition--despite the author telegraphing the switch of the Solid South to a bipartisanship that elects Republicans in the very heart of Dixie, I would think in this realignment, southern conservative Democrats would stick with their party label but vote with the rightist Republicans much of the time, so it isn't really a Republican coalition.

This is why I am skeptical, even if one supposes as many do that Nixon for instance was some kind of liberal, that liberal agendas would prevail. A great many things that happened OTL in the 1960s would not.

For what it is worth, I suppose the Republicans at least might try to break Jim Crow; conceivably a Goldwater or Nixon administration might support such cases as Loving versus Virginia and end anti-"miscegenation" laws, perhaps. But I really wonder about even that. Would the OTL amendment forbidding poll taxes have passed? Would Congress pass anything with the power of the OTL Voting Rights Act and would the courts make the same decisions they did OTL?

Fundamentally the respectable wing of American conservatism opposed government activism to combat racial discrimination on the grounds that this was an unwarranted and unworkable interference in private opinion and "taste," and therefore if we suppose say Barry Goldwater was deeply troubled by the sorts of terrorism African Americans in the South suffered under, he would still say that these things cannot be solved by the Federal government. This would of course be welcome words for the outright white supremacists to hear, even if Goldwater were capable, given the nature of the political alliance that elected him, of principled opposition to overt government enforcement of white supremacy--even with a legally colorblind but hands-tied state, private organization of white supremacy would carry the day and maintain the status quo. And quite possibly, in view of the OTL explosions in various American major cities, aspects of the Jim Crow order might be more strongly and even legally imposed far outside of Dixie--as was to a shocking extent pretty much the norm even going into the 1960s OTL. It was impossible when that decade started for a mixed race couple to drive or take a train across the USA from Atlantic to Pacific coast without having to travel through states where their marriage would be illegal.
--------
I might as well remark here that the TL premise strikes me as very low probability. The author has yet to expound on exactly how and where and why Kennedy is perceived to "blink first" in the Cuban Missile Crisis, but I think the odds are stacked against it. Where Kennedy and Khrushchev were far more likely to err versus the relatively cool OTL outcome was to escalate to open war. I can imagine a naval war breaking out which the USN would likely emerge from clearly victorious--but probably not without the loss of tens of thousands (or more) sailors and a substantial number of capital and smaller ships. Khrushchev would know this of course. Very likely such a blue-water combat would turn sooner or later into strikes at someone or other's lands, and then a general full nuclear exchange would be just about inevitable--if the loss of an aircraft carrier task force or three did not force it prior to that. Both sides had too much fear of replaying the role of Hitler's enemies defeated piecemeal one by one in the early years of the last war to dare be seen backing down.

But anyway, high or low probability, it is the TL premise. Clearly we don't get a Cuban Missile Crisis War right away, and every year of delay of a general exchange makes Soviet striking power rise so rapidly that well before 1968, such an exchange would go from being merely tragic and painful for the USA to something approaching total destruction. The Soviets could not "win" such a war, but the USA can most definitely be destroyed in "winning" it. So I am going to presume the TL will somehow or other avoid such a direct showdown between the blocs, with mutual assured destruction effectively deterring it on both sides. People who vote in a Republican in 1964 might be thinking that this leader will fight that war before Soviet striking power becomes even worse, but they will be disappointed.
--------
What I think might happen here is that the Goldwaterite conservatives gratified to win the nomination of their standard bearer in 1964 OTL will have a much tougher fight for the Republican nomination in the ATL, because more mainstream Republicans will see it as a race they can win. But the rightists will have the high ground among Republicans rhetorically speaking, and "moderates" will have to anyway broker a deal with them.

I assume Nixon rather than Goldwater will be the most likely nominee, despite his having only just yesterday won a term in California's mid-term cycle Governorship. Frankly I think Nixon would not look back if he thought he could win the Presidency. As for the bad politics of such a move to Californian conservatives--well, it depends on who wins the Lieutenant Governor race. California separates these two races and it is has been quite common for Governor and Lt Gov to be of opposite parties--but in this 1962 backlash election, it would be possible for the Republican candidate for the junior office to win as well. So if Nixon is elected President, he can hand off the running of the state of California to this co-partisan.

However, instead of such a "moderate" as Lodge as Nixon took on in 1960, if Nixon is going to win in 1964 in this ATL, he probably needs to take on a very conservative VP candidate; I don't know if Barry Goldwater is his best choice but certainly a possible one.

The upshot I think is going to be a conservative triumph in the short run, with very different choices and policies being pursued in 1965-1967 that are very gratifying to conservative ideologues but would create a pressure cooker of simmering resentment. One trend of OTL that would perhaps be reversed in the ATL is the broadening and guaranteeing of democratic franchise; the movement to liberalize the polls could be countered by re-assertion of limits on who is allowed to vote, which will allow politicians to write off discontent if it is largely confined to the classes whose access to the polls are cut back. The District of Columbia is not going to be empowered to cast electoral votes (equivalent to those of the smallest state, in practice OTL therefore 3 EV) for instance.

Thus, when Vietnam starts to turn very sour on a massive national scale, it will be the conservatives of Congress and in the White House who will be blamed for it. This might lead to a crisis in which elections are tightly restricted indeed, to guarantee the conservatives can hold office long enough for the less than obvious at this point benefits of their wisdom to play out over more time. If a sufficiently jerry-rigged Congress is willing to pay, and authorities willing to crack down hard on draft dodgers and so forth, I suppose Vietnam can be "won" in a certain sense of the word. But meanwhile the world stagflation crisis will descend like a wet blanket.

We should not forget that a Reagan Revolution 20 years earlier would make victims of people 20 years closer to the Great Depression. More elderly voters than OTL would find it deja vu all over again, remembering the Republicans of the Hoover years, and that their solution was a Democratic standard bearer.

I think it is quite possible that the longer term outcome of such a backlash aborting the OTL liberal '60s would be a more radically social-democratic movement rising like a phoenix from Kennedy's ashes, very much not on likes JFK himself would like. This assumes the nation and world thread their way between the Charybdis of general nuclear war and the Scylla of the reactionaries simply assuming outright and frank dictatorship. And the latter course bears with it the possibility of general civil war which the leftists might emerge decimated but victorious from.
 
Top