Kennedy Dies Four Years Later

John F Kennedy had the public image of someone in the picture of health, when he was far from it. He almost died a number of times before he even ran for president. Let's say that Oswald doesn't feel like assassinating anyone, and nobody kills Kennedy. He gets re-elected against Goldwater and keeps Lyndon B Johnson as VP. Then in November 1967 JFK finally succumbs to his Addison's and other medical illnesses, dropping dead.

First, what's going to be the immediate public reaction? The public has no idea that Kennedy has faced serious illnesses all his life. How are they supposed to react when someone in the prime of their life drops dead? And once the truth of his death is revealed, how's that going to impact his image given they've been lied to about their POTUS? Sure, they'd expect the womanizing, which would probably already be known at this point, but this?

Second, where does that leave LBJ? Unlike IOTL, Vietnam hasn't tainted him(or at least not nearly as much). 1968 is going to be the last shot he has at the election, so he'll try to get the Democratic nomination. I'm not sure whether RFK will challenge him or not, but I think he'd wait until '72 because his brother's shocking death is too soon. Humphrey might, though I expect LBJ to keep the nomination. Though who would be chosen for the Republicans, and would they beat him or not? I still think they'd choose Nixon. What's 1963-1973 going to look like in this timeline?
 
IMO JFK wouldn't have Americanized the war as Johnson did, and a neutral solution to Vietnam could have been implemented in 1965. (According to RFK, Kennedy would've handled Vietnam as he did Laos). That doesn't mean any sort of bombing campaign wouldn't have happened, but it's less likely that US troops fight a land war. I think LBJ easily wins in 1968, but might not run again in 1972 due to health reasons. VP Humphrey would be his heir apparent. As for RFK, he resigns from the Cabinet but unlike in 1964 he doesn't have an office to run for in 1968. RFK considered teaching instead of electoral politics, so I think he'd be a professor for a couple of years before going into politics in 1970. He could run for the Governorship of Massachusetts or the Governorship of New York which are both held by Republicans. As for the Senate seat from New York he held in OTL, he could run for that in 1970 but not if a different Democrat beats Keating in 1964.
 
Kennedy would have gotten into Vietnam, the only way he couldn't is if somehow South Vietnam destroys the North and unifies Vietnam, which I can't see happening unless the entire North Vietnamese leadership dies or something. He would not be interested in playing another game of "Who lost China?". Alongside this, Kennedy would have just pushed through another toothless civil rights act. His "New Frontier" might work in some places, might not in others. A "War on Poverty" might not happen, though. All in all, Kennedy would be remembered as Johnson but without any positives.
 
I think he would have handled Vietnam assuming Oliver Stone was wrong, like Lyndon handled the Dominican Republic, Short quick raids and support from others the oas or seato. It would not have been done both brutally and intermittently
 

hipper

Banned
I think he would have handled Vietnam assuming Oliver Stone was wrong, like Lyndon handled the Dominican Republic, Short quick raids and support from others the oas or seato. It would not have been done both brutally and intermittently

JFK’s Vietnam Withdrawal Plan Is a Fact, Not Speculation

“Professor Galbraith is correct [Letters, NYR, December 6, 2007] that “there was a plan to withdraw US forces from Vietnam, beginning with the first thousand by December 1963, and almost all of the rest by the end of 1965…. President Kennedy had approved that plan. It was the actual policy of the United States on the day Kennedy died.”

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Polit...John-F.-Kennedy-have-pulled-US-out-of-Vietnam
 
JFK’s Vietnam Withdrawal Plan Is a Fact, Not Speculation

“Professor Galbraith is correct [Letters, NYR, December 6, 2007] that “there was a plan to withdraw US forces from Vietnam, beginning with the first thousand by December 1963, and almost all of the rest by the end of 1965…. President Kennedy had approved that plan. It was the actual policy of the United States on the day Kennedy died.”

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Polit...John-F.-Kennedy-have-pulled-US-out-of-Vietnam

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ons-results-per-the-historical-record.268567/
 

hipper

Banned

detailed and interesting but rubbish especially this bit

In other words, Johnson changed nothing about the 'withdrawal' policy he inherited upon taking office.

“A pivotal period of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, punctuated by three important events: the overthrow and assassination of South Vietnam’s president Ngo Dinh Diem; President Kennedy’s decision on October 2 to begin the withdrawal of U.S. forces; and his assassination fifty days later.”

from Robert McNamara’s 1995 memoir In Retrospect. (MacNamara was secretary of state for defense for Kennedy and Johnstone)

since Johnstone did not in fact withdraw american troops from vietnam then we can fairly confidently say Johnstone changed everything.
 
Top