No Vietnam War, What Does LBJ's Second Term Look Like?

[Electric Monk]

I remember reading he commissioned an actuarial study on when he would die that told him he wouldnt live through a second term, and so his reason for not running again was mainly health.

LBJ’s family history basically has all the men in the family dropping dead of heart attacks in their 60s. That’s why he quit smoking—and LBJ loved smoking—in the 1950s cold so he would live to be President, IIRC he had less than a pack of smokes from when he quit until he retired.

LBJ always had health problems when things went wrong. If he’s on a success roll I feel his health will not be a problem.

 

[Amadeus]

LBJ’s family history basically has all the men in the family dropping dead of heart attacks in their 60s. That’s why he quit smoking—and LBJ loved smoking—in the 1950s cold so he would live to be President, IIRC he had less than a pack of smokes from when he quit until he retired.

LBJ always had health problems when things went wrong. If he’s on a success roll I feel his health will not be a problem.

I mean, family history isn't necessarily pre-determinative of a person's age at death. Lifestyle choices such as diet, exercise, and cutting down on smoking/drinking can prolong a person's life beyond their natural expectancy. In LBJ's case, I think once he was out of politics he just resigned himself to not living into his 70s and resumed his earlier lifestyle of heavy smoking and drinking. Plus, if you look at photos from the era the stress of Vietnam years makes it look as if Johnson had aged 15 years in only 4. (True the presidency does take a visible toll on most Presidents, but a comparison with Presidents of the same era who were roughly Johnson's age when taking office shows that for LBJ it was especially bad).

 

[VoidTemplar]

Kennedy's impetus for running in '68 was Vietnam, so I highly doubt he runs. I believe that he originally planned on running in '72 when Johnson would be a lame duck (if re-elected).

RFK was the most careerist of careerist politicians, devoid of any sort of principles other than power. In the 1950's, he was McCarthy's best friend on communist witchhunts and also Hoover's enemy. In 1956 he suddenly tries to be Hoover's best friend and stampede JFK onto the ticket. In 1964 he tries to stampede his way onto the ticket with Johnson. And in 1968 he is suddenly hugging hippies and calling for peace in Vietnam.

No Vietnam means we get RFK shouting about how Johnson is a spineless coward who abandoned South Vietnam to the communists

 

[marktaha]

RFK was the most careerist of careerist politicians, devoid of any sort of principles other than power. In the 1950's, he was McCarthy's best friend on communist witchhunts and also Hoover's enemy. In 1956 he suddenly tries to be Hoover's best friend and stampede JFK onto the ticket. In 1964 he tries to stampede his way onto the ticket with Johnson. And in 1968 he is suddenly hugging hippies and calling for peace in Vietnam.

No Vietnam means we get RFK shouting about how Johnson is a spineless coward who abandoned South Vietnam to the communists

What LBJ himself said . I think Bobby had become more radical but wouldn't have trusted or voted for him

 

[Amadeus]

RFK was the most careerist of careerist politicians, devoid of any sort of principles other than power. In the 1950's, he was McCarthy's best friend on communist witchhunts and also Hoover's enemy. In 1956 he suddenly tries to be Hoover's best friend and stampede JFK onto the ticket. In 1964 he tries to stampede his way onto the ticket with Johnson. And in 1968 he is suddenly hugging hippies and calling for peace in Vietnam.

No Vietnam means we get RFK shouting about how Johnson is a spineless coward who abandoned South Vietnam to the communists

I would suggest reading any number of well sourced biographies of Kennedy before coming to this conclusion. Every source I've read on this topic shows that RFK was genuinely against the war (and critical of it while it was still popular, which contradicts your entire argument re pure opportunism). Additionally, in multiple speeches he admits that he was culpable in the mistakes that escalated U.S. involvement in the war (not the act of a shameless self-promoter).

 

[GeographyDude]

Dude, LBJ supported dictators too, he gave the greenlight for the 1964 coup in Brazil

Thank you for bringing this up.

Yes, during the cold war, U.S. foreign policy was generally awful, and LBJ fully included.

I’m just saying that it’s probably worth exploring the counterfactual of, what if he became a peace and development guy?

 

[arrowiv]

LBJ also sold F-4 Phantoms and tanks to Iran, then under the dictatorship of the Shah.

 

[Amadeus]

Thank you for bringing this up.

Yes, during the cold war, U.S. foreign policy was generally awful, and LBJ fully included.

I’m just saying that it’s probably worth exploring the counterfactual of, what if he became a peace and development guy?

I think the contradiction with LBJ is that at home he was all about peace and development, but abroad he fell victim to the "domino theory" mindset predominant at the time.

 

[Gukpard]

Thank you for bringing this up.

Yes, during the cold war, U.S. foreign policy was generally awful, and LBJ fully included.

I’m just saying that it’s probably worth exploring the counterfactual of, what if he became a peace and development guy?

I don't blame him.

He was given constant misinformation by the secret service that Brazil was about to fall into a communist dictatorship, something who was a clear lie for a Brazilian but it seemed plausible by the US intelligence service.

I would say that he is a victim of.the whole situation and a example of how dangerous the CIA is.

 

[Electric Monk]

LBJ also sold F-4 Phantoms and tanks to Iran, then under the dictatorship of the Shah.

If the Shah wanted to buy a Forrestal President McGovern would happily sell it to him, train the crew, and build a naval base for it.

 

[Amadeus]

If the Shah wanted to buy a Forrestal President McGovern would happily sell it to him, train the crew, and build a naval base for it.

Was McGovern actually that supportive of the Shah IOTL? I know you're being sarcastic, I'm just curious to know.

 

[Electric Monk]

Was McGovern actually that supportive of the Shah IOTL? I know you're being sarcastic, I'm just curious to know.

@Yes is of course the person to ask .

But nah McGovern wasn’t personally, see Rockefeller for that sort of thing. He certainly would jump on the vast opportunity to sell such a thing to the Shah though. IOTL the Shah’s eyes only got as big as an Invincible class but he loved toys.

 

[Amadeus]

Although this is certainly possible, I do want to state it is also possible he loses in 1968 for "losing South Vietnam". He well might not, but I think it might have been a "damned if you do , damned if you don't" position. If he sends troops you wind up with OTL, unless there are other PODs. If he doesn't he may well lose for doing nothing.

Perhaps LBJ, in lieu of the aforementioned study predicting his death at 64, decides by 1967 that having accomplished everything he set out to do domestically it's time to retire and he announces he won't run again? I wonder how much the need to see Vietnam to the end played in his initial decision to run in '68. With no Vietnam War, I think Humphrey defeats Nixon in this scenario. LBJ would be seen as one of the greatest Presidents in American history, and the loss of South Vietnam would be a minor blip in his overall legacy.

 

[Johnrankins]

Perhaps LBJ, in lieu of the aforementioned study predicting his death at 64, decides by 1967 that having accomplished everything he set out to do domestically it's time to retire and he announces he won't run again? I wonder how much the need to see Vietnam to the end played in his initial decision to run in '68. With no Vietnam War, I think Humphrey defeats Nixon in this scenario. LBJ would be seen as one of the greatest Presidents in American history, and the loss of South Vietnam would be a minor blip in his overall legacy.

That might well be true if he wins in 1968 as your initial scenario. Like I said I think it is far from ASB, I just wanted to point out it would be far from a sure thing. Even without the Vietnam War he might lose, even lose it by "abandoning Vietnam".

 

[GeographyDude]

I don't blame him.

He was given constant misinformation by the secret service that Brazil was about to fall into a communist dictatorship, something who was a clear lie for a Brazilian but it seemed plausible by the US intelligence service.

I would say that he is a victim of.the whole situation and a example of how dangerous the CIA is.

It was also what we wanted to believe. Any gov’t which wasn’t super friendly to American corporations was oh so easy to view as communist.

By the way, the Secret Service is the body guards to the president, vice president, their families, and somewhat more.

I think you mean to criticize the CIA just as you did. Another player is the NSA, or National Security Agency. And I sometimes hear the phrase “national security state,” meaning the whole mindset, plus connections such as major weapon manufacturers such as Boeing and Honeywell donating to the election funds of the very members of Congress heading the committees which are supposed to be overseeing these contracts. And major news media, who seemingly love a good war. Etc.

 

[marktaha]

I think the contradiction with LBJ is that at home he was all about peace and development, but abroad he fell victim to the "domino theory" mindset predominant at the time.

Since the whole of South East Asia went Communist in April 1975...

 

[Amadeus]

Since the whole of South East Asia went Communist in April 1975...

India, Pakistan, and the Philippines would like to have a word with you...

 

[Gukpard]

It was also what we wanted to believe. Any gov’t which wasn’t super friendly to American corporations was oh so easy to view as communist.

By the way, the Secret Service is the body guards to the president, vice president, their families, and somewhat more.

I think you mean to criticize the CIA just as you did. Another player is the NSA, or National Security Agency. And I sometimes hear the phrase “national security state,” meaning the whole mindset, plus connections such as major weapon manufacturers such as Boeing and Honeywell donating to the election funds of the very members of Congress heading the committees which are supposed to be overseeing these contracts. And major news media, who seemingly love a good war. Etc.

A lot of it also came from the Brazilian right, the Brazilian right has always been extremely pro American (recent events keep showing that this never died), and they wanted to remove Goulart from power by any means necessary so there was this massive coordinated effort to paint him outside the country as communist.

The main spokesperson of the UDN party, Carlos Lacerda, went to the US in 1963 and gave a press coverage to the "communist takeover" and begged US authorities to invade Brazil and install him as President. This triggered the army to petition Goulart to pass martial law just for enought time to arrest Lacerda, probably shot him, and then lift it in sequence.

The funniest part about this whole affair is that Goulart was very conservative on social issues and the left tended to hate him for that, calling him as a social fascist and claiming that he was the worst kind of capitalist, the one who knew how to keep the system alive. His economic motto was literally "For a patriotic and humane capitalism", heck he was the chosen successor of former president-dictator-president again Getúlio Vargas who was a anti communist.

 

[Amadeus]

I wonder (if re-elected), would LBJ have ended the gold standard as Nixon did in 1971? I highly doubt he visits China in 1972, especially if he is seen as the one who "lost" Vietnam.

 

[Issei Uzumaki]

I would be interested to see what happens to the govt budget and the economy as a whole. Escalating in Vietnam meant more tax money going Defense spending. Does no war mean an earlier Great Society push, possibly even getting single payer style healthcare? Or would their be more focus on NASA and the space race?