The World of If Kennedy Lived

A couple of years ago, author Jeff Greenfield published an alternate-history novel detailing a possible 1960s if JFK survived his assassination attempt and continued being President until 1969. The novel ends a couple of days before the results of the 1968 election between Hubert Humphrey and Ronald Reagan, with the reader never finding out who wins. Who do you picture winning in 1968 and how do you picture the 1970s of this timeline looking? To get an idea about what this timeline's like, here is the link to the book:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00C5R84V8/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1
 
Maybe Humphrey. America probably isn't ready for Reagan yet. He comes back and wins in 1976. I also wonder if Greenfield would expand the RFK TL he wrote in "Then Everything Changed" into a full book. He ends it before the 1970 Midterms. We could see RFK take action on healthcare reform, universal childcare, welfare and urban policies, and energy. Foreign policy-wise, we could see his visit to China, Soviet relations, and how he handles situations in the Middle East and Chile, which would end quite differently than OTL. In Greenfield's RFK scenario, I imagine Reagan sitting out 1972 and running in '76, again.
 
Humphrey would win in the novel. Reagan had taken too many unpopular positions, like his opposition to Medicare. There was no Vietnam War in the novel. Kennedy did not get involved and then the Communists win, Which is what I thought was ASB about the novel. If South Vietnam was in danger, Kennedy would have to help.
 
Kennedy would've been involved in Vietnam unlike what the book puts forward. His reputation is worse than Nixon's long term because of the numerous mistresses he had and tried to cover up.
 

Kennedy would've been involved in Vietnam unlike what the book puts forward. His reputation is worse than Nixon's long term because of the numerous mistresses he had and tried to cover up.

The matter at hand is that Vietnam as executed was Lyndon Johnson's way of doing it, which means an American War in Vietnam, and one on LBJ's terms and way of prosecution. Johnson assumed you beat someone into submission and dominated. Kennedy did not share that thinking, nor did he have full faith in the Joint Chiefs which pushed for war, nor did he commit the United States to a War in Vietnam when it was presented to him in 1961 that it was inarguable that the US needed to begin combat operations to save the country. Kennedy avoided every war that was put on his plate to be had, from Cuba to Berlin to Laos, for the simple reason that he thought war should be avoided if possible, there were other means of resolution to be exhausted first, these means to resolution should involve creative thinking, and that potential wars in those theaters were too uncertain. There really is no point in US combat operations in Vietnam, other than to avoid political fallout. You can argue that in the wake of Diem, it became inevitable, but I would also argue against that. Diem's Vietnam was a matter of a national situation not working, and looking grim. In the aftermath of the assassination, it was a worse situation, but still a bad situation nonetheless. The public also is not paying attention to Vietnam in Kennedy's administration; the stark minority that do have little faith in the situation anyway, thinking either Saigon will fall or there'll be a coalition government. There are other options on the table that it would be in Kennedy's behavior to pursue. There was a proposal to neutralize Cuba in exchange for neutralizing Vietnam between the US and USSR. The Soviets were tired of Castro, Castro had lost faith in the Soviets, and Kennedy was discussing renormalization of relations with the Castro government via back channels. For it's part, the United States was obviously tired of the situation in Indochina. Kennedy felt he could sell it to the American people. You can argue on the details, but the argument I see too often is that we did go into Vietnam, so of course we were always going into Vietnam. Or that pot smoking utopians think Kennedy was magic and everything would be perfect, so every positive decision he could have made or positive outcome of his living is just wishful thinking. I disagree with the argument that the man who avoided a nuclear war over Cuba could not avoid a direct American conflict in Vietnam, at a time when it is a third world nation that only has recognition in so far as the United States pays attention to it, when there are other options to be had, when it is not a pressing issue for the American public, and when the recent history of that nation has demonstrated that the United States should not so closely tie itself to that nation, and it's potential failure, as a war would do.

You also cannot take Kennedy's sexual escapades out of context. The reason you do so is because they were the first ones revealed. I believe it was in the Kennedy biography in 1968. Washington and every other center of power (political, economic or otherwise) were "Mad Men" dens of debauchery. Every man who could did have a string of affairs with everyone they could. Lyndon Johnson was as promiscuous as Kennedy. The fact that you did not see "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" on the CBS evening news in 1967 should indicate how likely it is to see JFK giving those speech in another world. Nelson Rockefeller divorced his wife for his mistress, which is why he failed to win the nomination in 1964. Rumor has it Rockefeller died of a heart attack mid coitus with his secretary trapped underneath. Again, anyone with power had a string of affairs and sexual escapades. There are people you know and people you don't know. So Kennedy is only special without context.
 
Last edited:
Well redlighting, can you tell me what you think would happen if Kennedy did commit to Vietnam?

An escalation into Vietnam by the United States was inevitable following the death of the former prime minister and also once the Vietcong began to attack American bases and personnel during the war. All it was take was an accident like the Gulf of Tonkin turned out to be for Kennedy to have to act in the same manner. Eventually the Vietcong are going to attack or at least appear to fire on American soldiers and eventually cost lives. A All it takes is for the Vietcong to shoot down an American helicopter, massacre soldiers living in bases, or another way to kill they forcing the president to attack and respond with force. The manner Kennedy would've done so at first would be air strikes to prevent further attacks by the North and show that the United States would respond with force if they killed American soldiers. Kennedy would still get a resolution with similar powers to the Gulf one which allows him to subvert a formal declaration of war to exercise whichever action he saw fit to counteract North Vietnam.

North Vietnam is not going to respond kindly and will continue to strike out at American facilities, which will cause Kennedy to escalate his level of retaliation over time. Air strikes will lead to him eventually recruiting marines to defend these airbases as along as the North is aggressive and to fight back. Whether Kennedy becomes an offensive military commander and begins to send troops into the jungles and waterways to stop the Vietcong is yet to be seen. He will absolutely set up defensive positions for American personnel to be protected from attacks. Eventually they will also join the South Vietnamese to stop attacks on their own facilities. There will be defensive American action in South Vietnam and also some offensive action to protect American bases and forces there. His military endeavors here will bog down in a quagmire and also still cost the lives of thousands of Americans, even if it's not the tens of thousands Johnson contributed to.
 
The Gulf of Tonkin did not involve a certain attack, and was an excuse for Johnson to get a war he wanted to pursue. That was Johnson's personality: fear and intimidation, and they'll give in. Any other method besides a spanking will not work, in Johnson's thinking. Kennedy, meanwhile, was annoyed by the issue and wanted to avoid a war because of the example of Korea and past insurgencies he was aware of and referenced in his lifetime. One can argue on inevitability and if Kennedy would have a war he did not want, but not on those psychological elements. Johnson wanted a war, even if he came to regret having it while simultaneously still believing it was necessary. Kennedy did not. There is no doubt in my mind Kennedy would not have used uncertain radar blips as an excuse to sell a "certain" attack to the American public and Congress. Johnson had to actively pump it up. Otherwise, the incident should have been a forgettable episode. Kennedy was not seeking nor would he ever seek a Gulf of Tonkin resolution; it is not in his character. Likewise, the United States has had assets attacked in it's military history, including during the Cold War, while also not engaging in a war over those incidents. Americans had been killed in Vietnam prior to the American War circa 1965. The Republic of Vietnam can execute retaliation. The United States if need be can retaliate short of war, although given the operations in Vietnam being to advise the South Vietnamese, it would not be required to. A pivotal point is that American resolution to Vietnam does not need to come in the terms of a war. War is simply the last choice in terms of resolution.
 
Top