Exactly what it says in the title. How does this affect the US (and the world) politically, socially, etc.? What events don't happen and what would be different?
Exactly what it says in the title. How does this affect the US (and the world) politically, socially, etc.? What events don't happen and what would be different?
Let's say a couple thousand votes went the other way and he lost to Nixon.That's going to depend on why Kennedy didn't become President. Did he:
1) obtain the Democratic nomination but then lose the 1960 election to Nixon;
2) obtain the Democratic nomination but lose the 1960 election to a different Republican candidate;
3) fail to win the 1960 Democrat nomination;
4) decide not run for President in 1960;
5) decide not to enter politics at all; or
6) get assassinated by Richard Paul Pavlick after being elected but prior to being sworn in as president?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Paul_Pavlick
The impact on future events will alter dramatically depending on which of those scenarios explains why Kennedy didn't become President.
Let's say a couple thousand votes went the other way and he lost to Nixon.
Okay then. What happens with a President Symington? Does civil rights happen? Do we go to war with Russia over Cuba?You know, we have had countless threads on what if Nixon won in 1960. I would really prefer to dwell on other alternatives to JFK. Like, what if Symington were the Democratic nominee and won in November? Theodore Sorensen wrote in *Kennedy* "Privately he [JFK] thought that Symington, had he organized earlier, might have been able to defeat him among the more conservative Democrats of Indiana or Nebraska; and one defeat would have been enough to deny Kennedy the nomination..."
Okay then. What happens with a President Symington? Does civil rights happen? Do we go to war with Russia over Cuba?
He was a loyal Democrat, and defended JFK's Cuban policy against Republican criticism, but I wonder if he might have attempted to salvage the Bay of Pigs by using US troops. I don't think this would bring about a war with Russia, but it might have led to a very messy occupation.
How messy could a Cuban occupation really get? Cuba is much smaller (both in population and land area) than South Vietnam, so the U.S. won't need to committ nearly as many troops to secure Cuba as were sent to Vietnam, and since Castro will have no secure areas to operate from and no way to get arms from any foreign power, his ability to inflict casualties on U.S. forces is going to be rather limited. As such while the initial U.S. invasion will probably see some sharp fighting, I would expect the subsequent occupation to play out much more like the Second Nicaraguan Occupation rather than Vietnam.
By "messy" I didn't mean that the US would have to commit as many troops as in Vietnam. I meant that first of all the Cuban "victors" would be deeply divided among themselves; they were not really united by anything except opposition to Castro. (They included both pro-Batista forces and Castro's first Prime Minister! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/José_Miró_Cardona) Each faction would call on the US for help. So the *political* situation would be messy, even apart from the Castroite opposition--
and a great many Cubans who were not Castroites would see the new regime as nothing more than a US puppet.
And I think you are underestimating the Castroites. Castro already had plenty of arms, he had a large force trained in guerrilla warfare, and in any event Cuba's being an island will not prevent more arms from being smuggled in--it is really very difficult to police every cay and inlet.
Of course the Castroites could not defeat the US in pitched battles--that is not the issue. More likely are hit-and-run attacks and terrorism that will take their toll and require the US occupation to last indefinitely--or prepare to tolerate chaos in Cuba if it is ended.
The occupation would, incidentally, greatly stimulate anti-Americanism in the rest of Latin America, so even if the US destroyed one Castro it might give rise to several others.
No doubt Clayton Fritchey, then an aide to Adlai Stevenson (and, incidentally, a friend of Symington's) had some of these things in mind when he told JFK, "Mr. President, it could have been worse." "How?," JFK asked. Fritchey replied, "It might have succeeded." (Jim Rasenberger, *The Brilliant Disaster: JFK, Castro, and America's Doomed Invasion of Cuba's Bay of Pigs,* p. 395. http://books.google.com/books?id=0Ex08ZkkXEkC&pg=PA395) Or as the very anti-Castro Theodore Draper would write, "An invasion force that succeeded in overthrowing Castro without a demonstrative show of popular support could have ruled Cuba only in a state of perpetual civil war or as a thinly disguised American occupation. At best, it would have postponed another outbreak of 'Fidelismo' for a few months or years. At worst, it could have made Cuba into another Algeria." (Draper was of course writing long before Iraq and Afghanistan, or he might have used them as analogies...)
The U.S. sponsored a coup in Guatamela in 1954, occupied the Dominican Republican in 1965, is suspected of sponsoring a coup in Chile in 1973, mined Nicaraguan harbors in 1982, supported Britain against Argentina in the Falklands War also in 1982, occupied Grenada in 1983, and invaded Panama in 1989, and none of those actions unleashed a Red Tide across Latin America. Why would topppling Castro be any different?"