WI: JFK never becomes president?

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?
 

bguy

Donor
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?

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Let's say a couple thousand votes went the other way and he lost to Nixon.

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..."
 
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?
 
Okay then. What happens with a President Symington? Does civil rights happen? Do we go to war with Russia over Cuba?

Symington may not have had, say, Hubert Humphrey's reputation as a civil rights crusader, but he was definitely pro-civil rights. For example, he, unlike JFK, voted against the jury trial amendment "permitting those convicted of criminal contempt under the civil tights act of 1957 to the protection of trial by jury." https://books.google.com/books?id=fxzd__gA_I4C&pg=PA458 (Southern juries in those days were almost always all-white and unlikely to find anyone guilty of suppressing African American voting rights.) For some reason, though, liberals never showed much enthusiasm for Symington, even when they admitted they could not fault his voting record in Congress. That may partly have been due to his reputation as a one-issue man--defense. On that issue, Symington was very much a hawk at the time (though between 1964 and 1968 he became disillusioned with the Vietnam war and became more dovish in general). Indeed, JFK seems to have gotten his (mis)information about the alleged "missile gap" from Symington. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_gap 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.
 

bguy

Donor
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.
 
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...)
 

bguy

Donor
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--

How is that really different though than the situation in Nicaragua in 1927? Nicaragua was in the middle of an outright civil war at that point, and the U.S. was able to convince most of the factions to stop fighting and form a government.

and a great many Cubans who were not Castroites would see the new regime as nothing more than a US puppet.

Probably, but it's one thing to not love the new government and quite another to take up arms against it.

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.

In Operation Market Time the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard proved highly effective at stopping the maritime smuggling of arms into South Vietnam, and Cuba is a lot closer to the U.S. (and a lot further from China and the Soviet Union) then South Vietnam was.

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/operation-market-time/


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.

Sure, but that's exactly what happened in the Second Nicaraguan Occupation (where the U.S. faced six years of guerrila raids) and that occupation is still generally deemed to have been a qualified success for the United States. And the U.S. has much greater interest in Cuba than it had in Nicaragua, so I don't think pinprick guerrila raids are going to dissuade the U.S. After all it took 58,000 U.S. dead in Vietnam to make the U.S. give up. There's no way Castro will be able to inflict those kind of losses on U.S. forces. He doesn't have the manpower that the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army had, he won't have superpowers supplying him with arms like they did, and his troops won't have neutral countries they can seek sanctuary in whenver U.S. ground forces come hunting for them. As such Castro would be doing amazingly well to inflict just 1/10 of the casualties on the U.S. occupying force that OTL the U.S. suffered in Vietnam.

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.

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?

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...)

Well I think perpetual civil war is very unlikely while U.S. forces are on the island. Now the propsect that a new Fidel will come along and seize power as soon as the Americans pull out is a possibilty, but even delaying Fidelismo by a few years could have some significant benefits. (i.e. by the mid 1960s the Soviets will have a large transcontinental ICBM/SLBM force and thus won't need to put nuclear missiles into Cuba and as such there will probably never be a Cuban Missile Crisis scenario.)
 
Once Sandino was dead, his name was forgotten, and the US never had to face a hostile Nicaraguan government again... :p

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?"

Because none of those things involved a prolonged US occupation. (Anyway, in Grenada, it was not the US that overthrew Maurice Bishop, and there was very little sympathy for his murderers.)

BTW, was Guatemala really the success it seemed to be at the time? " In the end, John Foster Dulles's instincts about the political exiles would prove correct. Besides Ernesto "Che" Guevara, a host of future revolutionaries had escaped his grasp in Guatemala. In Mexico and elsewhere, they would regroup and, from the ashes of the Arbenz debacle, eventually reemerge-often with Guevara's help---as the Marxist guerrillas who would haunt American policy-makers for the next forty years." https://books.google.com/books?id=aCw19CUXpqkC&pg=PA151
 
Last edited:
Top