WI: KGB Killed JFK

I honestly think that the American government would have harsh words for the USSR behind the scenes, and then immediately try and cover it up.

I just can't see either side thinking it would end well so soon after the Cuban missile crisis.


And isn't this one of the prevailing theories about the assassination?

Not really. Overall, despite the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Soviets considered Kennedy a relatively weak leader who they could talk to.

The KGB had few reasons to want to kill Kennedy.

Castro is another story and reportedly he was terrified upon hearing of Kennedy's death because he was convinced the U.S. would blame him and take total vengeance.
 
Regardless if the KGB acted alone no one would believe they did and how could the Soviets prove they did?
Exactly, how do they prove a negative? I mean it's not as though they can pull out orders or memos to the head of the KGB or whatever faction of it that carried out the shooting saying 'Under no circumstances are you to assassinate the US President. At all. Ever. Okay?' All the American public, and most of the rest of the world, is going to see are the Soviet leaders having been found out and then trying desperately to carry out damage limitation exercises.

I don't think things would have gone nuclear straight away, whilst not large it looks as though the Soviets had a small number of ICBMs that could reach the continental United States. For all the rage people might of had I'm not sure if they'd be willing to trade say a dozen American cities for wiping out the USSR, the Cold War will however most likely turn into the Warm War with confrontations that stop just short of actual direct warfare. South America, Africa, the Middle East and Asia would likely get exceedingly messy though.
 
Could the Soviets publicly try and then later execute those involved in the event the KGB did it alone as a way to demonstrate their innocence? Or hand those over to the US or something?
 
I honestly think that the American government would have harsh words for the USSR behind the scenes, and then immediately try and cover it up.

I just can't see either side thinking it would end well so soon after the Cuban missile crisis.


And isn't this one of the prevailing theories about the assassination?

There is literally no time to think on this. This is an act of war and the first shot of an intended Soviet invasion and attack. That's how the United States will view this.

This unleashes WW3, likely atomic, immediately.
 
I honestly think that the American government would have harsh words for the USSR behind the scenes, and then immediately try and cover it up. (1)

I just can't see either side thinking it would end well so soon after the Cuban missile crisis.


And isn't this one of the prevailing theories about the assassination?

1) No. If the KGB is caught red-handed (which I take to be the OP's point), and a "coverup" is attempted, it would utterly fail (this is Washington we are talking about!), Johhnson would be looking at impeachment, and we'd all be talking about President Barry Goldwater.

Not really. Overall, despite the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Soviets considered Kennedy a relatively weak leader who they could talk to.

The KGB had few reasons to want to kill Kennedy.

Castro is another story and reportedly he was terrified upon hearing of Kennedy's death because he was convinced the U.S. would blame him and take total vengeance.

I think the OP has been talking about perhaps a renegade cell of the KGB, not order coming directly from its Chairman.

I find it hard to believe that Castro was ever frightened, as he did unleash Che into South America.
 
There is literally no time to think on this. This is an act of war and the first shot of an intended Soviet invasion and attack. That's how the United States will view this.

This unleashes WW3, likely atomic, immediately.

How? In what way? Does Johnson order the US to DEFCON 1? Who does he target? In what way? Or does he simply unleash the CIA on Krushchev? A "WWIII" of assassinations and counter-assassinations? I think you are seeing this time period as more of a powderkeg than it really was, perhaps because of its proximity to the Missile Crisis.
 
1) No. If the KGB is caught red-handed (which I take to be the OP's point), and a "coverup" is attempted, it would utterly fail (this is Washington we are talking about!), Johhnson would be looking at impeachment, and we'd all be talking about President Barry Goldwater.

I wasn't sure if the KGB were caught red handed.

If they are... well that's pretty much it. The American people will be howling for blood. The big question will be how much the Soviets are wiling to give to appease them.
 
How? In what way? Does Johnson order the US to DEFCON 1? Who does he target? In what way? Or does he simply unleash the CIA on Krushchev? A "WWIII" of assassinations and counter-assassinations? I think you are seeing this time period as more of a powderkeg than it really was, perhaps because of its proximity to the Missile Crisis.

How is it not a powder keg? You've just had the Soviets murder the leader of the opposing super power. The reason the KGB would assassinate foreign leaders is as the opening shot of an upcoming attack; to cripple the heads of governments and sew confusion. That's what the US was afraid of after the actual assassination, because it could have been the Russians, and if it was then that meant it was going to precipitate an oncoming attack and that more government officials were going to be killed to cripple the government.

What follows is the USSR invading Western Europe and assaulting US/Allied positions around the globe. WW3 is extremely hard to keep conventional, hence atomic use is likely. A Soviet assassination of an American leader would be part of a plan for WW3, hence you unleash WW3. The US is not going to wait around for that, and as soon as they find out it was the Russians, they go to DEFCON 1 and mobilize.

EDIT:

And let's go with the scenario of a rogue KGB thing. The US will still view it as the prelude to a Soviet attack (not knowing it is rogue), go to DEFCON 1 and mobilize. What will follow is the Soviets reacting thinking the United States is getting ready to attack, and mobilizing. Both sides takes the mobilization of the other as confirmation they are getting ready to attack, kaboom, insert Very Lynn soundtrack.
 
Last edited:
Could the Soviets publicly try and then later execute those involved in the event the KGB did it alone as a way to demonstrate their innocence? Or hand those over to the US or something?

The Chairman of the KGB himself would have to be arrested, for criminal incompetence, if nothing else. The question is, how high up does the true guilt actually go, and would the Soviets be willing to fork over the guilty parties, despite whatever outside intelligence those people might hagve inside their heads? Soviet "nationalism" being what it was back then, I doubt they would allow any of their citizens to be extradited, no matter how guilty they were.

I think this could get VERY messy in the USSR, as Krushchev himself could well fall from power all the sooner. The thing is, if someone like Brezhnev takes his place, it will be seen as removing the dove in favor of the hawk. Using JFK's assassination to effect Krushchev's removal as well. Meaning the new government in Moscow has GREATER cupability in the crime than Krushchev's!:mad::eek:

I wasn't sure if the KGB were caught red handed.

If they are... well that's pretty much it. The American people will be howling for blood. The big question will be how much the Soviets are wiling to give to appease them.

Hence my reference to the abolition of the KGB in favor of a "successor" organization. And a lot of blood flowing, literally, in the Lubyanka.:mad::mad::mad:

OTL, when Oswald's strong ties to the USSR and personal support for the Castro Regime was revealed, a veteran long-term undercover FBI/CIA agent was present inside Moscow when Kennedy's assassination took place. Not knowing the agent spoke perfect Russian (his history was that of a long time CPUSA member that the Soviets did not know had been recruited by the FBI years before), the exchange that took place told the agent (Morris Childs) what had happened. It was obvious to Childs that the Soviets were as in the dark as he was, and quite horrified at the possibility that with the assassin having such strong ties to the USSR the USA might go to war over JFK's murder.

After filling Childs in (in English:rolleyes:), he was asked, as an American, by these veteran KGB officers what they should do. "Tell them everything, leave not a single card unturned, even if it means revealing state secrets. Let the Americans come in and do their own investigations as they will, and where ever it may take them." They followed his advice to the letter.:cool:

About all the US learned of any consequence was the military information Oswald told the Soviets during his defection interviews (most of it erroneous, as both the Soviets and later the US discovered:rolleyes:). The details of his attemtped suicide went a long way to convincing the US that there was no way ever that the Soviets would trust the biggest loser in the city of Dallas with the assassination of any head of state, nevermind one leading a superpower.
 
Last edited:
How is it not a powder keg? You've just had the Soviets murder the leader of the opposing super power. The reason the KGB would assassinate foreign leaders is as the opening shot of an upcoming attack; to cripple the heads of governments and sew confusion. That's what the US was afraid of after the actual assassination, because it could have been the Russians, and if it was then that meant it was going to precipitate an oncoming attack and that more government officials were going to be killed to cripple the government.

What follows is the USSR invading Western Europe and assaulting US/Allied positions around the globe. WW3 is extremely hard to keep conventional, hence atomic use is likely. A Soviet assassination of an American leader would be part of a plan for WW3, hence you unleash WW3. The US is not going to wait around for that, and as soon as they find out it was the Russians, they go to DEFCON 1 and mobilize.

EDIT:

And let's go with the scenario of a rogue KGB thing. The US will still view it as the prelude to a Soviet attack (not knowing it is rogue), go to DEFCON 1 and mobilize. What will follow is the Soviets reacting thinking the United States is getting ready to attack, and mobilizing. Both sides takes the mobilization of the other as confirmation they are getting ready to attack, kaboom, insert Very Lynn soundtrack.

I think you are confusing DEFCON 2 with DEFCON 1

DEFCON 2 is conventional war with the Soviets, with imminent fighting about to take place. We have only been at that level once, in the Cuban Missile Crisis, and only to a limited extent, involving our strategic bomber force, as they required a more graduated level of mobilization than other more conventional forces.

DEFCON 1 means active thermonuclear war, and the missiles are being launched. You don't go to DEFCON 1 and then say "now what?"

It is far more likely the world will see the "extended buildup" scenario, where the USA not only mobilizes its military reserves, but also orders a vastly enlarged level of military drafts as well as a WWII level of military-industrial mobilization to increase the size of the US conventional military to WWII levels. What the USSR does in the face of this is anybody's guess. But short of a Soviet First Strike, you could be looking at the effects of a Johnson (or Goldwater!?:eek:) Reagan-style buildup to the Nth degree, with the corresponding effects it would have on the Soviet economy.

Remember, ITTL it is the SOVIETS who are the guilty party in the eyes of the world, and will be looking to throw lots of cold water on raging fires, not looking to make things worse.
 
Top