WI: Oswald gets translator job in ‘62, JFK serves through Jan. 20, 1969

Indeed. I also think this would have a BIG effect on the counterculture of the 1960s. Hippies rode the anti-war movement to prominence IOTL. In a TL where Vietnam was less prominent, I don't think the hippies would be as noticeable. Don't get me wrong, they'd still be there, hippy culture evolved out of the beatniks of the Fifties, but it'd be much smaller and much more confined. I think sexual mores and fashion going into the Seventies would be much more conservative. It'd probably be something along the lines of what happened in England IOTL. Change IS happening, but the establishment is definitely still in control.
And keep in mind that the Anti-War Movement of the 60s and early 70s was very much by the end a very organized and 'professional' group that had been built up through experiance and trial. The moved on to become the core of the Anti-Nuclear Movement and brought the same organized and professional 'protest' system to play there as well.

One interesting WI is Kennedy prior to his assassination was mulling over a joint mission to the moon, apparently discussing it with Khrushchev. Perhaps not very likely but would certainly make for a historic image, an astronaut and a cosmonaut shaking hands on the lunar surface.
It was rejected out of hand by the Soviets, politly mind you, but firmly. The Soviets would get 'nothing' out of the effort and would expose just how marginal their own space program really was and they were well aware of this. By the beginings of the Gemini program in 1965 the US was fully commited to going it alone and the Soviets had begun to fall behind which was even less incentive for cooperation.

Kennedy was never comfortable with the Lunar goal as he was well aware how much it would cost and how much of the US economy and resources would be tied up in just the first few years building the necessary infrastructure. He pitched the cooperative mission which took everyone by surprise as a last-ditch attempt to cut the US effort but when rejected by the Soviets he went all in on the US effort despite continued misgivings. By 1963 or 1964 it's probably too late to try and ramp back the US effort as the NASA budget is already pamped up and the various program items are in the pipeline so there's really no savings to be found and reduction would only make things worse.

Given a surviving Kennedy it's possible he could re-pitch the suggestion in the wake of the Cuban Missile Crisis but it would be an issue as that's what pushed Krushchev out and I'm not sure Brezhnev would have been willing to take the chance.

Randy
 
And keep in mind that the Anti-War Movement of the 60s and early 70s was very much by the end a very organized and 'professional' group that had been built up through experiance and trial. The moved on to become the core of the Anti-Nuclear Movement and brought the same organized and professional 'protest' system to play there as well.
As far as political activism, in my experience, slightly understating my case seems to be the coin of the realm. It’s also part of respectfully making an offer and overture to a real conversation, rather than trying to do a one-way download of information.

And then, an activist group can have all the same problems and issues as any other group.
 
Last edited:
As far as political activism, in my experience, slightly understating my case seems to be the coin of the realm. It’s also part of respectfully making an offer and overture to a real conversation, rather than trying to do a one-way download of information.

And then, an activist group can have all the same problems and issues as any other group.
Your method usually has better long-term results but the other method tends to get peoples (and the media's ) attention better which can have a more near-term effect :)

ANY group has dynamics and internal-conflict all the time. It's when and for what that these can be surpressed or laid aside for the 'greater' cause when thing normally get done. Does not at all mean the 'conflicts' are resolved in any way of course :)

Randy
 
Your method usually has better long-term results but the other method tends to get peoples (and the media's ) attention better which can have a more near-term effect :)
Yes, I think the media would much rather have someone who yanks one’s chain, so to speak, than someone who gives a reasoned argument.

A lot of issues, no question, such as Facebook being played by Cambridge Analylica like a cheap fiddle!, and the company only making pretty modest reforms in response. I want to face that.

But at time, I want to talk about what’s going in our favor. For example, we may not be that far from having a model of both citizen journalists and professional journalists, at least in some areas.
 
I think ITTL if Law and Order is less of an issue, Nixon probably doesn’t stage a comeback. My assumption is the 68 nominee is either Romney or Rockefeller, and I tend to think Romney would be more popular with conservatives here than IOTL, and definitely more so than a Rockefeller minus his strength on law and order that he had IOTL. Maybe Romney picks John Tower as his VP against a Humphrey/Harris ticket?
 
I think ITTL if Law and Order is less of an issue, Nixon probably doesn’t stage a comeback. My assumption is the 68 nominee is either Romney or Rockefeller, and I tend to think Romney would be more popular with conservatives here than IOTL, and definitely more so than a Rockefeller minus his strength on law and order that he had IOTL. Maybe Romney picks John Tower as his VP against a Humphrey/Harris ticket?
If Romney the elder becomes PM, how would Mitt's career go?
 
If Romney the elder becomes PM, how would Mitt's career go?
wrong country, lol.

I think honestly it wouldn’t be too different from OTL, he probably serves as a moderate governor of a state like MI or MA, and he would have even more support for President when he runs. Early thought is the following:
George Romney (R-MI), 1969-1977
Scoop Jackson (D-WA), 1977-1980
Walter Mondale (D-MN), 1980-1981
George HW Bush (R-TX), 1981-1989
Michael Dukakis (D-MA), 1989-1993
Mitt Romney (R-MA), 1993-2001
Tom Delay (R-TX), 2001-2005
Al Gore (D-TN), 2005-2009
John McCain (R-AZ), 2009-2016
Eric Cantor (R-VA), 2016-Present

A lot of butterflies were killed here
 
. . . Imagine the riots with no civil/voting rights act, vietnam going on.
Just to be clear, I’m envisioning a slightly later but much better Civil Rights sequence.


OTL —
1964 Civil Rights Act​
1965 Voting Rights Act​


ATL —
1965 Voting Rights Act​
1966 Civil Rights Act​
Plus, we get affirmative action during the still growing economy of the 1960s. And, we successfully bring about equal school funding per student, even though locales still largely pick content and curriculum.​

———

All the same, I welcome dancing and competing possibilities within the same thread! :)
 
If you want civil rights you can't have a live Kennedy. HHH or Johnson in 1960 could have done it. JFK? Well, we only got it because of oswald.
 
On the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
Came across two articles above that says LBJ's role with pushing civil rights in 1964 "was a myth". But to anyone who thinks JFK would have passed it successfully as per OTL, this might support your view. On the other hand, JFK managed to push through the Partial Test Ban Treaty a few months before his death (around September '63?) despite the odds heavily against it in the first place. That might have been a sign that he was already getting the hang of working with Congress, so Civil Rights may have still passed with Kennedy as per OTL.

Meanwhile, there are other possibilities of what may have happened in JFK lived...
1. "After John F. Kennedy's death derailed a planned presidential visit to Jakarta and relations worsened with the Johnson administration, Sukarno strengthened alliances with communist countries and employed anti-American rhetoric in 1964."
Maybe Kennedy would have found some way to have better relations with Indonesia and Sukarno before his overthrow beginning in the September 1965 coup attempt and the subsequent communist purge in Indonesia.

2. "Nikita Khrushchev had initially supported North Vietnam out of "fraternal solidarity", but as the war escalated he had urged the North Vietnamese leadership to give up the quest of liberating South Vietnam. He continued by rejecting an offer of assistance made by the North Vietnamese government, and instead told them to enter negotiations in the United Nations Security Council.[84] After Khrushchev's ousting, Brezhnev resumed aiding the communist resistance in Vietnam. "

If say Kennedy held another summit with Khrushchev, both of them could have come to an understanding and agreement with the North Vietnam issue (and thus resolving the Vietnam dilemma), in addition to the joint moon mission between the US and USSR.

But that would mean such questions would have to be asked:
1. What happens to Khrushchev: would Khrushchev still be ousted by Brezhnev as per OTL? What are the odds that he remains in place beyond October 1964?
2. What will Kennedy prioritise in election year 1964: Civil rights or international relations? e.g. Will Kennedy focus on another summit with Khrushchev, or continue his push for Civil Rights? A question worth asking. For example, Nixon made his landmark visits to Moscow and Beijing in an election year, around March and May 1972.

If Kennedy does a summit in the first half of 1964, will civil rights be passed like in June 1964?
 
Last edited:
"After John F. Kennedy's death derailed a planned presidential visit to Jakarta and relations worsened with the Johnson administration, Sukarno strengthened alliances with communist countries and employed anti-American rhetoric in 1964."
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/the-indonesia-documents-and-the-us-agenda/543534/Maybe Kennedy would have found some way to have better relations with Indonesia and Sukarno before his overthrow beginning in the September 1965 coup attempt and the subsequent communist purge in Indonesia.
I don't know. People forget that in the 1960s Britain was involved with its own Vietnam-esque conflict against the Indonesians. I don't see that going away even if Kennedy lives. I think we'd likely still see a coup of some sort of attempt to get rid of Sukarno. I don't see Kennedy favoring closer relations with Indonesia at the expense of the America's relationship with Britain. We'd learned our lesson from Suez. The coup might not be as bloody, (I don't see Kennedy supporting the same CIA-sanctioned genocide that Johnson did) but it will still happen.

If the coup doesn't happen, then the Malaysian Confrontation might go full-hilt, with a Royal Navy carrier group deployed to the region and more RAF assets to force the Indonesians into submission (all of this likely bankrolled by the US).

But that would mean such questions would have to be asked:
1. Will Khrushchev not be ousted by Brezhnev? What are the odds that he remains in place beyond October 1964?
2. What will Kennedy prioritise in election year 1964: Civil rights or international relations? A question worth asking. For example, Nixon made his landmark visits to Moscow and Beijing in an election year 1972. But the civil rights battle was taking place and climaxing in June 1964.
1. Khrushchev was going to be toppled. The Missile Crisis was the death-knell of his premiership, not Kennedy's assassination. Soviet hardliners said that he'd "shit his pants" by caving to "American aggression." He was out.
2. Kennedy was a foreign policy president (like Nixon and H.W. Bush.) He was not overly interested in domestic affairs. I think his campaign would primarily be ran on the fact that he'd kept the peace and held the line against the Russians. He'd also be helped by the fact that his opponent would be Goldwater, whose advocacy of using tactical nukes in Vietnam would play very badly against the President who just presided over (narrowly) averting an atomic holocaust. That said the election of 1964 would be much cleaner than OTL. No Daisy ads for sure. Kennedy and Goldwater were actually friends IOTL. They'd probably leave the negative ads to their surrogates and focus on their platforms and accomplishments.

I think ITTL if Law and Order is less of an issue, Nixon probably doesn’t stage a comeback. My assumption is the 68 nominee is either Romney or Rockefeller, and I tend to think Romney would be more popular with conservatives here than IOTL, and definitely more so than a Rockefeller minus his strength on law and order that he had IOTL. Maybe Romney picks John Tower as his VP against a Humphrey/Harris ticket?
I'm going to disagree with you on this. Law and order being an issue in the 1968 election was kind of inevitable.

If @interpoltomo is correct in her assertion that CRA and VRA will fail (I personally disagree but I respect her opinion), then we'd be seeing mass unrest amongst black Americans across the country. There are two scenarios in my mind that happen if CRA and VRA fail to go through. Scenario one is that we see a mass exodus of blacks from to the South to Northern and Western cities so that they can have political and economic opportunities (this will lead to backlash amongst urban white ethnics who will likely flee to the suburbs in droves. Racial relations in the North will take a big hit). The South will be "lily white" but it will also be deprived of millions of workers and will take a big hit economically and in terms of its political power (population = electoral college/congressional seats). Scenario two is that we see something like a Northern Ireland situation in the American South. Radical white and black factions blowing each other up indiscriminately with the U.S. Army being sent in to maintain order. Both are very shitty situations.

Even if both the CRA and VRA pass, the Watts and Newark riots still happened IOTL after both were passed. The racial violence of the late Sixties was sparked by the Civil Rights movement failing to bring about the change expected by American blacks. When this didn't come about, disillusionment grew and the riots occurred. We might avoid the MLK Jr. riots of 1968 but there will still be race riots and there will still be an appeal to be made to whites afraid of "ghetto rebellions." As well, with a smaller War on Poverty (i.e. Medicare will still go through but no new government programs to combat poverty) then you will also see more poverty in black communities and more feelings of neglect and anger.

In addition to this, the counterculture, while different ITTL, will still be happening and there will be some backlash from people worried about the teens getting addicted to "sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll," regardless of the form the counterculture takes. Whilst Kennedy's surviving at Dallas will lead to a calmer Sixties, that doesn't necessarily mean the Sixties will be calm.

As for your thoughts on the Republican nominee, I think that it would still be Nixon if for no other reason than he was the only Republican who could unite both wings of the party. Both Romney and Rockefeller were solidly in the dying Rockefeller wing of the party. Reagan, on the other hand, was in the Goldwater wing that would've been recently discredited after their namesake got electorally bitchsmacked by Kennedy in 1964. Nixon was a moderate Republican who could appeal to both the Goldwater and Rockefeller wings of the party without really alienating anyone. He was also just a better political operator than Romney and Rockefeller (Reagan was more charismatic then Nixon but nowhere near as intelligent (and I'm not saying Reagan was dumb, I'm just saying Nixon was literally a genius)). I think Nixon's campaign would be ran on ending the Vietnam War on America's terms (more like Ike in Korea then Nixon's OTL Peace with Honour) and on law and order.
 
Last edited:
I don't know. People forget that in the 1960s Britain was involved with its own Vietnam-esque conflict against the Indonesians. I don't see that going away even if Kennedy lives. I think we'd likely still see a coup of some sort of attempt to get rid of Sukarno. I don't see Kennedy favoring closer relations with Indonesia at the expense of the America's relationship with Britain. We'd learned our lesson from Suez. The coup might not be as bloody, (I don't see Kennedy supporting the same CIA-sanctioned genocide that Johnson did) but it will still happen.

If the coup doesn't happen, then the Malaysian Confrontation might go full-hilt, with a Royal Navy carrier group deployed to the region and more RAF assets to force the Indonesians into submission (all of this likely bankrolled by the US).

I have found a State Department cable discussing a possible visit to Indonesia by JFK, for purposes of discussion and thought...it is dated on November 19, 1963, 3 days before Kennedy's death...

"Request assurances from Sukarno of (a) willingness to settle the Malaysian dispute peacefully and engage in tripartite discussions for that purpose, and (b) agreement to withdraw his military forces from the Kalimantan border (except such as could be regarded as reasonable for defensive purposes) and to cease active support of guerrilla actions in Malaysian territory.

In return for this, the U.S. Government would (a) use its influence to bring about a tripartite meeting to settle the Malaysian dispute and restore normal relations between the nations concerned, (b) assuming a settlement is reached, resuscitate the multilateral program for aid to the stabilization of the Indonesian economy, (c) in connection with b provide up to 150,000 tons of rice to Indonesia, (d) plan for a visit of the President as soon as practicable.

"The President inquired what Sukarno would accept by way of a settlement. Ambassador Jones replied that no one knew what formula the three Asian leaders could agree upon, that the limits of the politically possible within each nation and the outlines of a viable solution could only be determined by discussion among representatives of the nations concerned. The thing was to get them talking to each other again.
However, he suggested there were various possibilities that might meet the situation, particularly when all concerned had everything to gain and nothing to lose. One possibility was to follow the West Irian precedent. Tunku Abdul Rahman might suggest that he hold a plebiscite in Borneo after five or six years to determine whether the people wanted to remain in Malaysia. The Indonesians could hardly turn this down. It would have the virtue of saving Sukarno’s face without giving him a victory."

"The President indicated agreement with the general line of reasoning and approach. He said he would be willing to go to Indonesia if a political settlement were obtained. In response to a question by Assistant Secretary Hilsman, he said he was thinking about April or May. The President thought he could be gone a total of 16 days.

1. Khrushchev was going to be toppled. The Missile Crisis was the death-knell of his premiership, not Kennedy's assassination. Soviet hardliners said that he'd "shit his pants" by caving to "American aggression." He was out.
2. Kennedy was a foreign policy president (like Nixon and H.W. Bush.) He was not overly interested in domestic affairs. I think his campaign would primarily be ran on the fact that he'd kept the peace and held the line against the Russians. He'd also be helped by the fact that is opponent would be Goldwater, whose advocacy of using nuclear weapons would play very badly against the President who just presided over (narrowly) averting an atomic exchange. That said the election of 1964 would be much cleaner than OTL. No Daisy ads. Kennedy and Goldwater were actually friends IOTL. They'd probably leave the negative ads to their surrogates and focus on platforms and accomplishments.
I would agree with both points. In addition Khrushchev's son Sergei, who now lives in the U.S. recounted that his dad was out of depth and overly confident that he would defeat any plot against him especially in the last days before he was ousted despite prior warnings.
 
Last edited:
I have found a State Department cable discussing a possible visit to Indonesia by JFK, for purposes of discussion and thought...it is dated on November 19, 1963, 3 days before Kennedy's death...

"Request assurances from Sukarno of (a) willingness to settle the Malaysian dispute peacefully and engage in tripartite discussions for that purpose, and (b) agreement to withdraw his military forces from the Kalimantan border (except such as could be regarded as reasonable for defensive purposes) and to cease active support of guerrilla actions in Malaysian territory.

In return for this, the U.S. Government would (a) use its influence to bring about a tripartite meeting to settle the Malaysian dispute and restore normal relations between the nations concerned, (b) assuming a settlement is reached, resuscitate the multilateral program for aid to the stabilization of the Indonesian economy, (c) in connection with b provide up to 150,000 tons of rice to Indonesia, (d) plan for a visit of the President as soon as practicable.

"The President inquired what Sukarno would accept by way of a settlement. Ambassador Jones replied that no one knew what formula the three Asian leaders could agree upon, that the limits of the politically possible within each nation and the outlines of a viable solution could only be determined by discussion among representatives of the nations concerned. The thing was to get them talking to each other again.
However, he suggested there were various possibilities that might meet the situation, particularly when all concerned had everything to gain and nothing to lose. One possibility was to follow the West Irian precedent. Tunku Abdul Rahman might suggest that he hold a plebiscite in Borneo after five or six years to determine whether the people wanted to remain in Malaysia. The Indonesians could hardly turn this down. It would have the virtue of saving Sukarno’s face without giving him a victory."

"The President indicated agreement with the general line of reasoning and approach. He said he would be willing to go to Indonesia if a political settlement were obtained. In response to a question by Assistant Secretary Hilsman, he said he was thinking about April or May. The President thought he could be gone a total of 16 days.
Very interesting...

If Kennedy could do this, he'd end the Malaysian Confrontation a year or two earlier then IOTL. I suppose it all comes down as to whether or not Sukarno would accept the terms (he was not the most rational leader). It would also depend on what assurances Sukarno could give Kennedy on containing the Communist Party of Indonesia (third largest Communist Party in the world during this time).
 
Very interesting...

If Kennedy could do this, he'd end the Malaysian Confrontation a year or two earlier then IOTL. I suppose it all comes down as to whether or not Sukarno would accept the terms (he was not the most rational leader). It would also depend on what assurances Sukarno could give Kennedy on containing the Communist Party of Indonesia (third largest Communist Party in the world during this time).
It is the uncertainty of whether Sukarno upholds his end of the bargain given his volatile personality, which makes it even more uncertain if Confrontation ends early indeed (if JFK lived).
 
If you want civil rights you can't have a live Kennedy. . .
. . . Came across two articles above that says LBJ's role with pushing civil rights in 1964 "was a myth". But to anyone who thinks JFK would have passed it successfully as per OTL, this might support your view. . .

EA4E0730-22F4-45A9-8DCC-3DB5F55AE9BA.jpeg

Ride the race car that is Selma.

Yes, substantial fractions do not know in response to the question. All the same, a reasonable chance for a skilled politician to win.
 
D71E2090-3871-4A64-982C-11B465F8DC34.png

F40EF173-96D0-4489-AE05-45EBDF814476.png


Look at the percentage of uncertain persons: 31%, 30%, 35%, etc.

Garrow is saying, some people just didn’t follow the news. And then he’s basically saying that people tend to be against protestors, unless the government is really clearly the bad guys.

On the first point, when South Vietnam fell to the North in April 1975 and I was 12 years old, I don’t remember a single adult in my life saying one word about it. I was involved in both Boy Scouts and judo club, and not one adult said anything.

Meaning, something generally has to be pretty high relief to get attention, and even then, it’s not a sure thing.
 
This is clever alternate history in which Kennedy survives an assassination attempt. But then has to fight for his presidency during the second term as a result of affairs, and especially cover-up of same, including destroying Oval Office audio tapes.

* I personally have Lee Harvey Oswald not becoming an assassin at all.

Open Timeline: Feel free to jump in. Please share some of your favorite ideas 🕵️‍♀️, and if it comes down to it, I enjoy multiple possibilities dancing within the same thread. :cool:
You also forgot about the lies about his medical condition also being exposed too.
 
Indeed. I also think this would have a BIG effect on the counterculture of the 1960s. Hippies rode the anti-war movement to prominence IOTL. In a TL where Vietnam was less prominent, I don't think the hippies would be as noticeable. Don't get me wrong, they'd still be there, hippy culture evolved out of the beatniks of the Fifties, but it'd be much smaller and much more confined. I think sexual mores and fashion going into the Seventies would be much more conservative. It'd probably be something along the lines of what happened in England IOTL. Change IS happening, but the establishment is definitely still in control.
So, as a result, I wonder if we still see disco in the 70's (which came out of the gay community after the Stonewall Riots in 69).
 
Top