U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-08-2018, 08:19 PM
 
445 posts, read 672,810 times
Reputation: 629

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by SunGrins View Post
He’d be 101 years old now. But, had he lived he would probably have been re-elected in ‘64. I wonder if LBJ would have remained on the ticket.
Which doesn't seem a lot. Wow he was young. I mean trump is 70 now and to think JFK would be only a generation older even today is strange. I just Googled and even Herbert Hoover outlived JFK by months and he was born in 1870s
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-08-2018, 08:31 PM
 
445 posts, read 672,810 times
Reputation: 629
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
He'd have easily been reelected. The economy was good and he was well liked by the public. Vietnam was going on, but was just a blip on the horizon in 1963. JFK was a decent president, but he had the good fortune to be regarded as a better president than he actually was. When Johnson ran against Goldwater in 1964, he didn't beat him, he crushed him. The vote tally was something on the order of 61% to 38%. In 1964, the democrats were almost destined to win the presidency.
I am from India. Always had a fascination with American history and seek new authors to read on their Presidents. I think Arthur Schleisinger(spell?) is one of the finest. I also thoroughly enjoyed Robert Dallek s An unfinished Life on president Kennedy.

I have a question for you : In the book and upon looking online I see that Kennedy is often rated somewhere in the middle but on the higher side among the presidential rankings and above average in historian rankings- why is that?
I mean why not great? It was only 1000 days, where did he go wrong to hover around 20-25 instead of say the top 10.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2018, 08:59 PM
 
5,767 posts, read 6,506,531 times
Reputation: 5044
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunGrins View Post
He’d be 101 years old now. But, had he lived he would probably have been re-elected in ‘64. I wonder if LBJ would have remained on the ticket.
Bobby and Jack both hated Johnson, but they needed the South.

Jack Kennedy had tremendous charisma and he was an eloquent speaker. And Jackie was actually a wonderful asset.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2018, 09:22 PM
 
Location: San Diego CA
3,892 posts, read 2,934,486 times
Reputation: 6160
But what if the Mimi Alford relationship was made public. Jack would have been in some hot water I think.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2018, 09:30 PM
 
Location: Ohio
18,135 posts, read 13,321,611 times
Reputation: 14003
Quote:
Originally Posted by rishi85 View Post
if he wasn't assassinated.
No, he would have lost the 1964 Election, or lost in the primaries to other Democrat candidates.

Most people have a distorted and factually incorrect view of the so-called Cuban Missile Crisis.

It was Eisenhower who originally authorized the deployment of the Jupiter Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles to Italy and Turkey (and the Matador non-ballistic missile system to the United Kingdom).

However, when Castro, who had been hailed as a hero by Eisenhower and given the Grand Tour of the US, began to act in unexpected ways, Eisenhower immediately ordered a halt to the deployment, until the situation with Castro could be dealt with properly.

After the 1960 Election, starting with the transition process and continuing for the first half of 1961, Eisenhower repeatedly warned JFK not to deploy the Jupiter missiles until the situation with Castro had been resolved.

It is a fact that Eisenhower wrote JFK three hand-written letters in 1961, and called JFK twice to warn him. You can read copies of the hand-written letters at the Eisenhower Library in Abilene, Kansas.

JFK ignored Eisenhower and deployed the Jupiter missiles anyway. It was an overtly aggressive act on the part of the US against the Soviet Union, and the East Bloc States.

Soviet nuclear weapons policy was virtually identical to that of the US, calling for a quid pro quo response.

That means if the US uses a tactical nuclear weapon, the Soviets respond in-kind with a tactical nuclear weapon. If the US uses a short-range ballistic nuclear weapon, the Soviets respond in-kind with the launch of a short-range ballistic missile. If the US launches an intermediate range nuclear missile, the Soviets respond in-kind with...

....nothing.

The Soviets had no intermediate range ballistic missiles to respond. The Soviets could only escalate with the launch of an ICBM, which would be unthinkable and counter to Soviet policy.

The only way the Soviets could launch an intermediate range missile is if they controlled Canada, Mexico, or Cuba.

Of those three, which do you think was easier for the Soviets to gain control over?

It's a no-brainer. Hell, I had 18 and 19 year old kids in the Intro to US Foreign Policy classes I taught, who had no military experience and were clueless about military strategy get it right, so how dumb was JFK?

The US and Soviets had an unofficial policy: The East Bloc was the Soviet's backyard and Central America and the Caribbean were the US back-yard, and you don't play or interfere in someone else's backyard.

That fact, and the fact that Khrushchev thought Castro was a dead-man-walking is the reason Khrushchev ignored Castro.

The Soviets did not invite Castro to the Soviet Union, rather Castro invited himself, and when his plane landed, Castro was met on the tarmac by an administrative assistant to one of the under-secretaries in the Soviet's version of the State Department.

That is called a "diplomatic insult" and it's purpose is clear: You're not welcome here, so GTFO.

What made Khrushchev change his mind later?

The idiot JFK.

The Cuban invasion would have worked, if JFK had not totally and completely mucked it up.

The Bay of Pigs was not the original landing site. The original landing site was on the east coast of Cuba at a port near and airfield and communications facility. If JFK had not interfered and mucked it up, it would have been successful.

The original plan called for 80 sorties by US bombers flown by pilots from Nicaragua, Honduras and Guatemala. The purpose of the sorties was to destroy Cuban airfields and aircraft, and key communications and headquarters installations.

JFK stupidly cut the sorties in half.

Then JFK reduced that to 36 sorties, then 24 sorties, then 20 sorties, then 18 sorties and finally to just a mere 8 sorties.

Then JFK said that the sorties can originate from airfields in Central America, but that all additional sorties must originate from within Cuba.

You now have two criteria that must be met: you must find a place large enough for bombers to land and take-off, and be close enough to the shore so that bombs and aviation fuel can be quickly off-loaded from ships and moved to the airfield so that the bombers can be re-armed and re-fueled.

There's only one place in Cuba that meets those two criteria, and that was the Bay of Pigs.

And all this coming from a man who served as an officer in the US Navy and knows personally how vulnerable ships are to aircraft, because during WW II, JFK's little PT-boat was attacked and strafed on several different occasions by Betty and Kate bombers.

The 8 sorties were not enough to seriously damage Cuban airfields, and Cuban aircraft attacked the ships damaging or sinking them which doomed the invasion.

As if that wasn't enough, JFK mucked up again when he stated publicly on TV that the US would never again attempt to invade Cuba.

That's when Khrushchev warmed up to Castro.

If Khrushchev can convince Castro to allow the Soviets to put intermediate range ballistic missiles in Cuba, then the Soviets are now in a Win-Win situation.

1) The Soviets have parity and can respond to the US launch of intermediate range missile with one of their own, instead of not responding or being forced to escalate to ICBMs.

Soviets win.

2) The Soviets force JKF and US Allies to make concessions and quit Berlin.

Soviets win.

3) The Soviets force JFK to withdraw the Jupiter missiles in exchange for the withdraw of the Soviet SS-4 and SS-5 intermediate range missiles. Parity is restored.

Soviets win.

To keep the US in the dark, the Soviets routed all classified messages in parts through other diplomatic missions.

A message might contain 7 words, so one word was encoded in routine communications, then routed from the Soviet embassy in Cuba to the Soviet embassy in Argentina, then to the Soviet embassy in Egypt, then to the Soviet embassy in India and on to the Kremlin, like that.

When the seven different messages arrived from different Soviet embassies around the world, the message was reassembled and decoded. Hiding messages in routine embassy communications traffic is time-consuming, and the Soviets were always a week behind regarding the progress of the missile installations in Cuba.

That's what led to Khrushchev's blunder at the UN.

According to the Soviet's time-table, there should have been no way a US U-2 would have been able to detect anything unusual, but the Soviet commander in Cuba was two weeks ahead of schedule, and the Soviet's were a week or more behind on communications, so Khrushchev didn't know they were ahead of schedule and now visible to aerial surveillance.

JFK points to turning back Soviet ships as the highlight, but that's a hollow victory.

When the US deployed the Pershing II and BGM-109 missile systems to Europe, the transport vehicles were sent by ship, but the actual missile components and the nuclear warheads were flown by aircraft.

If the US wanted, it could have flown the transport vehicles, too, but that would have been more costly.

So, the fact that the Soviet ships turned back is meaningless.

It was actually JFK who blinked and caved in.

It was JFK who agreed to withdraw the Jupiter missiles in exchange for the Soviet withdraw of SS-4s and SS-5s, not Khrushchev.

Not only did JFK blink first, he totally agreed to the Soviet time-table, which is was that the US would withdraw all Jupiters from Italy and Turkey, before the Soviets withdrew even one missile from Cuba.

On the day of the 1964 Election, all US Jupiters had been withdrawn, but the Soviets still had SS-4s and SS-5s in Cuba, and the last one wasn't withdrawn until August 1967, nearly 3 years after the 1964 Election.

A US newspaper journalist --I can never remember his name, either Walter Lipps or Walter Lippman -- was going to break the story and let the American people know that JFK caved-in and offered to withdraw US missiles in exchange for the withdraw of Soviet missiles, but RFK pressured him not to do that, because of the political damage to the Kennedy Administration.

That wasn't the first time RFK intervened in the Media. JFK was involved in the British Politician Sex Scandal, and I believe it was the New York Post that broke the story. Unfortunately, the Post stated "the highest ranking official in the US" instead of identifying JFK by name. RFK threatened the editors and their families with bodily harm if they continued to report on it, and that was the end of that.

RFK didn't have to threaten Walter, because he was sympathetic to the Kennedy Administration.

The Republicans, on the other hand, were fully aware and would not have sat on it. It would have come out in the Media, and it would have been specifically addressed in the Presidential Debates where the Republican challenger would have told the American people that JFK caved-in and backed down, and screwed up the Bay of Pigs, and was asleep at the wheel when the Wall went up in Berlin.

From the Democrat's standpoint, if JFK resigns, and he could easily have resigned citing health reasons and no one would have ever questioned that, then LBJ becomes President with a clean slate and he has a real shot at winning in 1964.

In January 1963, I know JFK was visited at home by several officials from the Democratic Party, including at least one member of Congress. I think one of them was Congressman Haley or Senator Holland, both of Florida. I'm sure they asked him to resign, and being the arrogant ass-clown jack-ass he was, he refused.

That is what led to his assassination.

If I can go to the JFK Library next Summer, I should be able to identify who they are, and they are the principals in the conspiracy to assassinate him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2018, 09:30 PM
 
5,767 posts, read 6,506,531 times
Reputation: 5044
Quote:
Originally Posted by msgsing View Post
But what if the Mimi Alford relationship was made public. Jack would have been in some hot water to say the least.
There was Marilyn Monroe also. But the press was much different in those days.

Reporters were never allowed to take photos of Franklin Roosevelt in his wheelchair. Many citizens had no idea that he couldn’t walk.

I almost yearn for those days. At least there always a semblance of dignity and civility.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2018, 09:31 PM
 
6,331 posts, read 8,681,268 times
Reputation: 2692
I don't think Kennedy would have run for a second term. Kennedy had some bad health problems that would have affected his political career.


Quote:
Kennedy suffered from colitis, prostatitis, and a disorder called Addison's disease, which affects the body's ability to regulate blood sugar and sodium. He also had osteoporosis of the lower back, causing pain so severe that he was unable to perform simple tasks such as reaching across his desk to pull papers forward, or pulling the shoe and sock onto his left foot, Dallek said.

Taking Drugs During Crises

To fight the pain, Kennedy took as many as 12 medications at once, taking more during times of stress.

JFK Took Many Drugs for Secret Health Problems - ABC News

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2018, 09:42 PM
 
788 posts, read 301,752 times
Reputation: 1371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
No, he would have lost the 1964 Election, or lost in the primaries to other Democrat candidates.
...
If I can go to the JFK Library next Summer, I should be able to identify who they are, and they are the principals in the conspiracy to assassinate him.

Wow! Thanks for the education.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2018, 09:51 PM
 
445 posts, read 672,810 times
Reputation: 629
Quote:
Originally Posted by staywarm2 View Post
There was Marilyn Monroe also. But the press was much different in those days.

Reporters were never allowed to take photos of Franklin Roosevelt in his wheelchair. Many citizens had no idea that he couldn’t walk.

I almost yearn for those days. At least there always a semblance of dignity and civility.
Jack Kennedy himself was in a terrible shape pretty much all life, which makes me appreciate his stoic resolve just as a human being. Dalek states in the book that had Kennedy s health files been known to public he'd never get elected.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2018, 09:53 PM
 
445 posts, read 672,810 times
Reputation: 629
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacInTx View Post
Wow! Thanks for the education.
Yeah I agree. Wow that was a lot. It'll take me a few hours here at work to sit and read. I found this fascinating article.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...d-term/302734/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top