What if JFK [i]wasn't[/i] assasinated?
- Thread starter MmmFiber
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I built one, then I burnt it!Trivun said:Are you telling me you've burnt down an orphanage? That's evil! I heartily approve, although I'm curious as to how you succeeded as I burnt them all down myself long ago. Even before Max arrived on the scene...Sparrow Tag said:
Mwhahaha!
Sparrow Tag said:I built one, then I burnt it!Trivun said:Are you telling me you've burnt down an orphanage? That's evil! I heartily approve, although I'm curious as to how you succeeded as I burnt them all down myself long ago. Even before Max arrived on the scene...Sparrow Tag said:
Mwhahaha!
You forgot to add orphans.
If ifs and butts were something nuts something something something, I can't remember how that saying goes.
Basicaly nobody will never know, and frankly, nobody really cares. History is fine just the way it is.
Basicaly nobody will never know, and frankly, nobody really cares. History is fine just the way it is.
http://www.amazon.com/UNAFRAID-Novel-Possible-Jeff-Golden/dp/0595471927/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242476418&sr=8-1
What the OP is describing is a pretty popular historical counterfactual. There've been a lot of books and articles theorizing about what would have happened in certain historical events if JFK had been president instead of Johnson or Nixon. So saying "nobody cares" is plain wrong.
Conterfactuals can be a very interesting way of posing new questions or theorizing around the motivations of players in certain events, but they can never give firm answers, much like all historical analysis.
What the OP is describing is a pretty popular historical counterfactual. There've been a lot of books and articles theorizing about what would have happened in certain historical events if JFK had been president instead of Johnson or Nixon. So saying "nobody cares" is plain wrong.
Conterfactuals can be a very interesting way of posing new questions or theorizing around the motivations of players in certain events, but they can never give firm answers, much like all historical analysis.
That's what makes thorough what if scenarios interesting, not because of their effect on one event, but because of their immense possible ripple-effect on all events tied to that event and every event leading up to or following that one event. But yeah, it might be a bit much for a forum thread.tommo8993 said:
He wouldn't be nearly as popular today as he is. Because he was assassinated, he was immediately turned into a hero by the press. The main reason he is considered a good president is because he wasn't in power long enough to screw up. If he hadn't been killed, he would have screwed up, and we would remember him much less fondly.
ummm no you must not know a lot about him and his presidency, he did do a LOT of stuff, including civil rights, started the apollo missions, the cuban missle crisis. it was a rather adventure filled presidencyAnachronism said:
i think he would have turned out much like Clinton did if he wasn't killed off
Fair point; my post wasn't worded very well. I realise that he was a good president, and did do a hell of a lot; his handling of the Cuban missile crisis arguably marked a significant turning point in the Cold War, because both powers began to truly realise what could happen if they resorted to nuclear war.cleverlymadeup said:
My point still stands, though, that if he had remained president and not been assassinated, he wouldn't have been turned into the hero that he is perceived as today.