I think this is a bit of a rewrite actually.
The change came as objections to the Vietnam War took shape. Guys like McGovern capitalized on the unrest, reached out to the Marxist element among the movement, and then the rest is history.
One could argue Kennedy would have executed the war better, or not gotten involved deeper. In that regard perhaps his death did change things. We can’t be sure of that.
We can be sure what the real dynamic was that caused change, and in my opinion the Russian efforts to sew unrest in Europe and the U. S. was masterful, and a success.
Many a young person was turned in the manner Hillary Clinton was.
I agree with that. What I've learned in the past 12 or so years about Active Measures utilized by Soviet Intelligence to ideologically subvert our culture make me wonder sometimes if perhaps our economic victory over the Soviet Union was not a phyrric victory. While our economic system and our technology triumphed over them, they managed to penetrate and influence (if not control) the "transmission belts" of our society. The more one learns about it, the more one sees it's effects and results everywhere.
Wasn’t there an executive order written (but not yet signed) on Kennedy’s desk to pull out of Viet Nam?
bttt
Agreed, although I will broaden the context slightly for the benefit of some others to include what I think is the important historical setting. The left was solidly in place during the 30’s, at least in the State Dept and it was sprinkled elsewhere throughout the federal government; those numbers of Soviet supporters grew substantially during WWII. By the early 60’s the left was well-positioned in Hollywood (McCarthy’s message had merit but was not effectively presented), and the left was well-represented in the MSM. After the thirty years ending 1960, the left was also solidly entrenched at the university faculty level (as it is even more so today).
My sense is that Kennedy’s death cleared the way for the simmering left to mobilize and launch into the public eye mere months (logistically speaking) after the assassination.
To your point, the actual trigger to hit the streets and thereafter saturate all forms of a willing and cooperative national press undoubtedly was Johnson’s initial expansion of our involvement in the Viet Nam war. Certainly Russia, who had an important principle at stake (it is said to have invested more of its GDP in the war than did the U.S.), thereupon intensified its involvement in, and support of, our raging civil turmoil - with evident eventual success.