criterionforum.org

Virtual JFK: Vietnam If Kennedy Had Lived

VIRTUAL JFK investigates one of the most debated "what if" scenarios in the history of U.S. foreign policy: What would President John F. Kennedy have done in Vietnam if he had not been assassinated in 1963, and had he been re-elected in 1964? The film employs what Harvard historian Niall Ferguson calls "virtual history," assessing the plausibility of counterfactuals - "what ifs" - and the outcomes they might have produced. The heart of the film deals with the question: Does it matter who is president on issues of war and peace?

This is showing in NYC (Film Forum) next week and I am debating whether to see it or not. I am a student of history, and one of the most worthless debates/arguments to engage in are those that deal with counterfactuals and historical conjecture and what-ifs. The only reason I am entertaining the notion of seeing this is because many speculate that JFK was killed because he didn't want the war in Vietnam and would have ended it in his second term. If one even recognizes this as a possibility as the reasoning behind his death, it assumes that there was "historical" guesswork (then: prediction) being done, and that there might have been enough evidence at the time to point to this assertion. That is why I feel this documentary of historical guesswork might not be 100% BS.

Anyone else interested in this film?

As I tried to infer above, if not successfully, I can completely understand why someone would not have any interest in this, as I agree historical what-ifs are useless.

aox wrote:The only reason I am entertaining the notion of seeing this is because Oliver Stone speculated that JFK was killed because he didn't want the war in Vietnam and would have ended it in his second term.

Fixed!

tavernier wrote:

aox wrote:The only reason I am entertaining the notion of seeing this is because Oliver Stone speculated that JFK was killed because he didn't want the war in Vietnam and would have ended it in his second term.

Fixed!

You give Oliver Stone far too much credit, and his speculation was hardly original in regards to him.

I assume the film is in Russian with English subtitles.

Barmy, did you get your free Obama button? (Those banner ads!)

No. My banner ad is FilipinaHeart.com. \:D/

aox wrote:...because many speculate that JFK was killed because he didn't want the war in Vietnam and would have ended it in his second term...

Politicians always want war, that's their business.

MyNameCriterionForum wrote:

aox wrote:...because many speculate that JFK was killed because he didn't want the war in Vietnam and would have ended it in his second term...

Politicians always want war, that's their business.

Whether that is true or not, that in no way tackles anything I said.

Point taken.

Have you read Philip K. Dick's The Man in the High Castle?

no, I haven't. Do you recommend it?

aox wrote:no, I haven't. Do you recommend it?

I will second his incoming recommendation. It's a fascinating re-write of history: what if the nazis and japanese had won ww2?

Anything like It Happened Here?

colinr0380 wrote:Anything like It Happened Here?

Interesting, I'd never heard of this! Have you seen it? I suppose it's in the same vein, but MITHC is just as much about the Japanese infiltration of the american culture than the Germans'...in my opinion.

I can completely understand why someone would not have any interest in this, as I agree historical what-ifs are useless

Useless as any kind of scholarly work, yes-but pretty cool nontheless. Alternate history is obviously fiction, so you can enjoy it as you would any other fictional narrative. and if it acts as a stepping stone to an informed, intelligent debate on actual historical matters, all the better. I'm interested in the film. you should see it![/i]

LQ wrote:

colinr0380 wrote:Anything like It Happened Here?

Interesting, I'd never heard of this! Have you seen it? I suppose it's in the same vein, but MITHC is just as much about the Japanese infiltration of the american culture than the Germans'...in my opinion.

It sounds interesting, I've picked up a few of Phillip K. Dick's books but am still immersed in Ballard at the moment - hopefully soon I'll get to him!

Yes, It Happened Here is a very good film (newsreel footage of Nazis visiting the Eiffel Tower and marching past Big Ben!), sort of in the same docu-drama style of Peter Watkins' War Game with more of an emphasis on the drama element. While I would often share the same skepticism about 'what if' films, this one is a honourable exception.

Brownlow of course went on to write about, restore and champion silent films.

I'm decidely not a student of history in general, or WW2 in particular, but Dick's Man in the High Castle is a great book -- somewhat unusual, though, related to his others. Of course, I'm a "Dick-head" so I'm biased in favor of his stuff. Would be interested to know what historians think of the book.

Incidentally, I just discovered that Kennedy, C. S. Lewis and Aldous Huxley all died on the same day. Huh!

colinr0380 wrote:I've picked up a few of Phillip K. Dick's books but am still immersed in Ballard at the moment - hopefully soon I'll get to him!

Well, if you've read any of the Dick stuff you picked up, you'll know he's very poor writer, but his ideas are pretty amazing. Ballard is much more eloquent and measured. Both lived very fascinating lives that bled into their works.

I share aox's hesitations about the historical value of counterfactuals (although they can be great for literature), but I think this "controversy" is about something that's not really a counterfactual and that does merit discussion: the question of whether JFK's views on U.S. involvement in Vietnam changed drastically before his death. Posing it as a "what-if" is just a more provocative way of raising this question, as far as I can tell. It seems from that title that they're trying hard to make this appear really interesting so maybe they can reach an audience a little bigger than just historians and History Channel viewers.
The reason I put the word controversy in quotation marks above is that there is really no serious case that JFK had plans to pull the US out of Vietnam. The internal record up until just days before the assassination shows without a doubt that he continued to support U.S. intervention. The main thing fueling rumors to the contrary has been Schlesinger's crusade to make JFK look better in retrospect by distorting the evidence of Kennedy's position. The topic stayed alive (as long as it has?) because there are a lot of people determined to keep discussing various explanations for the assassination from now until the end of time.
I probably wouldn't go out of my way to see this, but it will be interesting to find out how they present the facts.