An equal and much more accurate argument is if the "let’s call them the’ ultraprogressives of the mid 1960s had accepted Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae instead of sending out huge letter campaigns against it, doing political agitating (google the Berrigan brothers), and kept on trying to claim that the Church needed to/should ‘catch up with the world’ by having women priests, allowing contraception, allowing intercommunion, etc., in such a way that THEY were the ones actually rejecting the teachings of the Catholic Church, we would not have had the ‘free for all’ that happened.
And just how many people between 1970 and the age of the Internet (around 2000) even heard of Archbishop Lefevre as opposed to the millions who regularly heard from the Berrigans, and their bishops and priests who went way, way beyond what Vatican 2 actually taught, and were rather loud-mouthed in their rejection of the papal office when it came to Humanae Vitae?
By the time you’re at even 1995 (and the internet was still in its infancy and not available to most), you are a full generation from the conclusion of Vatican 2.
So all the people who were actually involved during the time that you’re speaking of had to work with word of mouth, TV, and print media.
And guess who had a lock on those? Not the traditionalists, that’s for sure.