From the Library of Congress: "According to Nikita Khrushchev's memoirs, in May 1962 he conceived the idea of placing intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Cuba as a means of countering an emerging lead of the United States in developing and deploying strategic missiles. He also presented the scheme as a means of protecting Cuba from another United States-sponsored invasion, such as the failed attempt at the Bay of Pigs in 1961.
"After obtaining Fidel Castro's approval, the Soviet Union worked quickly and secretly to build missile installations in Cuba. On October 16, President John Kennedy was shown reconnaissance photographs of Soviet missile installations under construction in Cuba. After seven days of guarded and intense debate in the United States administration, during which Soviet diplomats denied that installations for offensive missiles were being built in Cuba, President Kennedy, in a televised address on October 22, announced the discovery of the installations and proclaimed that any nuclear missile attack from Cuba would be regarded as an attack by the Soviet Union and would be responded to accordingly. He also imposed a naval quarantine on Cuba to prevent further Soviet shipments of offensive military weapons from arriving there."
You must post at least one comment about the letters that can be found at This Link. You may comment on the letters or comments left by others (or both). You may post more than once. This will be a graded exercise.
20 comments:
Wow, the telegrams were intense! And I actually understood everything that Khruschev was saying; it was simple and to the point. He speaks with authority but with logic, which makes him seem so approachable, and I find it interesting how he keeps telling Mr. President to put himself in his shoes with lines such as,
"...try to put yourself in our situation and consider how the USA
would react to such conditions. I have no doubt that if anyone
attempted to dictate similar conditions to you -- the USA, you
would reject such an attempt. And we likewise say -- no."
It actually seems like a good tactic since it makes the reader (in this case Mr. president) think about what they are doing or saying, and whether they are correct or not. Now that i read Khruschev's response, i want to read what the president originally wrote to him!
I agree with Ana about how understandable and logical Khruschev's telegrams are. I think it is also interesting how personal the telegrams are. Khruschev makes Kennedy seem personally responsible for the missile crisis. He tells Kennedy "I cannot agree to this, and I think that
deep inside, you will admit that I am right." To me, this sounds like something a parent would tell their child. It is personal not only to Kennedy as a president, but to Kennedy as a person. Questioning someone's inner self often makes the person in question question themselves, or at least take a closer look at their actions which is just what Khruschev wants Kennedy to do.
I agree woth tovia in saying that the telegrams were extremly personal. At one poit Khruschev points out that not all of Kennedy's motives are based on the US's situation with Cuba, but based on the upcoming election and that Kenedy is trying to use the crisis as a way to look like hero. which in the end he does. I also thought it was interesting the way that in Kennedy's letter he points that the soviets arent just angry about the quarantine, but about "much more serious matters" I think that Kennedy means that they Soviets are angry that the US has power to control them and keep them out of Cuba. Also I think that the fact that US was winning the nuclear power race was another "serious matter" that Kenedy was talking about.
I agree with what everyone has said so far regarding Khruschev's writing style. He makes a really good point. If any other country (especially the Soviet Union) tried to tell the United States to remove nuclear weapons from a country as Kennedy tried to do here, the U.S. would react in the same manner. When it was mentioned in Kruschev's second letter of agreement that the U.S. should remove weapons from Turkey, the U.S. just ignored it. Although I agree with the fact that the U.S. really does not have a right to tell them to remove their weapons from a country that the U.S. does not control, I can understand why this would be the reaction of the president. With the turbulent Cold War, an action such as placing weapons in a country so close to the U.S. seems as though it was a war strategy. I wouldn't have been comfortable knowing that. Although perhaps the situation could have been handled differently (without giving the USSR direct orders to remove the weapons) I believe that Kennedy did the right thing by confronting the Soviet Union about the nuclear weapons.
Any commentary about how and why the public message and the private messages are different?
I mostly agree with everyone. Now that I know what Khruschev was really saying, it does seem like Kennedy was seriously breaching the international standards of conduct. Also, it seems like the United States is being a hypocrite. With the Monroe Doctrine, European powers could not become involved with the United States, and yet now the United States is becoming deeply involved with another country that clearly does not want any 'assistance'.
Concerning the public and private letters, I think that Kennedy was keeping them hidden from the people of the U.S. because he did not want them to see that the Soviets could actually be reasonable. It's not like Khruschev was telling the United States that they would start a war or anything, he was trying to caution Kennedy from doing something he might later regret.
I also agree with Ana, I would like to read what Kennedy's original letters were.
Kiley (and others);
This link will be the complete correspondence between Kennedy and Khrushchev in this matter. I hope you find it interesting.
~Gus
http://www.jfklibrary.org/jfkl/cmc/cmc_correspondence.html
I agree with everyone so far... The letters were written in a style that seemed reasonable and calm, not evil (which the American people may have expected, given the US government's hatred for, and propaganda against, the Communists). When I first read about the Cuban missle crisis in the textbook, it seemed like the Russians were instigators, trying to endanger the American people, but after reading Khruschev's letters, it is easy to see their point of view. He realized that the United States had hot-headed, anti-Communist politicians who would interfere with other countries just "for reasons having to
do with the election campaign in the USA", and without considering the consequences of their actions. Khruschev believed that this conflict could escalate into a huge problem, "propelling humankind into the abyss of a world
nuclear-missile war", and he kept his cool and explained his point of view to Kennedy in these letters.
Most of my initial thoughts have been mentioned, like that Khruschev seemed reasonable, and made me take a new look at the whole Cuban missile crisis. In the text book, it made it seem like the crisis was the Soviet Union's fault and that Kennedy was the hero in the situation. However, actually hearing Khruschev's side made me see that Russia was being reasonable, especially when he pointed out the ways Kennedy was breaking international law and "generally accepted standards of conduct." However, I'm not saying I believe it's all Kennedy's fault now; he was right to do something, but maybe could have handled it better. I also agree with what everyone was saying about the tone of the letters-they are very calm and personal and would definitely make Kennedy rethink his actions.
Gus, the link you just sent isn't working, at least for me. It says page not found.
I agree with Ariana that the book made it look like it was all the Soviets fault for the missile crisis and Kennedy was the hero in the situation. But after hearing Khrushchev's side i understand why he was doing this and he had the right to. It wasn't any of Kennedy's buisness that the Soviets were giving Cubans missiles. I also don't think that it was all Kennedy's fault because he was afraid of an attack and he felt he needed to do something to protect the US.
I feel that in the letters Khrushchev was kind of repetitive in saying to step into his shoes and see his side of the situation because he said it a few times. I also think it was a very good idea that Khrushchev made the letters so personal because it might make Kennedy realize that he should be more careful, unless he wants to start a nuclear war with the Soviets.
Agreed. The textbook version of what happened with the Cuban Missile crisis was biased towards the U.S. Kruschev’s letters showed the other perspective and personally, I think there’s sense on both sides. The textbook also mentioned that when the U.S invaded Cuba, they were breaking agreements to not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. I noticed hypocrisy on both sides. The United States invaded Cuba and broke the interference agreements the reason being that they wanted to “help the Cuban people” which meant overriding the Castro government and promoting American ideals. Because the United States was so high up on pride, they just assumed that their government was the way to go and other countries wanted to follow their example. Clearly, the United States was wrong considering the attempt at Bay of Pigs failed because the Cuban people didn’t want to join the United States in a revolt against Castro. Au contraire, they joined Castro. The United States made like it was trying to “assist” (like Kiley said) the Cuban government (when they didn’t want help in the first place) but really it was trying to benefit itself by the support of Latin America on their side and most importantly, away from the communists. I feel like the Cold war was a huge game. Kind of like “see who can get the most support for their type of government the fastest” and that would determine which country collapses and which ultimately wins.
“He [Kruschev] also presented the scheme [Cuban missile crisis] as a means of protecting Cuba from another United States sponsored invasion, such as the failed attempt at the Bay of Pigs in 1961.” That explains the motives of the Soviet Union but that’s hypocrisy too. The Soviet Union is blaming the US for interfering with other countries affairs when the Soviets are doing the same thing. And I also think that the concern of the Soviet’s isn’t entirely for the Cubans but for themselves. They’re intimidated by the United States and Cuba is a close enough place to install missiles to intimidate the United States back.
and more directly from the letter, i wanted to point out something.
Krushchev said:
"It would mean for us
to conduct our relations with other countries not by reason, but by yielding to tyranny..."
"The Soviet government considers the violation of the freedom
of navigation in international waters and air space to constitute
an act of aggression..."
The words that really stuck out to me were tyranny and agression. The United States was trying to promote democracy and capitalism yet they were seen as tyrannical by the Soviet Union. A little while ago, the United States deemed the Soviet Union as "the agressors" but Kruschev feels that the U.S is actually instigating more trouble. It's interesting that both countries described the other the same way.
SORRRY! i didnt realize how long that was.
OK, big-time follow-up.
Ana--I was happy to make more letters available to the group as you requested.
Tovia--the idea that Khrushchev treated Kennedy like a child came out in their first meeting. The wikipedia entry on the Vienna Summit is particularly revealing on this issue.
Maddie--you correctly point out that there is more than meets the eye. Part of the tension has to do with continued US military presence (ergo, pressure) on the Soviets near every border and friend they have.
Jacqui--a good analysis, but do I sense from you that you're OK with some unfairness in the confrontation?
Kiley--an interesting point on the Monroe Doctrine, but it seems that the Roosevelt Corollary may be more appropriate in this case. I either case, this is a long-standing precedent.
Simone--the anti-communist tone and credentials of all presidential candidates during the Cold War was essential. Just look at McCarthyism as an example. Was Khrushchev just trying to keep us UNDERreacting?
Ariana--I guess you drank the Soviet Kool-Aid...bummer. Was everything just as logical as the Soviet premier is suggesting?
Melina--yes, the American president swears an oath to protect the US. Please note my comment on the Monroe Doctrine, above.
Mane--good points about the hypocracy on both sides. Well-done!
Ok... I hope I'm not too late...
I agree with most of what has been said already. Both sides are being hypocrites, telling each other to stop interfering with other countries while doing it themselves. Khruschev's telegrams sound sort of defensive almost, as if Kennedy is insulting them. Also by mentioning a nuclear war, they bring an aspect of fear into them. It's like Kruschev is trying to get Kennedy to back down, but the threat of communism is too great. He does not feel safe with the perceived enemy so close to home. Krushchev asks Kennedy to put himself in his shoes, but he should do likewise as well. I can see what he is saying though (as many have pointed out, his aims are clear) and it's interesting to see the other side. We only get to really see one opinion on the matter with the textbook. Also the lengths the Soviets seemed willing to take seemed extreme, but again they just want safety and power. It looks like that is what both sides are truly after, but they have been avoiding confrontations. I wonder if either side would have been really up to it in the end.
OK i know that I'm late but my internet wasnt working ALL weekend! Sorry!
I definitley agree with everyone else that the telegram makes Krushchev seem like a normal guy: very approachable and reasonable. How could Kennedy say no to his reasoning? ( and I know that he didn't).He tries to gets the Americans to understand both sides of this tense situation. He uses logical reasoning in the telegrams that shed a new light on the Cuban missle crisis. The telegrams show that the soviets were not the instigators.Sure, they put missles in Cuba, but they did not aggressively strike at the U.S., as the U.S. did to them. I also agree with Ana that I would like to see what Kennedy wrote back, to see how understanding the letter made him. I also wonder if Krushchev was actually this negotiable and approachable in real life, and that the personality that came across in the telegram was not just a diplomatic front. This would help us figure out if he would have acted as understanding as he said he would be if the roles in the situation were reversed
Hannah--In my post after Kiley's, I put a link that will let you see all the letters to give you a sense of the back and forth. Really, though, they couldn't be this cordial in public. Both sides in the Cold War had ideologies to defend.
Emma--I agree. A lot of this language may sound insulting and posturing but wouldn't you agree that the rhetoric put out for the public's consumption was far more polarizing?
I definatly think everyone one posted great points! I agree with Tovia that these were extremly personal. "Think about what
you are saying! And you want to persuade me to agree to this!" I just imagined dipomatic letters to be more professional and not understandable. Khruschev was really convincing me that what USA was doing was wrong. And i loved when he said,"When you lay conditions such as these before
us, try to put yourself in our situation and consider how the USA
would react to such conditions. I have no doubt that if anyone
attempted to dictate similar conditions to you -- the USA, you
would reject such an attempt. And we likewise say -- no." I thought that was clever because the US would definetly get mad if it was the other way around. It just goes to show, we can never keep to our own buisness and Khruschev even says that, "Who asked you to do this? By what
right have you done this? Our ties with the Republic of Cuba, as
well as our relations with other nations, regardless of their
political system, concern only the two countries between which
these relations exist." I thought that was a major diss. Saying that why are you getting in our problems, it doesnt concern you. But i do agree with Mane on the other hand, because thats a very hypotcritcal thing to say. The Soviets are always getting in people's buisness and trying to be a great power like the USA.
Grace--I see your point about the "diss". In reality, the Soviets had a great deal of history in being aggressive, even though their language was one of cordiality and reasonableness.
COMMENTS CLOSED
Post a Comment