Did JFK Cause the Cuban Missile Crisis (1 Viewer)

[Chadstroma]

JFK gets a lot of credit for his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, averting a nuclear World War III and remaining strong against the Soviet threat.

But did he directly cause the Cuban Missile Crisis? Did he make mistakes that lead to this crisis in the first place?

 

[Buckle]

All I know he was president at the time it happened.

Also, the Vietnam War started under his watch as well.

 

[Chadstroma]

All I know he was president at the time it happened. Also, the Vietnam War started under his watch as well.

So.......... Wilson caused WWI? FDR caused WWII? Carter caused the Iranian Revolution? George H W Bush caused Iraq's invasion of Kuwait? I am not sure if I understand what you are saying or see any logic behind what I think you are saying.

 

[PatsWillWin]

pretty sure russia wanted to put missiles on cuba...and thaaaaaaats what caused it.

 

[shake zula]

Of course not. Where do you guys get this stuff...

 

[Chadstroma]

Of course not. Where do you guys get this stuff...

From this thread..... JFK-Cuban Missile Crisis

 

[Buckle]

All I know he was president at the time it happened. Also, the Vietnam War started under his watch as well.

So.......... Wilson caused WWI? FDR caused WWII? Carter caused the Iranian Revolution? George H W Bush caused Iraq's invasion of Kuwait? I am not sure if I understand what you are saying or see any logic behind what I think you are saying.

You're right, but it's my impression that the Baby Boomer generation would like to forget this fact of their favorite prez.

 

[bialczabub]

All I know he was president at the time it happened. Also, the Vietnam War started under his watch as well.

So.......... Wilson caused WWI? FDR caused WWII? Carter caused the Iranian Revolution? George H W Bush caused Iraq's invasion of Kuwait? I am not sure if I understand what you are saying or see any logic behind what I think you are saying.

You're right, but it's my impression that the Baby Boomer generation would like to forget this fact of their favorite prez.

so what are your thoughts on 9/11?

 

[shining path]

From what I've read, his weak performance during his first summit with Kruschev made the Sovs think they could get away with putting missles in Cuba. Kennedy's fine performance during the crisis itself is seen by a lot of scholars as his rite of passage.

 

[Buckle]

All I know he was president at the time it happened. Also, the Vietnam War started under his watch as well.

So.......... Wilson caused WWI? FDR caused WWII? Carter caused the Iranian Revolution? George H W Bush caused Iraq's invasion of Kuwait? I am not sure if I understand what you are saying or see any logic behind what I think you are saying.

You're right, but it's my impression that the Baby Boomer generation would like to forget this fact of their favorite prez.

so what are your thoughts on 9/11?

My thoughts on 9/11? It was a tragic day and America's worst day in its history.

 

[Buckle]

From what I've read, his weak performance during his first summit with Kruschev made the Sovs think they could get away with putting missles in Cuba. Kennedy's fine performance during the crisis itself is seen by a lot of scholars as his rite of passage.

I think it was actually Kruschev's response to the US putting missiles in Europe and Turkey that prompted them to return the favor in setting up missiles in Cuba.

 

[bialczabub]

From what I've read, his weak performance during his first summit with Kruschev made the Sovs think they could get away with putting missles in Cuba. Kennedy's fine performance during the crisis itself is seen by a lot of scholars as his rite of passage.

The following is an excerpt from a Harvard Business Review article about the decision making process. It talks about how differences in decision making within the Kennedy administration between the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis led to the drastically different historical outcomes.

After the botched invasion, Kennedy conducted a review of the foreign policy decision-making process and introduced five major changes, essentially transforming the process into one of inquiry. First, people were urged to participate in discussions as "skeptical generalists"--that is, as disinterested critical thinkers rather than representatives of particular departments. Second, Robert Kennedy and Theodore Sorenson were assigned the role of intellectual watchdog, expected to pursue every possible point of contention, uncovering weaknesses and untested assumptions. Third, task forces were urged to abandon the rules of protocol, eliminating formal agendas and deference to rank. Fourth, participants were expected to split occasionally into subgroups to develop a broad range of options. And finally, President Kennedy decided to absent himself from some of the early task force meetings to avoid influencing other participants and slanting the debate.

The inquiry was used to great effect when in October 1962 President Kennedy learned that the Soviet Union had placed nuclear missiles on Cuban soil, despite repeated assurances from the Soviet ambassador that this would not occur. Kennedy immediately convened a high level task force, which contained many of the same men from the Bay of Pigs invasion, and asked them to frame a response.

...

Ultimately, subgroups developed two positions, one favoring a blockade and the other an air strike.

...

The subgroups exchanged position papers, critiqued each other's proposals and came together to debate the alternatives. They presented Kennedy with both options, leaving him to make the final choice. The result was a carefully framed response, leading to a successful blockade and a peaceful end to the crisis.

It looks like JFK managed quite differently than a certain decider.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

All I know he was president at the time it happened. Also, the Vietnam War started under his watch as well.

So.......... Wilson caused WWI? FDR caused WWII? Carter caused the Iranian Revolution? George H W Bush caused Iraq's invasion of Kuwait? I am not sure if I understand what you are saying or see any logic behind what I think you are saying.

You're right, but it's my impression that the Baby Boomer generation would like to forget this fact of their favorite prez.

so what are your thoughts on 9/11?

My thoughts on 9/11? It was a tragic day and America's worst day in its history.

Do you recall who was President back then?

 

[Ozymandias]

From what I've read, his weak performance during his first summit with Kruschev made the Sovs think they could get away with putting missles in Cuba. Kennedy's fine performance during the crisis itself is seen by a lot of scholars as his rite of passage.

This would be my take. When Kennedy met Kruschev in Vienna, he created the impression that he was weak and could be pushed around. So Krushchev, who was a riverboat gambler, decided to take a big gamble and put missiles in Cuba so that he could pressure the US.But Cuba was a long way from the Soviet Union, and the US Navy ruled the seas. So his gamble failed when Kennedy stood firm. It was the beginning of the end for Kruschev, who embarrassed himself by having to back down. But, sadly for the Cuban people, part of the agreement was that we'd leave dictator Castro in place. Almost 50 years later, he's still there, even if on ice.

 

[Chadstroma]

From what I've read, his weak performance during his first summit with Kruschev made the Sovs think they could get away with putting missles in Cuba. Kennedy's fine performance during the crisis itself is seen by a lot of scholars as his rite of passage.

This argument seems weak to me. If this was the case, why would the Kruschev/Soviets back down during the Missile Crisis? They think he is weak so they try but then they think he is strong and back down from the response?

 

[PatsWillWin]

From what I've read, his weak performance during his first summit with Kruschev made the Sovs think they could get away with putting missles in Cuba. Kennedy's fine performance during the crisis itself is seen by a lot of scholars as his rite of passage.

This argument seems weak to me. If this was the case, why would the Kruschev/Soviets back down during the Missile Crisis? They think he is weak so they try but then they think he is strong and back down from the response?

Not only that - but even if Kennedy's behavior there WAS a factor, I still think that's a huge reach to say he "caused" the Crisis. To me, that gives him way too much responsibility for what another country did.

 

[Saints-Man]

So people don't have to read the other thread in its entirety, I was the one who was arguing strongly that JFK did in fact cause the CMC(Cuban Missle Crisis).

This is my argument from that thread:

He ordered the Bay of Pigs invasion(a GWB move), and then got cold feet at the last minute and botched it by removing critical US air support. Simple. Historical. Fact.

The failed Bay of Pigs invasion led to a closer alliance b/w Cuba & USSR, and part of that closer alliance was that the USSR was going to put missles into Cuba. Before the Bay of Pigs, Castro was setting up a communist state seperate from the influence of the USSR. After the the Bay of Pigs invasion Castro realized that he could not defend Cuba if the US invaded. So, Castro aligned Cuba with the USSR for protection.

It is conventional wisdom among many historians that the Bay of Pigs invasion led directly to the deployment of missles in Cuba. From Wikipedia page,

The invasion is often criticized as making Castro even more popular, adding nationalistic sentiments to the support for his economic policies. Following the initial B-26 bombings, he had declared the revolution "Marxist-Leninist". After the invasion, he pursued closer relations with the Soviet Union, partly for protection, which helped pave the way for the Cuban Missile Crisis a year and a half later.

Answer this: Does the USSR put missles in Cuba if there is no Bay of Pigs? Most historians think this is unlikely. Bottom line...Kennedy caused CMC with the Bay of Pigs invasion, then he solved it. You should not get credit for problems you create.

 

[Saints-Man]

All I know he was president at the time it happened. Also, the Vietnam War started under his watch as well.

So.......... Wilson caused WWI? FDR caused WWII? Carter caused the Iranian Revolution? George H W Bush caused Iraq's invasion of Kuwait? I am not sure if I understand what you are saying or see any logic behind what I think you are saying.

In none of the examples you cited did the US peform any covert war acts. Matter of fact, all of these conflicts happened PRIOR to the US involvement. In the case of the Bay of Pigs, the US coordinated an attack of a sovereign country that had not attacked it and had not declared war on the US or on one of its treaty-based allies. If you are going to use an example, use GWB with Iraq II.

 

[Saints-Man]

pretty sure russia wanted to put missiles on cuba...and thaaaaaaats what caused it.

That is not historically accurate. Before the Bay of Pigs, Cuba was not allied with the USSR. Castro was steering a path for Cuba clear of USSR influence.

 

[Saints-Man]

Another source is this site. Under the "Crisis Center" button, you have this text:

The Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest the world ever came to nuclear war. The United States armed forces were at their highest state of readiness ever and Soviet field commanders in Cuba were prepared to use battlefield nuclear weapons to defend the island if it was invaded. Luckily, thanks to the bravery of two men, President John F. Kennedy and Premier Nikita Khrushchev, war was averted.

In 1962, the Soviet Union was desperately behind the United States in the arms race. Soviet missiles were only powerful enough to be launched against Europe but U.S. missiles were capable of striking the entire Soviet Union. In late April 1962, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev conceived the idea of placing intermediate-range missiles in Cuba. A deployment in Cuba would double the Soviet strategic arsenal and provide a real deterrent to a potential U.S. attack against the Soviet Union.

Meanwhile, Fidel Castro was looking for a way to defend his island nation from an attack by the U.S. Ever since the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, Castro felt a second attack was inevitable. Consequently, he approved of Khrushchev's plan to place missiles on the island. In the summer of 1962 the Soviet Union worked quickly and secretly to build its missile installations in Cuba.

More historical evidence that without the Bay of Pigs invasion, there would have been no CMC.

 

[Saints-Man]

From what I've read, his weak performance during his first summit with Kruschev made the Sovs think they could get away with putting missles in Cuba. Kennedy's fine performance during the crisis itself is seen by a lot of scholars as his rite of passage.

I have read this also. This is what I was referring in the other thread, Chadstroma.

 

[Saints-Man]

pretty sure russia wanted to put missiles on cuba...and thaaaaaaats what caused it.

Not true. Castro had no intention of letting the USSR do this until the Bay of Pigs invasion.

 

[Saints-Man]

Of course not. Where do you guys get this stuff...

Historical data.

 

[PatsWillWin]

pretty sure russia wanted to put missiles on cuba...and thaaaaaaats what caused it.

That is not historically accurate. Before the Bay of Pigs, Cuba was not allied with the USSR. Castro was steering a path for Cuba clear of USSR influence.

When did I say anything about what Cuba wanted or anything about prior to the Bay of Pigs?

 

[RoarinSonoran]

So.......... Wilson caused WWI? FDR caused WWII? Carter caused the Iranian Revolution? George H W Bush caused Iraq's invasion of Kuwait? I am not sure if I understand what you are saying or see any logic behind what I think you are saying.

Dubya is to blame for all of these.

 

[Saints-Man]

All I know he was president at the time it happened. Also, the Vietnam War started under his watch as well.

So.......... Wilson caused WWI? FDR caused WWII? Carter caused the Iranian Revolution? George H W Bush caused Iraq's invasion of Kuwait? I am not sure if I understand what you are saying or see any logic behind what I think you are saying.

You're right, but it's my impression that the Baby Boomer generation would like to forget this fact of their favorite prez.

so what are your thoughts on 9/11?

Once again, the difference b/w the CMC and these other examples cited was that the CMC was the direct result of a US overtly backed invasion of a sovereign country. GWB invaded a sovereign country after 9/11, not before. This is not a justification of the 2nd Iraq War. I hold both JFK and GWB in low esteem for invading a sovereign country that had not attacked us. In WWI, we entered the war on the side of our treaty-based allies. In WWII, we were attacked and then Germany declared war on us. As far as Bush I, we had a treaty with Kuwait, so our involvement there was to protect an ally. Anyway, Gulf War I was led by the US and mandated by the United Nations. None of these conflicts are remotely analagous to JFK's invasion of Cuba and subsequent CMC.

 

[Saints-Man]

pretty sure russia wanted to put missiles on cuba...and thaaaaaaats what caused it.

That is not historically accurate. Before the Bay of Pigs, Cuba was not allied with the USSR. Castro was steering a path for Cuba clear of USSR influence.

When did I say anything about what Cuba wanted or anything about prior to the Bay of Pigs?

Nothing, and that is where you are in error. No Bay of Pigs, no missles in Cuba, no matter what the USSR wanted. This is a discussion about the causes of CMC.

 

[PatsWillWin]

pretty sure russia wanted to put missiles on cuba...and thaaaaaaats what caused it.

That is not historically accurate. Before the Bay of Pigs, Cuba was not allied with the USSR. Castro was steering a path for Cuba clear of USSR influence.

When did I say anything about what Cuba wanted or anything about prior to the Bay of Pigs?

Nothing, and that is where you are in error. No Bay of Pigs, no missles in Cuba, no matter what the USSR wanted. This is a discussion about the causes of CMC.

Yeah - I know it is. And that fact that you haven't even mentioned USSR as one of the causes of the CMC is where you are in error.

 

[Saints-Man]

From what I've read, his weak performance during his first summit with Kruschev made the Sovs think they could get away with putting missles in Cuba. Kennedy's fine performance during the crisis itself is seen by a lot of scholars as his rite of passage.

This would be my take. When Kennedy met Kruschev in Vienna, he created the impression that he was weak and could be pushed around. So Krushchev, who was a riverboat gambler, decided to take a big gamble and put missiles in Cuba so that he could pressure the US.But Cuba was a long way from the Soviet Union, and the US Navy ruled the seas. So his gamble failed when Kennedy stood firm. It was the beginning of the end for Kruschev, who embarrassed himself by having to back down. But, sadly for the Cuban people, part of the agreement was that we'd leave dictator Castro in place. Almost 50 years later, he's still there, even if on ice.

This accurately reflects what I have read on the subject.

 

[Saints-Man]

From what I've read, his weak performance during his first summit with Kruschev made the Sovs think they could get away with putting missles in Cuba. Kennedy's fine performance during the crisis itself is seen by a lot of scholars as his rite of passage.

This argument seems weak to me. If this was the case, why would the Kruschev/Soviets back down during the Missile Crisis? They think he is weak so they try but then they think he is strong and back down from the response?

Because JFK did select the exact right remedy for this situation with the blockade. Anything else, and US would have been the aggressor. US owned naval superiority and the USSR could not defeat this measure.I credit JFK with the correct response...however, I still say you don't get too much credit for solving a problem you created in the first place.

 

[Saints-Man]

From what I've read, his weak performance during his first summit with Kruschev made the Sovs think they could get away with putting missles in Cuba. Kennedy's fine performance during the crisis itself is seen by a lot of scholars as his rite of passage.

This argument seems weak to me. If this was the case, why would the Kruschev/Soviets back down during the Missile Crisis? They think he is weak so they try but then they think he is strong and back down from the response?

Not only that - but even if Kennedy's behavior there WAS a factor, I still think that's a huge reach to say he "caused" the Crisis. To me, that gives him way too much responsibility for what another country did.

JWW, do you think the Cuba agrees to allow the USSR to put missles in Cuba if there is no Bay of Pigs invasion?:

 

[Saints-Man]

pretty sure russia wanted to put missiles on cuba...and thaaaaaaats what caused it.

That is not historically accurate. Before the Bay of Pigs, Cuba was not allied with the USSR. Castro was steering a path for Cuba clear of USSR influence.

When did I say anything about what Cuba wanted or anything about prior to the Bay of Pigs?

Nothing, and that is where you are in error. No Bay of Pigs, no missles in Cuba, no matter what the USSR wanted. This is a discussion about the causes of CMC.

Yeah - I know it is. And that fact that you haven't even mentioned USSR as one of the causes of the CMC is where you are in error.

I have not absolved the USSR in anyway. However, their actions are constant. Please answer the question: If JFK had not decided to invade a sovereign country with the Bay of Pigs invasion, would there have been a CMC? In this question, the USSR plans are constant.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Another source is this site. Under the "Crisis Center" button, you have this text:

The Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest the world ever came to nuclear war. The United States armed forces were at their highest state of readiness ever and Soviet field commanders in Cuba were prepared to use battlefield nuclear weapons to defend the island if it was invaded. Luckily, thanks to the bravery of two men, President John F. Kennedy and Premier Nikita Khrushchev, war was averted.

In 1962, the Soviet Union was desperately behind the United States in the arms race. Soviet missiles were only powerful enough to be launched against Europe but U.S. missiles were capable of striking the entire Soviet Union. In late April 1962, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev conceived the idea of placing intermediate-range missiles in Cuba. A deployment in Cuba would double the Soviet strategic arsenal and provide a real deterrent to a potential U.S. attack against the Soviet Union.

Meanwhile, Fidel Castro was looking for a way to defend his island nation from an attack by the U.S. Ever since the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, Castro felt a second attack was inevitable. Consequently, he approved of Khrushchev's plan to place missiles on the island. In the summer of 1962 the Soviet Union worked quickly and secretly to build its missile installations in Cuba.

More historical evidence that without the Bay of Pigs invasion, there would have been no CMC.

That doesn't make any sense. The missiles were not defensive weapons. If someone is truly afraid of an invasion, are they going to provoke that enemy? Besides the fact that Cuba was the USSRs beyotch, they were welcoming a chance to try and embarrass the U.S. - -the excuse from the Bay of Pigs was pretty weak and most could see right through it.

 

[PatsWillWin]

pretty sure russia wanted to put missiles on cuba...and thaaaaaaats what caused it.

That is not historically accurate. Before the Bay of Pigs, Cuba was not allied with the USSR. Castro was steering a path for Cuba clear of USSR influence.

When did I say anything about what Cuba wanted or anything about prior to the Bay of Pigs?

Nothing, and that is where you are in error. No Bay of Pigs, no missles in Cuba, no matter what the USSR wanted. This is a discussion about the causes of CMC.

Yeah - I know it is. And that fact that you haven't even mentioned USSR as one of the causes of the CMC is where you are in error.

I have not absolved the USSR in anyway. However, their actions are constant. Please answer the question: If JFK had not decided to invade a sovereign country with the Bay of Pigs invasion, would there have been a CMC? In this question, the USSR plans are constant.

Yes - the USSR plans are constant. That means that they would've behaved in the way that they did independent of Kennedy's behavior. Your argument here seems to be that Kennedy "caused" the CMC by motivating Cuba to allow USSR to place missiles there via the Bay of Pigs. What I'm saying is that it's a huge leap to go from Kennedy pissing of Cuba to CAUSING the CMC because the USSR caused it by placing missiles there - which is something they would want to and pursue doing irregardless of Kennedy.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Also, the Vietnam War started under his watch as well.

No it didn't.

 

[bakes]

Also, the Vietnam War started under his watch as well.

No it didn't.

Initial US involvement began under Eisenhower.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

So if Nixon wins the election (or the election wasn't stolen from him if your prefer) is the anti-Kennedy argument that Nixon doesn't launch the Bay of Pigs invasion or that he properly supports it with air support and Fidel's regime falls?

 

[Saints-Man]

pretty sure russia wanted to put missiles on cuba...and thaaaaaaats what caused it.

That is not historically accurate. Before the Bay of Pigs, Cuba was not allied with the USSR. Castro was steering a path for Cuba clear of USSR influence.

When did I say anything about what Cuba wanted or anything about prior to the Bay of Pigs?

Nothing, and that is where you are in error. No Bay of Pigs, no missles in Cuba, no matter what the USSR wanted. This is a discussion about the causes of CMC.

Yeah - I know it is. And that fact that you haven't even mentioned USSR as one of the causes of the CMC is where you are in error.

I have not absolved the USSR in anyway. However, their actions are constant. Please answer the question: If JFK had not decided to invade a sovereign country with the Bay of Pigs invasion, would there have been a CMC? In this question, the USSR plans are constant.

Yes - the USSR plans are constant. That means that they would've behaved in the way that they did independent of Kennedy's behavior. Your argument here seems to be that Kennedy "caused" the CMC by motivating Cuba to allow USSR to place missiles there via the Bay of Pigs. What I'm saying is that it's a huge leap to go from Kennedy pissing of Cuba to CAUSING the CMC because the USSR caused it by placing missiles there - which is something they would want to and pursue doing irregardless of Kennedy.

Yes, I am not disputing the USSR wanted to do it. However, prior to Bay of Pigs Castro would not allow it. Castro was attempting top set a communist course distinct from the USSR. Once the Bay of Pigs occurred(as the link documents), he was convinced that the US would invade again and he was not able to defend himself. He then, and only then, gave the go ahead for the USSR to place the missles. All the links I have provided have shown that Castro only allowed the missles after the Bay of Pigs invasion and because of it. Can you find any historical evidence that suggests Castro would have allowed the missles without the Bay of Pigs invasion?

 

[bueno]

pretty sure russia wanted to put missiles on cuba...and thaaaaaaats what caused it.

That is not historically accurate. Before the Bay of Pigs, Cuba was not allied with the USSR. Castro was steering a path for Cuba clear of USSR influence.

Castro was a Marxist from day 1. After seizing power, he immediately started expropriating property owned by major U.S. corporations. If you read the Wilepedia artice carefully:

As early as July 1959, Castro's intelligence chief Ramiro Valdés contacted the KGB in Mexico City.[37] Subsequently, the USSR sent over one hundred mostly Spanish speaking advisors, including Enrique Líster Forján, to organize the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution.

In February 1960, Cuba signed an agreement to buy oil from the USSR. When the U.S.-owned refineries in Cuba refused to process the oil, they were expropriated, and the United States broke off diplomatic relations with the Castro government soon afterward. To the concern of the Eisenhower administration, Cuba began to establish closer ties with the Soviet Union. A variety of pacts were signed between Castro and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, allowing Cuba to receive large amounts of economic and military aid from them.

In June 1960, Eisenhower reduced Cuba's sugar import quota by 7,000,000 tons, and in response, Cuba nationalized some $850 million worth of U.S. property and businesses. The revolutionary government grabbed control of the nation by nationalizing industry, expropriating property owned by Cubans and non-Cubans alike, collectivizing agriculture, and enacting policies which would benefit the population. While popular among the poor, these policies alienated many former supporters of the revolution among the Cuban middle and upper-classes. Over one million Cubans later migrated to the U.S., forming a vocal anti-Castro community in Miami, Florida. (See Cuban-American lobby.)

President Dwight Eisenhower broke off ties on January 3, 1961, saying Fidel Castro had provoked him once too often.[38]

Castro was in the USSR camp long before Kennedy was president.

 

[Saints-Man]

So if Nixon wins the election (or the election wasn't stolen from him if your prefer) is the anti-Kennedy argument that Nixon doesn't launch the Bay of Pigs invasion or that he properly supports it with air support and Fidel's regime falls?

I am arguing that whoever is president either two scenarios:a) If there is no Bay of Pigs, there is no CMC.b) If there is a full-fledged, as planned Bay of Pigs, instead of the Kennedy abortion that took place, then the Cuban revolution is overthrown and Cuba is thrown back into Civil War. If so, there is no CMC because there is no government to allow the USSR to plant the missles. Personally, I prefer option a. I have the same problem with JFK's invasion of Cuba as I do GWB's invasion of Iraq.I think this is your supposition, and I just wanted to state it fully.

 

[Saints-Man]

Also, the Vietnam War started under his watch as well.

No it didn't.

It is true that the Vietnam War started before JFK's term began. However, he is the first US president to send military troops to Vietnam, so it is accurate to say that American military involvement in the Vietnam War(prior to that, we only had advisors, not US troops) began on his watch.It is accurate to say that American involvement began under Eisenhower, but American military involvement began under JFK. Military involvement = America's entry into the war.

 

[bueno]

All I know he was president at the time it happened. Also, the Vietnam War started under his watch as well.

So.......... Wilson caused WWI? FDR caused WWII? Carter caused the Iranian Revolution? George H W Bush caused Iraq's invasion of Kuwait? I am not sure if I understand what you are saying or see any logic behind what I think you are saying.

You're right, but it's my impression that the Baby Boomer generation would like to forget this fact of their favorite prez.

Why are you bringing Reagan into this?

 

[Saints-Man]

Another source is this site. Under the "Crisis Center" button, you have this text:

The Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest the world ever came to nuclear war. The United States armed forces were at their highest state of readiness ever and Soviet field commanders in Cuba were prepared to use battlefield nuclear weapons to defend the island if it was invaded. Luckily, thanks to the bravery of two men, President John F. Kennedy and Premier Nikita Khrushchev, war was averted.

In 1962, the Soviet Union was desperately behind the United States in the arms race. Soviet missiles were only powerful enough to be launched against Europe but U.S. missiles were capable of striking the entire Soviet Union. In late April 1962, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev conceived the idea of placing intermediate-range missiles in Cuba. A deployment in Cuba would double the Soviet strategic arsenal and provide a real deterrent to a potential U.S. attack against the Soviet Union.

Meanwhile, Fidel Castro was looking for a way to defend his island nation from an attack by the U.S. Ever since the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, Castro felt a second attack was inevitable. Consequently, he approved of Khrushchev's plan to place missiles on the island. In the summer of 1962 the Soviet Union worked quickly and secretly to build its missile installations in Cuba.

More historical evidence that without the Bay of Pigs invasion, there would have been no CMC.

That doesn't make any sense. The missiles were not defensive weapons. If someone is truly afraid of an invasion, are they going to provoke that enemy? Besides the fact that Cuba was the USSRs beyotch, they were welcoming a chance to try and embarrass the U.S. - -the excuse from the Bay of Pigs was pretty weak and most could see right through it.

They were not intended as defensive weapons. In this time of history, the dominant strategy was Mutually Assured Destruction. The missles were not to ward off an invasion, they were meant to attack the US in case Cuba was attacked. This was to deter the US from attacking, not warding off an attack after it was launched. It was a different, and very troubling, strategy.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

So if Nixon wins the election (or the election wasn't stolen from him if your prefer) is the anti-Kennedy argument that Nixon doesn't launch the Bay of Pigs invasion or that he properly supports it with air support and Fidel's regime falls?

I am arguing that whoever is president either two scenarios:a) If there is no Bay of Pigs, there is no CMC.

b) If there is a full-fledged, as planned Bay of Pigs, instead of the Kennedy abortion that took place, then the Cuban revolution is overthrown and Cuba is thrown back into Civil War. If so, there is no CMC because there is no government to allow the USSR to plant the missles.

Personally, I prefer option a. I have the same problem with JFK's invasion of Cuba as I do GWB's invasion of Iraq.

I think this is your supposition, and I just wanted to state it fully.

At the top of wiki article on the Bay of Pigs that I think you referenced there is also this-

On March 17, 1960 the Eisenhower administration agreed to a recommendation from the CIA to equip and drill Cuban exiles for action against the new Castro government. Eisenhower stated that it was "the policy of this government" to aid anti-Castro guerilla forces "to the upmost". The CIA began to recruit and train anti-Castro forces in the Sierra Madre mountains on the Pacific coast of Guatemala. Vice President Richard Nixon, not Eisenhower, reportedly pushed the plan forward.

You can argue that a Nixon administration handles the operation differently, but I don't think you can honestly say that there isn't an attempted invasion of Cuba. Regime change and US puppet governments were a big part of the Eisenhower foreign policy and we are still paying for some of these (eg. Iran).

 

[bueno]

Also, the Vietnam War started under his watch as well.

No it didn't.

It is true that the Vietnam War started before JFK's term began. However, he is the first US president to send military troops to Vietnam, so it is accurate to say that American military involvement in the Vietnam War(prior to that, we only had advisors, not US troops) began on his watch.It is accurate to say that American involvement began under Eisenhower, but American military involvement began under JFK. Military involvement = America's entry into the war.

Eisenhower sent in military advisors...

 

[Saints-Man]

So if Nixon wins the election (or the election wasn't stolen from him if your prefer) is the anti-Kennedy argument that Nixon doesn't launch the Bay of Pigs invasion or that he properly supports it with air support and Fidel's regime falls?

I am arguing that whoever is president either two scenarios:a) If there is no Bay of Pigs, there is no CMC.

b) If there is a full-fledged, as planned Bay of Pigs, instead of the Kennedy abortion that took place, then the Cuban revolution is overthrown and Cuba is thrown back into Civil War. If so, there is no CMC because there is no government to allow the USSR to plant the missles.

Personally, I prefer option a. I have the same problem with JFK's invasion of Cuba as I do GWB's invasion of Iraq.

I think this is your supposition, and I just wanted to state it fully.

At the top of wiki article on the Bay of Pigs that I think you referenced there is also this-

On March 17, 1960 the Eisenhower administration agreed to a recommendation from the CIA to equip and drill Cuban exiles for action against the new Castro government. Eisenhower stated that it was "the policy of this government" to aid anti-Castro guerilla forces "to the upmost". The CIA began to recruit and train anti-Castro forces in the Sierra Madre mountains on the Pacific coast of Guatemala. Vice President Richard Nixon, not Eisenhower, reportedly pushed the plan forward.

You can argue that a Nixon administration handles the operation differently, but I don't think you can honestly say that there isn't an attempted invasion of Cuba. Regime change and US puppet governments were a big part of the Eisenhower foreign policy and we are still paying for some of these (eg. Iran).

I am not disputing this. However, JFK made the decision to put the plan into action, yet backed off a critical portion(US air support). Eisenhower did prepare for it, but the decision to implement was solely JFK's decision. He would have been praised if it worked, but it didn't so the fault of the failed invasion solely rests with him.

 

[Saints-Man]

Also, the Vietnam War started under his watch as well.

No it didn't.

It is true that the Vietnam War started before JFK's term began. However, he is the first US president to send military troops to Vietnam, so it is accurate to say that American military involvement in the Vietnam War(prior to that, we only had advisors, not US troops) began on his watch.It is accurate to say that American involvement began under Eisenhower, but American military involvement began under JFK. Military involvement = America's entry into the war.

Eisenhower sent in military advisors...

Eisenhower sent military advisors, but not troops. The implementation of troops makes it war, not advisors.

 

[bueno]

Also, the Vietnam War started under his watch as well.

No it didn't.

It is true that the Vietnam War started before JFK's term began. However, he is the first US president to send military troops to Vietnam, so it is accurate to say that American military involvement in the Vietnam War(prior to that, we only had advisors, not US troops) began on his watch.It is accurate to say that American involvement began under Eisenhower, but American military involvement began under JFK. Military involvement = America's entry into the war.

Eisenhower sent in military advisors...

Eisenhower sent military advisors, but not troops. The implementation of troops makes it war, not advisors.

What uniforms were those military advisors wearing again?

 

[Saints-Man]

Also, the Vietnam War started under his watch as well.

No it didn't.

It is true that the Vietnam War started before JFK's term began. However, he is the first US president to send military troops to Vietnam, so it is accurate to say that American military involvement in the Vietnam War(prior to that, we only had advisors, not US troops) began on his watch.It is accurate to say that American involvement began under Eisenhower, but American military involvement began under JFK. Military involvement = America's entry into the war.

Eisenhower sent in military advisors...

Eisenhower sent military advisors, but not troops. The implementation of troops makes it war, not advisors.

What uniforms were those military advisors wearing again?

I am not really sure. But what I do know is they never engaged anyone in an armed conflict. They were there to train Vietam citizens on how to use guns and help with military strategy. Education and consultation is not war. Military troops firing guns and missles, lobbing grenades, and engaging in hand-to-hand combat is war. That happened under JFK. The former happened under Eisenhower.

 

[bueno]

Also, the Vietnam War started under his watch as well.

No it didn't.

It is true that the Vietnam War started before JFK's term began. However, he is the first US president to send military troops to Vietnam, so it is accurate to say that American military involvement in the Vietnam War(prior to that, we only had advisors, not US troops) began on his watch.It is accurate to say that American involvement began under Eisenhower, but American military involvement began under JFK. Military involvement = America's entry into the war.

Eisenhower sent in military advisors...

Eisenhower sent military advisors, but not troops. The implementation of troops makes it war, not advisors.

What uniforms were those military advisors wearing again?

I am not really sure. But what I do know is they never engaged anyone in an armed conflict. They were there to train Vietam citizens on how to use guns and help with military strategy. Education and consultation is not war. Military troops firing guns and missles, lobbing grenades, and engaging in hand-to-hand combat is war. That happened under JFK. The former happened under Eisenhower.

What about training troops? What about the CIA engaging in psychological warfare against the North?