Cuban Missile Crisis: TRUE quotes - FALSE insinuation - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Fast Forward · 10-30-2007, 05:35 AM

Maybe you remember (or at least have heard) Adlai Stevenson’s burning outburst when he flamed the Soviet Ambassador over the placment of Soviet missiles in Cuba in 1962, aimed at U.S. targets.

“Do you, Ambassador Zorin, deny that the USSR has placed and is placing medium - and intermediate - range missiles and sites in Cuba? Yes or no? Don't wait for the translation. Yes or no?”

That may have seemed like a verbal blow for justice (by American standards) but it was nothing more than a hollow threat, meant merely to impress anyone who didn’t understand the true situation.

What Stevenson DID NOT mention (and what most Americans are still unaware of) was that the U.S. had already placed 15 Jupiter IRBMs missiels in Turkey aimed at Soviet targets in 1961, and the Soviet missiles were a direct response to the American agression there.

The U.S. likes to site “the Cuban Crisis” as a victory. It was anything but that. The Soviet Union put John Kennedy to his knees and forced him to remove his missiles from Turkey in exchange for the Soviets doing likewise in Cuba.

Ustwo · 10-30-2007, 05:59 AM

Ummm....well I suppose thats one way of looking at it.

Like saying the battle of Midway was just a diversion so the Japanese could take the Allusion Islands.

I mean the facts are true, we did remove the Jupiter missiles, but calling it a victory for the USSR is a bit weak. Removing those missiles which were mostly redundant and not very effective was more of a face saving measure.

While Kennedy might be over rated as a president, this is not one of the reasons.

Edit:I'll add I knew about the Jupiter missiles since I was 15 taking American history in high school. Its not like its a cover up.

host · 10-30-2007, 06:02 AM

Before Oct., 1962, the U.S. had already planned to remove the Jupiter missiles from Turkey. There were also three squadrons of the missiles deployed in the Italian countryside. The Polaris submarine launched missile, with it's 1,200 mile range was regarded as superior and less vulnerable to attack.

The Soviets backed down publicly, agreeing to remove all nuclear missiles from
Cuba, while the agreement by the US to remove Jupiter missiles from Turkey was not revealed publicly until two years later.....

Quote:

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2...rteendays.html
HARVARD GAZETTE ARCHIVES

Frantic days, sleepless nights:
Presidential aides and scholars relive 'Thirteen Days' in 1962
By Doug Gavel
Gazette Staff
March 1, 2001

...On Sunday, Oct. 28, 1962, Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev agreed to remove the missiles from Cuba, in exchange for a promise from Kennedy not to invade the Communist island. It was later revealed, however, that Kennedy had also made a secret promise to remove the NATO missiles from Turkey.

"The Jupiter missiles in Turkey were militarily obsolete," McNamara said. "Basically, Kennedy was saying over and over again in opposition to many of his advisers: 'I'm not taking this nation to war over a pile of junk.' That was his feeling and he felt it more strongly than anyone else in the room." ...

seretogis · 10-30-2007, 07:50 AM

As an aside, I recommend watching the movie "Thirteen Days."

The_Jazz · 10-30-2007, 08:38 AM

A victory for the Soviets? That would come as a surprise to the Politburo who basically exiled Khrushchev for it. They were the hardliners that pushed for the missles to be placed orginally. The trade was offered in the clear on Radio Moscow and accepted in the clear on Radio Moscow. Bhreshnev et al, all direct heirs of Stalin, felt that Khrushchev failed the country by not have the power or force of personality to impose Soviet will upon the rest of the world. It directly lead to his downfall and was acknowledged as such in his autobiography. Sergei Khrushchev, Nikita's son, also has stated many times that his father felt that the Missle Crisis effectively ended his career and that it scared him how close the world came to nuclear holocaust.

The Turkish missles were known from the very beginning and have always been a part of every history I've ever read about the event. If you want to talk about obsure events impacting the Crisis, though, why don't you try the Sino-Indian War that was raging at this exact moment?

biznatch · 10-30-2007, 10:32 AM

Yes, this is nothing new.
As a side note, there are "secret conditions" that have been created in fictional versions of the Cold War, and it does make sense, because it does seem sometimes that the USSR removed something they didn't have to.
For example in the video game Metal Gear Solid 3, the USSR agrees to remove the missiles only if their fictional prominent nuclear missile scientist (who had defected) is returned to them, so he could complete work on a more advanced weapon.
I guess that doesn't belong to Politics, but it's interesting to think, "if there was anything we didn't know about that was said or agreed, and still don't know, what could they be?".

The_Jazz · 10-30-2007, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by biznatch

I guess that doesn't belong to Politics, but it's interesting to think, "if there was anything we didn't know about that was said or agreed, and still don't know, what could they be?".

To elaborate on my earlier point in the light of your post, there's a school of thought that thinks that the crisis was created by the Soviets in an attempt to curry favor with the Chinese and draw US attention away from the Chinese grab of some disputed territory on the Indian border. I'm not in that school of thought since I believe that Sino/Soviet relations were so shitty that the Soviets would never had stuck their necks out for something like this - maybe when Stalin was alive, but not afterwards.

Elphaba · 10-30-2007, 02:47 PM

Fast Foward, I'm curious as to where you got your information. As others have said, our missiles in Turkey has been common knowledge. One of our politico's *flaming* an ambassador is of little note historically.

If you would like a little known quote, my husband can quote you the CiC's command that he decripted for his ship's captain, to confront the Soviet Navy to prevent them from proceding to Cuba. Trust me, that was no hollow threat.

If you can quote Bobby Kennedy's recommendation that likely prevented both countries from mutual annihilation, we can then have an interesting discussion about what was said and, more importantly what was not said.

Fast Forward · 10-31-2007, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I mean the facts are true, we did remove the Jupiter missiles, but calling it a victory for the USSR is a bit weak.

I suppose it all depends upon whether or not your (or my) view is that the Soviets actually WANTED missiles on Cuba or if their whole intention was to have the Ameicans move theirs’ out of Turkey.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

The Soviets backed down publicly, agreeing to remove all nuclear missiles from
Cuba, while the agreement by the US to remove Jupiter missiles from Turkey was not revealed publicly until two years later.....

Yes. I often wonder what the Soviets were given in return for keeping the fact subdued. I simply can’t believe that Kruschev gave Kennedy a break just because he was “a nice guy”. Have you any ideas or suggestions?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

The trade was offered in the clear on Radio Moscow and accepted in the clear on Radio Moscow. Bhreshnev et al, all direct heirs of Stalin, felt that Khrushchev failed the country by not have the power or force of personality to impose Soviet will upon the rest of the world. It directly lead to his downfall and was acknowledged as such in his autobiography. Sergei Khrushchev, Nikita's son, also has stated many times that his father felt that the Missle Crisis effectively ended his career and that it scared him how close the world came to nuclear holocaust.

An interesting post. I'd like to read more. Have you got a link?

Quote:

Originally Posted by biznatc

Yes, this is nothing new.
As a side note, there are "secret conditions" that have been created in fictional versions of the Cold War, and it does make sense ....... in the video game Metal Gear Solid 3, the USSR agrees to remove the missiles only if their fictional prominent nuclear missile scientist (who had defected) is returned to them, so he could complete work on a more advanced weapon.
I guess that doesn't belong to Politics, but it's interesting to think, "if there was anything we didn't know about that was said or agreed, and still don't know, what could they be?".

Where is Superman when we REALLY need nim? Just tell me that, will you please!

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

If you want to talk about obsure events impacting the Crisis, though, why don't you try the Sino-Indian War that was raging at this exact moment?

…….. and …….

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

If you can quote Bobby Kennedy's recommendation that likely prevented both countries from mutual annihilation, we can then have an interesting discussion about what was said and, more importantly what was not said.

Good idea. I think you guys should submit them.

The_Jazz · 10-31-2007, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fast Forward

An interesting post. I'd like to read more. Have you got a link?

All my referrences are from print but include both the 1970 abridged and 1997 (I think) unabridged Khrushchev's autobiography. I also read a very interesting biography of Khrushchev, although I can't remember the author at the moment. I'll check my library when I get home and add it in.

As far as Radio Moscow, that's been in every event history I've ever read of the crisis. Wikipedia even has it as a part of theirs. Up until the early 70's, ambassidors were never really trusted to be good mouthpieces by the Soviets (too big of a chance of Western influence), so the primary method of communication by the Soviet government when they wanted news broadcast was Radio Moscow. Since it was an obviously flawed system in terms of nuclear brinksmanship, they accepted the "red telephone" idea without any real complaint.

Fast Forward · 11-01-2007, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Up until the early 70's, ambassidors were never really trusted to be good mouthpieces by the Soviets (too big of a chance of Western influence), so the primary method of communication by the Soviet government when they wanted news broadcast was Radio Moscow.

I suppose that means that Khrushchev himself was required to "tune in" every morning and memorize the day's broadcast in order to minimize the risk of him undermining the day's political agenda during the course of his daily duties.

The_Jazz · 11-01-2007, 06:26 AM

FF, if you ever read a good biography of the man, you'll realize how close to the truth you are.

Fast Forward · 11-02-2007, 05:00 AM

Heh - heh!

ratbastid · 11-02-2007, 05:28 AM

Isn't it interesting that this thread should come up out of the blue, at a moment in our nation's history when we're being told to fear another nuclear threat that could end us all? Between that and the death of Gen. Tibbets, we've got our very own nuke-era renaissance going on here on TFP...

Ustwo · 11-02-2007, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Isn't it interesting that this thread should come up out of the blue, at a moment in our nation's history when we're being told to fear another nuclear threat that could end us all? Between that and the death of Gen. Tibbets, we've got our very own nuke-era renaissance going on here on TFP...

The_Jazz · 11-02-2007, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Isn't it interesting that this thread should come up out of the blue, at a moment in our nation's history when we're being told to fear another nuclear threat that could end us all? Between that and the death of Gen. Tibbets, we've got our very own nuke-era renaissance going on here on TFP...

The threat was always there. We just chose to ignore it. There are far too many nuclear-armed states to dismiss those fears completely.

Elphaba · 11-02-2007, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Isn't it interesting that this thread should come up out of the blue, at a moment in our nation's history when we're being told to fear another nuclear threat that could end us all? Between that and the death of Gen. Tibbets, we've got our very own nuke-era renaissance going on here on TFP...

I find it interesting that Politics is drawing new members of the 20% group. I am reminded of the pre-2006-election members. In fact, the responses and positions are so similar that they could be the same old members with new names. How fanciful I can be.

ratbastid · 11-02-2007, 07:48 PM

You know, Ustwo, your only problem is that you're skeptical of entirely the wrong stuff.

Ustwo · 11-02-2007, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

You know, Ustwo, your only problem is that you're skeptical of entirely the wrong stuff.

Sorry I don't see a conspiracy just because something happens which doesn't fit my ideology.

But if I were an agent of the shadow government it would be expected I would say something like that.

Fast Forward · 11-05-2007, 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

The threat was always there. We just chose to ignore it.

The manipulative, government-created paranoia has always had the American people by the throat. They just choose to change the name of the "threat" from time to time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

There are far too many nuclear-armed states to dismiss those fears completely.

There are far too many unjustified, false accusations of nuclear-armed states (and private individuals) that the U.S. has to choose from in order to keep their population shaking in their boots, and spending their tax-dollars on military defense. Did I say "defense"? Note the tongue planted very frimly in my cheek.

The_Jazz · 11-05-2007, 06:04 AM

FF - you're reinterpreting my post in a way it wasn't intended - strictly US-centric. There are 10 nuclear-armed states that I can think of off the top of my head (US, UK, France, Russia, Ukraine, China, North Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel). Of those I count 3 that have had some sort of violent conflicts in the last 40 years (i.e. living memory) that had nothing to do with the US (China vs. India, India vs. Pakistan, Russia vs. China).

Again, the threat of a nuclear holocaust with no US involvement has been on the table for decades. The public chose to ignore it in the post-Cold War era, but it remained nonetheless.

Perhaps the military-industrial complex has the hold on the government pocketbook you allege, but I see no evidence of it, especially when it comes to nuclear weapons, etc. No, if anything, it is the conventional weapons manufacturers that have cornered the DC market.

Fast Forward · 11-06-2007, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

There are 10 nuclear-armed states that I can think of off the top of my head (US, UK, France, Russia, Ukraine, China, North Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel).

But only one of them has ever degraded its' own self-proclaimed civility sufficiently enough to actually used the things upon any population - which makes the followoing statement rather hypocritically unsavoury. Don't you think?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

... the threat of a nuclear holocaust with no US involvement has been on the table for decades.

Ps. I'm not necessarily critizing the U.S. for the use of the bombs on Japan - but I am critizing its' high and mighty judgement of other nations that are trying to play "catch-up". The Americans think it is vindictive glory that the rest of the world wants blue-jeans and Coca-Cola but balk at it wanting to have a share in the balance of world power.

10-30-2007, 05:35 AM	#1 (permalink)
Fast Forward Banned Location: Tramtária	Cuban Missile Crisis: TRUE quotes - FALSE insinuation Maybe you remember (or at least have heard) Adlai Stevenson’s burning outburst when he flamed the Soviet Ambassador over the placment of Soviet missiles in Cuba in 1962, aimed at U.S. targets. “Do you, Ambassador Zorin, deny that the USSR has placed and is placing medium - and intermediate - range missiles and sites in Cuba? Yes or no? Don't wait for the translation. Yes or no?” That may have seemed like a verbal blow for justice (by American standards) but it was nothing more than a hollow threat, meant merely to impress anyone who didn’t understand the true situation. What Stevenson DID NOT mention (and what most Americans are still unaware of) was that the U.S. had already placed 15 Jupiter IRBMs missiels in Turkey aimed at Soviet targets in 1961, and the Soviet missiles were a direct response to the American agression there. The U.S. likes to site “the Cuban Crisis” as a victory. It was anything but that. The Soviet Union put John Kennedy to his knees and forced him to remove his missiles from Turkey in exchange for the Soviets doing likewise in Cuba.

10-30-2007, 05:59 AM	#2 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Ummm....well I suppose thats one way of looking at it. Like saying the battle of Midway was just a diversion so the Japanese could take the Allusion Islands. I mean the facts are true, we did remove the Jupiter missiles, but calling it a victory for the USSR is a bit weak. Removing those missiles which were mostly redundant and not very effective was more of a face saving measure. While Kennedy might be over rated as a president, this is not one of the reasons. Edit:I'll add I knew about the Jupiter missiles since I was 15 taking American history in high school. Its not like its a cover up. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-30-2007, 07:50 AM	#4 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	As an aside, I recommend watching the movie "Thirteen Days." __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

10-30-2007, 08:38 AM	#5 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	A victory for the Soviets? That would come as a surprise to the Politburo who basically exiled Khrushchev for it. They were the hardliners that pushed for the missles to be placed orginally. The trade was offered in the clear on Radio Moscow and accepted in the clear on Radio Moscow. Bhreshnev et al, all direct heirs of Stalin, felt that Khrushchev failed the country by not have the power or force of personality to impose Soviet will upon the rest of the world. It directly lead to his downfall and was acknowledged as such in his autobiography. Sergei Khrushchev, Nikita's son, also has stated many times that his father felt that the Missle Crisis effectively ended his career and that it scared him how close the world came to nuclear holocaust. The Turkish missles were known from the very beginning and have always been a part of every history I've ever read about the event. If you want to talk about obsure events impacting the Crisis, though, why don't you try the Sino-Indian War that was raging at this exact moment? __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

10-30-2007, 10:32 AM	#6 (permalink)
biznatch Junkie Location: France	Yes, this is nothing new. As a side note, there are "secret conditions" that have been created in fictional versions of the Cold War, and it does make sense, because it does seem sometimes that the USSR removed something they didn't have to. For example in the video game Metal Gear Solid 3, the USSR agrees to remove the missiles only if their fictional prominent nuclear missile scientist (who had defected) is returned to them, so he could complete work on a more advanced weapon. I guess that doesn't belong to Politics, but it's interesting to think, "if there was anything we didn't know about that was said or agreed, and still don't know, what could they be?". __________________ Check it out: The Open Source/Freeware/Gratis Software Thread

10-30-2007, 02:47 PM	#8 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Fast Foward, I'm curious as to where you got your information. As others have said, our missiles in Turkey has been common knowledge. One of our politico's flaming an ambassador is of little note historically. If you would like a little known quote, my husband can quote you the CiC's command that he decripted for his ship's captain, to confront the Soviet Navy to prevent them from proceding to Cuba. Trust me, that was no hollow threat. If you can quote Bobby Kennedy's recommendation that likely prevented both countries from mutual annihilation, we can then have an interesting discussion about what was said and, more importantly what was not said. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007 Last edited by Elphaba; 10-30-2007 at 02:50 PM..

11-01-2007, 06:26 AM	#12 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	FF, if you ever read a good biography of the man, you'll realize how close to the truth you are. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

11-02-2007, 05:00 AM	#13 (permalink)
Fast Forward Banned Location: Tramtária	Heh - heh!

11-02-2007, 05:28 AM	#14 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Isn't it interesting that this thread should come up out of the blue, at a moment in our nation's history when we're being told to fear another nuclear threat that could end us all? Between that and the death of Gen. Tibbets, we've got our very own nuke-era renaissance going on here on TFP...

11-02-2007, 07:48 PM	#18 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	You know, Ustwo, your only problem is that you're skeptical of entirely the wrong stuff.

11-05-2007, 06:04 AM	#21 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	FF - you're reinterpreting my post in a way it wasn't intended - strictly US-centric. There are 10 nuclear-armed states that I can think of off the top of my head (US, UK, France, Russia, Ukraine, China, North Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel). Of those I count 3 that have had some sort of violent conflicts in the last 40 years (i.e. living memory) that had nothing to do with the US (China vs. India, India vs. Pakistan, Russia vs. China). Again, the threat of a nuclear holocaust with no US involvement has been on the table for decades. The public chose to ignore it in the post-Cold War era, but it remained nonetheless. Perhaps the military-industrial complex has the hold on the government pocketbook you allege, but I see no evidence of it, especially when it comes to nuclear weapons, etc. No, if anything, it is the conventional weapons manufacturers that have cornered the DC market. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo