JFK at the end stated that we shouldn't gloat because it was just as much a victory for the Russians as it was for us. Nothing could be further from the truth! It was in fact a humiliation for the Russians. Why do you think Khrushchev was ousted two years later? That was the reason.
shareI think the nature of the victory to which he is referring lies in being alive a week later. The cabinet and staff comments during that celebration scene reflect the reality of the U.S. ascendancy coming out of the crisis. You are correct that Krushchev got buried.
"Morbius, something is approaching from the southwest. It is now quite close."
The victory was that both administrations worked things out in the end, it would have been very easy for one side or the other to think "it's gonna come to war anyway so let's strike." The victory was the fact that both held off doing the strategic thing and in some ways, accepted that their "enemies" wanted nuclear war as little as they did.
shareYou're absolutely right!
shareIt was the US backing down in the end, and removing the missiles from Turkey, that prompted the end of the crisis. They just tried some spin on it.
It was also this incident that led to the creation of the 'Hot line' between the US President and the Russian Premier to try and avoid such problems in the future as each could call up the other to verify.
And let's not forget - JFK was assassinated just one year later. Who's to say the US authorities weren't humiliated by the backing down and wanted someone capable of that out of the way, before they could tell the truth?
[deleted]
No it makes sense, just because Kruschev was humiliated publicly and ousted later doesn't change the fact Kennedy was willing to concede to the russians by getting rid of it's missiles in turkey.
Who's to say Kennedy would not have made further secret concessions and further weakened the U.S ability to retaliate in WWIII which many considered to be inevitable? Although publicly the cuban missile crisis was a Kennedy victory, insider military hardliners would have seen it as a defeat against soviet aggression, creating fertile ground for an insider conspiracy to kill the president.
Actually given the timing, and military connections in the Kennedy assassination, his bowing to soviet pressure is probably what got him killed.
[deleted]
Your confused. I'm positive many U.S military hardliners would have considered the cuban missile crisis resolution a humiliation.
Another military connection, if you believe in the second gunman theory, is the second sniper would have had to have been military to pull off a headshot at a moving vehicle.
Also given the soviet paranoia at the time, killing a president to save millions is a no brainer in the mind of a military man entrusted to keep the u.s safe. Denying this means you have little understanding of just how cheap human life is to the military mind.
Also mentioned on another thread, Kennedy was scheduled to meet with the Russians at a nuclear disarmament meeting right before being killed.
Another factor is the military brass being morally conservative, the salacious stories around Kennedy would have infuriated them.
I agree it's a weak theory, but I'm certain many military hardliners had murderous feelings towards Kennedy.
[deleted]
A little Kahless wisdom with a tweak would apply here:
Destroying a nation to win a war is no victory. And ending a battle to save an Nation is no defeat.
The problem with people like you subase, and what seems to be a majority of conservatives is the fact that you do not believe stopping a war is a victory and its sad and pathetic.
Not sure if you even paid attention to the movie, or the factual aspect that our Jupiter missiles in Turkey were obsolete and schedule for removal anyway when this all happened, so it didn't matter that he gave them up.
However, perception mattered, and that is why fooling the Russians into thinking they won some kind of "concession" worked so very well, but insisting that, obviously, that concession be kept a secret for some time so as to not allow other nations believe the US would negotiate under threat.
Kennedy did the smart thing that saved this nation and perhaps hundreds of millions of lives, and yet to you, that is a defeat.
Now, there is no doubt if the Jupiter missiles were important at all and not already planned to be removed, then that might be seen as a concession to worry about...but since nobody knew about it until much later, and then knew that they were being removed anyway, it really just shows the genius of how intelligent leaders handle foreign policy...and they are always democrats.
It's a lot like how Obama handled Syria. Obama knew he screwed up with his red line by believing the other four permanent members of the UN security council would actually do their job and uphold international law rather than worrying about their own personal interests.
So, Obama and his advisors played Putin for a fool. Obama threated to hit Syria, baiting Putin, considering Syria & Assad were allies of Russia, and Syria's being in the way of a Saudi Arabian pipeline to Turkey that would bring cheaper oil prices to Eastern Europe and cost the Russians billions of dollars, as well as being Russia's only ally in the region compared to the US who has Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Yemen.
So, when Putin bluffed and threatened that he would fight if Syria was attacked, the US had only three destroyers off the coast of Syria (And who knows how many submarines). Afterwards, Obama made a speech saying that he, like Prime Minister Hollande did not need congressional approval for limited military operations and that he believed attacking was the right thing to do. He said, however, because Congress was screaming to have their voice heard, that he would let them vote on the issue, but made it clear he was not obligated to abide by their vote.
While doing this, Obama had two more destroyers (which, US destroyers are about as big as most other nation's aircraft carriers - all 9 of the other nation's aircraft carriers in the world outside of the United States' 10) moved into the Mediterranean along with two French destroyers all moving to the coast of Syria. He also had an aircraft carrier rerouted the Red Sea. What did Putin do? He sent three very outdated amphibious assault vessels.
He also had a meeting with McCain who had always been hawkish suddenly came out after meeting with Obama absolutely positive that the Syrian government was responsible, even though Putin not only disagreed and said the rebels did it, but also backed Assad's lie about Syria's chemical weapons stockpile!
So, basically Obama and congress actually worked together to scare Russia into thinking that the US would overthrow Assad (something the US did not want to do because the Syrian civil war has US enemies on both sides and its in the United States' best interests for them to keep fighting as long as possible). That, coupled with the huge build up of military presence resulted in:
Putin suddenly coming out and saying he would get Syria to hand over the chemical weapons that he and Assad claimed Syria didn't even possesses. Now, why would he just randomly do this if he was Syria's close ally other than knowing that he had no chance in hell of fighting the US and that what he said was a complete bluff and Obama called his bluff and Putin folded.
The US got more than it even hoped for in that situation because of wise tactics. Speak softly and carry a big stick. Too bad more republicans aren't as "weak" as some of these morons are claiming, because that weakness seems to tend to avert the US from unnecessary war. The US is too powerful to have an insecurity complex, but hey, you know conservatives...they always seem to be compensating for something.