free forum make a forum for free message boards free forum hosting free phpbb forum phpbb create free forum

Mfischhoff · Joined: 14 Sep 2009 Posts: 51

How do Kennedy and Krushev's letters change your understanding of the Cuban Missile Crisis?

Reflect and respond to your peers. Please write at least 100-200 words and include a question!

Free Forum

helens · Joined: 22 Nov 2009 Posts: 25

I can honestly see why Kennedy only responded to Khruschev first letters because Khruschev second seemed more demanding. I felt his letter was just saying the U.S has to do this and that, didn’t seem at all like he was trying to calmly negotiate. But in the end I really understood the misunderstanding. Through the letters I got the feelings that the Soviets were just looking out for Cuba and U.S just really wants to protect its people. And both governments were threatened by one another because they both of people look out after. These letters really did help me better understand what happened and how protecting people almost caused a war.

My question though is why wasn’t Castro opinions in the Soviets letter. Like he talking about the greater good of Cuba but he wasn’t including Castro’s opinions. Wait a minute… when Khruschev was talking about not invading Cuba was that including Castro…I didn’t complete understand that

rbennett · Joined: 14 Oct 2009 Posts: 39

It was very interesting to read the letters between the leaders of each country. I could really sense the tone of each letter, and how that tone changed over time. This really helped me get more of a sense of the relationships between these people. The tone of the letters between Kennedy and Khrushchev started out as pretty hostile toward each other, with Khrushchev hinting at accusing Kennedy of not caring about the rest of the world. Like when he said “I think you will understand me correctly if you are really concerned about the welfare of the world,” (84), it seemed like he was questioning Kennedy’s concern for the world. Also I felt like Khrushchev was insulting Kennedy when he said “…you, Mr. President, are a military man and should understand…” (85). He repeated this a few times, and I got the feeling from it like he was saying, “well you should understand, but maybe you’re stupid and you don’t,” or something to that affect.

But over time I think the tone of the letters changed. Kennedy and Khrushchev’s letters to each other became more polite as they started to come to some agreements. Also, the tone of the letters between Castro and Khrushchev changed as well. In the beginning Khrushchev was all passionate about helping Castro and protecting Cuba from the U.S., but after the Soviet Union made an agreement with the U.S., the tone of the letters changed from more angry and passionate to more passive. Like when Khrushchev was responding to Castro’s letter of demands, he says that he understands that Castro is upset about the Khrushchev-Kennedy agreement, but that what Castro was asking for was wrong.

To answer Helen’s question, I think that Khrushchev didn’t mention Castro’s opinions because he was more focused on what was best for the Soviet Union. I think when he mentioned fighting for the greater good of Cuba, and not wanting the U.S. to invade Cuba, he was kind of including Castro in that. But I think it’s interesting that he didn’t directly mention Castro’s opinions to Kennedy and that he didn’t include him in that correspondence. And the fact that after the Khrushchev-Kennedy agreement, Khrushchev and Russia pretty much abandon Cuba, shows that they were more invested in their own motives.

Question: What do you think Khrushchev thought about Kennedy blatantly ignoring his second letter?

cfairless · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 7

Reading these letters made me realize that both parties were very aware of the possibility of a nuclear war, throughout the entire negotiation. I feel like the other reading made this very ambiguous, and only talked about how after the crisis was resolved it was realized how close the US and USSR came to doing this.

One thing that surprised me was how much more curt and blunt Kennedy's letters were in comparison to Krushchev's. They were very to-the-point, and Kennedy almost seemed less willing to compromise than Krushchev. Perhaps Kennedy's letters were just more professional, because Krushchev did seem to have a very drawn-out writing style and he added a lot of unnecessary information.

Whose letters do you think were more polite/effective?

jpressman · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 7

Khrushchev was probably upset Kennedy ignored his second letter, but its good he didnt say anything about it because that would have added to tension to the negotiating process, and the outcome might not have turned out as well.

What was so interesting to me in reading the letters was seeing Kennedy and Khrushchev change tone over time. In their first letters, Khrushchev was being really manipulative and rude towards Kennedy, swearing that the nukes were only defensive weapons and saying things like, "Do you really think that we only occupy ourselves wit the carriage of so-called offensive weapons, atomic and hydrogen bombs? Although perhaps your military people imagine that these (cargoes) are some sort of special type of weapon, I assure you that they are the most ordinary of peaceful products." (86)

However, as the negotiations continued, Khrushchev and Kennedy became more friendly towards each other. It was interesting to see how unwavering Castro was in his own stance, though. Even as the USSR and the USA were making deals with each other, Cuba was still trying to the USA out of its affairs completely (see page 92). I think Cuba thought it was a lot more powerful than it actually was.

My question:
Was the UN effective in helping Khrushchev and Kennedy reach an agreement?

mmcgowan18 · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 27

To answer Charolettes (spelling? sorry) question, I think Khrushchevs letters were more polite and understanding to both Kennedy and Castro. He seemed to take in consideration the views of and affects on all parties inculded. Before i read the Krushchev's letters I thought he would be mean and rude, but he was the complete opposite. Even in the second letter to Kennedy, he was very polite.

In his first letter to Kennndey, Khrushchev talked alot about how they both were afraid for their people and were responsible for the world. And what their face to face meeting changed his views of Kennedy. The first one seemed alot more personal then the second one. The second one almost seemed like someone was telling him to write, because there were two completely different demands in the letters. The ones in the first one seemed more personal and thoughtful but the second were the demands that were expected.

Why do you think Kennedy and Castro never had any contact, if the whole crisis was about Castro's country?

mlockery · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 7

These letters made it sound like the whole crisis was just a big misunderstanding. While that may be true to some extent, I feel like Castro, Kennedy and Khrushchev were egging each other on in a globally perilous game of "Who's Fault is it REALLY?" Castro said he felt threatened by the United States, so he ordered missiles from the USSR. Khrushchev gladly sent them, telling Kennedy later that he understood the hardships of building a government after you just overthrew one. Kennedy felt threatened, so sent naval ships to Cuba, telling Khrushchev the missiles must be removed. Khrushchev freaked out, telling Kennedy he would blow up any naval ships he found near Cuba. Everybody so far has blamed someone else for the crisis, and nobody has admitted fault or provided a non-military solution. Meanwhile, Kennedy and Khrushchev have all but forgotten about Castro, who had the original bright idea of putting Soviet missiles 90 miles from the shores of the United States. Every letter, despite some very legitimate attempts at being cordial, casts blame on someone else. When Castro began to feel left out, he put the pressure on Khrushchev, aggravating the situation further.

My question: Describe possible negotiations that may have happened between these three leaders.

soldsman · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 9

first to answer your question maggie:

i think that Castro hated the U.S. and Kennedy enough that he wasn't willing to come to an agreement. He didn't trust the U.S. and he only wanted to work with the Soviets then.

These letters surprised me quite a bit. I thought both of Khrushchevs letters were SO passive aggressive. For example, he kept asking questions to Kennedy starting with, "Can you really think this way" or "Can you possibly think that..." I thought they were pretty obnoxious. Looking past that though both Kennedy and Khrushchev were very civilized. They both really did want a solution to the Nuclear problem. Castro sounded like such a suck up to Krushchev in the first couple letters.

My question is do you think Khrushchev was annoyed that Kennedy didn't respond to his second letter. He didn't mention it at all afterward..

azellweger · Joined: 19 Oct 2009 Posts: 20

I totally agree with everyone about the tones in the letters between Kennedy and Khrushchev were very passive aggressive, like Sophie said. But it was almost like they didn’t try to say anything too offensive, because they obviously didn’t want to piss each other off. They were kind of walking on eggshells, but every once and a while they would throw in a snarky comment.
I don’t know what others thought but I really like Khrushchev’s explanation of a cannon, and when it is defined as an offensive weapon and a defensive weapon. I don’t think it is a good parallel because unlike a cannon, a nuclear bomb doesn’t need back-up, or arms, or soldiers because it destroys so much by itself. But in other situations I see the definite parallel.
Do you think Khrushchev was annoyed that Kennedy didn't respond to his second letter? It kind of reminds me of those stories of a person who sends an angry letter to someone who they’re angry with, then the next day when they’ve cooled off regretted sending it. Luckily Kennedy wasn’t too offended and just ignored it. I think Khrushchev was kind of relived that Kennedy didn’t react too badly to it.
My question is: Which leader do you think was less passive aggressive?

eeschneider · Joined: 16 Oct 2009 Posts: 30

I found tonights reading to be very interesting. It almost got us in the heads and thoughts of the leaders of the Soviety Union, Cuba and the US which was pretty sweet. In the reading I found at first Khrushchev and Kennedy's letters to each other to be almost aggressive towards each other then they mellowed out when they started to agree with each other.

Also I agree with Charlotte that with these readings we saw how close to a nuclear war we actually were.

RRubbico · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 23

The letters between the Soviet Union, the US, and Cuba didn’t really change my understanding of the Cuban missile crisis as much as it clarified certain aspects of it. I thought all together Khrushchev and Kennedy did a good job of settling misunderstandings, fears and complications, but Castro, who was a main part of the US’s problems, was not really taken into account by either party (mostly the US). You can definitely tell from Castro’s letters that he had understandable fears about his countries well being and that he was discontent with his lack of being heard. I also thought, which was very surprising to me, that Khrushchev was very fair and had good morals. Before this all I heard about the Soviet Union was negative information and I think this really cleared a lot of that up. My question is do you actually think that the nuclear weapons delivered by the Soviets to Cuba were actually solely for Cuba’s defense?

esumner · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 9

I really liked this reading, it was nice to see "behind the scenes." A little detail that stuck out to me was language Khrushchev constantly used while writing to Kennedy. Especially how he always addressed him as Mr. President.

In response to Charlotte's question, I think Kennedy (all though he only responded to the first one) got his message across more effectively and politely. He went straight to the point with what he wanted and didn't go off in to unnecessary detail. Khrushchev went off into little tangents about Cuba that I personally do not think were necessary in the letter to Kennedy.

My question: Do you think Khrushchev repetitively calling Kennedy "Mr. President" was an act of respect, or was he trying to politely insult him?

jcho · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 22

The letters sent between the two leaders helped me clear up the situation. It was interesting to see the exchanges that were being made through the crisis. These letters gave me the impression that the Soviet Union was more on the look out for the best interest of the world; while the US seemed to be too much concerned for their own safety. I think the US was blinded by this threat, which made them unable to realize that the control over Cuba was going out of hand (or they may have planned this, we won't know). I didn't quite get why Khrushchev wrote the two letters with such different tones. One calm and negotiable, while the other was more demanding. It may have been a mood swing of his, but I found it interesting how Kennedy ignored the second letter.
For the question with the lack of Castro's involvement between the agreement, I think that the two superpowers were too concerned about their own ideals, that they forgot why the conflict started.
My question is how or why didn't Khrushchev react when Kennedy only replied to his first letter? Was the second letter just a gamble to see if the US would submit?

asilver · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 28

These letters really hammer home to me how much the US got away with in terms of diplomacy. I mean we totally ignored the second letter that the USSR sent to us trying to deescalate the situation. Then we only sort of follow what we said we were going to do. We said in exchange for the USSR removing its missiles we would remove our quarantine on Cuba. But we still ha an embargo against them today.
My question is who do you think did more to diffuse the cold war, the USSR or the US?

blee · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 9

I understood deeper about the reaction and attitude of Soviet Unions. Before, I wondered how demanding they were but after this reading, I could understand that S.U. was unwilling to surrender to U.S. by reading the first letter. It seemed in every letter that they did not want the war and they were hesitated to fight. I thought it was interesting that Khrushchev made Kennedy sound like a fighter in the letters. He was saying "Do you think that we can attack you for th eterritory of Cuba? Can you reall think that way?" This seemed to be like turning against Cuba already and showing Kennedy that he was willing to quit what he was doing in Cuba for relations with U.S. Throughout the letters, Khrushchev seemed more and more friendly also.
My question: Why did Cuba and Soviet Union broke up suddenly?

Free Forum