So I plan to address the different views of the crisis in regards to it's resolution, that being the different perspectives regarding the agreement which was made between the two parties.. As we know, or as I know, two letters where sent from Moscow to Washington that had two separate demands for the US in order for the missiles to removed from Cuba peacefully, the first, demanded that President Kennedy make a public promise never to invade Cuba while the second proposed the removal of US missiles from Turkey/Italy( in short). Now, this is where conflicting evidence creates multiple views and perspectives. One reply was formed which disregarded the second letter and agreed to the conditions of the first and it seemed to the public that this was the resolution to the crisis at the time, as this is all they were aware of but the President's brother, Robert Kennedy, had come to see Anatoly Dobrynin, a Russian ambassador, on an unofficial visit. There are multiple accounts of this meeting, but there is one large difference, whether an agreement was made in which the US did agree to the second letter from Chairmen Khrushchev but under the condition of secrecy. It is important to note that America did remove their missiles so it would seem that they did agree to the demands but some American sources claim that the missiles in Turkey/Italy where outdated and where due to be withdrawn... but not replaced? Why give up that strategic military advantage that holds the soviets at bay and protects other European allies? Yet, those accounts claim the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the situation and inform Khrushchev of the semi redundant state of the missiles and that they would be removed after the crisis, probably in order to avoid any link/reaction and public recognition.. and you know, Americans like to think they are the boss so they like to look like they don't give into demands. ;) Silly Americans.
In Robert F. Kennedys Thirteen Days: A Memoir of the Cuban Missile Crisis, which is the basis for the Film TD (which explains a lot), he states that "He (Ambassador Dobrynin) raised the question of our removing the missiles from Turkey. I said that there could be no quid pro quo or any arrangement made under this kind of threat or pressure and that in the last analysis this was a decision that would have to be made by NATO. However, I said, President Kennedy had been anxious to remove those missiles from Italy and Turkey for a long period of time. He had ordered their removal some time ago, and it was our judgment that, within a short time after this crisis was over, those missiles would be gone." P.108. (quid pro quo means "this for this" or "what for what") This is a very convenient truth for the Americans and is "No deal" perceptive. Published in 1969, 7 odd years after the crisis.
Richard Ned Lebow's and Janice Gross Stein's, We All Lost the Cold War (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994) provided Dobrynin's recount as follows: "However, President Kennedy is ready to come to agree on that question with N.S. Khrushchev, too. I think that in order to withdraw these bases from Turkey," R. Kennedy said, 'we need 4-5 months. This is the minimal amount of time necessary for the US government to do this, taking into account the procedures that exist within the NATO framework. On the whole Turkey issue," R. Kennedy added, "if Premier N.S. Khrushchev agrees with what I've said, we can continue to exchange opinions between him and the president, using him, R. Kennedy and the Soviet ambassador. ''However, the president can't say anything public in this regard about Turkey," R. Kennedy said again. R. Kennedy then warned that his comments about Turkey are extremely confidential; besides him and his brother, only 2-3 people know about it in Washington." P. 523-526
Well, that is different from Roberts version of events... hmm, here's Lebow's and Stein's comment:
This interpretation is supported by the president's willingness to remove the Jupiter missiles as a quid pro quo for the withdrawal of missiles in Cuba, and his brother's frank(?) confession that the only obstacle to dismantling the Jupiters were political. "Public discussion" of a missile exchange would damage the United States' position in NATO. For this reason, Kennedy revealed, "besides himself and his brother, only 2-3 people know about it in Washington." Khrushchev would have to cooperate with the administration to keep the American concession a secret.
So, DEAL or NO DEAL? There's more opinions and versions of what happened if you follow the URL at the top to it's corresponding webpage. There's more to say but I'm soooo lazy.
Feedback, yo? Just add it below.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=1eYD1TFLqj4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Cuban+missile+crisis++By+Robert+A.+Divine&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QKg7T-DjFIuhiQew5Yn9CQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Cuban%20missile%20crisis%20%20By%20Robert%20A.%20Divine&f=false, this is really interesting... Useful to my studies, may read..
http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/chap10.htm I had a look at this and it seemed interesting and made a lot of sense but I didn't read it all! so many examples..
