Jump to content
The Education Forum
Tim Carroll

The "Whole Bay Of Pigs Thing"

Recommended Posts

"When I asked if the CIA and Mossad worked together back in 1963, James Files mentioned to me there were Mossad people present in Dealey Plaza he recognized. He didn’t want to elaborate other than “they had their aerial pictures and Langley had theirs” because he wasn’t sure if that was still classified information.

If you follow this trail you will end up in the past and current White House and the wars in the Middle East-in fact all the wars in SE Asia, South and Central America, Africa - basically all the wars. Yes the drugging and terrorizing of America is part of this safari but you will find the people you are looking for to solve this case.

Hard line Israel played a major role in the 1980 October Surprise scandal with none other that George H.W. Bush as one of the big league players. This led to the Iran-Contra scandal, the Clintons in power...domestic and foreign state sponsored terrorism...

When this area is touched upon a spiritual and Biblical thread is woven into the conspiracy. Throw in the false evangelical prophets supporting this genocide and you get the picture. Since most people are not familiar with Zionism vs. true Judaism, an important part of this complex puzzle remains a mystery, a riddle wrapped in an enigma."

"What do people here think about this subject?"

What do I think about your dissertation that Israel is responsible for every bad thing that's ever happened in the last 50 years? Israel was behind the assassination? In league with the mob and James Files? Iran Contra? Domestic and state sponsored terrorism??

At the risk of censure, you make me ill. You are a prime example of the lunatic fringe.

What is past is prologue…dedicated to the young in whose spirit the search for the truth marches on.

JFK

Richard,

When Eisenhower gave his farewell speech I was just a tot. I’m young at heart and I’m marching towards the truth. See ya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I know about Eisenhower the more I respect his resolve. He knew what he was up against and he spelled it out for his successors. He wanted plausible deniability like Kennedy but he respected the office of the commander in chief, IMO.

I heard a story at COPA of Lemay puffing a cigar at the autopsy. One of the examiners approached him and told him to respect the dead president, and stub the stogie. The source of the story (not sure who) may have fabricated it, not sure if Lemay put it out or puffed on. It's a good metaphor, true or not, to whom JFK was facing after President Eisenhower made his fears known.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The more I know about Eisenhower the more I respect his resolve.  He knew what he was up against and he spelled it out for his successors.  He wanted plausible deniability like Kennedy but he respected the office of the commander in chief, IMO. 

I heard a story at COPA of Lemay puffing a cigar at the autopsy.  One of the examiners approached him and told him to respect the dead president, and stub the stogie.  The source of the story (not sure who) may have fabricated it, not sure if Lemay put it out or puffed on.  It's a good metaphor, true or not, to whom JFK was facing after President Eisenhower made his fears known.

Christy,

Were you and I both at COPA and didn't meet?

I don't share your level of respect for Ike in that, as I said earlier, he was duped into massive expenditures by his D-Day mentality, which left him certain that he would be able to use the massive superiority (as opposed to stable parity) and his charm with Khrushchev at Camp David, to force a peace that was so easily undone by the likes of Dulles and the U-2 sabotage. This left JFK screwed from the git-go.

Also, during the transition, he allowed the Bay of Pigs invasion to morph into something far more massive than anything he himself would have ever authorized. JFK himself noted on 1/19/61, after meeting with Ike the day before the inauguration, that he was being pushed to do what Ike himself would not in Laos. That same day, Ike's last full day in office, Lumumba was assassinated through CIA facilitation. That same January, only two weeks before leaving office, he formally severed diplomatic relations with Cuba.

He was probably a very decent man, but not up to the task of managing the special interests he could only warn about upon retirement.

I like the story about LeMay's cigar smoking autopsy attendance.

Tim

Edited by Tim Carroll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The more I know about Eisenhower the more I respect his resolve.  He knew what he was up against and he spelled it out for his successors.  He wanted plausible deniability like Kennedy but he respected the office of the commander in chief, IMO. 

I heard a story at COPA of Lemay puffing a cigar at the autopsy.  One of the examiners approached him and told him to respect the dead president, and stub the stogie.  The source of the story (not sure who) may have fabricated it, not sure if Lemay put it out or puffed on.  It's a good metaphor, true or not, to whom JFK was facing after President Eisenhower made his fears known.

In my opinion, Eisenhower was a great president. Had he remained in office, I don't think we would have ended up involved in the imbroglio over Cuba, or ensnared in Vietnam, for that matter. The U2 incident was probably one of Eisenhower's biggest blunders.

You've probably heard the story how Eisenhower came in the office early, read the intelligence reports, made the hard decisions, etc., then went golfing. At the time the public thought all he did was golf but he was really in command of the presidency. Of course, a true expert makes the difficult look easy. And Eisenhoewer would deliberately muddle his syntax when he wanted to evade a question.

Soon we'll post the story how the joint chiefs of staff, who so strongly objected to Kennedy's refusal to invade Cuba during the missile crisis, shortly thereafter accompanied JFK on a trip to Key West to inspect the Hawk missiles and thank the soldiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my opinion, Eisenhower was a great president.  Had he remained in office, I don't think we would have ended up involved in the imbroglio over Cuba, or ensnared in Vietnam, for that matter.  The U2 incident was probably one of Eisenhower's biggest blunders. 

Eisenhower had gotten away with overthrowing foreign governments so successfully in Iran and Guatemala that he had become complacent about it by the time he was leaving office as the oldest president in history. Aside from the lame duck moves in his last three weeks in office which I previously mentioned (including a tenfold increase in the Bay of Pigs invasion force and an international assassination on his last full day in office), the overwhelming imbalance of power that was bought and paid for during Ike's tenure led directly to Khrushchev's need to implement a quick fix to counter the encirclement policy of the Eisenhower years. Ike had plenty of advantages in terms of command authority which JFK did not have, yet still got bested by the Military Industrial Complex he had enabled. The Soviet deployment of missiles off our shore, mimicking Ike's long term policy, created the most dangerous moment in human history. It wasn't until 1989 that it was learned that they had even deployed tactical Luna missiles, which were totally defensive, yet still, according to McNamara, would have triggered nuclear war. I consider JFK's restraint of the momentum toward a nuclear final solution (Nazi German designed rockets and all), with a cast of inherited characters the likes of LeMay and Anderson, to be his greatest contribution.

Tim

Edited by Tim Carroll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suffice it to say, and I'm not disagreeing with you, each Prez comes with his baggage. He inherits more with the office. There's so much imperfection and deceit. DC can be the WC of politics and by that I mean toilet.

Factions at Pentagon, the icons of wealth and their lapdogs all pulling for favors. This carries over. What a bind for any man trying to lead and push policy.

I'm not as studied as you on this topic of Eisenhower but I see him as imperfect as was JFK. Imperfection is human, all of them made big errors in judgment. JFK came and went too soon for his objectives.

IMO, RFK's aspirations after 1963, is an illustration of a man who saw it, had a role in it, cross-examined the legacy and began to change. He picked himself up and knowing grave indecency in DC, he focused on the future after losing John and Martin.

I remember seeing a tape of LBJ handing Bobby a load of pens ("here go take these to your brats") during the Civil Rights Act signing. RFK skulked away-- it was painful to watch. He knew, LBJ knew and it was DC politics after all. This environment we can observe but not truly understand as participants.

Our nation was a mess; LBJ was like Nixon after the bombing of Cambodia or Kent State, feebly talking to the "younger generation." All this and Cuba and Dallas too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To many, including top officials at the CIA and the State Department, the very idea of any sort of dialogue with Castro was heresy. Nevertheless, Kennedy authorized William Attwood, Special Adviser to the United States delegation at the United Nations, to begin informal talks with the Cuban Ambassador aimed at eventual normalization of relations between the U.S. and Cuba. He also set up a back channel communication with Castro through journalist Lisa Howard, who was flown to Cuba a number of times in 1963 using a covert operative pilot.  A message had been received through U.N. personnel that Castro was displeased about the degree to which Cuba was becoming tied to the Soviet Union and was seeking to redress the balance by finding an accommodation with the United States. There was evidence that a rift had developed between Castro and some of his Communist colleagues, including Che Guevara. The Cuban leader had given an interview in which he expressed satisfaction over Kennedy's crackdown on exile raiding parties.

Lisa Howard is an interesting character. She was originally an actress and in 1950 appeared as a Soviet official in the anti-communist film, Guilty of Treason. She also appeared in Mr. & Mrs. North (1952), Donovan's Brain (1953) and Sabaka (1954). In the late 1950s she was a regular on CBS's Edge of Night.

In 1960 Howard became a correspondent for Mutual Radio Network. Covering the United Nations, she became the first journalist to secure an interview with Nikita Khrushchev. In 1963 she covered the Vienna summit between President John F. Kennedy and the Soviet leader. Later that year she became the anchor for ABC's noontime news broadcast, The News Hour with Lisa Howard.

In April 1963 McGeorge Bundy suggested to President John F. Kennedy that there should be a "gradual development of some form of accommodation with Castro". In an interview given in 1995, Bundy, said Kennedy needed "a target of opportunity" to talk to Fidel Castro.

In April 1963 Howard arrived in Cuba to make a documentary on the country. In an interview with Howard, Fidel Castro agreed that a rapprochement with Washington was desirable. On her return Howard was detained by the CIA. Deputy Director Richard Helms reported to John F. Kennedy on Howard's view that "Fidel Castro is looking for a way to reach a rapprochement with the United States." After detailing her observations about Castro's political power, disagreements with his colleagues and Soviet troops in Cuba, the memo concluded that "Howard definitely wants to impress the U.S. Government with two facts: Castro is ready to discuss rapprochement and she herself is ready to discuss it with him if asked to do so by the US Government."

CIA Director John McCone was strongly opposed to Howard being involved with these negotiations with Castro. He argued that it might "leak and compromise a number of CIA operations against Castro". In a memorandum to McGeorge Bundy, McCone commented that the "Lisa Howard report be handled in the most limited and sensitive manner," and "that no active steps be taken on the rapprochement matter at this time."

Howard now decided to bypass the CIA and in May, 1963, published an article in the journal, War and Peace Report, Howard wrote that in eight hours of private conversations Castro had shown that he had a strong desire for negotiations with the United States: "In our conversations he made it quite clear that he was ready to discuss: the Soviet personnel and military hardware on Cuban soil; compensation for expropriated American lands and investments; the question of Cuba as a base for Communist subversion throughout the Hemisphere." Howard went on to urge the Kennedy administration to "send an American government official on a quiet mission to Havana to hear what Castro has to say." A country as powerful as the United States, she concluded, "has nothing to lose at a bargaining table with Fidel Castro."

William Attwood, an adviser to the US mission to the United Nations, read Howard's article and on 12th September, 1963, he had a long conversation with her on the phone. This apparently set in motion a plan to initiate secret talks between the United States and Cuba. Six days later Attwood sent a memorandum to Under Secretary of State Averell Harriman and U.N. Ambassador Adlai Stevenson. Attwood asked for permission to establish discreet, indirect contact with Fidel Castro.

On September 20, John F. Kennedy gave permission to authorize Attwood's direct contacts with Carlos Lechuga, the Cuban ambassador to the United Nations. According to Attwood: "I then told Miss Howard to set up the contact, that is to have a small reception at her house so that it could be done very casually, not as a formal approach by us." Howard met Lechuga at the UN on 23rd September 23. Howard invited Lechuga to come to a party at her Park Avenue apartment that night to meet Attwood.

The next day Attwood met with Robert Kennedy in Washington and reported on the talks with Lechuga. According to Attwood the attorney general believed that a trip to Cuba would be "rather risky." It was "bound to leak and... might result in some kind of Congressional investigation." Nevertheless, he thought the matter was "worth pursuing."

On 5th November, McGeorge Bundy recorded that "the President was more in favor of pushing towards an opening toward Cuba than was the State Department, the idea being - well, getting them out of the Soviet fold and perhaps wiping out the Bay of Pigs and maybe getting back into normal." Bundy designated his assistant, Gordon Chase, to be Attwood's direct contact at the White House.

Attwood continued to use Howard as his contact with Fidel Castro. In October 1963, Castro told Howard that he was very keen to open negotiations with Kennedy. Castro even offered to send a plane to Mexico to pick up Kennedy's representative and fly him to a private airport near Veradero where Castro would talk to him alone.

John F. Kennedy now decided to send Attwood to meet Castro. On 14th November, 1963, Lisa Howard conveyed this message to her Cuban contact. In an attempt to show his good will, Kennedy sent a coded message to Castro in a speech delivered on 19th November. The speech included the following passage: "Cuba had become a weapon in an effort dictated by external powers to subvert the other American republics. This and this alone divides us. As long as this is true, nothing is possible. Without it, everything is possible."

Kennedy also sent a message to Fidel Castro via the French journalist Jean Daniel. According to Daniel: "Kennedy expressed some empathy for Castro's anti-Americanism, acknowledging that the United States had committed a number of sins in pre-revolutionary Cuba." Kennedy told Daniel that the trade embargo against Cuba could be lifted if Castro ended his support for left-wing movements in the Americas.

Daniel delivered this message on 19th November. Castro told Daniel that Kennedy could become "the greatest president of the United States, the leader who may at last understand that there can be coexistence between capitalists and socialists, even in the Americas." Daniel was with Castro when news arrived that Kennedy had been assassinated Castro turned to Daniel and said:"This is an end to your mission of peace. Everything is changed."

President Lyndon B. Johnson was told about these negotiations in December, 1963. He refused to continue these talks and claimed that the reason for this was that he feared that Richard Nixon, the expected Republican candidate for the presidency, would accuse him of being soft on communism.

Howard refused to give up and in 1964 she resumed talks with Fidel Castro. On 12th February, 1964, she sent a message to President Lyndon B. Johnson from Fidel Castro asking for negotiations to be restarted. When Johnson did not respond to this message she contacted Adlai Stevenson at the United Nations. On 26th June 26, Stevenson sent a memo to Johnson saying that he felt that "all of our crises could be avoided if there was some way to communicate; that for want of anything better, he assumed that he could call (Lisa Howard) and she call me and I would advise you." In a memorandum marked top secret, Gordon Chase wrote that it was important "to remove Lisa from direct participation in the business of passing messages" from Cuba.

In December, 1964, Howard met with Che Guevara to the United Nations. Details of this meeting was sent to McGeorge Bundy. When Howard got no response she arranged for Eugene McCarthy to meet with Guevara in her apartment on 16th December.

This created panic in the White House and the following day Under Secretary George Ball told McCarthy that the meeting must remain a secret because there was "suspicion throughout Latin America that the U.S. might make a deal with Cuba behind the backs of the other American states."

Howard continued to try and obtain a negotiated agreement between Fidel Castro and Lyndon B. Johnson. As a result she was fired by ABC because she had "chosen to participate publicly in partisan political activity contrary to long established ABC news policy."

Lisa Howard died at East Hampton, Long Island, on 4th July, 1965. It was officially reported that she had committed suicide. Apparently, she had taken one hundred phenobarbitols. It was claimed she was depressed as a result of losing her job and suffering a miscarriage. Her death was of course very similar to that of Dorothy Kilgallen (8th November, 1965). Another female journalist working on the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting this detail, John. Howard's work lives on IMHO. Every president since has followed the accomodation plan. It may not look like Kennedy's plan but it exists today.

I asked a Cuban revolutionary once: "What happened to the revolution?" "Why do you think the promises of Castro or Washington have never been fulfilled?" His wife chimed in that Cuban people after fleeing the anarchy in 1959, thought they'd return in a few weeks to a settled place. Each year the expectation faded.

The leaders in both countries have learned to get along. Today Castro fights with the greenback, W fights with the Americans sneaking to Cuba.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim Carroll. Great Paper. You are a careful historian, and this story suggests as much as it tells, but we have to be careful. Forum readers know that we are "allies" with similar interests and approaches, and I have a few general comments.

The connections between Dallas 11/22/63 and Watergate are intriguing, and I agree with you that "the whole bay of pigs thng" is a euphimism or code word for the Kennedy Assassination. I had always thought so and Bob Haldeman came out and said so explicitly in his dying efforts to restore his reputation. Having Hunt in the White House (what was in his safe?) and having Hunt hire Vergilio Gonzales, Martinez and Frank Sturgis for the Watrgate burglary shows some kind of high-pressure intimidation of Nixon, because these were angry Bay of Pigs veterans and long-time Cuban penetration commandos. Helms was certainly aware of the situation. United States Senator (R/Utah) Robert Bennett plays a role in both the assassination and the Watergate burglary, his ties to Hunt and McCord are verified, he had a CIA front office in DC and employed the principles in the burglary. I am very strongly inclined to agree with Jim Root's interpretation of the role of Maxwell Taylor, in the U-2 incident, the assassination and Vietnam War escalation. As far as IKE is concerned, don't let the Military Industrial Complex speech let him off the hook - for his massive nuclear arms build-up, covert assassinations and Bay of Pigs planning, he was a figurehead for Pennsylvania oil interests and a front front for the growing intermarriage of CIA paramilitary and Defense Department programs and cover. Ike and Nixon were no heroes to our democratic republican ideal of government...

Great paper, and it stimulated a good round of "collective intelligence".

Shanet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
United States Senator (R/Utah) Robert Bennett plays a role in both the assassination and the Watergate burglary, his ties to Hunt and McCord are verified, he had a CIA front office in DC and employed the principles in the burglary.

Shanet,

Bob Bennett, with his CIA front office in DC, the Mullen Agency, including its specific employment of Hunt at the same time that Hunt had a White House office, leads me to still have the Senator from Utah at the top of my list for Deep Throat candidates.

Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shanet

Eisenhowers massive nuclear buildup was done at the expense of cutting Army ground forces. That is exactly what alienated Taylor from Eisenhower and led to his book, The Uncertain Trumpet. Taylor wanted the forces that could fight "brush fire wars" and believed that the United States was moving in the wrong direction under Eisenhower.

Taylor made his point and got the position of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (under Kennedy) and his his full blown "brush fire war" after Kennedy's death.

Was the Presidency itself next? (Read "Seven Days in May")

Jim Root

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eisenhowers massive nuclear buildup was done at the expense of cutting Army ground forces.  That is exactly what alienated Taylor from Eisenhower and led to his book, The Uncertain Trumpet.  Taylor wanted the forces that could fight "brush fire wars" and believed that the United States was moving in the wrong direction under Eisenhower.

Taylor made his point and got the position of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (under Kennedy) and his his full blown "brush fire war" after Kennedy's death.

Was the Presidency itself next?  (Read "Seven Days in May")

Jim Root

Jim,

JFK himself certainly recognized the dangers presented by a Seven Days In May scenario. He encouraged John Frankenheimer to make the movie against Pentagon opposition. JFK offered the White House itself to be used as a movie set on a weekend when he would be away at Hyannis Port. Schlesinger noted the following JFK comment:

"'It's possible. It could happen in this country, but the conditions would have to be just right. If, for example, the country had a young President, and he had a Bay of Pigs, there would be a certain uneasiness.' If there were a second Bay of Pigs, the military would begin to feel it their patriotic obligation to preserve the nation. 'Then, if there were a third Bay of Pigs, it could happen.... But it won't happen on my watch.'"

When JFK made a secret deal to remove the Jupiter missiles from Turkey to resolve the Missile Crisis, by the standards of the Joint Chiefs he had committed overt treason. He had completely capitulated to the Soviets, albeit secretly. This secret part of the resolution of the Crisis was far more egregiously treasonous than the more public pledge not to invade Cuba, technically and militarily. But JFK, about whom it was said that style was more important than substance, was perceived to have prevailed despite giving away the store, while Khrushchev, who obtained his objectives completely, was perceived as having capitulated. The agreement to end the Crisis definitely created a major rift between Khrushchev and Castro, and was a major aspect in Khrushchev's downfall.

Having been filmed in the White House itself, the movie is a fascinating watch. Especially the scene shot at the indoor pool (cemented over by Nixon and turned into the current press room). Old Joe Kennedy had commissioned an artist to paint murals on the walls to create the effect of being in the middle of the harbor of, I believe, St. Tropez. Tiny glittering lights gave the effect of stars twinkling at night. This film is the only place one can see the pool room with these effects. Nixon was aware of the stories of the infamous pool parties held there and considered it an historical den of iniquity.

Tim

Paul B. Fay, Jr., The Pleasure of His Company (New York, 1966), 190

Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., Robert Kennedy and Hit Times (Boston, 1978), 450

Edited by Tim Carroll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim

You have captured the essence of the Eisenhower era debate on military readiness, the BIG GUNS (nuclear strategy) at the expense of conventional weapons, stirred up anger in the defense establishment. Taylor was into ground war and especially co-operation between covert paramilitary CIA and defense department units. (Guenther Lewy, America in Vietnam). This blurring of the lines between "civilian" intelligence ops and military ops gave us Abu Ghraib, operation phoenix, iran contra, etc. etc.With the melding of CIA and Defense both can avoid any responsibility, and both sides can point the finger at the other when things go wrong.

I am in agreement with Tim about the importance of JFK's capitulation in Turkey as the silent, secret codicil of the Missile Crisis agreement. The public only saw the USSR freighters turning away from Cuba, the whole story took years to leak out. It, along with the incriminating evidence concerning JFK's private life, gave military officials reason to hate, exclude, and ultimately kill the president, I believe.

The Mullen Company was indeed the front PR firm Hunt worked for, and Robert Bennett was so deeply ensconced in counter-counter-counter intelligence he may have exposed Nixon to serious charges (ie Deep Throat).

The more you look at Watergate, the more ties to Dallas emerge. I still have serious reservations about jumping to the conclusion that the CIA brought down Nixon via the Hunt Burglaries at the Democratic National Committee. Did they prefer McGovern? Spiro Agnew? I think not. The murky nature of Hunt's loyalties and motivation make such speculation inevitable and the events are linked, but in ways we have yet to fully understand.

Shanet

Shanet

Eisenhowers massive nuclear buildup was done at the expense of cutting Army ground forces.  That is exactly what alienated Taylor from Eisenhower and led to his book, The Uncertain Trumpet.  Taylor wanted the forces that could fight "brush fire wars" and believed that the United States was moving in the wrong direction under Eisenhower.

Taylor made his point and got the position of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (under Kennedy) and his his full blown "brush fire war" after Kennedy's death.

Was the Presidency itself next?  (Read "Seven Days in May")

Jim Root

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mullen Company was indeed the front PR firm Hunt worked for, and Robert Bennett was so deeply ensconced in counter-counter-counter intelligence he may have exposed Nixon to serious charges (ie Deep Throat)

The more you look at Watergate, the more ties to Dallas emerge.

I still have serious reservations about jumping to the conclusion that the CIA brought down Nixon via the Hunt Burglaries at the Democratic National Committee. Did they prefer McGovern? Spiro Agnew? I think not.

Eisenhowers massive nuclear buildup was done at the expense of cutting Army ground forces. That is exactly what alienated Taylor from Eisenhower and led to his book, The Uncertain Trumpet. Taylor wanted the forces that could fight "brush fire wars" and believed that the United States was moving in the wrong direction under Eisenhower. Taylor made his point and got the position of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (under Kennedy) and his his full blown "brush fire war" after Kennedy's death.

**********************************************************

Shanet and Jim:

The Military Intelligence/CIA had no concern about McGovern. Watergate would provide leverage over Nixon. Couple that leverage with the expectation that Connally would be Agnew's replacement and we would have again had the same elite power center that succeeded Kennedy only a heartbeat away from the presidency.

JFK had good reason to consider the Gradual Escalation Strategy of Taylor's Uncertain Trumpet preferable to the absolutist, all or nothing policy of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). Everything about JFK's nature rebelled against such absolutes, and he was very mindful of the choicelessness that Massive Retaliation offered. JFK sought to increase the range of choices through the implementation of a policy of Flexible Response. The debate over what Kennedy would have done in Vietnam requires consideration of how he quickly negotiated a settlement in Laos, where Eisenhower had recommended sending ground troops onto the Asian mainland. JFK refused to commit U.S. forces at the Bay of Pigs, and escaped the long-standing nuclear trip wire in Berlin by suckering Khrushchev into putting up the Wall. There is no question that Taylor got his "'brush fire war' after Kennedy's death," but even as a severely unintended consequence that JFK may have avoided had he lived, the trauma of Vietnam and the policy of Flexible Response was preferable to the magnitude of destruction that would have resulted from the virtually inevitable nuclear war that Eisenhower's policies bequeathed.

Tim

Edited by Tim Carroll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim

I appreciate the knowledge you all have to share on this site. It is very encouraging for me to be involved with this group.

I, for one, give thanks to the cold warriors on both sides of the curtain that we made it past the 50's and 60's without a nuclear exchange. Right or wrong they were at least successful in this field.

Jim Root

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...