The relevance of JFK's peace speech to the JFKA and to where we are today

[Roger Odisio]

22 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Geez, Odisio, have you read, or understood, any of our detailed commentaries here on these multiple, redundant "JFK Peace Speech" threads-- including your own threads-- contrasting JFK's June 26, 1963 Berlin Speech with his idealistic, olive branch Peace Speech earlier that month?

All you have done is to repeat the same tropes, like a broken record.

Do you understand the relationship between the two JFK speeches-- the Peace Speech and the subsequent Berlin Speech?

Peace is a terrific global ideal, as delineated by JFK in June of 1963-- but it is difficult to achieve for liberal democracies facing militant, totalitarian police states with imperialist ambitions-- e.g., N-a-z-i Germany, the Soviet Union post-WWII, Putin's fascist police state today, North Korea, et.al.

The prosperous, free, U.S.-allied democracies of the G-20 today can't maintain world peace by simply wishing for it, and doing nothing, when sovereign nations like Ukraine are invaded and annexed by fascist police states like Putin's Russian Federation.

That's why JFK flew to Berlin in June of 1963, after his Peace Speech, and pledge to defend freedom and democracy in Europe from Russian totalitarianism.

Is democracy worth defending from totalitarianism, (e.g., fascism and communism) in your opinion?

The last time I checked, your "peaceful, multi-polar," anti-American heroes are mostly dictators-- Putin, Lukashenko, Kim Jung Un, Xi, et.al.

Was Winston Churchill correct when he said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other forms of government?"

Would you choose to live in one of your anti-American, "peaceful, multi-polar" dictatorships-- Russia, Belarus, North Korea, et.al.-- or in one of your oppressive, U.S.-aligned democracies like South Korea, Japan, Canada, and the free nations in the EU?

Let me respond to your claims about the relative importance of the  peace speech vs the Berlin speech.  I believe you said Berlin was realpolitik, what Kennedy actually believed, compared to the rhetorical flourishes and wishful thinking  of the peace speech.

 

In fact the two speeches were complementary, different pieces of the same whole. Nothing in the peace speech precluded the continuance of peaceful, economic, competition between the the US and Soviet systems.  In fact, JFK was advocating precisely that to replace more wars.

 

He relished that competition and Berlin and the contrast of the two Germanies gave him the opportunity to make the point that the US system was better. It was reminiscent of the earlier NIxon-Krushchev "kitchen debate", in which, when pictures of it surfaced, Tricky made sure one of them showed him poking his finger in Krushchev's belly as if he was making some telling point.  Or Krushchev proclaiming "we will bury you" in 1956.  In short, in addition to the usual pledge to defend the West against Soviet encroachment, the speech was more theater.

 

In contrast the peace speech laid out a new foreign policy and how the achieve it. It drew lavish praise from Krushchev as an important breakthrough and was quickly followed 5 weeks later by the limited test ban treaty with the Soviet Union, which was quickly and astonishingly ratified by 81 votes in the Senate, given the climate at the time.

 

But, as a direct challenge to the permanent government war machine, the speech played a distinct role in getting JFK murdered several weeks after that.

 

The peace speech was a seminal event whose importance survives, clearly relevant to today as nations around the world try to create the multipolar world JFK sought.

[W. Niederhut]

Roger,

    You misinterpreted my comments.

    I believe JFK was quite sincere about pursuing peace as an ideal, de-escalating the nuclear arms race, and "breaking the CIA into a thousand pieces."

    I view his subsequent Berlin Speech as a counterpoint-- a statement to the Kremlin that the U.S. was simultaneously committed to defending freedom and democracy in Europe.

    When people use only the Peace Speech to criticise Biden's support for Ukraine, they are overlooking what JFK said in Berlin.

     

[James DiEugenio]

This is a prime example of what I mean:

  WN "When people use only the Peace Speech to criticise Biden's support for Ukraine, they are overlooking what JFK said in Berlin."

There was no war in Berlin. There were no American politicians going into East Germany as McCain and Biden did in Ukraine.  ANd there was no VIctoria Nuland spending a billion dollars to organize opposition in East Germany.  East Germany was part of the Warsaw Pact.

Khrushchev built the wall and Kennedy was satisfied with that since he said a wall is better than a war.

Then he and Nikita negotiated over Lucius Clay's attempt to spark a conflict over the Brandenburg gate incident. You do know these facts right William?

And that  is Jeff Sachs' whole point.

Edited June 21, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[W. Niederhut]

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

This is a prime example of what I mean:

  WN "When people use only the Peace Speech to criticise Biden's support for Ukraine, they are overlooking what JFK said in Berlin."

There was no war in Berlin. There were no American politicians going into East Germany as McCain and Biden did in Ukraine.  ANd there was no VIctoria Nuland spending a billion dollars to organize opposition in East German.  East Germany was part of the Warsaw Pact.

Khrushchev built the wall and Kennedy was satisfied with that since he said a wall is better than a war.

Then he and Nikita negotiated over Lucius Clay's attempt to spark a conflict over the Brandenburg gate incident. You do know these facts right William?

And that  is Jeff Sachs' whole point.

Jim,

    You, obviously, know the history better than I.

    Why did JFK fly to Berlin in late June of 1963 to give his famous "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech?

    Wasn't West Berlin being threatened with a new Soviet blockade of some sort?

[John Cotter]

On 6/19/2023 at 11:23 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Can we get this back to the topic. I mean please.

Can we talk about Norman Cousins and his role in all this?

I mean how many presidents would even have a guy like that--an anti nuke peace activist--as part of a discussion between, Nikita K and the Pope? Consider this:

 

NK to Cousins: I am not religious.  But I can tell you I have a great liking for Pope John. There's something very moving to me about a man like him struggling despite his illness to accomplish such an important goal before he dies.  His goal as you say , is peace.  It is the most important goal in the world....During that week of the Cuban crisis, the Pope's appeal was a real ray of light.  I was grateful for it. 

 

This is what made the Douglass book so remarkable.  I don't ever recall a JFK assassination book with this angle to it, including Cousins and the Pope. To be perfectly honest, I had never heard of it myself before.

And this is what Jeff Sachs means when he says, contrast that with Biden and Putin who have not talked at all in over a year. This is why the Peace Speech is so topical.

Yes, James, James Douglass brilliantly elucidated JFK’s struggle to break out of the Manichean Cold War deadlock by trying to communicate with the Russians as human beings rather than demonising them as the epitome of evil which must be defeated.

It’s easy to see the connection between the JFK assassination and the disastrously aggressive US foreign policy which has led to the current shambles in Ukraine which, ironically, looks like the final nail in the coffin of US global dominance and hastening the emergence of a multipolar world order.

[James DiEugenio]

John:

This is something that Kennedy would have anticipated.

Example: When Dulles wanted Nasser to join the Baghdad pact, Nasser said he could not.  Since everyone knew England would be a silent partner and they were the greatest colonizing power in the world.  His selling point was his independence.  If  he joined, he would lost the loyalty of his people.

Dulles  went to Saudi Arabia as his new ally in the Middle East.  He then cut off aid for Aswan. Nasser went to Moscow for the Aswan money.

Senator Kennedy thought this was just plain dumb.  He asked: What did you expect him to do once you pulled out?  And this guy is a secularist and a socialist who opposed the Moslem Brotherhood!

I think Kennedy would have anticipated the worst outcome and got a settlement. 

Edited June 21, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Benjamin Cole]

On 6/21/2023 at 9:47 AM, James DiEugenio said:

John:

This is something that Kennedy would have anticipated.

Example: When Dulles wanted Nasser to join the Baghdad pact, Nasser said he could not.  Since everyone knew England would be a silent partner and they were the greatest colonizing power in the world.  His selling point was his independence.  If  he joined, he would lost the loyalty of his people.

Dulles  went to Saudi Arabia as his new ally in the Middle East.  He then cut off aid for Aswan. Nasser went to Moscow for the Aswan money.

Senator Kennedy thought this was just plain dumb.  He asked: What did you expect him to do once you pulled out?  And this guy is a secularist and a socialist who opposed the Moslem Brotherhood!

I think Kennedy would have anticipated the worst outcome and got a settlement. 

The Kennedys seem able to put themselves into other people's shoes, unlike the HRCs and Bushes and Cheneys who operate from the presumption they know what is best for everybody else---worldwide, no less. 

It sure seems like nine out of 10 US entanglements in global affairs backfire. Not only for us---worse for the fellow humans on the ground, in Iraw, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Syria---you name it. 

I wonder when a Bush or HRC or Biden will say, "You know, we can't even make streets in the US safe, and our railroad bridges are collapsing. More than 100,000 people die of drug ODs every year. Wages have been stagnant for 50 years. Our southern border is chaos. Maybe we should stick to our knitting in the US." 

[James DiEugenio]

See Kennedy thought that what Foster Dulles did was the wrong path.

He thought America could compete in the Third World with Moscow on a bartering basis.

Since we were the richer country, we could offer more aid.

And Foster Dulles would not accept neutralism.  Which is why they went after Sukarno in 1958.

When JFK asked Allen Dulles for a copy of the report on that episode, Dulles gave him a redacted copy.  I'm not kidding.

But Kennedy could still see what had happened.  He exclaimed, "No wonder Sukarno doesn't like us, we tried to overthrow his government.!"

[Benjamin Cole]

7 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

See Kennedy thought that what Foster Dulles did was the wrong path.

He thought America could compete in the Third World with Moscow on a bartering basis.

Since we were the richer country, we could offer more aid.

And Foster Dulles would not accept neutralism.  Which is why they went after Sukarno in 1958.

When JFK asked Allen Dulles for a copy of the report on that episode, Dulles gave him a redacted copy.  I'm not kidding.

But Kennedy could still see what had happened.  He exclaimed, "No wonder Sukarno doesn't like us, we tried to overthrow his government.!"

Counterfactuals are never proof, but I suspect an RFK Jr., or possibly even a Trump, could have negotiated a settlement in the Ukraine, rather than a war, with horrific human carnage in all directions. 

It is not clear whether the Deep State or mentally-questionable Biden pulled strings pre-war, or whether Putin stepped into a CIA-designed bear trap. 

 

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

Look at this. It got over 1700 comments.  Some people were amazed since they had not seen it before.

 

Some people were just amazed since they never heard it before.

 

[Pamela Brown]

Peace with the USSR was just the tip of the iceberg.  The only way the US could get to the moon was to unite the two groups of Von Braun's physicists who had been separated at the end of WWII.  This secret  backchanneling was considered treasonous by some...

[Bob Ness]

@Roger Odisio Bad news. Neither Brazil, Russia, India, China or South Africa have judicial systems making up a significant portion of their country's governance. Capital will not invest to the degree needed for BRICS to be able to offer a stronger currency.

Not going to happen. To wit: go throw your 401k into any of them. The risk is junk bond. No recourse in the event of a loss. Your BRICS Oligarchs will sure be happy though as they flee unimpeded with your retirement.

Edited June 27, 2023 by Bob Ness

[James DiEugenio]

2 hours ago, Pamela Brown said:

Peace with the USSR was just the tip of the iceberg.  The only way the US could get to the moon was to unite the two groups of Von Braun's physicists who had been separated at the end of WWII.  This secret  backchanneling was considered treasonous by some...

You know Pamela, when Jim Douglass brought this up in his book, people thought he was full of it.

But its true, Kennedy did want to do a joint mission.

This is why people are amazed watching that speech. 

It is now over 2000 comments.

Edited June 27, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Pamela Brown]

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

You know Pamela, when Jim Douglass brought this up in his book, people thought he was full of it.

But its true, Kennedy did want to do a joint mission.

This is why people are amazed watching that speech. 

It is now over 2000 comments.

I agree. We have to take into account also the mindset of the military at that time.  They were trigger-happy, and had no confidence in JFK after the BOP.  

[Roger Odisio]

11 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

@Roger Odisio Bad news. Neither Brazil, Russia, India, China or South Africa have judicial systems making up a significant portion of their country's governance. Capital will not invest to the degree needed for BRICS to be able to offer a stronger currency.

Not going to happen. To wit: go throw your 401k into any of them. The risk is junk bond. No recourse in the event of a loss. Your BRICS Oligarchs will sure be happy though as they flee unimpeded with your retirement.

Interesting take.  When you say capital, I assume you mean US or Western capital.  But the original 5 BRICS countries currently make up roughly 40% of world GDP.  And I've seen reports that more than 20 more countries want to join, including some heavy hitters.  The latest, gulp, may be France.  Macron has asked for an invite to the BRICS meeting in August.  Soon the West is likely to be a distinct minority, economically.

 

BRICS and the movement against US control is more about a new system of trade, not creating a stronger single reserve currency.  A multipolar system where no one makes the rules for everyone else.