Why LBJ was an essential participant in the plan to murder Kennedy

[Robert Morrow]

4 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

And Lyndon Johnson visited Dallas in April 1963 and was reported in a Dallas newspaper saying (as metaphor) to be loyal to the President (Kennedy), likening Kennedy (whom he privately hates) to the pilot of an aircraft flying over ocean waters upon whom the passengers depend, and therefore  "don't shoot him down until November".

Well, which November did he mean. November 1964 in the election. But he is speaking to Democrats (not the public) concerning criticism of the President, so is he recommending to critics inside the Democratic Party to stop their criticism, support the President, and if they don't like JFK undertake a primary challenge to deny JFK the nomination in 1964? Or does he mean all Americans regardless of party should support the president, then vote him out (by electing the other party) in 1964 if they disagree with him? The latter seems the right reading of that. But it is not quite clear. 

Or is it a double-entendre, "wait until November to shoot him down"?

Or was it a Freudian slip?

Or was it some kind of code or signal in a speech like JFK was alleged to give in a speech in Miami that Cubela would hear, in which someone in the netherworld of assassination plotting wanted to hear something from LBJ himself to assure that they were not being set up by false representations of top-level approval on something?

Has this last previously been raised or considered? I think it deserves to be. The whole pilot flying the aircraft across the Atlantic, and "don't shoot him down until November" seems so contrived, it is as if that image was invented for the purpose of being able to have a plausible pretext for a line in there "shoot him down in November". 

At best its an eery coincidence in light of what did happen in the same city, in November, in which LBJ was reported in the press personally speaking that phrase. But I'm not sure it was coincidence.

[David Lifton email to Robert Morrow]:

 8/3/21 - 9:48 PM PDT

 Robert:

 Old news (as I’m sure you realize).  But…  thanks for reminding me.  DSL

 P.S.  I’m not sure you realize this, but. . . .

This was not LBJ merely “announcing” something.

Rather: It was LBJ engaging in a political maneuver which would commit JFK to making a Dallas trip.  DSL

 8/4/21 Robert Morrow reply: I agree

Edited April 26 by Robert Morrow

[Sandy Larsen]

59 minutes ago, Robert Morrow said:

Sandy, who were the "CIA plotters" of the JFK assassination? Do you have any names? For example was it Allen Dulles, James Angleton, Richard Helms, William King Harvey or David Morales? Would Gen. Edward Lansdale of the Air Force be considered a "CIA plotter" against JFK because of his long association with Allen Dulles?

 

My guess would be Allen Dulles, James Angleton, Edward Lansdale, and David Phillips at a lower level.

 

59 minutes ago, Robert Morrow said:

You mention the JCS - do you have the names of any JCS plotters who were likely or definitely involved in the JFK assassination?

 

If you read about the Burris Memorandum, you'll see how the JCS would present an "annual" assessment of nuclear war with Russia. Allen Dulles told Kennedy that December 1963 would be the ideal time for America to win the war.

You can read about it here:

https://prospect.org/world/u.s.-military-plan-nuclear-first-strike-1963/

I don't know specifically which of the JCS were involved in the plot.

 

59 minutes ago, Robert Morrow said:

What do you think of Sean Fetter's thesis which is it is more likely that the right wing crazies of the Air Force were more likely involved in the JFK assassination than "CIA plotters?"

 

No matter how you cut it, the CIA had to have been the plotters. How else can you explain the false flag operation to blame the Cubans/Russians? Nobody but the CIA could have done that. How else do you explain getting Oswald into the right building at the right time to perform his duty as unwitting patsy? Oswald must have been controlled by the CIA, and the TSBD must have been a front company. There's just no way around it.

 

[Roger Odisio]

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

The CIA plotters went to a great deal of effort to create a false flag operation where the blame for the assassination would be placed on the Cubans and Soviets.

It's hard for me to believe they'd done that knowing in advance that LBJ would reject the opportunity to retaliate against either one.

To me it makes a lot more sense that it was a military-backed operation whose primary goal was to eliminate a treasonous Kennedy, and whose secondary goal was an add-on false flag operation that could give the military icing on the cake in the form of a Cuban invasion. Possibly even a nuclear first strike against the Soviet Union during a period when it was thought that the Americans would win. That is what the JCS wanted.

Indeed, there is some evidence (a little) that the military sent fighter jets to Cuba the day of the assassination. Cooler heads prevailed when Undersecretary of State Averell Harriman shortly afterword declared that the top Sovietologists had all agreed that the Russians weren't involved in the assassination. Which was a false story. But it may have been the genesis of the decision to cover up evidence of a conspiracy and to blame only Oswald. Which seemed possible because there was evidence for both 1) a communist conspiracy with Oswald, and 2) a lone gunman Oswald. (This is Peter Dale Scott's Phase 1 / Phase 2 theory).

Obviously LBJ chose to go with the lone gunman scenario. Ironically, the CIA plotters had intentionally made that a viable choice so that, if chosen, the governments focus would be on blaming Oswald rather than looking for the real plotters. The CIA plotters made that choice viable by controlling the autopsy and Dealey Plaza films, and making it appear as though a lone gunman could have killed Kennedy. No conspiracy was required to explain the evidence.

But regardless of that decision by LBJ, the plotters' preferred outcome would have been a Cuban invasion or a war with Russia. Remember, it was a military coup. (Carried out by the CIA.)

 

SL: The CIA plotters went to a great deal of effort to create a false flag operation where the blame for the assassination would be placed on the Cubans and Soviets.

 

It's hard for me to believe they'd done that knowing in advance that LBJ would reject the opportunity to retaliate against either one.

 

RO:  A great deal of effort?  This is the CIA with virtually unlimited resources and no one effectively watching what they did.  Plots were hatched, adjusted and abandoned all the time. You don't know about most of them.

 

But do not obscure the fact that the amorphous group that wanted to get rid of Kennedy had several factions.  Only some of them thought it was a good idea to use the murder as a pretext to go after Castro, which would have led to a war with the Soviets, who were pledged to respond such an attack, not to mention Kennedy that had given them a no invasion pledge barely one year earlier.

 

SL:  To me it makes a lot more sense that it was a military-backed operation whose primary goal was to eliminate a treasonous Kennedy, and whose secondary goal was an add-on false flag operation that could give the military icing on the cake in the form of a Cuban invasion. Possibly even a nuclear first strike against the Soviet Union during a period when it was thought that the Americans would win. That is what the JCS wanted.

 

RO: It was an operation backed by the military, but not primarily run by them.  But your history is a bit off. By late '63 intelligence was saying the Soviets had caught up with the US.  Kennedy had gotten Congress to pass the limited nuclear test ban treaty with them.  The idea of Mutually Assured Destruction was taking hold.  Only a fool, or Curtis Lemay, would thing a nuclear war with the Soviets that neither side could win was a good idea. 

 

Certainly not Lyndon Johnson.  To me, it's axiomatic that Johnson would not risk blowing up the presidency he had lusted after for so long in a nuclear war with the Soviets.  You can argue he gave the war machine their war in Vietnam that Kennedy was going to end as a sop, a substitute, if you want. I think he was going to do that anyway. He told McNamara he never agreed with Kennedy's withdrawal plan but kept his mouth shut.

 

I said early on Johnson made clear to the others he would not go after Cuba.  But I don't know when he did that except it was likely before the murder was done.  In any case, Johnson squelched the Cuba idea right after becoming president and pursuit of Oswald the lone nut began. The anti Cuban zealots had no recourse.

 

SL:  Indeed, there is some evidence (a little) that the military sent fighter jets to Cuba the day of the assassination. Cooler heads prevailed when Undersecretary of State Averell Harriman shortly afterword declared that the top Sovietologists had all agreed that the Russians weren't involved in the assassination. Which was a false story. But it may have been the genesis of the decision to cover up evidence of a conspiracy and to blame only Oswald. Which seemed possible because there was evidence for both 1) a communist conspiracy with Oswald, and 2) a lone gunman Oswald. (This is Peter Dale Scott's Phase 1 / Phase 2 theory).

 

RO: No, the coverup had nothing to do with something Harriman said. It was a *necessary* part of the killers' plan to get away with the murder, and so implemented by them!

 

SL: Obviously LBJ chose to go with the lone gunman scenario. Ironically, the CIA plotters had intentionally made that a viable choice so that, if chosen, the governments focus would be on blaming Oswald rather than looking for the real plotters. The CIA plotters made that choice viable by controlling the autopsy and Dealey Plaza films, and making it appear as though a lone gunman could have killed Kennedy. No conspiracy was required to explain the evidence.

 

RO:  The coverup was complicated by the fact that the killers' story deviated so clearly from how the murder was done.  Which is why the others needed Johnson as president to deal with the problems caused by the autopsy, films, the investigation, etc.

 

SL:  But regardless of that decision by LBJ, the plotters' preferred outcome would have been a Cuban invasion or a war with Russia. Remember, it was a military coup. (Carried out by the CIA.)

 

RO: No the Cuban invasion was the preferred option of only one faction.  It was a crazy idea and easily dealt with.

 

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

20 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

RO:  A great deal of effort?  This is the CIA with virtually unlimited resources and no one effectively watching what they did.  Plots were hatched, adjusted and abandoned all the time. You don't know about most of them.

 

It makes no sense whatsoever for the CIA to do anything at all in creating a false flag operation, knowing that LBJ was opposed to it.

Sorry, but your theory falls apart right there. You need to adjust it to account for what the CIA plotters did.

 

20 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

But do not obscure the fact that the amorphous group that wanted to get rid of Kennedy had several factions.  Only some of them thought it was a good idea to use the murder as a pretext to go after Castro, which would have led to a war with the Soviets, who were pledged to respond such an attack, not to mention Kennedy that had given them a no invasion pledge barely one year earlier.

 

But we know that both the JCS and the CIA were willing to take the risk of attacking Cuba. We know that because that's precisely what they did! With the Bay of Pigs!

My theory has these exact same actors assassinating Kennedy. They still wanted to attack Cuba!

 

20 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

But your history is a bit off. By late '63 intelligence was saying the Soviets had caught up with the US. 

 

According to the Burris Memorandum, Allen Dulles told Kennedy that December 1963 would be the ideal time for America to win the war.

You can read about it here:

https://prospect.org/world/u.s.-military-plan-nuclear-first-strike-1963/

 

20 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

RO: No, the coverup had nothing to do with something Harriman said.

 

Harriman said he had consulted with the top Sovietologists and it was a consensus opinion that the Soviets were not involved, and he reported that to LBJ while he was still aboard Air Force One flying back to Washington. (McGeorge Bundy made the radio call.)

Now why would Harriman do such a thing if he weren't trying to steer LBJ away from the commie angle?

BTW, Harriman lied... he had not consulted the Sovietologists, other than himself. (Recall that he had been Ambassador to the Soviet Union.)

 

20 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

 No the Cuban invasion was the preferred option of only one faction.

 

Precisely! The same faction that perpetrated the assassination! The same faction that proved with the Bay of Pigs that they were willing to risk war with Russia as a result of attacking Cuba!

 

[Cliff Varnell]

RO:  But do not obscure the fact that the amorphous group that wanted to get rid of Kennedy had several factions.  Only some of them thought it was a good idea to use the murder as a pretext to go after Castro, which would have led to a war with the Soviets, who were pledged to respond such an attack, not to mention Kennedy that had given them a no invasion pledge barely one year earlier. </q>

Khrushchev would start a war he couldn't win over Cuba?  Nonsense.

According to Gareth Porter's The Perils of Dominance the USSR didn't reach nuclear parity until 1965.

Sandy, it wasn't Harriman who contacted AF1 to inform LBJ the lone gunmen was in custody -- it was McGeorge Bundy.

[Roger Odisio]

39 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

RO:  But do not obscure the fact that the amorphous group that wanted to get rid of Kennedy had several factions.  Only some of them thought it was a good idea to use the murder as a pretext to go after Castro, which would have led to a war with the Soviets, who were pledged to respond such an attack, not to mention Kennedy that had given them a no invasion pledge barely one year earlier. </q>

Khrushchev would start a war he couldn't win over Cuba?  Nonsense.

According to Gareth Porter's The Perils of Dominance the USSR didn't reach nuclear parity until 1965.

Sandy, it wasn't Harriman who contacted AF1 to inform LBJ the lone gunmen was in custody -- it was McGeorge Bundy.

If the US attacked Cuba and the Soviets responded it would be US starting the war not the Soviets. Remember what Kennedy said about the missiles placed by the Soviets in Cuba: an attack by Cuba using them would be considered an attack by the Soviet Union on the US.  Same principle,

Gareth Porter is an estimable journalist. Glad to see you reading him. Cliff.  But he wasn't advising the government.  In any case, exact parity, if that's what you mean, isn't necessary for starting a nuclear war to be madness.  Kennedy was able to get something like 80votes in the Senate to pass the limited nuclear test ban treaty that Fall as a first step to the disarmamnet he sought because people were realizing the MADness.

[Ron Bulman]

19 hours ago, Pete Mellor said:

Yet LBJ & Connally were at Kennedy for months to tour Texas.  Connally was a major player in the tour organisation, selecting the Trade Mart against S.S. security concerns, leading to the Elm St., dogleg.  LBJ & Connally's feud with Yarborough caused press reports in Texas of Democratic party disunity, forcing JFK to tour with all three men.  Always been suspicious to me.

Hi Pete.  This was discussed in a thread here on the forum in the last year or two.  I'm frustrated I can't remember what thread or part of what I read or maybe posted in it (where I'd read what I may have posted).  I spent about an hour looking through several of the books I have.  The only detail I found is from Vince Palamara's Survivors Guilt.  

It states political advance man Gerry Bruno's itinerary on 11/7 says "unequivocally" at the Womens Building in Fair Park.  This is followed by a statement from Connally that the site was still uncertain, The Secret Service had not cleared the matter on 11/8.  That's two weeks before the assassination.

In looking today I came across LBJ and JBC hounding JFK for a year to come to Texas to heal the rift between them and Yarborough.  Speculation that the rift was created by LBJ and JBC to draw JFK to smooth it over.  This from LBJ: Mastermind, which I tend to discount much of give its premise with which I disagree, though it has a few useful points.

The part from the prior thread I can't remember or find the source of involved Connally, apparently sometime after 11/8, went ballistic, became "unbearable", threatened not to participate to a SSA, but I'm not sure which one.

I do remember thinking LBJ, and in turn JBC had to have been told that the speech site had to be the Trademart.  Were the told why?  So the parade route would go by the TSBD?  I'd think not.  Or Connally would have refused to ride with JFK, or at least been ducking down in Dealy Plaza.    

[Robert Morrow]

Ron Bulman

QUOTE

In looking today I came across LBJ and JBC hounding JFK for a year to come to Texas to heal the rift between them and Yarborough. 

UNQUOTE

None of that happened. Neither Lyndon Johnson (who hated JFK and Sen. Yarborough) nor Gov. John Connally were asking John Kennedy to come to Texas to heal a rift in the Democratic party. Both Connally and Ralph Yarborough denied this (sorry I can't footnote this I have read it somewhere). LBJ in April, 1963 announced JFK was coming to Texas and this was done to lure/force JFK into coming to Texas. And except for raising some money, JFK really did not want to go. And as for Dallas, that city was put on and taken off the agenda multiple times.

As for John Connally insisting on the Trade Mart - nothing suspicious there because John Connally was not involved in the JFK assassination. The Trade Mart was the bright shining modern object of Dallas in 1963; it was a much showier, flashier place to show off to the world a presidential visit. The dumpy Women's Pavilion on the Texas State Fair Grounds was very outdated. Connally merely wanted to put on a good show.

It was Lyndon Johnson, not John Connally, who was ready to let the bullets start flying. LBJ did not want to heal a rift; he wanted to put a rift in JFK's head.

The person who told me that the Trade Mart was the no-brainer place to have an event was former Dallas Times-Herald reporter Connie Kritzberg. Having the luncheon at the 1930's Women's Pavilion would be like having lunch in your arm pit.

 

 

 

Edited April 27 by Robert Morrow

[Cliff Varnell]

6 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

If the US attacked Cuba and the Soviets responded it would be US starting the war not the Soviets.

In this scenario Castro would have been accused of starting it by whacking Kennedy.  The Soviets got what they wanted out of Cuba when the US withdrew missiles from Turkey.  Their response would have been diplomatic, railing against American imperialism at the UN.  The US could have countered by citing the alleged Oswald meeting with Kostikov in Mexico City.

6 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

 

Remember what Kennedy said about the missiles placed by the Soviets in Cuba: an attack by Cuba using them would be considered an attack by the Soviet Union on the US.  Same principle,

No, the same principle would have been an attack on the USSR from the soil of an American ally.  The US bombed the hell out of North Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and there was never talk of nuclear confrontation over it.

6 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

Gareth Porter is an estimable journalist. Glad to see you reading him. Cliff.  But he wasn't advising the government. 

Why would Kennedy's advisers think the US didn't enjoy nuclear superiority in 1963?

6 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

 

In any case, exact parity, if that's what you mean, isn't necessary for starting a nuclear war to be madness.  Kennedy was able to get something like 80votes in the Senate to pass the limited nuclear test ban treaty that Fall as a first step to the disarmamnet he sought because people were realizing the MADness.

And surely Khrushchev wasn't crazy enough to initiate a nuclear exchange over a country that wasn't vital to USSR security.

[Sandy Larsen]

18 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Sandy, it wasn't Harriman who contacted AF1 to inform LBJ the lone gunmen was in custody -- it was McGeorge Bundy.

 

Right. But it was Harriman who said he consulted the Sovietologists.

When I said that Harriman conveyed this information to Air force One, I didn't mean personally/directly. But I have corrected my comment to make it clear.

Thanks.

 

[Roger Odisio]

10 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

In this scenario Castro would have been accused of starting it by whacking Kennedy.  The Soviets got what they wanted out of Cuba when the US withdrew missiles from Turkey.  Their response would have been diplomatic, railing against American imperialism at the UN.  The US could have countered by citing the alleged Oswald meeting with Kostikov in Mexico City.

No, the same principle would have been an attack on the USSR from the soil of an American ally.  The US bombed the hell out of North Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and there was never talk of nuclear confrontation over it.

Why would Kennedy's advisers think the US didn't enjoy nuclear superiority in 1963?

And surely Khrushchev wasn't crazy enough to initiate a nuclear exchange over a country that wasn't vital to USSR security.

I disagree with your assessment of relations at the time between the SU and Cuba, between Krushchev and Castro, that underlies your comments.  The Soviets "got what they wanted out of Cuba " when the US removed the missiles it had in Turkey?  You think that's why put them in Cuba, with nuclear warheads! in the first place?

Have you heard about the Bay of Pigs?  And the constant attempts to kill Castro?

Krushchev and Castro were in constant contact. It was Krushchev who convinced Castro that he could talk to Kennedy, and those talks were just starting when Kennedy was murdered (another reason for the murder). As the mortal threat to Castro from the US continued unabated, Castro was agitating for more protection from the SU.

Cuba was a great prize in the Western Hemisphere for Krushchev. Castro was to become an important figure internationally.  Krushchev agreed to the missiles hoping they would give Castro some breathing room and be a deterrent to the US. 

To resolve the crisis Kennedy realized he had to offer more than just his assurances he would not try to invade Cuba again.  Even if sincere, it would not bind future presidents.  That's why he agreed to quietly, unannounced, remove the missiles in Turkey, which were of little value to the US anyway.  

 

[Kevin Balch]

If fear of losing US nuclear superiority was a motivation for the JFK assassination, it is yet another example of the assassination not accomplishing what it’s planners hoped for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_arms_race#/media/File:US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg

[Robert Morrow]

3 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

If fear of losing US nuclear superiority was a motivation for the JFK assassination, it is yet another example of the assassination not accomplishing what it’s planners hoped for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_arms_race#/media/File:US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg

Reasons for JFK assassination:

1) Lyndon Johnson - kill JFK before the Kennedys could nationally humiliate and destroy LBJ. Kennedy were out to utterly destroy LBJ and not merely "drop him from the 1964 Democratic ticket."

2) D.H. Byrd - preserve his decades long investment in JFK that paid off so handsomely for him before and after the JFK assassination. I can give you 132,000 reasons why D.H. Byrd was involved in the JFK assassination.

3) Ed Clark, LBJ power broker pal who admitted involvement in the JFK assassination - make money off of LBJ due to his close association with this crooked politician. Ed Clark, according to Barr McClellan, was very unhappy when LBJ pulled out of the 1968 presidential race because Ed Clark made tons of easy money legal retainer fees by being associated with Johnson.

4) Gen. Edward Lansdale - kill JFK as revenge for overthrowing and killing Diem in Vietnam. Never mind that JFK did not want Diem dead, that is what happened. Lansdale not happy with being run out of government on 10/31/1963 and being politically castrated in regards to Vietnam policy which he thought was proprietarily his. In return for his Dallas services, Lyndon Johnson resuscitated Lansdale's military career and sent him to Vietnam

5) CIA David Atlee Phillips - he obliquely admitted to his family that he was involved in the JFK assassination. He would have been mad about Cuba policy.

6) "Dark Complected Man" aka "Radio Man" - a spotter for snipers (plural) behind the fence on the Grassy Knoll. This man, never identified which is highly suspicious - looks like a dark complected CIA connected or Lansdale connected anti-Castro Cuban. He would have been in a rage over Cuba policy.

7) In general, it was the LBJ complex of power VS the Kennedy complex of power and LBJ's side won.

NOT on the list of motives:

A) JFK being killed because he was not going to prosecute the Vietnam War. That is one of the greatest canards in all of JFK research and it is Oliver Stone's hobby horse. It is right up there with lone nutterism as far as being grotesquely inaccurate.

B] JFK's battles with Wall Street

C) Everything else - including U.S. fear of losing nuclear superiority.

Edited April 27 by Robert Morrow

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

I disagree with your assessment of relations at the time between the SU and Cuba, between Krushchev and Castro, that underlies your comments.  The Soviets "got what they wanted out of Cuba " when the US removed the missiles it had in Turkey? 

Yes, the removal of Jupiter missiles was a major strategic victory.  

2 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

You think that's why put them in Cuba, with nuclear warheads! in the first place?

A major objective, yes.  Another objective was to gain advantage in the struggle over Cuban influence with Red China,

https://www.nytimes.com/1963/01/03/archives/cuba-hints-trend-to-china-in-split-but-castro-keeps-to-course.html

WASHINGTON, Jan. 2--Premier Fidel Castro indicated in his speech today that Cuba would steer a middle course "within the socialist camp" between the Soviet Union and Communist China but was leaning toward Peking.

2 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

Have you heard about the Bay of Pigs? 

What about it?

2 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

And the constant attempts to kill Castro?

What about it?

2 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

Krushchev and Castro were in constant contact. It was Krushchev who convinced Castro that he could talk to Kennedy, and those talks were just starting when Kennedy was murdered (another reason for the murder). As the mortal threat to Castro from the US continued unabated, Castro was agitating for more protection from the SU.

So?  That doesn't mean the Soviets would initiate a nuclear war they couldn't win.  The notion is preposterous!

2 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

Cuba was a great prize in the Western Hemisphere for Krushchev.

Castro was closer to Red China.

2 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

 

Castro was to become an important figure internationally.  Krushchev agreed to the missiles hoping they would give Castro some breathing room and be a deterrent to the US. 

The Bay of Pigs and the constant attempts on Castro's life should of disabused Khrushchev of such naivete.  You seriously think Khrushchev expected Kennedy not to respond to the placement of nukes 90 miles off our shore?

2 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

To resolve the crisis Kennedy realized he had to offer more than just his assurances he would not try to invade Cuba again.  Even if sincere, it would not bind future presidents.  That's why he agreed to quietly, unannounced, remove the missiles in Turkey, which were of little value to the US anyway.  

 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01402399708437689#:~:text=It is on this legal,NATO Defense Forces in Turkey'.

[Kevin Balch]

Castro was livid with the settlement of the Cuban Missile Crisis. A second honeymoon had to be arranged in the spring of 1963 to reassure Castro of the nuclear capabilities of the USSR.

https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/bitstream/handle/1773/36000/Sharma - Castro USSR Paper.pdf?sequence=1