Winnipeg Free Press - PRINT EDITION

From Cuban nuclear crisis to Iran

Give mullahs a way out -- it worked for Kennedy and Khrushchev 50 years ago

  • Print

WASHINGTON -- The Cuban missile crisis broke out 50 years ago this month, and its lessons on weakness, strength and compromise have been recited ever since by politicians, pundits and historians. The problem -- which has plagued U.S. foreign policy time and again -- is that these lessons are myths, based on sheer lies about how the crisis began and how it ended.


One of these myths has been thoroughly exploded (though many eminences seem not to know it). This is the notion that U.S. president John F. Kennedy got Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev to back down and remove his nuclear missiles from Cuba entirely through the threat of force. In fact, as revealed by JFK's secret tape recordings of his meetings with senior advisers (evidence that's been available at the Kennedy Library for 25 years), the two leaders brokered a deal: Khrushchev would take his missiles out of Cuba; Kennedy would take his very similar missiles out of Turkey.

But the other myth, no less pernicious in its impact (and no less false), still endures. This is the legend that Kennedy cowered before Khrushchev at a summit in Vienna in the spring of 1961 and that, as a result, the crafty Communist aggressively deployed missiles in Cuba thinking the young president was too weak to respond.

In fact, the evidence -- much of it declassified a decade ago from the Kremlin archives, and recounted in Khrushchev's Cold War, a superb book by Aleksandr Fursenko and Timothy Naftali -- reveals that it was Khrushchev who shipped the missiles out of weakness and insecurity.

Khrushchev did exploit what he saw as Kennedy's weakness, but he made his move at a different time, about a different place: Berlin in the summer of 1961. And the abject failure of that ploy, the determined resistance of JFK, so riled Khrushchev that he sent missiles to Cuba a year later as a desperate effort to compensate for what he now saw as American superiority.

Let's back up. At the end of the Second World War, Soviet troops occupied eastern Germany; the U.S., British and French armies occupied sectors of the west. With the onset of the Cold War, the borders hardened into two separate countries. Berlin was an anomaly: a city 160 kilometres inside East German territory, itself divided in two -- East Berlin and West Berlin, the latter a western enclave and a prosperous contrast to the surrounding poverty.

In 1948, Soviet premier Joseph Stalin mounted a blockade to isolate and ultimately take over West Berlin, but the U.S. Air Force kept moving in supplies. Unable to block the airlift, Stalin called off the blockade. In 1959, Khrushchev mounted an effort to take over all of Berlin, but U.S. president Dwight Eisenhower resisted, and the two reached a provisional truce at Camp David.

In 1961, after the Vienna meeting with Kennedy, Khrushchev renewed his assault, announcing that if the West didn't sign a treaty turning over all Berlin to East Germany, there would be war. Kennedy resisted, too, and in fact the Berlin crisis of August 1961 was nearly as tense as the Cuban crisis of October 1962. At one point, U.S. and Soviet tanks faced each other, within firing range, across a checkpoint for 25 hours. Finally, Khrushchev backed down.

Around this time, thanks to new photo-reconnaissance satellites, the CIA and the Pentagon began to realize that -- contrary to the fears of a few years earlier (fears that JFK had exploited in his 1960 presidential campaign) -- there was no "missile gap." Or, rather, there was a missile gap, but America was way ahead of the Soviet Union, not the other way around.

Kennedy wanted to reveal this fact, both to the American public and to the world. So, on Oct. 2, 1961, deputy secretary of Defense Roswell Gilpatric gave a speech in Hot Springs, Va., proclaiming great "confidence in our ability to deter Communist action or resist Communist blackmail," owing to "a sober appreciation of the relative military power of the two sides." The U.S. arsenal, with its "tens of thousands" of nuclear weapons, was so lethal, Gilpatric said, that "an enemy move which brought it into play would be an act of self-destruction."

For years, Khrushchev had boasted his factories were cranking out ICBMs "like sausages." In fact, though, he had nothing; the missile program was in total disarray. And now the Americans were calling his bluff.

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union was about to hold its annual congress. Khrushchev was already coming under attack for backing down in Berlin, both from the Kremlin's hard-liners and from China's more radical Communist Party, which was competing with the Soviets for Third World allies. The balance of forces with rivals, to the east and west, was palpably shifting against him.

Khrushchev really did believe the United States might launch a nuclear first strike against the Soviet Union. The notion wasn't so far-fetched. During the Berlin crisis, Kennedy had ordered the Pentagon to conduct a study of whether such a strike was possible. The top secret study -- a detailed, 36-page attack plan -- concluded it was very feasible. It's unknown how much Khrushchev knew about this plan, but the Joint Chiefs wrote follow-up assessments, Kennedy himself read them and held at least one meeting in the Oval Office to discuss the issue. (I got these documents declassified for a story about the first-strike plan I wrote for the October 2001 issue of the Atlantic.)

The Soviet premier had not given up on grabbing West Berlin, but he knew he had no leverage. If the United States did launch a nuclear strike, he wasn't even sure any of his missiles or bombers would be capable of retaliating.

Khrushchev did have a fair number of medium-range missiles, so he shipped them to Cuba, to put them within firing range of the United States. If he could install them without notice, then announce another gambit on Berlin (as he was planning to do in November 1962), those missiles would give him something to bargain with.

But the American U-2s spotted the missiles. And once Kennedy announced that they had, Khrushchev knew he would have to pull them out. The question was how to do so without suffering another humiliation.

As it happened, Kennedy was thinking along the same lines. The secret tapes reveal that on Oct. 18, just the third day of the crisis, Kennedy wondered aloud why Khrushchev had put the missiles in Cuba. He figured they must have been part of a bargaining gambit and that, to get them out, he might have to give Khrushchev "some out," a way to save face. One way, he mused, might be to say, "If you pull them out, we'll take ours out of Turkey."

None of JFK's advisers paid any attention to his remark. On the final day, Oct. 25, when Khrushchev proposed just such a trade, Kennedy pounced on it eagerly. "Let's not kid ourselves," the president is heard saying on the tapes. "Most people think that if you're allowed an even trade, you ought to take advantage of it." If we go to war, mounting air strikes and then an invasion on Cuba, and if the Soviets respond by grabbing Berlin, he added, "everybody's going to say, 'Well, this Khrushchev offer was a pretty good proposition.' "

Everybody around the table fiercely opposed the trade, saying it would destroy NATO, weaken U.S. standing in the world and trigger all kinds of disasters. Toward the very end of the discussion, the only adviser agreeing with JFK was George Ball, an undersecretary of state who would later be the Johnson administration's sole dissident on escalation in Vietnam. Kennedy ignored the overwhelming majority of his aides and instructed his brother, attorney general Robert Kennedy (who also opposed it), to go tell the Soviet ambassador that he would take the deal -- but only if it was kept secret. And it was, for the next 25 years, until the tapes were about to come out and a few of JFK's advisers decided to reveal the truth pre-emptively -- though even then, they didn't say they opposed the trade.

The resolution of the Cuban crisis may hold some lessons for crises today.

First, antagonists should stay in touch with each other. There was no telephone contact between Kennedy and Khrushchev in October 1962. They did send telegrams back and forth, and Kennedy maintained a back channel through the Soviet embassy -- even as ships and submarines confronted one another, troops were mobilized, and, in one particularly tense moment, a U-2 spy plane was shot down. Without those communiqués, the crisis might have escalated into war.

Second, at some point, one side might clearly have the upper hand, in which case it should seek ways to give the other side a way out. This doesn't necessarily mean surrendering the interests at stake. The Jupiter missiles that JFK traded weren't much good anyway. The United States was about to station new Polaris submarines in the Mediterranean; each sub carried 16 nuclear missiles and was less vulnerable to attack. The United States, in other words, gave up nothing in military capability.

Third, there is no contradiction between striking a deal and maintaining vigilance; compromise is not the same as appeasement. According to a cleverly titled new book by David Coleman, The Fourteenth Day: JFK and the Aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis, disputes continued for months after the Turkish deal was struck, and tensions occasionally flared over the terms and timing of the withdrawal of Soviet weapons from Cuba. Kennedy held his ground. But neither side stormed off or re-triggered the crisis.

Fourth, there should be no illusions that the resolution of one crisis will spawn an era of peace. The Turkish trade didn't save Khrushchev's face quite enough in the end. Two years later, he was ousted by Kremlin hard-liners, who then proceeded to fund a massive ICBM build-up to match what the United States had already started to do. The Cold War was matched, and fuelled, by a nuclear arms race for another 30 years. Still, never again was there an armed confrontation over Berlin or Cuba.

The current standoff with Iran over the state of its nuclear program is hardly as intense as the Cuban crisis, but it bears some of the same patterns. Under tremendous pressure, in this case financial, Iran's leaders are offering compromises to ease the crisis. Their terms to date are unacceptable -- they'd require the West to call off the sanctions before Iran stopped enriching uranium -- but that doesn't mean the door to talks should be closed. We don't know the Iranians' precise motives or how they assess the balance of forces. They might simply be trying to keep us dangling, but they might genuinely be looking for "some out," as Kennedy put it. Unless we want war (and some do), it's worth extending and paying close attention to any feelers. The Cuban missile crisis -- the reality, not the myth -- offers some pointers on how to do that.


Fred Kaplan is Slate's War Stories columnist and author of the forthcoming book, The Insurgents: David Petraeus and the Plot to Change the American Way of War.

-- Slate

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition October 13, 2012 J6

Fact Check

Fact Check

Have you found an error, or know of something we’ve missed in one of our stories?
Please use the form below and let us know.

* Required
  • Please post the headline of the story or the title of the video with the error.

  • Please post exactly what was wrong with the story.

  • Please indicate your source for the correct information.

  • Yes


  • This will only be used to contact you if we have a question about your submission, it will not be used to identify you or be published.

  • Cancel

Having problems with the form?

Contact Us Directly
  • Print

You can comment on most stories on You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is be a Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscriber to join the conversation and give your feedback.

You can comment on most stories on You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is be a Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscriber to join the conversation and give your feedback.

Have Your Say

New to commenting? Check out our Frequently Asked Questions.

Have Your Say

Comments are open to Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscribers only. why?

Have Your Say

Comments are open to Winnipeg Free Press Subscribers only. why?

The Winnipeg Free Press does not necessarily endorse any of the views posted. By submitting your comment, you agree to our Terms and Conditions. These terms were revised effective April 16, 2010.


Make text: Larger | Smaller


It's 4:20 in Winnipeg

View more like this

Photo Store Gallery

  • June 25, 2013 - 130625  -  A storm lit up Winnipeg Tuesday, June 25, 2013. John Woods / Winnipeg Free Press - lightning
  • JOE BRYKSA/WINNIPEG FREE PRESS Local- A large osprey lands in it's nest in a hydro pole on Hyw 59  near the Hillside Beach turnoff turn off. Osprey a large narrow winged hawk which can have a wingspan of over 54 inches are making a incredible recovery since pesticide use of the 1950's and  1960's- For the last two decades these fish hawks have been reappearing in the Lake Winnipeg area- Aug 03, 2005

View More Gallery Photos


Do you think the Jets will win Game 4 on Wednesday?

View Results

View Related Story

Ads by Google