Cuban Missile Crisis from the Perspective of the Cubans and Soviets - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

'Cold war' communist versus capitalist ideological struggle (1946 - 1990) and everything else in the post World War II era (1946 onwards).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15173989
Here are two videos that describe the perspective of the Cuban Missile Crisis from the Cuban perspective and the Russian perspective. Personally, I feel that Castro and Guevera were extremists and very dangerous. Khrushchev and Kennedy on the other hand were much more level headed.


Cuban Perspective.


Russian perspective.
#15174015
Politics_Observer wrote:Here are two videos that describe the perspective of the Cuban Missile Crisis from the Cuban perspective and the Russian perspective. Personally, I feel that Castro and Guevera were extremists and very dangerous. Khrushchev and Kennedy on the other hand were much more level headed.




Thanks for the videos. I especially found the perspective from the Soviet Union fascinating. The Cuban perspective is by and large familiar, not so the Soviet perspective. I found it interesting Sergei Khrushchev pointing out a fundamental split in the perception of danger by Americans and by Russians. With Russia there are always enemies at the gates, one type replacing another. Not so the US, Americans have had nuisance at the gates, but never a clear and devastating danger. The Soviets never understood or appreciated that, and the sharp American reaction to their attempts at placing missiles in Cuba may have surprised them.
#15174038
@Juin

Yes, the U.S. has been blessed by two oceans surrounding it. However, as we learned on 9/11, those two oceans can provide an illusion of safety that doesn't actually exist. On the other hand, as you have noted before, Russia has been invaded countless times and suffered millions of casualties. So, having threats at the gates was nothing new plus they are more used to suffering casualties too, though I am sure they never liked or enjoyed suffering those kinds of casualties. Much like the Middle East is a tough neighborhood, so can Europe be a tough neighborhood to live in as well. People in such parts of the world are used to having enemies at the gates and so it's not as big of a deal to them.
#15174046
@Juin

This is just my opinion, but if we had understood the Russian perspective better during those times, I think we should have simply negotiated a fair deal with the Russians and remove some of our missiles from Turkey for example and in return they remove their missiles from Cuba without provoking a crisis and pushing the world to the brink like that.
#15174081
@late

I don't think Khrushchev was a bad guy and I liked him better than Brezhnev. Khrushchev's mistake was that he put the best interests of humanity and his own country first and not the best interests of his country's system first. Brezhnev was working behind his back to get him removed from power because he wanted power. It was a risk for the Politburo to retire Khrushchev. Brezhnev stayed in power not by putting his country first, but for putting the communist party first. Party over country and we have seen some of that over in the U.S. too. I also think Kennedy was smart too in the way he responded so as to provoke the Russians as little as possible. Kennedy didn't listen to some of his hot headed generals at the time thankfully. Some of those generals were just as bad and extreme as Castro and Che Guevara. That whole mess could have ended in a disaster and we were fortunate it didn't.
#15174101
Politics_Observer wrote:
@late

I don't think Khrushchev was a bad guy and I liked him better than Brezhnev. Khrushchev's mistake was that he put the best interests of humanity and his own country first and not the best interests of his country's system first.



I don't see it that way.

Russian bombers did not have the range to reach America, and even if they did; they would have had a lot of trouble with our fighters. They were prop planes, meaning they were slow.


Russia had started building ICBMs, and I am not positive about this, but at that point my impression was they had at most a handful to throw at us. At that time we were using Minutemen, my understanding of them is that most of them would have failed at launch. For a very long time, the only successful launches were at a special research launch facility. Which is totally irrelevant to the discussion, it's just there because it's interesting.

Overall, my understanding is that the Pentagon brass was reluctant to push the issue, of course a military is always going to have at least a few hotheads.

So the way I see it (and I am not the only one), Kruschev saw JFK as someone young and inexperienced that he could bluff.
#15174115
@late

That is true, Krushchev did see Kennedy as a bit of pushover. I think you might have a solid case. I can also see the Russian perspective as well as "the enemy is always at the gates." We did have missiles in Turkey but my understanding is that these missiles were obsolete at the time.
#15174122
Politics_Observer wrote:
@late

That is true, Krushchev did see Kennedy as a bit of pushover. I think you might have a solid case. I can also see the Russian perspective as well as "the enemy is always at the gates." We did have missiles in Turkey but my understanding is that these missiles were obsolete at the time.



Stalin freaked us out. Badly. There was literally only American that had any idea how to deal with him after WW2.

JFK used that fear to get elected, he actually went to the freaking Right of Nixon. He tried to back off after he was elected, but he was captive to the primal fear he unleashed.

That set off an escalation cycle that is now boilerplate conflict theory, it wound up having both sides making tens of thousands of nuclear warheads. We were targeting empty military parking lots with nukes on the off chance something might be there when the time came.

Which assumes the Minutemen worked, which I doubt.
#15174160
@late

I don't know how well the Minuteman missiles worked back then but I can guarantee you they work pretty darn good now. Those Trident II submarine launched missiles also work pretty darn good and are incredibly accurate. So accurate in fact, they can destroy Russian nuclear missiles in hardened underground silos.
#15174166
@Juin @late @Pants-of-dog

I do think it is important that both Russia and the U.S. work together to make the world a safer place from nuclear weapons and ensure that these weapons do not proliferate and set up a system to where nations do not feel the need to arm themselves with such weapons. It is important for Russia and the U.S. to work towards setting the example and continue reducing their own stockpiles.

I don't think we should do this to the detriment of security but we must work towards achieving the conditions to where both nations feel safe about further reducing those weapon stockpiles and this would thus set an example for everybody else. It sure would be nice if we could live in a safe nuclear free world. I mean the world is a dangerous place, but we also have to think about the best interests of humanity and be willing to treat each other with respect and try to ensure trust and peace between nations. Know what I mean?
Last edited by Politics_Observer on 26 May 2021 02:21, edited 1 time in total.
#15174169
Politics_Observer wrote:
@late

I don't know how well the Minuteman missiles worked back then but I can guarantee you they work pretty darn good now. Those Trident II submarine launched missiles also work pretty darn good and are incredibly accurate. So accurate in fact, they can destroy Russian nuclear missiles in hardened underground silos.



That's close to 60 years ago. With the trillions the military gets, it's hardly surprising they eventually got the things to work.

I just wanted to give a feel for the way things were. Both sides were working with imperfect information, and with limits the other wasn't sure about. Very 'you sunk my battleship'.

Which reminds me of Bill and Ted's excellent adventure (a classic).
#15174170
@late

For me, I would love to see a safe, nuclear free world where mankind lives in safety and harmony with each other. I know it's a pipe dream, but we can still dream can't we? It's important that we love and respect our fellow man no matter where he or she comes from or what language they speak or what the color of their skin is. It's important to love and respect your fellow human beings.
Last edited by Politics_Observer on 26 May 2021 02:29, edited 1 time in total.
#15174171
Politics_Observer wrote:@Juin

This is just my opinion, but if we had understood the Russian perspective better during those times, I think we should have simply negotiated a fair deal with the Russians and remove some of our missiles from Turkey for example and in return they remove their missiles from Cuba without provoking a crisis and pushing the world to the brink like that.




That is also the story of human conflicts in a nutshell. I am reminded of Barbara Tuchman's March of Folly. Most conflicts have that ingredient; a close examination always reveals that each side never understood, or took seriously the perspective of the other side; if wars were not so deadly, the lead up to them is easily a comedy of errors.
#15174207
Politics_Observer wrote:
@late

For me, I would love to see a safe, nuclear free world where mankind lives in safety and harmony with each other. I know it's a pipe dream, but we can still dream can't we? It's important that we love and respect our fellow man no matter where he or she comes from or what language they speak or what the color of their skin is. It's important to love and respect your fellow human beings.



Herman Kahn was a nuke expert, wrote a book about nuclear war that I read when I was in my mid teen years, damn thing gave me nightmares for years.

Being a doormat doesn't work. Finding a middle ground between Realpolitik and doormat is usually where we want to head.

But it's not easy and everybody wants the easy way out.
#15174208
Juin wrote:
That is also the story of human conflicts in a nutshell. I am reminded of Barbara Tuchman's March of Folly. Most conflicts have that ingredient; a close examination always reveals that each side never understood, or took seriously the perspective of the other side; if wars were not so deadly, the lead up to them is easily a comedy of errors.



Freshman history majors wonder why everyone is always screwing up. Sophomores wonder why life is so screwed up. Seniors wonder how anything big got done.

Yes, I am accusing Babs of making a freshman's mistake. Don't get me wrong, she's ok. But she is writing for a lay audience, it's not serious history.

There were 4 or 5 empires, Brits, Russians, Austro-Hungarian, the Turks, maybe the US. The European powers were all painfully aware there wasn't enough 'room' for everybody. A shakeout was coming, they knew they were in deep doodoo.

So they tried to prevent it, and their actions made it inevitable. Those interlocking alliances locked them into starting a war. A war that would bring them all down. The British empire wouldn't collapse for a while, but WW1 ripped their guts out, it was just a question of time after that.

The reason we haven't had a major war can be summed up in one word: nukes.

Humans discount the future, it's in our nature. We will always accept a larger risk later in exchange for reducing a smaller risk immediately. Like climate change...

But with nukes there is no later.

Bottom line, don't expect humans to be rational actors, because humans are not rational. One of the reasons for this is the context in which people work. An example of this is how often leaders do things to avoid appearing weak.

Ike knew Vietnam was a lousy idea. LBJ slowly learned it was a mistake. Everyone knew it was a mistake by the time Nixon became president (even Nixon), but he didn't want to be the guy to admit failure.

The 'news' is that we don't always screw up. But you'd be amazed how hard that is.
#15174271
@late

late wrote:Herman Kahn was a nuke expert, wrote a book about nuclear war that I read when I was in my mid teen years, damn thing gave me nightmares for years.

Being a doormat doesn't work. Finding a middle ground between Realpolitik and doormat is usually where we want to head.

But it's not easy and everybody wants the easy way out.


You are absolutely correct. So, it seems we will have nuclear weapons in the foreseeable future unfortunately, but reality dictates that for the security of our nation, we need them. However, we should also work as tirelessly as possible to prevent war or the use of nuclear weapons. Also preventing the spread of nuclear weapons is a necessity but then this dictates we need a true and genuine rules based order and not a global order based on "might is right" and "law of the jungle." If we don't have a true and genuine rules based order, then the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable as others will seek them to not become the next prey of nuclear powers or stronger nations. And who could blame them? In the absences of a true and genuine rules based order, if I were the smaller nations or been the victim of bullying by a stronger nation or a nuclear power, I would seek those weapons too for my own security. We cannot deny the rights and security of smaller nations or non-nuclear powers.
#15198268
Juin wrote: [...] The Soviets never understood or appreciated that, and the sharp American reaction to their attempts at placing missiles in Cuba may have surprised them.


The soviets placed those missles in Cuba because the americans placed missles in Turkey, and IIRC that was exactly what the USA agreed upon, removing the missles from Turkey for the removeal of missles from Cuba.

Blah blah. If Russia uses nukes, the rest of the […]

World War II Day by Day

March 29, Friday Mackenzie King wins Canadian el[…]

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over main[…]

The rapes by Hamas, real or imagained are irreleva[…]