Effects of the Soviet on the Cuban Missile Crisis

Effects of the Soviet on the Cuban Missile Crisis The Cuban Missile Crisis:Â  Was it the Fault of the Soviets? Introduction The required brevity of this essay precludes the possibility of giving any kind of narrative of the events of the Cuban Missile Crisis; however we will begin with a brief analysis of the origins of the crisis before proceeding to analyse who was to blame and eventually concluding that there were faults on both sides, although more on Kennedy’s than Khrushchev’s. President Kennedy had come to office in 1960 under the generally held, but entirely inaccurate belief that America had far fewer missiles than the Soviets.[1] Almost immediately upon election he committed the US to a massive increase in the US’ nuclear missile arsenal. Even when it was admitted that the US in fact had far more missiles than the Soviet Union, the building program did not slow down (Kahan Long, 1972, 565). Giglio has argued that the crisis arose out of a personal vendetta of the Kennedy’s against Castro himself (Giglio, 1991, 190). It is long established that the CIA were engaged in attempts to assassinate Castro.[2] Robert Kennedy even held responsible for these operations for a time (Chang Kornbluh, 1992, 20-23). The American trade embargo on Cuba and the growing belief that an invasion was imminent led the Soviet Union to threaten war if any such event should occur (Giglio, 1991, 190). We can say, with hindsight, that direct invasion was unlikely given the disastrous Bay of Pigs incident, however this was certainly not clear to the Soviets at the time. Bohlen and Thompson have noted that the Russians had never before placed nuclear weapons outside of their territory and that placing them in Cuba could have been seen by the Americans as a direct threat to their national security. The Russians now had a first strike capability on America’s very doorstep with the ability to strike anywhere at will. This was a threat that Kennedy simply could not ignore (Beschloss, 1991 424). From the Soviets perspective, they may have seen the positioning of missiles in Cuba as a way of balancing the strategic superiority the US had over them in such weapons. Who was to blame? John and Robert Kennedy, Nikita Khrushchev, Adlai Stevenson, Kenneth Keating and Dean Acheson all played significant roles in creating or exacerbating the crisis. It is beyond doubt that Khrushchev had made the critical decision to place missiles in Cuba; but Kennedy’s campaign to overthrow Castro had helped convince the Russian Premier that they were needed to act as a deterrent to American invasion. Keating and other Republicans had forced Kennedy to promise the American electorate that he would resist any attempts to put missiles on Cube, compelling Kennedy to action in October 62. Even Stevenson, whose ideas and policies throughout the crisis were generally sound, had contributed by laying the foundation in 61 for the Cubans to be ejected from the OAS (White, 1996, 232). External and Internal factors were no doubt in operation during the build up to the crisis. External factors were certainly of vital importance. Khrushchev almost certainly believed that placing missiles in Cuba would close the strategic gap that he knew to exist; it would also help appease the Chinese and provide a bargaining chip in negotiations with the west (White, 1996, 233). Kennedy’s policy in Cuba was not new. It was underpinned by the standard assumptions of American Cold War policy: monolithism, the domino effect and the lessons of the 1930’s Garthoff, 1989 43ff). Kennedy felt that Castro was Khrushchev’s puppet, and far to close for comfort. He also believed that this extension of Soviet influence was unacceptable and could lead, in a domino like fashion, to a whole series of communist revolutions in Latin America. The evident failure of appeasement towards Hitler in the 1930’s demonstrated that a touch stance was required. The internal factors that contributed to the crisis have generally been considered of lesser importance by historians; in particular, on the American side, Kennedy’s relationship with the liberals in his government. If JFK had been more receptive, he would probably have rejected the Bay of Pigs proposals. He also likely would not have organised such a concerted campaign against Castro in 1961 and 62. A more liberal Cuban policy would not have increased Khrushchev’s fears over the likelihood of invasion, making deployment of missiles far less likely. Accepting Stevenson’s proposal to offer the Soviets a negotiated settlement at the same time as the blockade was announced could have brought about a quicker and safer resolution to the crisis (White, 1996, 234). Kennedy’s relationship with Republicans was also significant. In order to prevent accusations of weakness, he had told the American public that the Soviet build up in Cuba did not represent a significant threat because they had not included missiles. In 1962 when that situation changed, Kennedy had little choice but to respond swiftly. It also ensured that Kennedy’s response could not be one of toleration (White, 1996, 235). During Kennedy’s campaign for the Presidency in 1960 he had criticised Eisenhower for his failure to prevent the rise of Castro and had pledged to remove him from power if elected (Dinerstein, 1976, 21ff). Khrushchev’s belief that, after the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy would again try to fulfil his election promise and attempt to remove Castro, this time directly using American military power, was one of the key factors behind Khrushchev’s decision to install warheads on Cuba. It can be argued, therefore, that there was a clear causal link between the 1960 re-election campaign and the missile crisis, with the former helping to bring about the Bay of Pigs, which in turn helped convince Khrushchev of the need to protect Cuba and thus install missiles (White, 1996, 235). Kennedy also believed in the connection between public opinion and policy, this also helped define the approach towards Castro’s Cuba. One of the lessons to be learned from Britain’s appeasement of Hitler in the late 1930’s was that the public can, at times, exert an unhealthy influence over the pursuit of the national interest. In the case of 1930’s Britain, various pressure groups acted to prevent an increase in military spending. Kennedy, with these lessons in mind, was drawn towards secret operations that would not trigger a public debate. Domestic concerns were also of paramount importance to Khrushchev and certainly contributed to his decision to deploy missiles on Cuba. The Soviet Premiere evidently felt that Russian nuclear weapons in the Caribbean would allow his to justifiably make the argument to the rest of the Soviet ruling class that they significantly improved the Soviet strategic position and that it would therefore be safe to resume the program of cutting troop numbers in order that funds could be diverted away from military spending and towards the civilian economy, which even then was not in a good condition. Installing missiles in Cuba would allow Khrushchev to adopt a strategy of brinkmanship with Kennedy. Kennedy’s public assertion of nuclear superiority (however true) had seriously undermined Khrushchev’s position in the autumn of 1961. Brinkmanship was essentially a way of achieving foreign policy goals without the application of any actual resources: Khrushchev could, therefore, essen tially concentrate on domestic rather than defence needs with his limited resources. Kennedy and Khrushchev were jointly responsible for the crisis. Khrushchev’s decision to install missiles on Cuba was an un-necessary risk. He could have secured the Cuban dictators position, and appeased the Chinese at the same time, be moving troops and conventional arms to the island; although this would have detracted from his domestic agenda. Faced with the prospect of a military clash with the Soviet Union it is highly likely that Kennedy would have abandoned any plans to again attach Cuba (White, 1996, 236). Kennedy was equally culpable for the crisis. Before Khrushchev ever ordered missiles to Cuba, Kennedy had ordered the CIA sponsored invasion, ordered various assassination attempts on Castro, installed a tight embargo on trade to and from the island, approved working towards Cuba’s removal from the OAS and approved large scale military operations in the region (Nash, 1997, 117ff). That Kennedy appeared not to realise that these actions would annoy the Soviets seems, to say the least, naive. He also failed to realise, or perhaps did not care, that his massive increases in defence spending coupled with public proclamations of superiority would trouble the Russians. Although Kennedy and Khrushchev shared, to varying degrees, the responsibility for causing the crisis, they also much share the credit for defusing it. They managed to avoid clashes on the high seas, and in a letter sent to Kennedy on October 26th, Khrushchev showed that he was willing to be the first to make concessions in order to secure a peaceful resolution. Kennedy on the other hand was able to astutely and effectively respond to the two conflicting letters send by Khrushchev on the 26th and 27th of October (White, 1996, 238). All too often Kennedy’s Cuban policies have been prone to oversimplification, much like assessments of his Presidency in general. His record on Cuba was neither excellent in a way that his supporters claim, nor poor as per his detractors Kennedy’s pre crisis approach to Castro was misguided; he also tinkered with but never fully engaged with as examination of America’s cold war position (White, 1996, 238). Conclusion Khrushchev’s decision in 1962 to install nuclear weapons on Cuba was almost certainly not required to fulfil his various foreign, domestic and defence policy objectives. His belief that American military intelligence would fail to detect the missiles on Cuba before they were fully operational was foolish and mistaken. Most importantly of all, Khrushchev should have realised that the new American administration would never tolerate Soviet missiles on Cuba, able to deliver a first strike capability to the Soviet Union. The decision made confrontation inevitable. Kennedy on the other hand was far more culpable. His approach to Castro before the crisis was misguided to say the least. The assassination attempts code named project Mongoose, his aborted invasion, trade embargo etc. as noted above all smack of bullying and of a deep seated hatred. He repeatedly implemented policies towards Cuba that were unnecessarily hostile. His belief that a communist Cuba would lead to the spread of communism throughout the Latin American world smacks of paranoia. He failed to take advantage of opportunities before the crisis arose to improve relations with Havana and Moscow and he failed to listen to his liberal advisors like Stevenson. As with most international problems throughout history, the fault does not lay with just one side. The leaders of both nations have to take some of the blame but it seems evident that Khrushchev was largely acting in response to American aggression and was the first to offer a negotiated peace that would allow the situation to be defused. Kennedy should also be praised in the final analysis for allowing the Soviets to save face by negotiating away the American Jupiter missiles in Turkey (Nash, 1997, 150-176). The crisis need never have arisen in the first place, but it appears largely to be America acting and the Soviets reacting. Bibliography M. P. Beschloss, Kennedy V. Khrushchev: The Crisis Years (Boston 1991) L. Chang P. Kornbluh, The Cuban Missile Crisis: A National Security Archive Documents Reader (New York 1992) H. S. Dinerstein, The Making of a Missile Crisis: October 1962 (London 1976) R. L. Garthoff, Reflections on the Cuban Missile Crisis (Washington D. C. 1989) J. N. Giglio, The Presidency of John F. Kennedy (Kansas 1991). R. Helsman, The Cuban Missile Crisis: Struggle Over Policy (London 1996) J. H. Kahan A. K. Long, The Cuban Missile Crisis: A Study of its Strategic Context, Political Science Quarterly, 87 (1972) P. Nash, The Other Missiles of October (London 1997) S. M. Stern, Averting ‘The Final Failure’: John F. Kennedy and the Secret Cuban Missile Crisis Meetings (Stanford, California, 2003) M. J. White, The Cuban Missile Crisis (London 1996) 1 Footnotes [1] The US in fact had 17 times more warheads than the Soviet Union, (Giglio, 1991, 192.) [2] The so called operation Mongoose.

When Was Barbie Given Bendable Legs

Hatfield 1 Kristin Hatfield Professor Clark English 101 3037 Page 175 Assignment 4 Paper 5 October 31, 2012 Barbie – An American Icon Icons like Barbie recognized for their popularity and effects on society. Barbie is a subject of obsession all over the world. Collectors, consumers and even some designers become enthralled in the Barbie world. Designers create special designs to fit a specific trend of the high fashion runways. Collectors all over the world collect and spend amazing amounts of money to have the original Barbie in their collection.The consumers have made Barbie a true icon in American culture. The Barbie doll was invented in 1959 by Ruth Handler (co-founder of Mattel), whose own daughter was called Barbara. The Barbie doll was introduced to the world at the American Toy Fair in New York City. Barbie's job was teenage fashion doll. In 1965, Barbie first had bendable legs, and eyes that open and shut. In 1967, a Twist ‘N Turn Barbie was released that had a moveable body that twisted at the waist. The best-selling Barbie doll ever was 1992 Totally Hair Barbie, with hair from the top of her head to her toes.The first Barbie was sold for $3. Additional clothing based on the latest runway trends from Paris were sold, costing from $1 to $5. In the first year (1959), 300,000 Barbie dolls were sold. Today, a mint condition â€Å"#1† (1959 Barbie doll) can fetch as much as $27,450. To date, over 70 fashion designers have made clothes for Mattel, using over 105 million yards of fabric. Barbie has had a huge impact on the fashion industry for over fifty years. . (Mary Bellis, About. com Guide) Hatfield 2 This is what the proportions of a life-size Barbie doll would look likeImage from (thefrisky. com) There has been some controversy over Barbie Doll's figure when it was realized that if Barbie was a real person her measurements would be an impossible 36-18-38. Barbie's â€Å"real† measurements are 5 inches (bust), 3 ? inches (wais t), 5 3/16 inches (hips). Her weight is 7 ? ounces, and her height is 11. 5 inches tall. These measurements seem unattainable to me as a woman living in a world of super-sized portions of food at every corner. Nevertheless, Mattel has also responded to concerns about Barbie’s body.In 1997 Barbie’s body mold was redesigned and given a wider waist, which would make her â€Å"better suited to contemporary fashion designs. †(The Examiner. com) I can clearly remember my first Barbie. I was five years old. It was Christmas day and I was very excited to own my very own Barbie. Along with the doll I also received a dream house, a pink corvette, swimming pool, and even a Ken doll to make the â€Å"Barbie world† complete. I was instantly obsessed with the idea and the make believe life I imagined for my dolls. Not once did I ever think of these dolls as role models or as having a certain body image that I must follow n order to be accepted in society.Unfortunately, a lot of mothers and women believe that the doll has made young women obsessive about their size and looks. Hatfield 3 Overall, this American Icon has influenced our culture in a way Mattel probably never could have ever imagined. Barbie is a doll that creates and follows fashion trends just as the world does. This iconic doll has changed her clothing, hairstyles, automobiles, friends, houses and pets. Barbie is one doll that never goes out of style and has made fashion dolls a great pastime for collectors and children young and old.

Speech of oath Ceremony

Especially to those dew drops who have made their presence in the lawns of this college for the first time, I called the Dew drops yes they are because we believe that they are as pure as the purity in the drops of dew we observe on the grass early in the morning. And now is the time to impel along with that purity in them the moral values so that they will shine in heights of the sky this also is a fact that they also have entered this premises with an aim to groom their life. Which implies that they have entered the college life where from they will come out to be the future of tomorrow’s society.The author of Re imagine Mr. Tom Peters has assessed the colleges as, â€Å"I imagine a college system that recognizes learning is natural, that a love of learning is normal, and that real learning is passionate learning. A college curriculum that values questions above answer†¦.. creativity above fact regurgitation†¦. individuality above conformity.. and excellence above standardized performance†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ And we must reject all notice of reform` that serve up more of the same: more testing, more `standards`, more uniformity, more conformity, more bureaucracy.In context to these words of Tom Peter I assure all the parents and the students sitting in front that we all under this roof are determined to inculcate good moral values among the children who enter the premises of this college because they are supposed to be the future of tomorrow, As we are all carriers of our own stories. We have never trusted our own voices. Reforms came, but we don’t make them. They were presented by people removed from colleges, by ‘experts’ such changes bi passes college.College by college changes, however slow, could make a powerful difference. Which implies that good colleges are still possible. With these lines of ‘Deborah Meier’ I conclude my words and whole heartedly welcome the new comers here in our family Sai Pariwar. Now to start off with the official part of the welcome ceremony I request the chairman of shri Sai Baba Aadarsh mahavidyalaya, along with the secretary SSBAM, the principal of the college and the Department heads from all the faculties to come ahead for the lightening of the lamp.

Themes Of Mary Shelley s Frankenstein - 1119 Words

7. Themes Revenge In Frankenstein, revenge has an emotional resonance way stronger than Victor s half-hearted protests that he really does love Elizabeth. The monster may think he has no connection to the world, but revenge gives him a constant link to Victor. It may be distorted, but it s still a way of forming human bonds. Knowledge The pursuit of knowledge is at the heart of Frankenstein, as Victor attempts to surge beyond accepted human limits and access the secret of life. Likewise, Robert Walton attempts to surpass previous human explorations by endeavoring to reach the North Pole. This ruthless pursuit of knowledge proves dangerous, as Victor’s act of creation eventually results in the destruction of everyone dear to him, and†¦show more content†¦The novel ends with Victor and the monster hunting each other on the Arctic ice, which symbolizes the primal struggle between them as well as the loneliness each feels in their existence. 9. Imagery â€Å"It was on a dreary night of November that I beheld the accomplishment of my toils. With an anxiety that almost amounted to agony, collected the instruments of life around me, that I might infuse a spark of being into the lifeless thing that lay at my feet. It was already one in the morning; the rain pattered dismally against the panes, and my candle was nearly burnt out, when, by the glimmer of the half-extinguished light, I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open; it breathed hard, and a convulsive motion agitated its limbs [...] that seemed almost of the same colour as the dun white sockets in which they were set, his shrivelled complexion and straight black lips† (Shelley 48). In Frankenstein, Shelley sets up the setting in November which tends to be a month of chilly weather. The creature created by Victor Frankenstein is explained in very specific manner which lets the reader picture the creature’s features. The imagery use for the creature’s features show how it greatly influences the feelings of his creator Victor. His creator spent so much time and energy to create the monsterShow MoreRelatedMary Shelleys Frankenstein: A Gothic Novel1595 Words   |  7 Pages Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein is one of the greatest Gothic novels to come out during the Romantic Period. Frankenstein is a prime example of what a Gothic novel should present to its reader through the genre’s twisted themes. Even though it was written in the Romantic period, Mary Shelley still wrote Frankenstein to be a Gothic work of literature. Many characteristics of Gothic novel can be seen within this novel. Mary Shelley’s outstanding novel Frankenstein i s a prime example of a Gothic novelRead MoreThe Guilt Of The Death Of Others By Mary Shelley1307 Words   |  6 Pagescharacters in her writings. Mary Shelley’s guilt is significant to the guilt of her characters because they are created by her. Through them she is able to express her own guilt for the death of others. The characters inside Mary Shelley s writings have losses and gains similar to her own. In her writings, Shelley would take a theme that was evident in her own life and apply them to her writings. â€Å"Mary Shelley, in her second novel [Valperga] as well as in her first [Frankenstein], is interested in takingRead MoreThe Volcanic Eruption Of Mount Tambora935 Words   |  4 Pagescredited for not only â€Å"paintings of fiery sunsets and tempestuous skies,† but also the birth of Mary Shelley s Frankenstein; or The Modern Prometheus. Furthermore, it is this very freakish event of nature that sets the tone for the theme of nature in Frankenstein. Natu re, as the setting to create, nature that soothes, and nature that destructs. In the Introduction of Frankenstein, Mary Shelley describes her holiday to Switzerland with Percey Bysshe Sheeley her husband where Lord Byron becomesRead MoreAnalysis Of Mary Shelley s Frankenstein 1184 Words   |  5 PagesThroughout Frankenstein, Mary Shelley uses a ‘framed narrative using three different characters who tell their story at different times of the novel. In the beginning of the story, the audience receives Captain Walton s point of view, who primarily writes letters to his sister Margaret Saville, in England. Secondly, the audience comes hand in hand with Victor Frankenstein s point of view and within his narrative, they receive the indomitable Creature s point of view. The major theme portrayedRead MoreMary Shelley and Flannery OConnor: Gothic Isolationists1724 Words   |  7 Pagesdeveloped into a 19th century phenomenon. The success of this dominant genre in England is frequently attributed to Mary Shelley. Despite its success during this time period, gothic fiction ceased to be a dominant genre by the Victorian Era. However, in many ways it had now begun to enter into its most ingenious phase. This paper will analyze the influence of Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein on Flannery O’Connor’s work, specifically her novel Wise Blood. Flannery O’Connor emerged as a crucial and contemporaryRead MoreMary Shelleys Frankenstein Feminism1429 Words   |  6 Pages1012 10/19/18 Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein: Feminism before it was mainstream? Writing a paper on the topic of Frankenstein days before Halloween might give you the wrong idea- lets clear something up straight away Frankenstein is the doctor not the monster and the monster doesn’t have a name (which we later learn is mildly important to the story). You see, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is arguably a story of creation, murder, love, and learning amongst many other sad and depressing themes that perhapsRead MoreAnalysis Of Mary Shelley s Frankenstein 1117 Words   |  5 Pages Intro One rainy night in Austria the idea of the to be famous novel, Frankenstein came to Mary shelly in a dream. The idea to write a ghost story was not her own but Lord Byrons , a friend who was also summer sojourning with Mary and her husband Percy Shelley. Mary Shelley was 16 at the time and The story of Frankenstein was then published two years later in 1818. The tale takes place somewhere in the 18th century a time rich with romantic movement ideas, french revolution aftermath, gothicRead MoreFrankenstein, By Mary Shelley Essay953 Words   |  4 PagesThroughout Mary Shelley’s book, Frankenstein, illness represents an essential theme. Shelley predominately uses illness to portray the desperate attempts of the main character, Victor Frankenstein, to withdraw from the brutality of reality. During the novel the frequent appearance of illness insinuates an ambiguous implication. However, the role infirmity plays and the reasoning for Frankenstein s recurring illness remain open t o the interpretation of the reader. Overall, the continual use of illnessRead MoreHow The Romantic Period Was Characterised By Political And Social Upheavals1318 Words   |  6 PagesThe Romantic period was characterised by political and social upheaval. The era marked England s shift from a largely agricultural society to a modern industrial nation. Moreover, the aristocracy s influence diminished, industry-owning middle classes grew. The Romantic epoch also witnesses revolution and war. First the American Civil War, followed by the French Revolution later. They brought concepts of popular freedom, and of the power of the proletariat. In England, these ideas were well receivedRead MoreFrankenstein: Allusions1112 Words   |  5 PagesGuffey English 100 13 November 2012 Frankenstein: Into the Depths of Allusions An allusion is a figure of speech that is a reference to a well-known person, place, event, or literary work. These allusions are typically used by an author who intends to make a powerful point without the need to explain it. Mary Shelley s Frankenstein provides many examples of allusion s. She connects the story of â€Å"Prometheus†, Coleridge s Rime of the Ancient Mariner, and Milton s Paradise Lost to her own novel to