The operation was ordered by the Eisenhower administration and certainly would have occurred under Nixon.
If anything, under Nixon I suspect things would have been vastly worse.
This is true, but Kennedy authorized the CIA to proceed with the plan, and personally approved the final version, “Operation Zapata”.
The invasion wasn’t Kennedy’s baby, no, but he chose to go ahead with it (and in a way that all but guaranteed failure), so the responsibility is largely his.
Rather than let Vietnam go Commie without putting up a fight? Yes.
Of course Ike’s 1953 intervention in Iran should give him much blame for problems 26 years later. Destroying a functioning democracy and installing a dictatorship is not something you can hope to do without adverse consequences now or later or much later.
No, they didn’t; they won it. That’s what the Cold War was.
There were three possible Presidential approaches to Bay of Pigs: Do it; don’t do it; do it half-heartedly. JFK, inexperienced yet arrogant enough to not seek advice, attacked half-heartedly. A fuller attack, even if unsuccessful, would have led Kruschev to have respect for JFK resolve, and perhaps avoided the Cuban missile ploy (which JFK also arguably misplayed). JFK misplayed Vietnam as well.
In the area of Cold War leadership, I’d say JFK is much over-rated.
I always felt it was unfair that Chamberlain has been accused of “betraying” Czechoslovakia. Obviously he didn’t do Czechoslovakia any favors but the United Kingdom had no treaty or alliance with Czechoslovakia. They had never made any commitment to defend Czechoslovakia so they had no moral obligation to do anything in 1938. If Britain betrayed Czechoslovakia by not stepping forward, then so did every other country on Earth.
That would be a valid comment if Grant had died in 1872. During his first term, his Attorney General, Amos Akerman, did outstanding work in suppressing the KKK and bringing order to the South.
But, Grant didn’t die in 1872. He served a second term, with Akerman gone, during which Grant failed to lift a finger while white paramilitary groups instituted a reign of terror, suppressed the African American vote, and brutally crushed biracial Reconstruction. Grant repeatedly ignored pleas from Southern allies for federal law enforcement–after the Colfax Massacre in Louisiana in 1873, in Alabama in 1974, in Mississippi in 1875. He just didn’t care.
Presidents must be judged by results. African Americans were voting in free and competitive elections, holding office, and enjoying civil rights in every Southern state in 1872, and in virtually none of them by 1877. Grant’s presidency was a disastrous failure in the area of civil rights, with horrible consequences for the next 100 years.
It’s one thing to stand by and watch. It’s something else to actively agree to and formally endorse the dismemberment of another country. Chamberlain did the latter.
My candidate for underrated leader: Napoleon III. He’s in the shadow of his uncle, and Marx made a gibe about him. But the French economy grew like a weed during the Second Empire, and Haussman made Paris into the city everybody knows and loves today. Unfortunately Napoleon ran into the Prussian buzzsaw which at that time could have humbled anybody.
N.B.: I do not say the Cold War was a war worth winning or worth fighting.
I never said it wasn’t his responsibility, I merely said it was happening regardless of whether he was President or Nixon, or for that matter Eisenhower.
Frankly, had Nixon been President, I think the situation might have turned out far worse.
Kennedy refused to commit US troops to the effort because he was concerned about the ramifications and was blamed by much of the military brass and the CIA for “losing his nerve.”
Nixon might very well have been willing to commit US troops when the invasion went sour and it might have mushroomed since there’s no way the Soviets would have let the US invade one of their allies be invaded by the US without retaliating(probably in West Germany) which, for obvious reasons, would have been disastrous.
Or more likely, it causes Kruschev to up the ante and spiral us down the road to war.
I’m not sure how JFK “misplayed” Cuba. I can see how modern people might look back and wonder, “why care about Cuba” and just say, “let them put in missiles” but that was A) politically impossible and B) almost certainly would have emboldened the Soviets to push the envelope somewhere else where we couldn’t back down.
I’m not understanding your meaning; Kennedy (or Nixon, had he been in office) could have pulled the plug on the invasion at any moment. It’s possible that the exiles would have attacked anyway with their own money and equipment, but highly unlikely. The invasion wasn’t a fait accompli until attacks began in April '61.
Except there’s no way Nixon would have pulled the plug and he’s never in any of his extensive writings, interviews, nor in either of the two biographies of him that I’ve read, been the suggestion that he would have.
Not to pull a Godwin, but that’s like saying Hitler could have chosen not to invade the Soviet Union or not to exterminate the Jews.
Nixon’s hypothetical 1961 presidency doesn’t have much bearing on Kennedy’s actual 1961 presidency.
To say that the invasion “was happening regardless of whether [Kennedy] was President or Nixon” seems to ignore that Kennedy could have cancelled the invasion. It happened because Kennedy permitted it to happen, it wasn’t pre-ordained.
My point is that no country was willing to actually go to war in defense of Czechoslovakia in 1938 (including France, which did have an alliance with Czechoslovakia). So most national leaders just ignored the situation. Chamberlain at least made an effort to see if the situation could be resolved by negotiation - and he succeeded in stopping the war. Hitler, who had wanted to occupy all of Czechoslovakia, felt that Chamberlain had outfoxed him at Munich by getting Germany to agree to only take part of the country. (Of course, Hitler got over it and went ahead and invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia five months later.)
At the risk of being unpopular, Pinochet. Granted I don’t agree with all he did but the circumstances were not as cut/dried as they are made out to be in the US. I believe the Chilean supreme court authorized a military coup, the Chilean congress supported it too. It was not a coup out of left field, the legislative and judicial branches seemed to support a military coup against Allende. Pinochet probably felt he was doing his patriotic duty.
After Pinochet took over he did have human rights abuses, but they don’t ‘seem’ as bad as some other Latin american dictators with regards to how many abuses there were. There were about 2200 executions in 18 years out of a country that had about 13 million people back then. Plus he held elections asking the public if they wanted him to step down. When they voted that they did in 1988, he did. Most dictators do not hold honest elections every 8 years asking if the people want them to step down.
I’m sure someone will come along with a counterpoint, but that is what I can see of the situation. Pinochet seems like a good example of a dictator (if you are going to have a dictator that is). He doesn’t seem nearly as abusive, plutocratic or authoritarian as most military dictators.
Park Chung Hee also. Although I dont’ know what role his economic policies played in the growth of South Korea’s economy.
I totally agree with you here.
I have to disagree with you here. I can’t recall who wrote it, but someone described him as having all of the ambition of his uncle but none of his talent. His handling of the Franco-Prussian War and the years running up to it was catastrophically inept. Had he not kept France out of the Austro-Prussian War in 1866 Prussia’s dreams would have been crushed there, and a victorious Prussia posed an obvious and serious threat to France. As it was, he sat by in 1866 and Bismarck was able to manipulate him into making the 1870 Franco-Prussian War Napoleon’s fault, and then compounded it by taking personal control of the army, something he was entirely lacking the ability to do with any skill. His hope to side with the Confederacy but unwillingness to do so without the British doing so as well wasn’t exactly his most shining moment. His invasion of Mexico while the US was preoccupied by the Civil War was equally disastrous, ending with France leaving in 1866 under threat of war by the US which had moved 100,000 troops to the Mexican border and established a naval blockade.
While I didn’t care much for him domestically as president, I have very high regard for his handling of the 1991 war with Iraq. His handling of it on all levels stands in stark contrast with the ineptitude with which Bush Jr. handled things in 2003. Diplomatically he was able to secure the backing of the entire world against Iraq, culminating with a UN resolution authorizing the use of force to eject Iraq from Kuwait should they not withdrawal. The coalition formed and the military forces provided by other countries in 1991 were quite impressive as opposed to the absurd coalition of the willing in 2003. That Syria was willing to send an armored division to serve alongside US forces in the war with Iraq is telling of the success of Bush’s diplomacy. Militarily he gave a blank check to Powell on the size of the force to be sent in Desert Shield in contrast to Rumsfeld’s deliberate attempt to use as small of a force as possible. Finally he had the wisdom to end the war with the successful ejection of Iraqi forces from Kuwait rather than trying to drive on to Bagdad.
James Buchanan for choosing peace over war.
It was president Truman who initiated desegregation of the military in 1948, (Executive Order 9981).
A few years back, James Baker made a comment about how he had heard twelve years of harsh criticism about the decision not to move on into Iraq after Kuwait was liberated in 1991. But he went on to say that he hadn’t heard any lately.
So Kruschev was a crazy war-monger, while American Presidents do everything they can to promote peace. Got it. :dubious:
Debating JFK performance may be a hijack here (need new thread? links to old threads?) but the idea that JFK cleverly saved the world from nuclear holocaust is largely self-created myth.
At the beginning of the missile crisis, Kruschev was ready to trade the missiles in Cuba for the missiles in Turkey. The crisis ended when JFK agreed to trade the missiles in Cuba for the missiles in Turkey. What happened in between was largely about JFK arrogance and posturing.