Lies during the Cuban Missile Crisis

Presidential candidate John F. Kennedy lied about Soviet missile strength to win the 1960 election.

This is the assertion that George Friedman makes in his Feb. 26, 2019, “Geopolitical Futures” article entitled, “Putin, Khrushchev and the Lessons of the Cuban Missile Crisis”.

Democrat John Kennedy wanted to make the Eisenhower administration look weak in relation to Soviet nuclear missile strength. He portrayed the Soviets as having nuclear missile equality, or even superiority.

JFK thought it would win him the election against Vice-President Richard M. Nixon, who was Kennedy’s Republican opponent. Democrats had a difficult time looking tough enough against Communists during the Cold War. By exaggerating the nuclear danger of the U.S.S.R., he hoped to “out-tough” the Republicans. This lie led to a very different interpretation of the danger of the Cuban missile crisis in October 1962 than was actually the case.

Here’s Friedman’s proof: In 1960, the U.S. had a substantial nuclear missile advantage over the U.S.S.R. It was also developing submarines capable of carrying nuclear missiles. The number and quality of B-52 bombers far exceeded the few Bear strategic bombers Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev possessed.

By 1960, the U.S. could gather more satellite images of the U.S.S.R. in a day than the entire U2 spy plane program produced (Richelson, Jeffrey T. Editor. “U.S. Spy Imagery 1960-1999”).

Theoretically, the U.S. could launch a first strike on Soviet missiles and destroy all or most of them. Khrushchev would be forced to surrender. Knowing this, Khrushchev decided to level the playing field by secretly placing medium range nuclear missiles in Cuba.

Friedman calls this plan “harebrained” because it was premised on the belief that American intelligence could be kept in the dark until the missiles were fully operational. In actuality, U2s were photographing every square foot of Cuba on a regular basis. It was also very risky because the U.S. response to missiles in Cuba was entirely unpredictable. In addition, it overlooked Kennedy’s failed invasion of Cuba using Cuban refugees, the Bay of Pigs fiasco in early 1961. The President was not likely to trust U.S. intelligence again. The political risks were too high for a first strike on the U.S.S.R.

Kennedy portrayed the Cuban Missile Crisis as a contest between equals. In reality, the Russians were outgunned from the start, both in nuclear missile capability and strategic location, and they knew it. They tried to sneak the missiles into Cuba because they had a weak hand. The image Kennedy and his advisors portrayed was that Khrushchev had to back down just before the U.S. was ready to invade Cuba. The reality was that Khrushchev was defeated when Kennedy announced a naval blockade of Cuba after photos of the missiles were sent to the media in October 1962.

Khrushchev did win a concession from Kennedy in making a secret deal to remove obsolete missiles from Turkey, but this was not revealed until much later.

Khrushchev also gained three major victories from the missile crisis, according to Friedman: The American public would force caution on U.S. politicians. Second, European allies would question the U.S. capacity to protect them from a supposedly strong Soviet military threat. Third, Soviet citizens would see their nation as a great empire, equal to the U.S. Even though Khrushchev conceded and backed down, it increased the prestige of Russian military prowess and the prudence of the Soviet leadership in a crisis.

Donald Trump is not the only American president to create both imaginary successes and imaginary threats that have no basis in reality. It is a long tradition that has changed the course of history since the end of World War II.

Vladimir Putin, the master of portraying Russia as a great power when it’s not, understands the lessons from Khrushchev. He recently stated that if the U.S. military put intermediate ballistic missiles in eastern Europe it would provoke another Cuban missile crisis. It’s still all about image and perception and gullible public opinion both in Russia and the U.S.

More in Opinion

Living with Gleigh – Hoping to make it out with my clothes on

I’m not the type of person who “enjoys the journey” as much… Continue reading

Write it down, take a little note and then send it to the editor

The Reporter is looking for guest opinions

Nerds versus flies

I’ve always held that it would be better to fight 100 duck-sized… Continue reading

A historic era ends, another begins

The Frank Chopp era is over. Washington’s longest-serving speaker of the state… Continue reading

Readers are invited to discuss the future of the paper over coffee

Danielle Chastaine takes over as the new editor of the Renton / Covington-Maple Valley Reporter

Balancing individual rights and the common good

Which is more important, serving the common good of a society or… Continue reading

New rules in place regarding data privacy, facial recognition technology

One of the most intriguing dramas at this point in the legislative… Continue reading

Crucial element to good governments

What makes good government? What makes bad government? We all have experienced… Continue reading

Snohomish woman on 17-day fast to spotlight orcas’ plight

At nearly noon on April 1, Lanni Johnson sat in a fold-up… Continue reading

Enumclaw: trying to retain original charm while building booms

Have you noticed all the building going on in Enumclaw? If you’ve… Continue reading

Is a low-carbon fuel standard running out of political gas?

State Sen. Steve Hobbs of Lake Stevens is pondering whether to move the bill out of the committee.

Are sheriffs above the law?

Washington voters have spoken on I-1639. Sheriffs need to set the stage to follow their oath of office - and enforce the law.