Kennedy Blinks 1962

Japhy

Banned
The deal that ended the Cuban Missile Crisis in the fall of '62 involved the US agreeing to quietly remove their own missile's from Turkey, as well as promises to not try and kill Castro any longer. At the time this was kept from the public due to the fact that Kennedy didn't want to be viewed as soft by the electorate.

But what would have happened had the tit for tat trade been made public, would Kennedy be seen by the American people as giving in to Soviet Aggression? Would this damage his chances in 1964 enough to turn him into a lame duck? I like to ask questions at the end of these in three's so what if I'd thought of another?

Discuss.
 
How does it get made public when it is in neither country's interest? Khrushchev is already on uber-thin ice with the Politburo, the Kennedys rigorously enforced omerta on the domestic media.

If somehow it is, just leak the fact that a) missiles are obsolete b) were scheduled to be removed anyways. No, it does not damage his credibility- since it would be seen as a draw rather than a US win as per OTL. Not as good PR-wise as a clean-cut victory, but not a defeat either.
 

Japhy

Banned
How exactly is having America admit they have to give in damaging to the Soviets?

Sorry I'm not seeing it, the 1960's arn't my area of expertise.
 
How exactly is having America admit they have to give in damaging to the Soviets?

Sorry I'm not seeing it, the 1960's arn't my area of expertise.

The situation, although a draw, was regarded as a defeat for Khrushchev. It was one of the major reasons that he was ousted two years later. Look at it from the Soviet point of view. The US caught them bringing missiles into Cuba, and managed to force the Soviets to step back. That they did so in exchange for some obsolete missiles taken out of Turkey? Big deal. Khrushchev isn't going to brag about that.

Russia/USSR had been invaded twice in the past two generations. The idea that they could go to war with the US over Cuba didn't invoke the sort of pantshitting in the USSR that it would to a 1960s era American who is told that the next war could hit the homeland. So Khrushchev doesn't have the opportunity to stand proud as the peacemaker, as Kennedy did. He was the one that overplayed the Cuba situation. He was the one forced to back down from his original aim... in the end it is better for him just for the whole thing to go away.

As is it is better for both sides that this stays secret. Kennedy meanwhile wouldn't be damaged terribly, but as RB says would have to go the process of explaining how it isn't "giving in" to the Soviets. Long run, it wouldn't matter for '64 as it was the best way out of it, but short term it would be a pain in the ass dealing with Curtis LeMay types calling him "soft on Communism" to score some political points.
 
How exactly is having America admit they have to give in damaging to the Soviets?

Sorry I'm not seeing it, the 1960's arn't my area of expertise.

In that it would boost the right in the US and hurt chances of dentente. For all the swagger the Soviets in the early 60's were not in a position to fight a full scale war.
 
When I saw the title, I thought you were going to pose the question of what if JFK allowed the missiles in Cuba to remain. That would have been a problem. The deal he cut, if made public, wouldn't have been. The big issue was getting rid of the missiles in Cuba, which was accomplished and a clear win for the US. Even had the side deal been made public, I think people would have felt it was a decent bargain. Those who would have complained weren't JFK supporters anyway.
 
Top