| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Had Kennedy not been assassinated?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Had Kennedy not been assassinated?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Had Kennedy not been assassinated?
    Posted: 05 Jun 2011 at 01:21
Reading Mr. Hersh's the "Dark Side of Camelot" has posed a lot of interesting questions of what may have transpired in a likely Kennedy second term had he lived. Such as...

- Would Kennedy have finally succeeded in eliminating Castro in a second term?
- What if Kennedy had gone through and surgically bombed Chinese nuclear installations? The consequences?
- After increasing US SOF involvement in Vietnam in his first term, could he really have disengaged the US from the conflict during his second as he said he would?
- Would his second term have been more about his multiple political troubles had they surfaced after the disillusionment of the press, which may have led to impeachment hearings for just a few of the following reasons, off the top of my head: 1.) Misappropriations of donor/campaign funds, 2.) financial connections with the mob, 3.) going behind the backs of Congress and other federal agencies in establishing a back channel connection with the Soviet Union, 4.) Gross negligence in the pursuit of his duties by carrying on extramarital affairs with multiple women, especially whose past  were never vetted and posed an extreme danger to the Presidency by threat of blackmail or gleaning state secrets through their services and so on and so forth?
- If all the negatives had been aired alongside the positives at that time, much like they do in our current era, would his legacy still be seen in such stellar light or would it be in a much more sober and deflated one?
- What if, after JFK's administration, the US got hit with a second two term Kennedy administration headed by Bobby? What might the US now look like after being dominated by one fallible family for 16 years?

I suspect, the answer to that would be in the negative. But that is my much less enamored view of them as well as my political view from the other side.

Opinions?


Edited by Panther - 05 Jun 2011 at 01:24
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2011 at 01:28
Kennedy wouldn't have attacked Castro, again. It wasn't up to the U.S. to attack Cuba, given the compromise that your country signed with the Soviet Union to not invade the island.
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2011 at 01:34
According to the book, their ego's and hurt familial pride demanded a swift resolution against a man who had crossed them and survived? I'm just saying, we need a clearer picture of the man and family dynasty, other than the myths that still surround the fairy tale quality of his administration and the aura of the family name.

Having said that, this thread isn't intended as Kennedy bashing experiment. Just an exercise for some sober thinking.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2011 at 01:40
Nobody is bashing Kennedy. He is a respected figure, even in my country (Here we have a "President Kennedy Ave."). The "I'm a Berliner" show the guy at his best, and also the "Alliance for Progress" it is remembered as a possitive action. I just pointed out he made a deal with the Soviets to leave Cuba alone, after the missile crisis.




Edited by pinguin - 05 Jun 2011 at 01:41
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2011 at 01:41
If Kennedy hadn't been assassinated he wouldn't have gone down in history as this romantic myth, but instead would have been remembered as a President who made tough (Sometimes reckless) decisions, and all of the grey compromises that office entails. His assassination made a legend of the man, and he remains a much loved figure in the Irish American community.
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2011 at 01:49
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Nobody is bashing Kennedy. He is a respected figure, even in my country (Here we have a "President Kennedy Ave."). The "I'm a Berliner" show the guy at his best, and also the "Alliance for Progress" it is remembered as a possitive action. I just pointed out he made a deal with the Soviets to leave Cuba alone, after the missile crisis.




That statement wasn't pointed at you Pinguin. I was pointing this out, for the clarifying benefit of others given my political views, that my intent is strictly meant as neutral pondering.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2011 at 02:03
OK, then why don't we make a list of the possitive actions of Kennedy? I remember these three in foreign affairs:

(1) His action in Berlin
(2) The Allience for Progress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_for_Progress)
(3) The Space program to put a man on the Moon.


Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2011 at 02:58
Of course it is the positives that are usually, if not always accentuated and dare i say, across the globe. This isn't about taking away from his positive contributions but, looking at the other much less scrutinized  policy initiatives of his and as well as  the large ramifications of his private life, which he was actually pursuing that was really detrimentally harmful to the US, as few turned out to be, like Vietnam; And the possibilities of disgraces that could have blown up in his face at any moment of his Presidency, which were brought to an abrupt close with the unfortunate way in which he was murdered, and yet, brought about his secular canonization.

Now, i would appreciate it if you were not to change the character of my thread. If you don't like the sobering nature of my thread, then please feel free and go start an opposing feel good one that continues accentuating only the positives of further mythologizing Kennedy's Camelot.


Edited by Panther - 05 Jun 2011 at 03:00
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2011 at 03:14
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

If Kennedy hadn't been assassinated he wouldn't have gone down in history as this romantic myth, but instead would have been remembered as a President who made tough (Sometimes reckless) decisions, and all of the grey compromises that office entails. His assassination made a legend of the man, and he remains a much loved figure in the Irish American community.


Indeed, he did make some controversial tough decisions, such as calling off any further involvement in the Bay of Pigs. However, the way some others were made outside the checks and balances of the US system were recklessly dangerous and were setting a horribly abusive precedents for eventual Presidential successors.


Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2011 at 04:41
Panther, in re:  "- After increasing US SOF involvement in Vietnam in his first term, could he really have disengaged the US from the conflict during his second as he said he would?"

First of all, the 'SOF" involvement in Vietnam during Kennedy's time was miniscule. Indeed, the majority of U.S. presence in Vietnam during the Kennedy administration was related to the advisory effort, of which Special Forces were but a small part. This included the shipment of two U.S. Army Transportation (Helicopter) companies. Just keeping one of those companies in spare aviation parts for a year cost many times the operating budget of an entire Special Forces Group. 



Edited by Panther - 05 Jun 2011 at 05:05
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2011 at 05:05
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Panther, in re:  "- After increasing US SOF involvement in Vietnam in his first term, could he really have disengaged the US from the conflict during his second as he said he would?"

First of all, the 'SOF" involvement in Vietnam during Kennedy's time was miniscule. Indeed, the majority of U.S. presence in Vietnam during the Kennedy administration was related to the advisory effort, of which Special Forces were but a small part. This included the shipment of two U.S. Army Transportation (Helicopter) companies. Just keeping one of those companies in spare aviation parts for a year cost many times the operating budget of an entire Special Forces Group. 



 Censored C-R-A-P! Your right. I missed that in the proofread. An advisory role was what i meant. What a huge boneheaded mistake too make! Embarrassed
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2011 at 09:15
All Kennedy's guys were Johnson's guys and all advocated more involvement in Vietnam. In fact I remember reading that it Kennedy's intention to escalate and he died before he had the chance.
 
As for bombing China, good luck. China would have invaded entire SEA and Korea in a heartbeat regardless of how much it would have cost them. Their problems with USSR would have been quickly brushed aside to forge a new alliance that may even lead to a new world war.
 
Domestically, I doubt that the US would have had a great society program or even achieved integration under his watch. Remember that the Southern democrats rallied behind him in 1960 and were responsible for his victory then and during his term integration although still on the agenda was toned down and the foreign policy aspect was greatly emphasised mainly to take eyes away from integration talk.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2011 at 09:48
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

As for bombing China, good luck. China would have invaded entire SEA and Korea in a heartbeat regardless of how much it would have cost them. Their problems with USSR would have been quickly brushed aside to forge a new alliance that may even lead to a new world war.


You make it sound like it would have been completely easy for them. And yet we all know what happened when they tried in invade Vietnam in the 70s. If they can't make significant progress in invading one southeast Asian country, then good luck to them in trying to conquer the entire region.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2011 at 11:22
The Sino-Vietnamese war was a Chinese victory in military terms, they took all border areas and broke through Vietnamese defenses opening the gates to Hanoi. Politics and economics (China was beginning to open its markets) prevented them from going all the way to Hanoi.
 
Plus you have to remember that China chose to go to this war and it was unpopular with many Chinese party officials who wanted to concentrate on the economic expansion. If China was forced into going to war for defensive purposes they won't hesistate in fighting to the very last man. In Korea they over ran the entire country in days.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2011 at 11:48
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

The Sino-Vietnamese war was a Chinese victory in military terms, they took all border areas and broke through Vietnamese defenses opening the gates to Hanoi. Politics and economics (China was beginning to open its markets) prevented them from going all the way to Hanoi.
 
Plus you have to remember that China chose to go to this war and it was unpopular with many Chinese party officials who wanted to concentrate on the economic expansion. If China was forced into going to war for defensive purposes they won't hesistate in fighting to the very last man. In Korea they over ran the entire country in days.
 
Al-Jassas


The PLA received a rather costly bruising taking just a few border cantons in Northern Vietnam (which they proved unable to hold for very long), how would you expect them to advance further into the rest of South east Asia which would no doubt be receiving US aerial and logistical support?

The idea that the PLA was in any shape to assert Chinese control over any large portion of SE Asia in the 60s or 70s is a fantasy. Resisted by the local population in exceptionally good guerilla terrain, and likely facing the backing of US logistical and aerial support, such a venture would have made the embarassing foray of the late 70s into Vietnam look like a rather trivial affair.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2011 at 15:45
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

OK, then why don't we make a list of the possitive actions of Kennedy? I remember these three in foreign affairs:

(1) His action in Berlin
(2) The Allience for Progress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_for_Progress)
(3) The Space program to put a man on the Moon.


 
What perfect examples of situations that underscore the total historical superficiality of the Kennedy mystique.
 
Myth 1:
Berlin: He could not have done anything else! Berlin policy had been carved in stone by Harry Truman in 1948-1949 and repeatedly emphasized by Eisenhower. As with Reagan a quarter century later, Berlin only made for a convenient soap-box from which to perorate pretty speeches.
 
Myth 2:
Alliance for Progress. Or how to bamboozle public opinion in presenting a program that was essentially a government-guarantee securing US Latin American investors over the next decade against the pending bankruptcies of Latin American states. Even Wiki gets this one right!
 
Myth 3:
The Moon: Disregarding the origins of NASA and the national commitment to aereonautic technology during the 1950s is hazardous indeed particularly with the context of assigning credit to a politician as manipulative as Kennedy. Only a fool would ignore initial objectives behind the programs so as to state that Kennedy, and only Kennedy, was responsible for the Apollo Landing. That he chose to convert a long-range program into a political act through iconification is classic myth specially if one is familiar with Disney. Spin is spin and when it comes to politics that is a given:
 
It's the 50th anniversary of that speech [Kennedy's Moon talk], and NASA is doing its best to make hay out of the occasion. Stories about the speech lead the agency's website, with pictures and clickable videos for anyone who wants to relive the day one more time. There's a breaking-news page about NASA's next manned spacecraft as well - a supersized Apollo-like pod called the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV), that will be capable of flying crews of at least four astronauts up to orbit or into deep space. It's been more or less known since 2004 that some version of the MPCV would replace the space shuttle after it flies its last mission this summer. But just yesterday - in a too-cute bit of timing - NASA announced that yes, that was now formally, officially, double-definitely true.
 
 
 


Edited by drgonzaga - 05 Jun 2011 at 15:45
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2011 at 15:45
The PLA took only 10k casualties during the fighting out of 300k engaged. The Vietnamese claimed 200k civilians died from their side and according to most estimates 15-20k military killed. By the end of the war the difficult border terrain was completely under Chinese control and Vietnam's northen plain where Hanoi was was open for military effort which they decided not to go for reasons that had nothing to do with the fighting.
 
As for the Chinese army being in its infancy, it successfully defeated and then stood still against the Americans in Korea and the PLA was then just out of a civil war with virtually no weapons while the Americans were just out of WWII. 10 years later it easily defeated the Indian army as well and by 79 was well armed and equiped compared with those two wars.
 
Al-Jassas
 
 
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2011 at 16:05
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Reading Mr. Hersh's the "Dark Side of Camelot" has posed a lot of interesting questions of what may have transpired in a likely Kennedy second term had he lived. Such as...

- Would Kennedy have finally succeeded in eliminating Castro in a second term?
No. As someone pointed out, he had done a deal with the SU, ad there was no reason to go back on it.
Quote
- What if Kennedy had gone through and surgically bombed Chinese nuclear installations? The consequences?
First I need convincing there were any Chinese buclear installations at the time. Wha do you mean by 'installations' anyway? Happily, Dr Strangelove was finction.
Quote
- After increasing US SOF involvement in Vietnam in his first term, could he really have disengaged the US from the conflict during his second as he said he would?
No idea. Politicians' promises are politicians' promises no matter who they are made to.
Quote
- Would his second term have been more about his multiple political troubles had they surfaced after the disillusionment of the press, which may have led to impeachment hearings for just a few of the following reasons, off the top of my head: 1.) Misappropriations of donor/campaign funds, 2.) financial connections with the mob,
If that had been an impeachable offence in the '60s many more than just the president would have been in trouble. Moreover the kneejerk idiocy of automatically demanding impeachment of political enemies hadn't started in the 60s (at least, it hadn't been revived after the failure in the 1860s.)
Quote
3.) going behind the backs of Congress and other federal agencies in establishing a back channel connection with the Soviet Union,
Foeign policy is in the president's domain. Nothing wrong (certianly cothing unconstitutional) with, and much to be said for, going behind some people's backs.
Quote
4.) Gross negligence in the pursuit of his duties by carrying on extramarital affairs with multiple women, especially whose past  were never vetted and posed an extreme danger to the Presidency by threat of blackmail or gleaning state secrets through their services and so on and so forth?
Such things weren't significant political liabilities at the time. Two of the previous three presidents had extramarital affairs that were known about to the Press anyway. Kennedy's previous divorce might have had enough effect to swing the 1960 election, but it wouldn't have altered a landdlide in 1964, and anyway the press of the world sat on it.
Quote
- If all the negatives had been aired alongside the positives at that time, much like they do in our current era, would his legacy still be seen in such stellar light or would it be in a much more sober and deflated one?
It wouldn't be seen in such a glamorous 'stellar light'. But then I don't think it is seen in a 'stellar light' generally anyway.
Quote
- What if, after JFK's administration, the US got hit with a second two term Kennedy administration headed by Bobby? What might the US now look like after being dominated by one fallible family for 16 years?
You mean 24 years, minimum, no? It probably wouldn't look very different. The US's problems are too widespread to be associated with one family or even one political party. Admittedly Nixon understood the problems better than anyone, so I suspect he might have done better than Bobby, but it's too speculative to justify a firm opinion.
Quote
I suspect, the answer to that would be in the negative. But that is my much less enamored view of them as well as my political view from the other side.

Opinions?
Seeing it as a 'view from the other side' is exactly one of the US's chief problems.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2011 at 16:26
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:


 
Myth 1:
Berlin:
 
Myth 2:
Alliance for Progress

 
Myth 3:
The Moon:
 


Myth 4:

Dragonzaga contributes with this forum..LOL

Nope sir, he is only a trol that tries to destroy anyone else comment.
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2011 at 17:09
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


First I need convincing there were any Chinese buclear installations at the time. Wha do you mean by 'installations' anyway? Happily, Dr Strangelove was finction.


Bah, sometimes i shouldn't  start a thread completely from memory, as horrible as it is.

All that i was saying was that Kennedy was concerned about the development of Chinese nuclear capabilities, and who wasn't at that time; So much so that, iirc, he wanted a way explored in conducting surgical strike on their facilities in order too deny them their nuclear capabilities.

Quote
Foeign policy is in the president's domain. Nothing wrong (certianly cothing unconstitutional) with, and much to be said for, going behind some people's backs.


Sure, it's part of his job, as well as keeping all responsible persons in government consulted and informed. Something which he and his brother did not do, given the secrecy of the back channel, thereby taking and placing US policy firmly in their hands.

Quote
Seeing it as a 'view from the other side' is exactly one of the US's chief problems.


If they are trying to score cheap political points, perhaps? But, surprisingly for me to say, the book makes him more fallible and human and in a way, somewhat more bearable and endearing, rather than as some ridiculously untouchable, incorruptible god-like mythical figure.



Edited by Panther - 05 Jun 2011 at 17:11
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2011 at 17:50
Jass, you need to review your Korean War history. The Chinese never 'defeated' the U.S. Army, nor did they 'overrun' the Korean Peninsula.  That was the North Korean Army, back in the early days of the war, when they were the most modern and well equipped Army in East Asia, thanks to the USSR. By late 1950, that was no longer the case. The Chinese did push the U.S. back, and did defeat them in several battles, but they also lost battles. Battles are stepping stones to campaigns, which are stepping stones to deciding the war. And the Korean War 'ended' in a draw with an armistice in effect, which remains today. The primary reason it did so was that the U.N. mandate did not support a war in China. It's purpose was to re-establish the pre-war status quo, which with some give and take on both sides, resulted in the present DMZ. 
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2011 at 20:17
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Foeign policy is in the president's domain. Nothing wrong (certianly cothing unconstitutional) with, and much to be said for, going behind some people's backs.


Sure, it's part of his job, as well as keeping all responsible persons in government consulted and informed. Something which he and his brother did not do, given the secrecy of the back channel, thereby taking and placing US policy firmly in their hands.
Where does it say that part of his job is "keeping all responsible persons in government consulted and informed" apart from giving the State of the Union address and following the advise and consent procedures for appointment? Part of his job is keeping everyone involved in a project informed (not necessarily consulted) so they can carry out his task. But that's part of any managerial job description anywhere.
 
How many 20th century presidents felt any need to inform and consult with Congress about everything they (or their administration) did? Certainly not Eisenhower or Johnson or Nixon or Reagan for starters.  
Quote
Quote
Seeing it as a 'view from the other side' is exactly one of the US's chief problems.


If they are trying to score cheap political points, perhaps? But, surprisingly for me to say, the book makes him more fallible and human and in a way, somewhat more bearable and endearing, rather than as some ridiculously untouchable, incorruptible god-like mythical figure.
My point was that there aren't two sides. Seeing everything as having two (political) sides is the problem I was referring to.
]

Edited by gcle2003 - 05 Jun 2011 at 20:21
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2011 at 20:36
Hello lirelou
 
I got my history confused, you are indeed right, the summer campaing of 1950 was fully conducted by Koreans (some of whom participated in the attack against Berlin in 45 and Manchuria that same year) with Soviet and Chinese help.
 
I was referring to the October Offensive by the Chinese which made some advances before it was checked and then repulsed.
 
Second point, When I said defeat I meant in battle not in the war. I was merely pointing out the fact that China was not that terrible a military and if it succeeded in defeating US and British troops in set piece battles Korea when they barely had any real military structure they could do the same against all its neighbours.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2011 at 20:53
Kennedy was a  cold-warrior who, along with his generals, was full of righteous indignation about Cuba having Soviet missiles, although there were American weapons along the Soviet border. He also (apparently because of his aid to S Vietnam) bought the idea of monolithic communist conspiracy. If he had lived he may have grown on he job and become good at it. Or, he may have repeated the mistakes  many made in the past. One thing for sure is that cutting one's term short means less time to make horrific mistakes, or perform other behaviors that consign one to disfavour.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2011 at 22:03
I would, in this thread, totally support the words already written by drgonzaga!

He "hit the proverable nail, squarely upon the head!"

Avanti!
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2011 at 00:49
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Kennedy was a  cold-warrior who, along with his generals, was full of righteous indignation about Cuba having Soviet missiles,....


It is curious that the missile crisis was the first time the U.S. felt a real fear. The second time was during the first hour of 9/11.
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2011 at 03:26
Jass, in re:  " I was merely pointing out the fact that China was not that terrible a military and if it succeeded in defeating US and British troops in set piece battles Korea when they barely had any real military structure they could do the same against all its neighbours."

While the Soviet Union built and trained the (North) Korean Peoples Army (which included a Navy and Air Force), and the Chinese cooperated by sending in 35,000 ethnic Koreans who had fought in Chinese service between 1945 and 49, the initial offensive was a North Korean effort only. Indeed, Kim Il-sung expected the war to end when Seoul fell. He likewise expected the South to rise up and support his forces. In both he was disappointed. The U.S. military in June 1950 was a far cry from that of August 1945. Massive demobilization had taken place, and there were only two fully trained divisions in the U.S., the 82nd Airborne, which as a strategic reserve had to remain there, due to the situation in Europe, and the 3rd Infantry Division, which counted only two of three Regiments. The majority of the U.S. Army's combat power was in Europe, where a U.S.-Soviet War was seen as a real possibility. The strength of any Army lies in no small part upon the training and experience of its lower ranks, who do the fighting. In June 1950, the level of training and experience in the U.S. Army was at one of the very lowest points in its history. The Chinese Army was better trained (in no small part to both their civil war, and the surrendered Nationalist forces then in its ranks) than much of the U.S. Army in Japan. that would change with the influx of WWII veterans from the reserves during the first year.

Korea had no logistics bases that would support large scale field operations by the U.S. Army. What was by then the ROK Armed Forces had been in the transition from a Constabulary Force when the war started. All that support had to come from Japan, and transhipped to Korea until the battle lines stabalized. And the U.S. Army in Japan was not structured for expeditionary operations outside the Japanese home islands in June of 1950. So the advantages that the Americans and American supplied U.N. contingents had in firepower and logistics, were more than matched by the Chinese in their maneuverability and mass. Both the Chinese and North Koreans were deficient in logistics operations, but the Soviets began addressing that in 1951, and by 1953 their Asian clients were quite capable in logistical sustainment operations.

As for Koreans fighting in Berlin and other theaters, you must draw a line between Koreans and Soviet-Koreans. The latter were full Soviet citizens born and raised there. Essentially, the 1950 version of today's "Gyopos". Some 5,000 Soviet-Koreans ended up in Korea as advisors during the 1945-50 period, and they were a major factor in putting the North Korean government and its armed forces on their feet. But, these remained under Soviet control, and were not a part of the KPA offensive. Koreans, to include ethnic Koreans from Manchuria, who had served in the Soviet Army during WWII were not counted as 'Soviet-Koreans' in that they were DPRK citizens. There may have been one or two Korean Red Army veterans who fought on the German front, but neither Kim Il-sung nor any of his former Kapsan AJUA veterans who led the June 1950 offensive were among them.

China's divisions and armies  may not have equalled the KPA counterparts in training and equipment in June 1950, but they were a formidable force nevertheless. And, when China's proximity, Korean terrain, Korean weather, and the abysmal state of U.S. military preparedness are taken into account, they certainly equaled the proverbial one-eyed man in the land of the blind. And by 1952, Soviet assistance to China had given them a more than adequate equality in equipment and training to U.S. forces, who sole real advantages lay in (restricted) air and naval power.


Edited by lirelou - 06 Jun 2011 at 03:27
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2011 at 03:34
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Kennedy was a  cold-warrior who, along with his generals, was full of righteous indignation about Cuba having Soviet missiles,....


It is curious that the missile crisis was the first time the U.S. felt a real fear. The second time was during the first hour of 9/11.
 
It is always interesting to discover how successful media "merchandizing" has become as a vehicle for manipulating recall of the Past. The notion that the popular emotion surrounding October 1962, much less 9/11 was "fear" is sheer poppycock. Certainly with respect to the last (which happened not only in "real time" during the morning ritual of TV news but was vividly reported "live"), the full emotion was outrage. Further, to surmise that the "first responders" (after the realization that established procedures had not operated as set) in NYC then premised their actions on "fear" is insulting. Only an individul who does not comprehend the depth of personal courage could utter such a calumny. Now as far as the October 1962 Missile Crisis is concerned, the actual reaction then was also outrage, but outrage directed against political incompetence within the White House, specially in Florida, where public opinion linked the theatrics in the Atlantic directly to the histrionics surrounding April 1961. The best evidence for such is found in the present since the events of April 1961 to October 1962 laid the foundations of the Republican Party in Florida!
 
Why not listen in and search for the purported "fear"...
 

The Cuban Missile Crisis, October 18-29, 1962

 
Remember, you are eavesdropping on a politican who, when campaigning for office in 1960, "invented" the now famous and totally fabricated "Missile Gap". What Hollywood and the Protectors of the Kennedy Mystique made of those days is something else entirely.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2011 at 03:35
Of course, you weren't affraid at that time. You are Doctor Strangelove, aren't you?

Edited by pinguin - 06 Jun 2011 at 03:37
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2011 at 04:10
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

The PLA took only 10k casualties during the fighting out of 300k engaged. The Vietnamese claimed 200k civilians died from their side and according to most estimates 15-20k military killed. By the end of the war the difficult border terrain was completely under Chinese control and Vietnam's northen plain where Hanoi was was open for military effort which they decided not to go for reasons that had nothing to do with the fighting.
 
As for the Chinese army being in its infancy, it successfully defeated and then stood still against the Americans in Korea and the PLA was then just out of a civil war with virtually no weapons while the Americans were just out of WWII. 10 years later it easily defeated the Indian army as well and by 79 was well armed and equiped compared with those two wars.


The sources are in dispute regarding the Sino-Vietnamese War. I am more inclined to trust Western sources than official communist government propaganda. Doing so, we arrive at 26,000 dead and 37,000 wounded out of an invasion force of 200,000 (practically 1/3 of the force) over an operating period of just 38 days! That is staggering. If the Chinese claim victory it is hard to see how. They neither captured any major cities nor was their invasion considered enough of a threat to divert Vietnamese forces away from Cambodia (which seems to have been the only real aim of the punitive Chinese expedition).

Having lost 1/3 of its invasion force in 38 days taking a few northern hamlets, and without having even diverted the Vietnamese forces from their ongoing invasion of Cambodia, I find it hard to see how China was going to invade all of southeast Asia and hold it. Much less if the area had Western logistical support and if the Soviets decided to do more to contain China.

The Indian skirmish is a completely different situation and isn't comparable to a hypothetical Chinese invasion of SE Asia in the 60s.

Lirelou has already covered Korea. And again it must be emphasised that in Korea the Chinese were welcomed into the country by the local population rather than being fought stubbornly by them as would be the case in a hypothetical Chinese invasion of SE Asia.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.105 seconds.