I was listening to the radio and Randy Rhodes had an interesting comment. For all the talk about reagan, really if you just sit back and look at it JFK beat the Soviets after the Cuban Missile Crisis.
When they backed down and withdrew it became clear that they were not willing to use the nuclear option and that America was indeed willing to use its nuclear arsenal. Once that was established the Cold War was simply containment. Economic and military pressure merely strangled the Soviets and allowed the natural inescapable flaws and inadequacies of Communism to work their inevitable destruction. Reagan merely was the last Commander in Chief to deal officially with the USSR. Even the Chinese can see that communism is dead as they slowly but effectively establish a capitalist society and its inevitable democracy.

Did JFK win the Cold War and open the path for containment to finish off Soviet Communism?

I don't think so. The Soviets withdrew missiles from Cuba, but we agreed to withdraw missiles from Turkey as well (which was really what the confrontation was about to begin with). In that sense, we both backed down. Additionally, this did not prove that the Soviets were unwilling to use nukes. Only that they were unwilling to use nukes to combat intervention in Cuba...which would have been a pretty stupid reason to face a nuclear winter.

No freakin way. First off, it all the rest was containment, we did a crappy job seeing as how they waltzed into Afghanistan. Second, the CMC did nothing to show our willingness to use nukes. In fact, it was the unwillingness to do so, the idea known as Mutual Assured Destruction that kept a nuclear war from occuring.

I believe the death of the USSR can be attribtuted to three things. Our arms competition, which effectively bankrupted the country. The dissillusionment of the people who were tired of their quality of life, and Gorbechev, who was probably the most open minded leader they had.

Personally, JFK wasn't around long enough to make that much of a dent.

To me the Cuban Missile Crisis was the low watermark of the Cold War. It showed the weakness of brinkmanship without the face of another threat to the Soviet Union (military)

JFK's failed policies on Cuba and his failure to make a strong impression of Khrushchev led the USSR to think they could make an aggressive move on the United States.

The Kennedy's wiggled out of a very tight spot but they played a leading role in creating it.

They were carrying out the same policy the Truman implemented and Eisenhower carried on.

BTW Afghanistan was a difficult call but it was Carter that ended Detente when Afghanistan was invaded.

So, if credit is to be given out it should either go to Kennan/Truman for setting in a successful policy or to Reagan for resuming the arms race and placing more pressure on the Soviet system as they were beginning to crumble.

Since it is Superbowl Sunday, the former team laid out the winning game plan and the latter made a big play when it counted most. And this is from someone who has very strong anti-Reagan feelings.

Guys- it has been established on many threads that defense spending by the US had little or nothing to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union- in fact, when Reagan when on his spending spree, overall spending on defense in the USSR went DOWN. The only increase they had was in missle tech, and interestingly enough, this area is still a major part of thier industry- recently making some kind of super missle that guaruntee that our star wars stuff will never work on the USSR anyway LOL

I think the ENTIRE cold war was nothing more than a US construct- and we were a very long ways from the good guys in this "war". We assasinated Allende- because he was "leftist"- not because he was the brutal dictator we replaced him with! Shah of Iran- same thing, Saddam, same thing, South Vietnamese goverment- awful, awful, awful.

America appears to need a "boogeyman" in order to maintain some kind of political supremecy of whatever power happens to be in at the time.

Once Stalin was gone, WE were the only imperialistic goverment on earth (well, that could actually make a difference anyway) everybody else just tries to compete or riegn in our power.

I don't think there was EVER a "win" in the cold war- in fact, one has to only look to Russia today to see that it is more totalitarian than it has ever been since Stalin! NO freedom of the press etc now! There were actually more freedoms under Kruschev than now!

The main reasons for the collapse of the Soviet system (empire is another propaganda contruct of the US and the west) was 2 fold- the Afghan war, and collapse of oil prices, and that is all.

The only country needing "containment" is the US- we have done so much evil in this world to SO many countries- it is too bad the US doesn't have a "check" to keep us from installing horrible dictators with anyone that doesn't agree with us.

I think the entire debate is rooted in unfounded assumption about what the cold war was, and how the Soviet system operated in the first place!

Cruising Ram wrote:




You must be too young to remember what it was like to live through the cold war. That is the only explanation I can think of for such a sweeping statement that the cold war was nothing more than a US construct! Maybe if you had been a kid in the 60s and 70s when they still had the nuclear shelters in every school and government building, or went through the "drill" where everyone sat at their desks and put their head between their legs in the event of a nuclear threat-- you would not be so quick to call it nothing more than a US construct. That is not to say that U.S. policy at the time was perfect. However, the threat of nuclear devastation was very real-- and still is to a certain extent with terrorism. The problem now is that with the Soviet Union in disarray, nuclear weapons are likely getting into the hands of terrorists. Still a threat, but not as great as the massive wipe out that could have occurred up through the 70s.




What do you mean by this?




The freedoms in Russia that may or may not exist, have nothing to do with whether we "won" the cold war. Our goal in winning the cold war had NOTHING to do with insuring that Russia would have freedoms or be a democracy. Our victory in the cold war insured one thing and the only important thing: that we are no longer threatened by massive nuclear attack from a super power like Russia. Who gives a hoot whether they have freedoms or a democracy? I don't. All I care is that my country is safer.



This is a different issue. Your position reflects a real anti-american bias. Just because mistakes have been made in our foreign policy over the years does not mean that the U.S. is "evil". That is a simplistic and destructive view that does not really bring much to the table in discussing our future actions.

Yes- I am old enough to remember the drills etc.

First off- WE are the only nation to use the bomb- so who was defending against whom? Stalin was very afraid the US was going to invade Russia- they had no plans to invade the US- that and his paranoid and meglomania led to them aquiring the bomb in the first place. For all the talk about WMDs- we are the only society willing and ready and have a history of using them on others on a large scale!

WE are the ones that kept wanting "first strike" capability- where is the defense here?

I love my country- but we are also a society of rank hypocrisy and total hype. It is not anti-american bias- just cutting through of the *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** of American hype vs world reality. America is not evil- but our foreign policy has been in many cases, and has led to the installment of many evil regimes.

And this leads back to the overall picture of JFK and the cold war. It was our fault, our own corrupt dealings with the Duvalier (sp- did I get the right regime here?) goverment that lost us Cuba in the first place- and JFKs inept Bay of Pigs invasion, that led us to have nukes on the island in the first place! Castro wanted nukes to ward off another possible invasion. It was the only think that checked the US's unchecked "nation building" (to use the current euphemism) around the globe. Just look to Guatamala- we led a coup simply to protect the Chiquita banana corporation and keep thier cheap slave labor!

The cold war was a needed "bad guy" to keep America on a war footing- can you think of a time since America has been a super power that WE HAVE NOT been "at war"? Think it is because we are such harbingers of hope and democracy?

Now we have a "war on terrorism"- another thing our own policies have led us too AGAIN.

The single most fallacious argument made about the cold war was how "our spending led to thier downfall"- when, the USSR budget on defense, was either a prop to thier economy, or not related to the US at all outside of need to keep up and compete, that it isn't part of the equation.

As vermillion provided sources in this thread: http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...wtopic=6792&hl=

Shows that US defense spending had nothing or little to do with the USSR collapse. Any real study of USSR economy, and it's "golden age" during the 70s, show that it was oil prices more than anything that led to both it's climb and it's demise. The war in Afghanistan "the russian vietnam" ( I have family that fought in that war on my wifes side) was a "straw" that broke that back as well.

Hawks can be liberal or conservative, dem or repub, they don't neccesarily belong to one group or the other- and the hawks have really been in power post WW2, without let up, with the possible exception of Carter, and he wasn't a very good dove either LOL

Think about it- since WW2, have we EVER, (with the short time during Bill Clinton) not been at some global "war"- how is it we are always the one in it as well?

I think that the modern America CAN NOT survive peace, and MUST create a "war" to maintain our global superiority, and this is where the whole debate on the "cold war" is prefaced upon.

Ah, but is it really safer? While we came perilously close to the nuclear war during CMC, the peaceful outcome of it showed that neither side is willing to use the nuclear option. Therefore, all the drills that you had to go through in elementary school (and I had to go through similar drills while in school on the Soviet side) are not an indicator of gravity of the threat (like hiding behind your desk is going to save you from nuclear explosion anyway)... There never was a threat of massive nuclear attack from a superpower like Russia (and if there ever was one, the threat is still there because Russia's Strategic Military Units are still in place and, unlike the rest of the military, receive sufficient funding).

However, at the very least, you knew that all the nuclear material is stored safely and accounted for, weapons are guarded, and all the nuclear scientists are working for the Science Academy of the USSR and not in North Korea or Iran... you can not say that now. As far as I am concerned, America is less safe now than it was in 1985.
It's just like in Afganistan... we didn't like Najibullah - well, we got ourselves Taliban instead. I would agree with CR - America's foreign policy can rival in its cynicism and short-sightness only the foreign policy of the Soviet Union itself.

First of all thanks to everyone for the responses. I found the question to be an interesting one although I do not consider it to be the complete answer.
It just seemed a fair consideration to say that because this was basically the two "biggest and baddest" at the time and the Soviets backed down and blinked one could consider that that was the first and last actual confrontation and it really showed who was willing to do what was necessary to win.
Mrs P

Exactly! In the end it had to have been clear to both sides that the nuclear option was wrong. What good is winning if there is nothing left to rule? C'mon folks everybody has seen War Games. "The only way to win is NOT to Play!"


First off Titus Afganistan isn't a reason to say containment failed. The Soviets NEVER left Afganistan. We didn't need to respond. I think it is fair to say it would have been a harbringer of things to come.
Second MAD was the realization for the blink. I am sure the Soviets had to seriously consider the fact that we had once before used the nuclear option--and it is very much open for argument whether that time was even necessary! So with that tidbit in mind, that we would use nukes--I wonder if they did come to the decision that they were actually just not prepared to ever actually push the button. Something to consider anyways.
Third all you describe as your reasoning for why the USSR died can best be rephrased as "Uhm Alex, What is Containment" Crackalackin indeed

Eeyore raises a good point

The containment strategy was needed until the Soviets collapsed. So Reagan reinvigorating the whole thing and even hastening the end by starting the build up was a necessity for the completion of the strategy.
JFK didn't need to be there. and yes he screwed up in the first place over cuba--but it isn't relevant since in trying to fix the mess he inadvertently ended up creating the decision that was made regarding nukes. I wouldn't claim he would ever deserve "credit" for winning the cold war, just that in his bumbling he brought it about.

CR's point of
I agree with his assessment but feel he is wrong in denying it had anything to do with the containment strategy.
By staying ahead of the Soviets the flaws of the communist system became apparent. It could not adapt and change because of the statist nature of communism. They could not adapt to changing condition and so they fell apart. The significance of Afganistan is the same lesson we learned in vietnam. No one their really cared about the place. Both Washington and the Kremlin just could never convince the populace OR--and this is the most important part--the soldiers it was worth dying for.
One cannot and never will be able to maintain the kind of necessary nationalistic fervor that makes people die for a cause if the reasons for the conflict are false or at best weak. I would argue that in the end of both wars the soldiers simply fought desperately to keep their brother in arms alive until the politicians and the populace finally realized their insanity and brought our guys home.The same way you would fight to save your family. They just wanted to go home.
Why i disagree with the reasoning for the Oil Price and Afgan as the sole reason for the collapse is this. No matter where the Soviets may have tried to go to establish enough control to shrug off the damage of the oil price drop, we would have been there. the inevitable conflict would have drained their limited and obviously finite resources--hastening their collapse, and I just do not think the Russians cared enough about Communism to fight that hard to maintain it. You might understand this part CR, russians are RUSSIANS, and communism tried to trade that pride for something else--which is impossible because russians LOVE Russia--NOT the USSR. If asked to die for Russia--witness the desperate and truly HEROIC battles against the Nazis, they fought for Mother Russia, not communism--Russians are as fierce as one can get from a people. The communists could never get that enthusiam--ever.
So communism fell.

Hayley, although this is a different subject and a good idea for another thread, I admit to having trouble with your response here,


It is not an anti american bias but admission of the truly horrible mistakes made in our interests by politicians. Our efforts to manipulate foreign governments to our will and remake them in our image have failed miserably. All we have gotten for our efforts are the monsters of today. Osama and Saddam are direct results of the games we tried to play. and they have cost us dearly at home.
As an example we supported the Shah--who was so brutal to his people they decided they were better off with a bunch of fundamentalist wackjobs--that doesn't raise huge flags for you? Instead of this recognition it is being used nowby some as a reason to invade Iran to "free" the people of Iran To make it up to them somehow.
That is a simplistic view to maintain and ultimately deadly and foolish to continue.
There are consequences to actions that are felt for generations. to not recognize the failures of our past will result in the deaths of those who had nothing to do with the decisions here at home.

Going back to the original question raised in this thread.....

Did JFK win the Cold War and open the path for containment to finish off Soviet Communism?


It's a tricky question because throughout that period "winning" the Cold War was a pretty nebulous thing and it was far easier to define "losing" it. From that standpoint, JFK got a "win" because the world is still here.

What the Cuban Missle Crisis did do was re-establish JFK as a political co-equal to the Soviets on the world stage. Up until that point JFK was not a terribly highly respected leader in many parts of the world, Kruschev thought he was weak-willed and DeGaulle didn't much care for him. Kruschev thought he could get away with bullying JFK on the world political stage by making it appear that he forced Kennedy to take the Jupiter missles out of Turkey. This, even though Kennedy had already ordered their removal several months previously. It was political posturing, gamesmanship and JFK called the bluff. In doing that Kennedy was able to establish himself as a true world leader, someone to be taken seriously. So, I guess it was a "win" in the sense of maintaining the status quo, but it hardly was a fatal blow to the Cold War in general. That came much later from Reagan despite the "historical opinions" offered in the other thread.

Once again, Aquilla, when challenged to find a causal link, you don't have one - though I agree you are pretty on about JFK- my thoughts on his popularity as prez has much more to do with his assasination than his performance as president. He just wasn't around long enough to make a real dent.

That being said- though we have been told by the mods to stay on topic - it is a REALLY LARGE topic LOL- to even talk about "winning or losing" such an amorphous thing, you really do have to delve somewhat into it's total history. It is impossible to put JFK, Reagan and Truman in context of the cold war without discussing the thing in it's entirety. For instance, very germane to any war, which most have "this war started on ___ and ended on ___" , when it is a war, most can agree on those dates." WW2, for America, began on Dec 7th 1941" etc


So, how can we say JFK, Reagan or whatever "won" a war, when we can not agree on what date it started? Did it start with the Cuban missle crisis? Or did it start when Stalin got the bomb, or did it start by Truman dropping the bomb on Japan, in order to keep Stalin off the island?

When did it really end? Did it really end with the removal of Kruschev, and we just continue it as a propaganda/election theme until the USSR had some kind of major upheavel? Or did it end with the Berlin wall coming down, or did it end with Yeltsin coming to power? Or Gorbachev?

IF you can't agree on some basic dates, how can you agree that it was what some are trying to define it as? There has to be some mutual agreement on some basic parameters before you can even declare a victor or a loser!

To say the world is safer today is practically insane- the Russians lived by a agreed set of rules in thier confrontations with us, there was a mutual respect between the warriors (many of the spooks from that war are friends and collegues today) and I think if there was any REAL danger of world destruction, is was by the US, NOT the Russians.

So if JFK "won" the "cold war" - when did it start and end?

JFK did not win the cold war since he was not in office long enough to accomplish anything like that. However, JFK was certainly on the right side of that conflict. He had a lot more in common with Ronald Reagan than he did with Jimmy Carter or any "modern" democrats when it come to recognizing the dangers of communist imperialism and their predatory expansionism.

Kennedy's anti-communism is well documented in Chris Matthew's book, "Kenney and Nixon".

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/068...8537065-8115241

Matthews recalls that Nixon and Kennedy were close friends in the Senate and that Kennedy was notable in his abstention in the vote against Sen McCarthy's censure due to their long standing friendship and their shared anti-communist views.

Reagan just finished the job that Eisenhower and JFK/LBJ started. However, he did so in opposition to a democrat party that was essentially hijacked by the radical left in the late 1960's.

Kennedy pushed back against communist expansion in SE Asia and in Cuba. He dramatically expanded out military spending, particularly on strategic weapon systems. He was a patriot.

No one President could 'win' the Cold War without the others. The person most responsible for the dissolving of the Soviet Union was Harry Truman IMO. Many believe that the Marshall Plan prevented Italy and France from becoming communist after WWII. NATO was started. Containment began with Korea. These steps left the US/Western alliance with the foundation that allowed them to persevere the next 45 years. JFK made a picket line. No comparrison.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was, if anything, a small victory for the USSR. I say that because the only change in the situation beforehand and the situation afterwards was the American missiles were pulled out of Turkey.

Did JFK win the Cold War and open the path for containment to finish off Soviet Communism?

No, because I don't think the Cold War was ever what it was billed it as, I think it was (and still is) a war for resources and influence being carried out by Russia, China, Europe, the United States, and now, India and Japan. Oh, and Australia, in Indonesia and East Timor. So no, I don't think the war is won, it just goes on. And the little nations continue to suffer poverty and destruction as the big ones take their resources and labor, install 'friendly' dictators, and carry out wars on their soil. The Cold War is now the Terror War, and it's all about the same thing. Who gets what, and what do they have to do to keep getting it/hold onto it.