PDA

View Full Version : Cuban Missile Crises as Taught Outside the USA Perspective



doogiecb
24-07-2005, 12:14
We all know that history is taught with a bias, so I am curious to learn what the history books oustide the US teach about the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962.

Is it a topic covered much?
Was it hypocritical of the US & NATO to have missiles in Turkey while not allowing the USSR to place them in Cuba?
What about the final agreement that the US would not invade Cuba?

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/

I am not looking for a debate, just curious how the facts taught in other schools compare to what I was taught in the US.

Thanks.

surfsky
24-07-2005, 13:23
We said we would sink ships. They backed off. Deal with it. Is it fair....NO...Do I care...YES...why? Because you better learn to be the bad ass on the block if you are going to be American. Stay in Russia if you disagree with it.

doogiecb
24-07-2005, 18:30
We said we would sink ships. They backed off. Deal with it. Is it fair....NO...Do I care...YES...why? Because you better learn to be the bad ass on the block if you are going to be American. Stay in Russia if you disagree with it.

lighten up ... I am just curiuos how this subject was addressed in the history books of other countries .... no need to be a jacka**, open your mind.

I could have easily asked what did other countries history books teach about the american civil war? or how was D-day taught in the Russia History books? or how was the the battle of leningrad taught in American history books?

The thread is on a forum for open discussion ... so you are so believe that the history we were taught in America is the absolute truth, unbiased?

doogiecb
24-07-2005, 19:18
We said we would sink ships. They backed off. Deal with it. Is it fair....NO...Do I care...YES...why? Because you better learn to be the bad ass on the block if you are going to be American. Stay in Russia if you disagree with it.

The romans also had the "bad ass" attitude, pissed everyone off in spite of their contributions of improving the living conditions in their conquered lands (i.e. roads, sewage systems, common currency, etc.) and were overrun because the had more enemies than allies. USA could be heading down the same path.

surfsky
24-07-2005, 22:24
Oh, I did not say that we don't have ours coming. Half of the people that show up to watch golf, want to see anybody but Tiger Woods win.

koba65
24-07-2005, 23:01
The Cuban Missle Crisis will probably be endlessly debated for years to come. If you ask me, it was a push for both sides. And, it was a screwup for both sides.

The Sovs thought JFK was weak. Khrushchev came to this conclusion after meeting with an unprepared JFK prior to the whole crisis. So, bearing this in mind, they thought they could place those nukes on Cuba and then get the US to bargain them away by giving up Berlin, i.e., we remove the missiles, but you leave West Berlin. Fat Chance. So, in the end, we barricaded Cuba and forced Khrushchev to remove the missiles. But was it really a US victory? Not too much. Is it not a victory because we removed the missiles from Turkey? No - those were already supposed to have been withdrawn. It wasn't a victory because JFK committed to NOT supporting any anti-Castro groups in any attempted repeats of the Bay of Pigs. So, the big winner was Fidel. The losers: Khrushev - this was seen as a defeat for him and the Soviet Union by hardlners who would later oust him. The Cuban people (and the Americans). By pledging not to attack, or assist attacks against Fidel, JFK ensured that Fidel was able to firmly root himself on the throne of power over there. Ostrov "Svobody" doomed.

(Ok, Peyote - let me have it!)

surfsky
25-07-2005, 02:26
lighten up ... I am just curiuos how this subject was addressed in the history books of other countries .... no need to be a jacka**, open your mind.

I could have easily asked what did other countries history books teach about the american civil war? or how was D-day taught in the Russia History books? or how was the the battle of leningrad taught in American history books?

The thread is on a forum for open discussion ... so you are so believe that the history we were taught in America is the absolute truth, unbiased?

I think the American especially at the University level is doing have the best perspective on History. Half my teachers were full blown Marxist. So practically every day I had to listen to professors tell me how the US was the evil empire.

In France and Germany, WWII is covered in a page of a text book. With the exception of the UK and Russia World War II is a huge embarrassment for Europe. Also, the EU history is currently being written as not to offend anyone. So do you think that book will discus how the UK almost sank French ships that were supplying Argentina during the Falklands?

In Russian history books they are taught that the US and the Allies only initiated D-day after Hitler was on the road to defeat. While not recognizing US loss and the effect of strategic bombing. In addition, the US role in World War II is also diminished in Russian history books by not fully recognizing the Pacific Theater.

So what does this have to do with the Cuban Missile Crises? Well basically we have a pretty good version of events. Most people will tell you it was two Super Powers playing power broker as a small a small defenseless country was put in the middle. But everyone knows now that Cuba was very culpable in the whole deal.