Friends, this week I was privileged to be interviewed once again by Mr. Brian O'Neil on WLEA 1480's Newsmaker program. Since the interview happened to fall on the anniversary of the D-Day invasion of Normandy during WWII, we talked a bit about the success of that operation as well as the failure of U.S. strategy in the conflict. What do I mean by that? We won the war, yes, but we did so in such a way that we handed half of Europe over to Stalin. Let's hope we never see another victory as costly as that again!
In addition to WWII, Brian and I talked about the assassination of RFK, Bill Clinton's Monica Lewinsky problem, the resurrection of the summit with North Korea's Kim Jong-un, and much, much more! Don't miss it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuQZZwe7zpw
Dr.Waddy: Love the picture of Ike; what a great American. I think Nixon dreaded the thought of another loss to a Kennedy; had he defeated RFK would another Watergate situation have arisen in his first term?. Would there have been a President Agnew and perhaps two Presidential departures in a row? What effect would that have had on the war,the opening to China and the future of the GOP? Its such a displeasure to be misrepresented to the rest of the country by this dictatorial Governor. Clinton is becoming an increasingly ridiculous figure; in a little while people will be paying a dollar to see him in a tent at county fairs, still "deny, deny, denying". Your analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the cancelled August Senate recess was very perceptive. Mitch McConnell did us a great service in sitting on the Merrick Garland nomination in the face of withering criticism, so maybe his instincts are right this time too. But to be confined to miasmic DC in August? That's a hardship post. If I couldn't live in the U.S. I'd want to live in a democracy like the UK but it would nonetheless be a different matter with some civil rights which are nominally guaranteed to us.
ReplyDeleteYes, Jack -- here "tolerance" (as defined by the Left) is mandated by extreme social pressure and knee-jerk vilification of all dissent. In Europe, tolerance is often mandated by the law. Maybe it's a fine distinction in the end.
ReplyDeleteA Nixon-RFK matchup would have been interesting! I'm not sure RFK would have gotten the nomination, but it's a possibility. Who would have won such an election is a mystery. I've always felt the Kennedys were overrated, so I'm thankful we had Nixon at the helm as long as we did.
And yes, McConnell deserves our gratitude for dodging the bullet known as Merrick Garland. The country is much better off for his "swampy" maneuvering, in that particular case.
Dr. Waddy: Oh I agree, the Kennedys one and all (except for the old man, he was good at what he did, distasteful as much of it was) were fashionable, that's all (except for Jackie, who was elegant but so much more). I didn't know jack back then (so to speak) and I was for them.People actually thought JFK was an improvement over a manifest leader like Ike. To see the Kennedy's shallowly earned popularity( except for Jackie's; she was heroic - a true and admirable aristocrat))had to be painful for a self made guy like Nixon. I hope he lived long enough to see his vindication in the Hiss case. JFK and RFK were physically courageous but they wouldn't have needed to be with the Russians had they not promoted the image of silly libertines with their debauched behavior(of which Soviet intelligence had to be aware; the Kennedy boys took insane chances in their personal conduct). The Soviets thought they were pukes who could be intimidated.
ReplyDeleteGreat points about "tolerance". To me the answer to accusations of "intolerance" from leftists is to ask them if there is anything they don't tolerate and if so, what standards do they use. They are so used to using what they consider to be summary, self evident and unanswerable condemnations. "Basket of deplorables" indeed!
That's a good riposte to the Left, Jack -- get them to define their standards -- but I fear these days you'll have difficulty getting a lefty to talk to you in the first place!
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is that the Kennedys' amateurish meddling in Cuba produced the Cuban Missile Crisis, and almost destroyed the whole world. I'll say this for JFK, though -- he could deliver a good speech, and he projected a dignified and optimistic image that suited the times. His legacy would have been a lot more tarnished had he lived beyond 1963, but I guess that's the upside of assassination...
Dr. Waddy: I know I must do more reading on the Berlin Crisis in 1961 to be better informed on this, because it may well have effected the Russian perception of Kennedy but my superficial knowledge of the Cuban Missile Crisis tells me this: Khrushchev was under intense pressure from hardliners especially in his military over what they regarded as the utter unacceptability of NATO in Berlin (imagine, NATO by then included West Germany, though I don't think they were in the Berlin garrison per se - what the Russians, 20 years after WWII, must have thought of that!)and he feared being overthrown for two reasons:1.He understandably thought he might be killed. 2. He dreaded the thought of another world war. He had seen the absolute worst of it at Stalingrad and he did have some much scarred human compassion. At the same time he sincerely believed Communism to be a good thing and was not averse to spreading it to Latin America. My understanding was that he put the missiles in Cuba to provide a counter weight to NATO in Berlin and believed the U.S. would accept it, either as a quid pro quo and/or because of what he perceived as Kennedy's weakness. And that would get the hardliners off his back. When he realized that Kennedy was resolute he backed down. He knew just how militarily powerful the U.S. was. His fear of a coup may have been well founded: at one point during the crisis the message traffic may have given the Kennedy brothers to understand he had been deposed. I've read that his overthrow in 1964 was one of the consequences of this episode. My guess would be he didn't care about the Bay of Pigs or the CIA's efforts against Castro. He knew what the U.S. could do militarily. And he apparently sloughed off Castro's appeals to launch a nuclear attack on the U.S. Had the U.S. invaded and had the Russian commander in Cuba or the submarine Captain who had armed their nuclear weapons and who had the authority to use them, done so,then events might have taken an uncontrollable course.
ReplyDeleteQuite so, Jack! We came much closer to nuclear war in the Cuban Missile Crisis than anyone realized at the time...
ReplyDeleteI don't disagree with anything you say here, but I think the fear that the U.S. would invade Cuba was real, and the placement of missiles in Cuba was partly to forestall the collapse of communism there. Frankly, I think Kennedy would have done everyone a service if he had just backed up the Bay of Pigs invasion and finished the job. Because it failed, the Cuba situation was a confusing mess, and Khrushchev tried to sort it out (and flex his muscles) as best he knew how. The result was almost catastrophic. Again, I think Kennedy blunders had a lot to do with it.
Dr. Waddy: Plausible comments on your part and well supported. It makes sense that Cuba, the Soviet Union's stake in it and Kennedy blunders were a big part of the near miss with ???!!!. I read an alternative history in which Britain regains world dominance in 1963 after the Soviets and Americans incinerate each other. Z'ounds! It really almost did happen.
ReplyDeleteWhat an interesting idea! It's not inconceivable, as a nuclear war in 1963 would have been "limited", compared to what the Superpowers were capable of even five or ten years later. Maybe there would have been a Britain left...
ReplyDelete