The Cuban Missile Crisis: Kennedy’s “Victory”?


1015-Cuban-Missile-Crisis-JFK-and-Khrushchev-meet_full_380That Khrushchev swept the floor with Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis was mainstream conservative conclusion throughout much of the Cold War. Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater, for instance, represented opposite poles of the Republican establishment of their time.

“We locked Castro’s communism into Latin America and threw away the key to its removal,” growled Barry Goldwater about the JFK’s Missile Crisis “solution.”

“Kennedy pulled defeat out of the jaws of victory,”  complained Richard Nixon. “Then gave the Soviets squatters rights in our backyard.”

Generals Curtis Le May and Maxwell Taylor represented opposite poles of the military establishment.

“The biggest defeat in our nation’s history!” bellowed Air Force chief Curtis Lemay while whacking his fist on his desk upon learning the details of the deal.

“We missed the big boat,” complained Gen. Maxwell Taylor after learning of same.

“We’ve been had!” yelled then Navy chief George Anderson upon hearing on October 28, 1962, how JFK “solved” the missile crisis. Adm. Anderson was the man in charge of the very “blockade” against Cuba.

“It’s a public relations fable that Khrushchev quailed before Kennedy,” wrote Alexander Haig. “The legend of the eyeball to eyeball confrontation invented by Kennedy’s men paid a handsome political dividend. But the Kennedy-Khrushchev deal was a deplorable error resulting in political havoc and human suffering through the Americas.”

William Buckley’s National Review devoted several issues to exposing and denouncing Kennedy’s appeasement. The magazine’s popular “The Third World War” column by James Burnham roundly condemned Kennedy’s Missile Crisis solution as “America’s Defeat.”

Even Democratic luminary Dean Acheson despaired: “This nation lacks leadership,” he grumbled about the famous “Ex-Comm meetings” so glorified in the movie Thirteen Days. “The meetings were repetitive and without direction. Most members of Kennedy’s team had no military or diplomatic experience whatsoever. The sessions were a waste of time.”

But not for the Soviets. “We ended up getting exactly what we’d wanted all along,” snickered Nikita Khrushchev in his diaries, “security for Fidel Castro’s regime and American missiles removed from Turkey and Italy. Until today the U.S. has complied with her promise not to interfere with Castro and not to allow anyone else to interfere with Castro. After Kennedy’s death, his successor Lyndon Johnson assured us that he would keep the promise not to invade Cuba.”

In fact Khrushchev prepared to yank the missiles before any “bullying” by Kennedy. “What!” Khrushchev gasped on Oct. 28th 1962, as recalled by his son Sergei. “Is he [Fidel Castro] proposing that we start a nuclear war? But that is insane!…Remove them [our missiles] as soon as possible! Before it’s too late. Before something terrible happens!” commanded the Soviet premier.

So much for the gallant Knights of Camelot forcing the Russians’ retreat. In fact, the Castro brothers and Che Guevara’s genocidal lust is what prompted the Butcher of Budapest to yank the missiles from their reach.

Considering the U.S. nuclear superiority over the Soviets at the time of the (so-called) Missile Crisis (five thousand nuclear warheads for us, three hundred for them) it’s hard to imagine a President Nixon — much less Reagan — quaking in front of Khrushchev’s transparent ruse à la Kennedy.

The genuine threat came –not from Moscow—but from the Castros and Che. “If the missiles had remained, we would have fired them against the very heart of the U.S., including New York. The victory of socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims.” (Che Guevara to Sam Russell of The London Daily Worker, November 1962.)

“Of course I knew the missiles were nuclear- armed,” responded Fidel Castro to Robert McNamara during a meeting in 1992. “That’s precisely why I urged Khrushchev to launch them. And of course Cuba would have been utterly destroyed in the exchange.”

Castro’s regime’s was granted new status. Let’s call it MAP, or Mutually-Assured-Protection. Cuban freedom-fighters working from south Florida were suddenly rounded up for “violating U.S. neutrality laws.” Some of these bewildered men were jailed, others “quarantined,” prevented from leaving Dade County. The Coast Guard in Florida got 12 new boats and seven new planes to make sure Castro remained unmolested.

JFK’s Missile Crisis “solution” also pledged that he immediately pull the rug out from under Cuba’s in-house freedom fighters. Raul Castro himself admitted that at the time of the Missile Crisis his troops and their Soviet advisors were up against 179 different “bands of bandits” as he labeled the thousands of Cuban anti-Communist rebels then battling savagely and virtually alone in Cuba’s countryside, with small arms shipments from their compatriots in south Florida as their only lifeline.

Kennedy’s deal with Khrushchev cut this lifeline. This ferocious guerrilla war, waged 90 miles from America’s shores, might have taken place on the planet Pluto for all you’ll read about it in the mainstream media and all you’ll learn about it from Kennedy’s court scribes, who scribbled Kennedy’s Missile-Crisis “victory.” To get an idea of the odds faced by those betrayed Cuban rebels, the desperation of their battle and the damage they wrought, you might revisit Tony Montana during the last 15 minutes of “Scarface.”

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • RickOltman

    The finish was weak, with the removal of the Jupiter missiles and the agreement not to invade, but the threat was real.
    The overwhelming nuclear and technological superiority was part of it, but so was the resolve to use it.
    http://exm.nr/1ifmByR

  • truebearing

    JFK failed to provide air cover for the anti-Castro brigade in the Bay of Pigs, then allowed an inferior military power to best him in the Cuban Missile Crisis. To hear the Left tell it, however, JFK saved mankind.

    The Left lionizes Kennedy for bringing the world back from the brink when one of their own, Castro, wanted to use the Russian nukes on America, even while acknowledging that Cuba would be annhilated as a result and millions would die. The entire crisis was brought on by the Left, and as usual, they lied about what really happened.

    • Texas Patriot

      Kennedy and Goldwater had the right idea by keeping Russian missiles and nukes out of Cuba as our primary strategic objectives. Nixon was an utter moron to suggest that America “lost” anything by not supporting the Bay of Pigs. How has it harmed America to have a defanged Castro regime in Cuba? Here’s the answer. It hasn’t.

      Blowhard Neo-Conservatives like Nixon, Rush Limbaugh and John McCain can’t see the forest for the trees, and don’t know a victory when they see one, and for all practical purposes they are no better than the Leftists they complain about.

      Where do you stand, TrueBearing? Are you a Kennedy and Goldwater man, or do you cast your lot with Nixon, Limbaugh, and McCain?

      • Real Patriot

        So called patriot.

        You could form the impossible one man circular firing squad and succeed.

        Castro ensured the MPLA’s victory in Angola. Cuba and Chavez’s Venezuela form a symbiotic relationship allowing both to survive. Venezuela’s socialist government provide support both moral, military and financial to enable FARC to survive and Evo Morales and Ecuador to survives with socialist PMs.
        Venuezuelas survival as a socialist country has enable Hezbollah and Irans’ Revolutionary guard to thrive in South America.

        Are you a lover of Hezbollah sir?

        • Texas Patriot

          Real patriots defend their own land, not someone else’s.

          • PhillipGaley

            A real patriot is G0D-fearing and, if not able to discern it for himself, will at least recognize the fact that, as ever and anon for all time—not only for his own nation’s prosperity and safety, but, in advance of the race of all mankind for peace in evolving standards of decency—to greater and lesser extents, the superior nation is responsible for monitoring, guiding and holding those inferior nations in check, and that, failure to do so is certain to bring judgment and punishment from on High, . . . in the form of invasion by the Vandals or other of the barbarian hordes, or as now for the USA, invasion by a Sino-Soviet force during which the largest part of our population will be lost to disease, cannibalism, and bayonets, . . . Texas also, is to undergo invasion, . . .

          • Texas Patriot

            Could you please restate that. You lost me with the reference to Vandals and barbarian hordes.

          • PhillipGaley

            I feel fairly sure in asserting that, you can well answer your own question: “Are the real patriots G0D-fearing?”; “Does G0D bring down and set up, in order to work His will, and, as a nation, are we to be a part of that?”; “Is a violation of decency anywhere, a threat to decency everywhere?”; “Are barbarian hordes used to discipline a nation which has corrupted herself?”; and so forth, . . .

          • truebearing

            Real idiots think that it is strategically wise to start defending yourself once the enemy has you surrounded, or is already on your soil.

            You can’t even figure out that defending freedom in Cuba is defending our own people. If Kennedy had removed Castro when he should have, the Soviet missiles have never made it to Cuba. Did that occurr to you?

          • Texas Patriot

            But smart conservatives know how to defang a wolf without sacrificing American blood and treasure.

          • truebearing

            “Real idiots think that it is strategically wise to start defending yourself once the enemy has you surrounded, or is already on your soil.”

            Thanks for stepping up and presenting yourself as an example.

          • Texas Patriot

            I’m sure you would know more about real idiots than I do. Thanks for sharing.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Sometimes, it is necessary to defend your own land and your own people on someone else’s soil. Would you have preferred that the United States waited until Germany and Japan invaded America, prior to declaring war?

          • truebearing

            Most likely. Strategy isn’t the strong point of rigid ideologues, especially of the isolationist Paul brand.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            It’s one of the true mysteries of history that Franklin Roosevelt was the hawk, and the GOP consisted of the doves, in the 1930′s. Had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbor, to be followed by Hitler’s declaration of war, I am convinced that the United States would have been invaded by both countries.

            Also, it should be noted that Hitler’s scientists had jet strategic bombers on their drawing boards, along with ICBMs. All they needed was the bomb …

            So much for isolationism!

          • Texas Patriot

            But it’s even less of a strong point for spendthrift Neo-Conservatives like Richard Nixon, Rush Limbaugh and John McCain.

          • Texas Patriot

            Japan and Germany both declared war on America before we declared war on them.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Would they have had the luxury of doing so, had the United States been in the game? You must ask yourself this, TP.

            Would Pearl Harbor have taken place if the American Pacific Fleet had sufficient warning (indeed, we know it would not have taken place … there would have been no need, if the fleet wasn’t there)?

            Germany would not have declared war on the United States if the Pearl Harbor attack had not pushed America into war with his ally, Japan.

            Power must be employed, and it must be in the game. Isolationism does not work, in the modern world, because our enemies can destroy us in a single half-hour.

          • Texas Patriot

            Isolationism doesn’t work, but neither does blindness and stupidity. At this point in time, America has the means to destroy any enemy on earth without sacrificing a single soldier, and we need to be very judicious in how we use that power. As an instrument for the peace and security of the world, it can be very effective, but we must always seek and maintain the moral high ground. No one wants to see a neighborhood bully who uses his strength to benefit himself. But everyone is always glad to see the honest sheriff who carries the Big Iron. And that’s how we need to be perceived, by our friends as well as our enemies.

          • Real Patriot

            Much easier to defend the USA from brown shirt hordes from Britain than after the NDSAP digested Europe and have a bomb and “Amerika” bombers.

            You might be able to play a winning game of football and have a decent trade. That is about as much planning and foresight I would expect out of you.

            PhillipGaleyI see that lost you with Vandals and hordes. I am not surprised that you disdainfully look down on the study of ancient history, military history and many other fields.

            The Romans conquered with their legions. But what is a legion? I bet you cannot draw the true borders of the Roman Empire. Seeing as you cannot, I believe, quite correctly that your grasp of history and military science is lacking.

            Myself I thought I knew 20 years ago, 10 years ago and I found out I did not know jack.

            If you want to answer the above question you might ask yourself where is the place furthest south a Roman bath was built.

            F___ it, why am I wasting my time replying to you. You are not going to learn.

          • Texas Patriot

            RP: “Myself I thought I knew 20 years ago, 10 years ago and I found out I did not know jack.”

            Perhaps you haven’t learned that much in the last ten years either. Here’s a clue. The world changed forever on August 6, 1945. At that point in time the effectiveness of a traditional land army as a strategic weapon was a thing of the past.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            So, when China invades one of the countries in the South China Sea, or Australia, with a massive land force, your solution is to nuke them, right? And when we nuke them, what do you think they do, in return?

            In such a scenario, the only reasonable solution would be to support our allies with conventional forces, including naval and ground forces. If we don’t have those forces, how … exactly … are we supposed to do that?

            Or, is it your contention that we allow the aggressors on the planet to gobble up each ally that we have … or potential allies … one at a time, until they set their sights on us?

            The only real use of nuclear forces is to respond to a nuclear attack. Land armies … and I would assume this would include naval and air forces … are just as important as they ever were.

          • Texas Patriot

            We have no business in trying to prop up the so-called democracies of Asia. The “domino theory” has been totally discredited, and the loss of one or more of the Asian democracies would have little or no impact on the national security interests of the United States. Australia is a different story. If Australia is threatened, we should definitely be prepared to use nuclear weapons to defend her. Otherwise, our focus needs to be on preserving American “blood and treasure” and building up America’s industrial and economic base of America so we can continue to be the dominant economic and military power of the 21st Century.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            So, if the “so-called democracies of Asia” are swallowed up by China, they would not set their sights on Australia and New Zealand? Why not stop an aggressive, militaristic, totalitarian state before its power becomes overwhelming?

          • Texas Patriot

            Because if the national security interest of America or our allies is not directly threatened, it’s not worth wasting precious American blood and treasure. Why is that not obvious to you?

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            It is always in the national security interest of America to contain aggressive, totalitarian systems. Why is this not obvious to you?

          • Texas Patriot

            Because we don’t have unlimited resources, we can’t afford to throw away precious American blood and treasure on wars that do not constitute a clear and present danger to our national security. Read Sun Tzu. If we allow our enemies to bleed us to death on wars that do not really matter, we will be too weak to fight when real wars come.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            First, I have read Sun Tzu …

            Did I mention that we should attack China, because they are a threat to every nation in the Far East? But their aggressiveness has increased in direct proportion to the current administration’s disinterest in the area.

            We have allies, in the area. They are allies by treaty and obligation. The biggest obstruction to Chinese aggression has been the very real possibility that they would engage US forces, if they moved, in the area. That threat has been removed by Obama …

            All we have left is the nuclear deterrent. And that won’t deter them at all, if we aren’t prepared to use those nukes to stop their aggression. Are you prepared for nuclear war? I didn’t think so …

            I’m not calling for making the nations of the Far East over in our image. But if we don’t make it unmistakably clear to the Chinese … who are the bulls in that “China” shop … that we will resist their aggression with the might of the US, they will move against our allies.

            Nukes only prevent nuclear aggression. Do you believe that the US nuclear umbrella will cause the Chinese not to use conventional forces on their neighbors?

          • Texas Patriot

            Wake up. The Cold War is over. We’re not at war with China and Russia. At this point in time, the common enemy of all civilized nations is the global threat of Islamic jihad. In order to prevail against this threat, we will need the active cooperation of all nations on earth, including Russia and China who are also targets of Islamist aggression. In fact, because of their size and strategic reach, Russia and China are potentially our greatest allies in this struggle, and if you can’t see that, I would respectfully suggest that you retire to your library and confine yourself to reading about Roman legions.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Not having retired to my library, in the last 24 hours, I would simply like to say that you are living in a dream world if you truly believe that Russia and China are ready to be our “friends and allies”.

            Concerning the muzzies, Russia and China simply don’t feel bound by the same constraints as us, when it comes to defending themselves. They are more than willing to go into someone else’s country and solve the problem there, rather than waiting for the problem to come to their own shores.

          • Texas Patriot

            Read my post again. I didn’t say that Russia and China are “ready” to be our “friends and allies”. I said that they are potentially our greatest allies in the struggle against global Islamic jihad, and I think that as Russia and China realize more and more that they too are in the bullseye of Islamic terror, they will be more and more ready to cooperate with us in ridding the earth of this scourge.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            First, we have to have a government in this country prepared to “rid the earth of this scourge” called Islam. We don’t. The more people on the Right who sit out elections, or don’t vote because their candidate wasn’t nominated, the less likely that eventuality is.

          • MarilynA

            You are so right. There has got to be a special place in hell for those who have sent our young men into all those hell holes to be killed and maimed to keep Muslims from killing other Muslim and other such inane reasons.

      • truebearing

        I don’t stand with babbling fools who substitute ridiculous utopian ideologies* for rational thinking. That stance is immovable.

        If you could read and comprehend at the same time you would have noticed that Goldwater was appalled by Kennedy’s feckless, foolish decisions:

        “We locked Castro’s communism into Latin America and threw away the key to its removal,” growled Barry Goldwater about the JFK’s Missile Crisis “solution.”

        How can I be a “Goldwater and Kennedy man” when they didn’t agree on Cuba? Maybe you should read more carefully, or put down your Magic-Handy-Dandy-One-Size-Fits-All ideology long enough to at least attempt to think for yourself….or maybe this is you thinking for yourself, in which case, you have my deepest sympathy.

        Nixon was right about Cuba and the wisdom of rooting out an insane, homicidal communist dictator. You are suffering from not only a lack of rationality, but moral clarity, and a survival instinct, as well.

        Castro has used Cuba to facilitate the communist agenda in the Western Hemisphere, smuggle drugs into the US, and enslave the people of Cuba to a failed, sadistic regime. I guess that was too hard for you to figure out.

        You are the one who is no better than the Leftists. You have the foreign policy acumen of a fruit fly.

        I know where you stand — on the corner of incoherent and rigid — so I won’t tax your mind with making a decision….your Ron Paul 8-Ball does all of your thinking.

        *eg. anarcho-capitalism/libertarianism ala Ron Paul

        • Texas Patriot

          You’re obviously a spendthrift globalist who doesn’t have a clue about defending the United States or our vital interests.

      • Wolfthatknowsall

        Just for information’s sake, “neo-conservatism” was developed in the early 1990′s as a response to the fall of the Soviet empire. The basic theory was that Western values … especially American ones … could be spread in the global domination of the United States like Christianity was spread in the Roman Empire.

        The time came, and passed. Neo-conservatives have been completely defanged by the events that followed 9/11.

        Today, the only people to use the term “neo-conservatives” are the followers of Ron Paul, and it generally has an anti-Semitic overtone in its usage.

        Are you a follower of former Congressman Paul?

        • truebearing

          Oh yeah. Do you recognize the formulaic regurgitation of Paul’s deranged world view?

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Whenever I see it. I’m looking for signs that his son has not adopted that formula, lock, stock, and barrel. So far, I’m not optimistic.

        • Texas Patriot

          I’m a follower of Barry Goldwater and George Patton.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Barry Goldwater called for “extremism in the defense of virtue”. George Patton was in favor of re-arming the Germans and attacking the Soviet Union in concert with them. Sun Tzu was not an isolationist, if you’ve read any of his works.

            International relations is not a game of chess, especially in the nuclear age. Mr. Paul was right on many issues, but was most decidedly wrong on war and peace. One mistake, and we all die.

          • Texas Patriot

            Nobody ever won anything by being afraid. Sun Tzu was a master strategist and tactician who knew when to attack and when not to attack. His greatest contribution to military theory was the art of defeating your enemy without firing a shot, and the key to that is always being strong and always maintaining the moral high ground. Barry Goldwater knew what it meant to “speak softly and carry a big stick”, and from Goldwater’s point of view, either we never should have been in Vietnam, or we should have won it quickly and decisively. George Patton was a general who knew how to win on the battlefield. His political views don’t interest me.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            All right, since Patton’s political views don’t interest you, let’s look at one of them, in particular, which should be of interest to many people at this website.

            What did Patton think of the Jews?

            We entered a synagogue which was packed with the greatest stinking bunch of humanity I have ever seen. Either these Displaced Persons never had any sense of decency or else they lost it all during their period of internment by the Germans… My personal opinion is that no people could have sunk to the level of degradation these have reached in the short space of four years.

            [others may believe]… that the Displaced Person is a human being, which he is not, and this applies particularly to the Jews, who are lower than animals

            Considering that most followers of Mr. Paul overuse the term “neoconservative” … a term which has serious anti-Semitic overtones … I can see why they admire him.

            That he was a magnificent leader of men, in combat, is without question (my own father was in the Third Army). But one should consider the whole person, politics and all, before they decide to admire them.

          • Texas Patriot

            Other than mild historical curiosity, I’m not any more interested in what George Patton thought of Jews than I am of what Moshe Dyan thought of Christians. They were both great generals, and that’s all that really counts to me. Otherwise I am unaware that Patton was ever charged with committing any atrocities against Jews, and I seriously doubt that Moshe Dyan was ever guilty of committing any atrocities against Christians. As you suggest, the purpose of a general is to win wars with a minimum loss of blood and treasure, and in that regard George Patton and Moshe Dayan were superb.

      • MarilynA

        In his memoirs, Khrushchev said he withdrew the missiles from Cuba after Bobby Kennedy appeared in the Russian Ambassador’s office and “openly wept” and told Ambassador Dobrinin that the Joint Chiefs of Staff had given his brother 48 hours to get the missiles out of Cuba or we were going to have a military coup and Khrushchev would find himself dealing with Gen. Curtis Lemay (who was chairman of the joint Chiefs of Staff at the time) instead of his brother, whom Khrushchev said he sized up as being a weak sister who could be easily pushed around after their first meeting. .” Shortly after the situation was resolved, Kennedy fired Gen. Curtis Lemay as head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This is from someone who lived through it and remembers everything that happened at the time.

        • Texas Patriot

          There is no question that LeMay was a nutcase, and if that story is true, Khrushchev was wise to back down. But it’s also true that people play all kinds of games in war. Who knows what was really going on.

    • Michael__Durham

      when will some ‘god’ prove he exists, and stands for righteousness, by WIPING OUT every last one of these goddamned Leftist vermin, once and for all? Wouldn’t that be something to see? All of them, vaporized in searing, agonizing flames. That is what *I* want to see. THAT is what *I* would do, if I were a righteous, justice-loving “god”. It’s not happening. It hasn’t happened ONCE, in the 80+ years these Bolshevik-Leftist invaders have been at this. Thus, I conclude that there is no such god. There is no god whatsoever.

  • Anonymous

    My psychology class opened with 2 things.

    A reading from Mein Kampf by the prof showing how bad Hitler was. Why the prof would think that all of us red blooded youngsters who had grown up on films such as the Longest Day or The Battle of the Bulge would be pro N@ZI is beyond me. Did the professor not know he was violating Godwin’s law or one of its’ corollaries?

    The second reading was from a book showing how Kennedy screwed up the Bay of Pigs invasion yet got it right during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

    These were the articles of faith for a leftist professor.

  • huh?

    So what do you suggest we have done instead? Attack Cuba? Launch another uprising to overthrow Castro? I understand your criticism, but you’re not positing any other solution.

    • Uh Huh!

      Works for me.

      Decaptitation of the Castros and the oligarchy via Spec Ops. Look like a Cowboy while doing it.

      After they are removed from power document their crimes.

      Hold elections and make sure no communists or other bad types infiltrate.

    • Uh Huh!

      The article is a solution. It is not a total solution, but it is a beginning.

      It is giving facts that shoot down the historiographic record. Historiography is more important in establishing the narrative for politics, public opinion and forming the historical records.

      Check Wiki out about any number of events. They give not only historical facts but what peoples think of the events. The Historiography.

      People think the Che Guevarra and Castro were cool guys and fair. They were not. they were bloodthirsty oligarchs.

  • Roger Stone

    JFK and RFK agreed to remove strategically placed US Missiles from Turkey and kept this information for the American people for decades. He made a “deal” that hurt US interests.-”The Man Who Killed Kennedy-The Case Against LBJ”–in bookstores Nov 6

  • LindaRivera

    Betrayal is one of the most evil things on earth. Kennedy ALLOWED the brave Cuban heroes to BELIEVE they would receive the U.S. air support they had been PROMISED. Kennedy then withdrew the air support resulting in a massive slaughter of the brave Cuban heroes.

    Rest in eternal peace, brave and beautiful Cuban heroes and the brave and beautiful four American heroes who made a desperate, suicidal attempt to help you.

    If Kennedy did not repent of his dreadful betrayal of innocents, God will judge Kennedy for his great wickedness.

  • LindaRivera

    Betrayal is a terrible thing. It is Cold. Ruthless. And TERRIFYING. The evil Bay of Pigs betrayal wasn’t enough for Kennedy. There was more:

    From the article: ‘Cuban freedom-fighters working from south Florida were suddenly rounded up for “violating U.S. neutrality laws.” Some of these bewildered men were jailed, others “quarantined,” prevented from leaving Dade County. The Coast Guard in Florida got 12 new boats and seven new planes to make sure Castro remained unmolested.

    JFK’s Missile Crisis “solution” also pledged that he immediately pull the rug out from under Cuba’s in-house freedom fighters. Raul Castro himself admitted that at the time of the Missile Crisis his troops and their Soviet advisors were up against 179 different “bands of bandits” as he labeled the thousands of Cuban anti-Communist rebels then battling savagely and virtually alone in Cuba’s countryside, with small arms shipments from their compatriots in south Florida as their only lifeline.’