I'm still interested in why the US would think of withdrawing support from the Batista regime, when Castro's leadership in Cuba was by far the worse option. Consider how Castro blamed the United States for much of Cuba's troubles, and how it was able to seize control of many foreign companies.
How much do you think the Bay of Pigs invasion reflected JFK's early foreign policy? Remember that the invasion was planned during Eisenhower's administration, but carried out under JFK. Why, then, is the Cuban Missile Crisis that much more essential for JFK to solve?
It was unfortunate that JFK was given such a burden to carry out in his early years in office. This invasion surely overruled his potential to have any of his own foreign policies. So although it was not his original plan to invade, he came into presidency during a time where it ultimately had to be done. And unfortunately the Bay of Pigs invasion was just an embarrassment for him. Barely any forces came in support and those that did were either captured or killed. Therefore, it was extremely necessary for JFK to re-build his credibility through his facilitation of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
ReplyDeleteThe Cuban Missile crisis was essential for JFK to solve because he wasnt exactly building a good reputation in the foreign affairs department. After his other failed attempts, such as the Bay of Pigs, his presidency probably couldnt take another hit, also there were missiles involved so I could see why solving the crisis would be essential for that reason as well. As for why the US didnt support Batista over Castro im not really sure, They were both very anti-American so perhaps Batista didnt want their support, or maybe the US was simply holding out for a third option.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very tough question to answer because of the fact that on JFK's part, he had to do it. He was given this problem when he became president after eisenhower. I think that the failure of this gave his foreign policies a bad rap to the citizens but its unfair because it wasn't his plan. So did it reflect his foreign policies? yes. But does it mean that he was an unsuccessful leader in this area of his presidency? I would argue no.
ReplyDeleteI think the Bay of Pigs invasion sort of ruined JFK's reputation before he could make one of his own. Therefore, it was an obligation for him to solve the Cuban Missile Crisis. He could not be embarrassed again and he could not take the risk of a US invasion. The Bay of Pigs definitely played a large role in JFK's foreign policy, especially because it made the powerhouse (US) look weak.
ReplyDeleteJohnny K had to fix this problem because it was a very serious one. The Cuban Missile Crisis was not something you could ignore, as it the closest the world has come to seeing a full out nuclear war. (WWII was just the US bombing Japan without them bombing back... US vs USSR would have probably been more back and forth) So yeah, he had to do it because it was kind of his job i.e. he signed up for this kind of thing, and plus the bay of pigs was his fault
ReplyDeleteI do not think this Bay of Pigs invasion greatly reflected JFK's foreign policy because, well, it actually ruined his foreign policy plans. He essentially was handed down this unfortunate mess from Eisenhower, and the people expected him to fix it. With this burden on his back and his desire to regain credibility, the Cuban Missile Crisis was that much more important for JFK to resolve.
ReplyDeleteThough Jack Kennedy had the bone structure of a Greek God, the Bay of Pigs was his fault. While the idea was owned by Eisenhower it wasn't a bad thing, and people argue that Jack mad it worse. The whole Cuban Missile Crisis was a disaster and Jack was lucky that everyone got out of it alive. It was a huge weight off his shoulders and allowed more time with Ms. Monroe for sure. God, he was one hunk of a president. Does the Bay of Pigs reflect his foreign policy well? No. Did the beaming glow of his contagious smile make millions of women in the 60's happy? Of course it did.
ReplyDeletewell done
DeleteThe Bay of Pigs was an Eisenhower plan. The decision to go ahead with the plan was Kennedy's fault, but I do not think that it was reflective of him as a President. He took action against Cuba and ultimately it turned out to be a bad attack. Kennedy, however, did not have much time to redeem himself or distinguish himself from the Bay of Pigs. Was it emblematic of him as a President, yes. Was it emblematic of what would have come in terms of foreign policy in his presidency, no.
ReplyDeleteEven though Ike came up with the big plan to invade Cuba and mess things up (my opinion) Jack should of done his own thing. Jack's policy, throughout his presidency, didn't reflect his decision to invade. I believe that Jack was a more modern president following a old way of doing things, and thats obvious. Do i believe that its jack fault for going through with the bay of pigs, yes, do i blame him for his drop dead gorgeous composure, yes, but i believe that to this day, going forth with the bay of pigs, which lead into the Cuban missile crisis, is his fault.
ReplyDeleteI'm not exactly sure why the US suddenly stopped supporting Batista. We did read that Fidel was seen as humanist hero in the US at first, before he outed himself as communist. So since Batista was not often described as tyrant, this might have been a reason. About the missile crisis, well, we all saw the missiles in the documentary we watched last week. IT is obvious that JFK was pretty anxious about solving this conflict, since it contained the threat of o global nuclear war. The bay of pigs might have been an embarrassment but it didn't actually hurt the US when it failed, except maybe in their reputation. The bay of pigs was an important step in US action against Fidel Castro, but it had also been planned out by the Eisenhower regime, therefore it didn't represent Kennedy's policies too well.
ReplyDelete