EU as joke (modified)

Bottom line, its not easy to find and kill one man.

Again, I have not suggested it would be. We did not kill M Qaddafi in
the 80's but Eldorado Canyon sure as hell modified his behavior.


And we've come just as close to Hussain, both in '91 and in '03 yet the guy
makes more noise than Qaddafi still. Face it, the two are very different.

Hey, glad I could help in your education. It is a natural human
reaction to want to leave, and "feel" they have a better chance of
survival by getting to W Berlin...and eventually further west.

Your claim is still not supported by facts. Do you have a reference?

Nope, you don't sound like the former Ambassador of the DDR to me.

I'm sure this *single* individuals claim is supported by other than his words
no?

This is a quote from the July 17th, 1961 New York Times; "refugees fleeing from
the Communist East Germany. Fleeing to freedom in West Berlin, they say,
before its too late. Officials say the refugees are suffering from
'Torschlusspanik', panic or fear that the door will slam in their face. Rumors
are flying in the East that the Russians will seal the border between the two
Berlins as soon as they sign a seperate peace treaty with East Germany".
Interesting, nothing about nuclear war. The issue of turning over control to
East German officials was the *main* topic of discussion during their June 1961
Vienna meeting.

Because instead of ignoring him,

OK Mr President...your mortal enemy just tested a nuke and has
threatened a nuke war if NATO doesn't leave Berlin. You tell me with a
straight face, you'll ignore him? Unbelievable...not for a second.

Eisenhower did it several times, he was aware Krushev was on shaky ground in
his country and 99% of what he said was for Soviet consumption. Eisenhower
warned Kennedy about several issues, including how to deal with Krushev and was
upset when Kennedy disregarded his advice.

Kennedy gave credance to Krushev by grossly over reacting.

Grossly over-reacting? The ANG units were federalized AFTER the Wall
went up.

ANG units? Great, but Army reserve units were sent in July, the wall went up in
late August.

No nukes were dropped, today there are no monuments to the
dead troops that didn't die fighting for Berlin in a nuclear war.

However, millions of Germans became prisoners behind a wall for the next 38
years and hundreds were killed trying to escape over the same time period. Had
Kennedy reacted like Ike, this may never have come to pass.

The "Second Berlin Crisis" started in 1958, Krushchev increased the
level of rhetoric (threatening nuke war) to test JFK, to see if he
could bully JFK. He could not.

Why would Krushev try to bully a junior Senator from MA ? Krushev threatened
military action quite often, Eisenhower correctly believed he was bluffing and
had no reaction, no conflict arose.

Khrushchev attempted to bully JFK again in Oct 1962, again Khrushchev
failed. Again JFK was successful...No Nuclear War.

Kennedy deserves credit for his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, but he
most definitely blew it on Berlin.

If you see JFK's conduct in either of these crisis as poor, I'd
suggest you've read too much Ann Coulter revisionist history.

I don't read Ann Coulter (not even sure who she is), I have two history degrees
and take the matter seriously. It seems you, like my parents who were alive
during "Camelot", are too enchanted to see JFK for what he really was.

Somewhat interesting is your opinion that JFK over-reacted (with NO
COMBAT) to Khruschev's "threat", but GWB using force to remove Hussein
as a threat is normal (i.e. not over-reacting). I'm confused by this
apparent stance.

Don't be, Krushev had a proven record of making ridiculous statements, followed
by no action. Kennedy should have done what Ike did *nothing*, ignore them.
Hussain had a proven record too, his required the use of military force to
stop. There are times for action and times for inaction.

Brinksmanship is over-reacting, invasion is
self-protection. You'd have a hard time selling that theory.

Hardly. The idea of brinkmanship and armed conflict are not absolute entitys. I
disapprove Kennedy's actions in 1961 because they were inappropriate, I approve
Bush's actions in '03 because they were appropriate. Each is situationally
dependant.

GWB did what he thought best in the interest of
the US. Europeans have no obligation to support his policy.

For about the 20th time. I'm not looking for European support, just lack of
interferance and ridiculous accusations of immoral behavior.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, BUFDRVR
blurted out:

Your claim is still not supported by facts. Do you have a reference?

Just the remarks of the Ambassador from the DDR...

Nope, you don't sound like the former Ambassador of the DDR to me.

I'm sure this *single* individuals claim is supported by other than his words
no?

You've referenced some...

This is a quote from the July 17th, 1961 New York Times; "refugees fleeing from
the Communist East Germany. Fleeing to freedom in West Berlin, they say,
before its too late. Officials say the refugees are suffering from
'Torschlusspanik', panic or fear that the door will slam in their face. Rumors
are flying in the East that the Russians will seal the border between the two
Berlins as soon as they sign a seperate peace treaty with East Germany".

Indeed fear about getting caught, trapped, whatever, brought on by
fear of soviet actions. We agree on this.

Interesting, nothing about nuclear war.

Khrushchev articulated the threat of nuclear war if NATO failed to
vacate Berlin. This was part of the spectre of soviet control. Clearly
I'm not communicating the nature of the total threat.

In June 1961 Khrushchev turned up the rhetoric, personally threatened
JFK with nuclear war, east germans fled to W Berlin...we apparently
can both stipulate to these facts.

I guess you think that Khrushchev's threat of nuclear war was not a
reason for germans leaving the DDR. To me, listening to the DDR
Ambassodor, that single aspect that you're focusing on, is indeed part
of the reason germans fled. If you inferred from my post that nuclear
war was THE reason, that was not my implication.The extreme threat is
nuclear war, but the soviets had options up to and including
thermonuclear war.

Are you suggesting that DDR citizens just wanted out the DDR *period*,
and it's just a coincidence that Khrushchev had threatened nuclear war
the previous month.

I don't buy the coincidence theory. DDR citizens were spooked into
fleeing to W Berlin. What spooked them? I say it was Khrushchev's
ultimatum, you apparently disagree.

Eisenhower did it several times, he was aware Krushev was on shaky ground in
his country and 99% of what he said was for Soviet consumption.

If I may contradict you (hey what are friends for?). President
Eisenhower didn't simply ignore Khrushchev. Ike was not an ideolog
regarding communist hegemony in eastern europe. His Sec State, John
Foster Dulles wanted to liberate eastern europe by force if
neccessary.

[alibi mode on] I'm not disagreeing with Ike's pragmatism, simply
pointing out he chose not to take risks vs the USSR [alibi mode off]

Ike chose not to risk war, he didn't encourage the East Berliners'
general strike that threaten the DDR government. And he did not
support the anti-communist Hungarian in 1956 (the ones that asked for
US assistance). In both cases, Khrushchev used soviet armor to crush
the rebellion. Khrushchev was no paper tiger, he used force.

Eisenhower warned Kennedy about several issues,
including how to deal with Krushev and was
upset when Kennedy disregarded his advice.

That should come as no big surprise. If John Foster Dulles had been
president, Ike would have been upset with him. The notion that Ike's
policies were right and JFK's wrong (because Ike disapproved) is
flawed.

ANG units? Great, but Army reserve units were sent in July, the wall went up in
late August.

Threat of war on 3 Jun 1961, with a six month time limit. My use of
the ANG reference was due to our mutual service.

However, millions of Germans became prisoners behind a wall for the next 38
years and hundreds were killed trying to escape over the same time period. Had
Kennedy reacted like Ike, this may never have come to pass.

Again a fatally flawed conclusion. Khrushchev's tanks crushed the 1956
Hungarian uprising. The small wall was the one around Berlin, the big
wall was as Chruchill said, "From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in
the Adriatic an iron curtain has descended across the Continent."

Why would Krushev try to bully a junior Senator from MA ?

Allow me to fill in some details, the "Second Berlin Crisis," started
in 1958 while Ike was president, and concluded with the Khrushchev vs
JFK episode we're discussing now. It carried over, we're not talking
about a different crisis...just an unresolved one from 1958 that
escalated with Khrushchev's threat of nuclear war in 1961. Historians
are fairly consistant that it's simply a continuation.

Krushev threatened military action quite often,
Eisenhower correctly believed he was bluffing and
had no reaction, no conflict arose.

Bluffing? Like Hungary in 1956...hardly a bluff.

Kennedy deserves credit for his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, but he
most definitely blew it on Berlin.

Well we can agree to disagree.

Juvat