jfk - dove or hawk? (1 Viewer)

[my sharona]

war:
bay of pigs, us involvement in vietnam, cuban missile crisis
peace:
hotline, a few summits, nuclear test ban treaty

so was jfk a hawk, or was he a dove who was egged on by his party and political pressure..?

 

[Will_Sparky]

I think that relativly, he is a dove.

 

[Jennibeans]

agreeing with Sparky yea JFK was, in comparison with others, pretty much a dove. but he did have moments of hawkishness the Cuban Missile Crisis for example. His problem though was probably less than he was weak and more that he was slightly out of his depth and had trouble dealing with Khrushchev

 

[Loz#1]

Dove. In regards to the Bay Of Pigs, he was reluctant. As Jennibeans said, he did have moments of hawkishness but still.

 

[my sharona]

dovish hawk, hawkish dove... ><

 

[Loz#1]

well nobody said he had to be only one. He had characteristics of both.

 

[tWiStEdD]

he was a peace-keeper. he was also weak however, and was easily pushed about.
the bay of pigs was decided upon after careful consideration about the potential reprecutions of a full war with cuba (mainly the effects on the relationship between the USA and the then Soviet Union). He was sneaky about it, but he wasnt looking for a war.

then there's the missile crisis which he handled BRILLIANTLY, no hawkish behaviour there.

Berlin was a highly unstable issue at the time but an important symbol of the Cold War at the time. The Americans were aggressive but only because of how important it was.

Kennedy has a short 'reign', and he avoided conflict whenever he could. Vietnam is perhaps a different issue... and one i dont know about.

 

[The Nick]

JFK is an interesting case. When it came to the major issues which could spark full scale conflict, he was more dovish than most. He wasn't really hawkish with the Bay of Pigs, because it was Cuba, a tiny country in the US's backyard with no economy after the US placed illegal sanctions on it. That can't really be considered hawkish.

He was hawkish, however with the media. He would do anything to maintain his image as a strong leader with the media, hence is coming out and branding Khrushchev as foolish a couple of months after the Crisis, despite the fact the US made a compromise. He was a dove in actions, a hawk through words.

 

[ujuphleg]

He wasn't really hawkish with the Bay of Pigs, because it was Cuba, a tiny country in the US's backyard with no economy after the US placed illegal sanctions on it. That can't really be considered hawkish.

surely though, with the fact that missiles were sitting on an island less than a 100 miles off the Florida coast, he was fairly worried? Plus, while a complete fiasco, The Bay of Pigs was an attempted invasion no matter how poor an attempt it was. and he did allow operation MONGOOSE to go ahead, which can be considered more hawkish than dovish.

i say he was a bit of both too and a bit ot a chicken. People say that he handled the missile crisis brilliantly, and with all due respect he handled most respects very well. I think it is safe to say though that without the advice of his brother or the fact that it was Khrushchev in the end that backed down, perhaps he wouldn't have acheived the outcome he did.

 

[The Nick]

The Bay of Pigs was before the missiles were on Cuba. Would John Howard be considered a hawk if he attempted to invade PNG? I honestly do not think so. So it is with JFK.

Having studied the Missile Crisis for my Extension major work, I feel obliged to correct something here: Khrushchev did not back down. Both leaders achieved a peaceful resolution through diplomacy and compromise: the USSR took its missiles out of Cuba, the USA tooks its missiles out of Turkey. The USSR was given the short end of the deal, but it was exactly that, a quid pro quo deal apart from the publicity. This counted for Khrushchev's dismissal (unfairly in my view), but the Soviets were not forced to back down.

 

[ujuphleg]

ok ok. i know better than to argue with someone who has done anything for their history project for extension.

i apologise. khrushchev did not back down.

 

[dr3amy]

Can somebody explain to me the whole thing with doves & hawks.
I know how doves are those who believed cold war could be solved by negotiations & disarmament

& hawks were those who believed in tough militaristic approach to war & wanted to increase arms spending

but i still dont really get how to relate their roles to the dotpoints like containment. Do I talk about roles of doves such as peace demonstrators, nuclear protesters etc they didnt play that much of a role in cold war did they? Plus how can you relate roles of doves & hawks when Presidents like Kennedy was a mixture of both? So confused!!

 

[HayleeKate]

Where do we vote for drug addict?
He was definately a hawk the way he swooped on the women!
But, in military terms, probably more dove-like. He was so tranquil thanks to all the shots from Dr Feel-good that he was 'just lovin' life!' he couldnt have been agro in such a state.
One things for sure... he was definately flying high enough to make the bird analogies appropriate on so many levels.
Not that there's anything wrong with daily amphetamine use, a few narrow misses at nuclear warfare, but they were misses so clearly the drugs werent that bad.

 

[Ashe]

I think a clue lies in the fact that they were on the brink of nuclear war, yet it didn't happen. Due to the Vienna summit and the Berlin meeting as well as negotiations over the checkpoint charlie incident I would say he is largely dovish.

 

[Atticus.]

he was a peace-keeper. he was also weak however, and was easily pushed about.
the bay of pigs was decided upon after careful consideration about the potential reprecutions of a full war with cuba (mainly the effects on the relationship between the USA and the then Soviet Union). He was sneaky about it, but he wasnt looking for a war.

then there's the missile crisis which he handled BRILLIANTLY, no hawkish behaviour there.

Berlin was a highly unstable issue at the time but an important symbol of the Cold War at the time. The Americans were aggressive but only because of how important it was.

Kennedy has a short 'reign', and he avoided conflict whenever he could. Vietnam is perhaps a different issue... and one i dont know about.

i agree. perhaps because we were taught by the same teacher
dove

 

[googooloo]

he was a peace-keeper. he was also weak however, and was easily pushed about.
the bay of pigs was decided upon after careful consideration about the potential reprecutions of a full war with cuba (mainly the effects on the relationship between the USA and the then Soviet Union). He was sneaky about it, but he wasnt looking for a war.

then there's the missile crisis which he handled BRILLIANTLY, no hawkish behaviour there.

Berlin was a highly unstable issue at the time but an important symbol of the Cold War at the time. The Americans were aggressive but only because of how important it was.

Kennedy has a short 'reign', and he avoided conflict whenever he could. Vietnam is perhaps a different issue... and one i dont know about.

I so agree, he was weak land ppl always say he was a hero, i mean when he visisted berlin he said the ick ein berliner (sorry cant spell german), but it means i am a berlin donout not, i am a berliner,a nd no one ever told him he stuffed up i mean he never corrected himself,a dn ppl still wash it over today by saying the thign he intended. I f I was an east german i'd be laughing ma guts off int he audience adn never stop.

 

[googooloo]

Who was it really?

Now by the motives of the Cuban missile crisis, well, their weren't really any missiles going to cuba ont those ships, Russia just wanted to keep usa out of cuba, and it was good of JFK not to bomb Russia, but still he was jsut thrown about like the dead rabbit head he was.

 

[SarahJZ]

He was reluctant to take a militaristic stance at the Bay of Pigs, and was reluctant to send advisors to Vietnam as well...so I'd say he was pretty much a dove

 

[Meldrum]

Reluctant? Whilst the official position would indicate that, the majority of modern historiography paints him as a romanticised war mongerer.