Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Just a Blink? An Investigation into the Cuban Missile Crisis • U.S. History (grade 11), 1-2 90-minute class periods • Essential questions – – • Common Core Standards – – • Why did the Soviets remove their missiles from Cuba? How did the Cold War superpowers resolve conflicts? 6. Evaluate authors’ differing points of view on the same historical event or issue by assessing the authors’ claims, reasoning, and evidence. 9. Integrate information from diverse sources, both primary and secondary, into a coherent understanding of an idea or event, noting discrepancies among sources. Sources – – – – – – Sam Wineburg et al., Reading Like a Historian: Teaching Literacy in Middle & High School Classrooms (New York: Teachers College Press, 2013) http://sheg.stanford.edu/cuban-missile-crisis Thomas Blanton, “The Annals of Blinkmanship,” The Wilson Quarterly, Summer 1997 http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/annals.htm http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/index.htm http://microsites.jfklibrary.org/cmc/ http://library.thinkquest.org/11046/days/timeline.html Just a Blink? An Investigation into the Cuban Missile Crisis What does this cartoon tell you about the Cuban Missile Crisis? What else do you know about it? Oct. 14: A U-2 flying over western Cuba photographs Soviet missile sites on the island. Oct. 16: President Kennedy is briefed on the U-2 findings. He calls a meeting of a group, later known as ExComm, to discuss diplomatic and military options. Oct. 22: Kennedy addresses the nation in a televised speech, announcing the presence of offensive missile sites in Cuba, calling for a quarantine of the island, and threatening further U.S. military action. Oct. 26: Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev sends a letter to Kennedy, proposing to remove his missiles if Kennedy would publicly announce never to invade Cuba. Oct. 27: Khrushchev sends another letter to Kennedy, proposing to remove Soviet missiles from Cuba in exchange for the U.S. removing its missiles from Turkey. Oct. 27: U.S. Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin meet to discuss a possible resolution to the crisis. Oct. 28: Radio Moscow announces that the Soviet Union has accepted a resolution and releases the text of a Khrushchev letter affirming that the missiles will be removed in exchange for a non-invasion pledge from the United States. Kennedy’s public statement effectively ends the crisis. “We were eyeball to eyeball, and I think the other fellow just blinked.” Dean Rusk, October 1962 • Rusk’s assessment became the traditional narrative of the Cuban Missile Crisis in the U.S. According this narrative, how and why did the crisis end? • Objectives: By the end of this lesson, you will be able to examine the traditional narrative against the historical record. You will also be able to articulate the difficulties of dealing with the historical record. What do the documents say? Document A: Robert Kennedy, excerpt from Thirteen Days Document C: Kennedy’s memo and Dobrynin’s memoir • • • Does Kennedy seem to support the traditional narrative (Rusk)? What details from the document lead you to reach that conclusion? • What additional light do these documents shed on the crisis? Do they simplify or complicate the historians’ challenge? Explain. Document B: Anatoly Dobrynin, cable to Moscow Document D: Theodore Sorensen, conference remarks • • • • • In what areas do Dobrynin’s and Kennedy’s accounts agree? Disagree? Does Dobrynin seem to support the traditional narrative? Why or why not? Which of the two do you believe is the more credible account? Why? How do Documents A and B illustrate the challenge facing historians in piecing together the events of the past? • • • What additional light does this document shed on the crisis? How, if at all, does it cause you to change your earlier considerations? How does history change over time? Is history clearer immediately after the fact or after a period of time has passed? Explain. What do the textbooks say? “On October 26, Khrushchev agreed to remove the missiles if the United States vowed never to attack Cuba. The next day he demanded the removal of United States missiles from Turkey. After frantic meetings, Kennedy agreed to the first demand but ignored the second. He also ordered Khrushchev to get the missiles out of Cuba – or the United States would take them out. Finally, on October 28, Khrushchev backed down and the crisis ended.” American Odyssey “In this tense eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation, Khrushchev finally flinched. On October 28 he agreed to a partially face-saving compromise, by which he would pull missiles out of Cuba. The United States in return agreed to end the quarantine and not invade the island. The American government also quietly signaled that it would remove from Turkey some of its own missiles targeted on the Soviet Union.” The American Pageant “Khrushchev offered to remove all missiles in return for a pledge from the United States not to invade Cuba. Khrushchev later added a demand for removal of American weapons from Turkey. . . . Kennedy secretly assured Khrushchev that the United States would dismantle the obsolete Jupiter missiles in Turkey. On November 20, after weeks of delicate negotiations, Kennedy publicly announced the withdrawal of Soviet missiles and bombers from Cuba, pledged to respect Cuban sovereignty, and promised that U.S. forces would not invade the island.” Out Of Many • EQ1: Why did the Soviets remove their missiles from Cuba? (Did they “blink?” How certain are you?) • What do you think explains the differing accounts offered by Robert Kennedy and Anatoly Dobrynin? Can they be reconciled? • EQ2: If the Cuban Missile Crisis is indicative, how did the Cold War superpowers resolve conflicts? • How does this exercise illustrate the factors historians must consider in evaluating their sources? • What might have been the implications of Rusk’s “eyeball to eyeball” assessment for future U.S. policymakers? How does this speak to the importance of understanding history?