Were the NATO countries really aware of the dangers that threatened them?

Robert F. Kennedy: 13 days when the world stood still.
Translated by Per Egil Hegge, 150 p. With documents and picturesCappelen. 1969.

This is how the publisher characterizes Robert F. Kennedy's 13 days when the world stood still, which has now arrived in Norwegian with the best prospects of becoming a bestseller. American moralism, superficial stories, dramatizations and personal revelations are ingredients that guarantee a high circulation figure. It is therefore important to go a little deeper into Robert F. Kennedy's conception of reality, and to look at the political content alongside a sentimental complacency that characterizes much of the book.

Robert McNamara sets the tone in his preface, with lyrical twists that must be lost in the translation: After reading it, a touching, sensitive story, I can only repeat with words now damp by tears, what I wrote: "He showed at that time, as I have seen him do on many occasions both before and since, a highly extraordinary combination of energy and courage, compassion and wisdom. "

Cuba – just east / west?

In this book, the "Cuba crisis" begins for simplicity in the summer of 1962, when American spy planes discovered that the Soviet was building rocket ramps in Cuba. The conflict is captured only as an East / West thriller, with villains and police. Fidel Castro's revolution, the US attempt at economic suffocation, and the US invasion attempt in April 1961, all this does not exist in the version conveyed by Norwegian readers in the disguise of the crime novel. How many of those who, in excitement, follow the hero's nerve-wracking battle against fate, an entertaining game with the fate of the world in their hands, awake and responsible as the hourglass runs out, etc., who knows the real background? How many people understand that Cuba had reason to feel threatened, militarily and financially every single day? How many know that the United States has a long record of sin when it comes to fighting social liberation efforts in Latin America? The only thing conveyed in this book is the awareness that a number of American top politicians – "they were all highly intelligent people, hardworking and courageous" – sought peaceful solutions. When Robert F. Kennedy undoubtedly played the pigeon role, ie, he wanted to continue to blockade instead of a rapid nuclear attack, he justified that the US moral position would otherwise be threatened. "The history and traditions of the United States did not allow such a course of action."

Military hawks

There are many political lessons that can be deduced from "13 days when the world stood still". The first is the boundless cynicism of military strategists, the second is the vulnerable position of NATO partners. The US forces – all over the world – were quickly alerted, and four tactical aircraft squadrons were ready for attack as the discussion began.

While Soviet ships were on their way to Cuba, President Kennedy was subjected to strong pressure in the direction of full military invasion, with nuclear weapons and readiness. Among the supporters of rapid military action were William Fulbright, chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee. CIA chief John McCone said everyone had to understand that an invasion would be a far more serious undertaking than most people had previously thought. “They have a hell of a lot of equipment. And they are damned hard to shoot them out of these hills – we discovered that in Korea, he said. ” The President initially refused to use the withdrawal of rockets from Turkey as a basis for negotiation, as the Soviet suggested. However, Robert F. Kennedy writes that the Soviet proposal was not unreasonable. On several occasions, the President had previously sought an agreement with Turkey on the withdrawal of Jupiter rockets. "They were obviously outdated, and our Polaris submarines in the Mediterranean would provide far better protection."

Were NATO partners aware of the threat?

In arguing against NATO, a key point is that the alliance relationship with the United States can easily bring small nations into a war situation that does not concern them. A crisis situation in Cuba that first arose because Castro was forced to seek help against US invasion and invasion threats could very quickly have drawn our country into nuclear war. The clearest witnesses give Robert F. Kennedy himself: “NATO countries supported our position and advised us to stand firm. But, as President Kennedy said, they were unaware of what the situation meant for themselves. If we went on a plane attack against Cuba and the Soviet Union responded by attacking Turkey, the whole of NATO would be withdrawn. Immediately the President then had to decide whether to use nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union, in which case all of humanity was threatened. "

For those who still claim that Norway has retained its sovereignty and that it is Norwegian constitutional bodies that determine our foreign and security policy at all times, it is also revealing to read: "NATO countries support the United States, but were these countries in Reality fully aware of the dangers that threaten them? These hour-by-hour decisions could necessarily only be made by the President of the United States, but they could mean the end for the government and nations elsewhere. ”

The joy that President Kennedy – in the first place – did not comply with the military hawks' immediate demands for full war against Cuba is diminished considering who it is today who sits in Washington and makes decisions for Norway. President Nixon said in his election campaign that the military should have a greater influence on the president's decisions. What happens if US warfare in the Third World again leads to superpower confrontations?

In this way, Robert F. Kennedy's hero story, crime novel and political will can also be read as a handbook in arguments against NATO.

See also the series Bobby
Kennedy for President going
on Netflix now.