JFK and the Cold War: A Review of Brinkley's Biography

Introduction: Kennedy's Place in American History

President John Fitzgerald Kennedy is an important figure in American history and was instrumental in shaping the American identity in the second half of the twentieth century. His personality and optimism, as well as his heroism in the Second World War, helped the country formulate a hope that the 1960s could be a time of renewal and rebirth in the United States. In recent years, the more scandalous aspects of his life have overtaken his historical significance — something that should be remedied and his importance restored. Most importantly, his actions during the Cold War between the United States and the U.S.S.R. are credited with saving the world from descending into nuclear war. In Alan Brinkley's 2012 book John F. Kennedy, the author attempts to explain the man in terms of his place in history and how his personal abilities and charisma put him into his position of power, as well as how such talents made him a threat.

The Kennedy presidency was perhaps one of the most important of the latter half of the twentieth century. There were many issues to which the president gave attention, including the rights of Native Americans, the space program, and the Civil Rights Movement, which he advanced with the help of his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, and Civil Rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. However, despite the importance of these issues, one came to dominate his presidency. The key event that marked his administration was the Cold War between democratic countries in the western world and the Communist U.S.S.R.

The Cold War and the Cuban Missile Crisis

To strengthen their position and prove a greater threat to the United States, the Soviet Union allied itself with Cuba, another Communist nation. Fidel Castro of Cuba and Nikita Khrushchev of the U.S.S.R. made an alliance in 1962 that would allow the Cubans to place nuclear weapons on that island nation, dangerously close to the United States. The United States came very close to all-out nuclear war with the Soviets. It was believed that thirteen days of diplomacy and discussion between the leaders of the two nations was all that saved the world from a nuclear apocalypse. At no time before or after this period in history was the world so close to complete destruction. It is highly likely that the reality of their near nuclear holocaust humbled the warring nations, because this was the point of highest tension until the 1980s, when the Soviet Union began to break apart.

Kennedy recognized that with nuclear arms so close to American soil, the Soviet Union could launch an attack at any time and that the U.S. would not be able to respond effectively until it was too late and most of its citizens were dead. There would be no strategic retaliation — just all-out total war. It was President Kennedy's intention to avoid this at all costs. From early in his administration, indeed from the very inauguration, Kennedy understood how the Soviet Union would affect his presidency and his nation, pledging himself to the cause for peace while making clear that he would not back down from conflict with the enemy. In his inaugural address, Kennedy (1961) said, "Let us begin anew — remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate" (p. 2). This attitude would shape his interactions with the U.S.S.R. throughout the Cold War.

One of the ways in which Kennedy combated the Cold War was by maintaining direct contact with Premier Khrushchev. The two men corresponded with one another, which served to explain perceptions and political differences and to humanize their opponents. This, Kennedy felt, was the key to avoiding war with the Soviet Union: to impart the message that human life was what mattered most and had to be considered above all political disputes. After the Cuban Missile Crisis, there was no place for interactions between nations to go but toward an eventual treaty and end of aggressions — or toward nuclear armament and final attack. Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed, and neither President Kennedy nor Premier Khrushchev chose to act in ways that would turn the Cold War into a hot one.

Following the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy laid forth a platform of promoting world peace, most notably in his June 10, 1963 speech at American University. In a time when any individual country could launch weaponry surpassing all the combined power used in the Second World War, it was imperative that diplomacy and a focus on peace be the goal of all world leaders. He said, "Our problems are manmade; therefore, they can be solved by man" (Kennedy 1963, p. 2). The United States decided not to conduct atmospheric nuclear testing, and the Soviets vowed to decrease their armaments and expressed that they were not interested in escalating tensions to all-out nuclear war and universal destruction. This new perception can easily be attributed to Kennedy and his administration.

Brinkley (2012) defines the Kennedy White House as one that had to be completely reorganized to fit the style of the new president. The military-like atmosphere appropriate for former General Dwight D. Eisenhower did not fit with either the personality of Kennedy or the new national identity of hope and peace he was trying to engender (Brinkley 2012, p. 59). Instead of investing power in his cabinet or working with the other branches of the federal government, Kennedy was firm in his belief in his individual authority and trusted almost no one's judgment save his own, his brother's, and that of Robert McNamara.

Conclusion: Assessing Brinkley's Biography

Alan Brinkley's book tries to humanize the assassinated president John F. Kennedy. In so doing, he tries to remind the reader of the president's failings as well as his successes. In total, the biography seems only mostly successful, because it swerves between a reverence for its subject and an attitude of distress — never quite settling into a consistent critical perspective.