DBQ: Cuban Missile Crisis Primary Source Analysis

Overview: The Cuban Missile crisis involved two major super powers (U.S. and U.S.S.R.) and a
small island 90 miles off the coast of Miami called Cuba. The leaders of these three nations,
Fidel Castro, John F. Kennedy, and Nikita Khrushchev played a significant role in October of
1962. Each of these leaders had different ambitions, motivations, and goals for their respective
nations.
Driving Historical Question: How did the foreign policies and political ideologies of Fidel
Castro, John F. Kennedy, and Nikita Khrushchev impact the Cuban Missile Crisis? How did
these beliefs affect the eventual resolution?
Was the crisis a justified defense or provocative response on the part of the Soviet Union and
Cuba?
Doc A
Fidel Castro:
Second Declaration of Havana, 1962 (Modified)
The Cuban Revolution of 1959 was a broadly based nationalist revolution against a corrupt
government. It was a revolution facilitated by the long Cuban revolutionary tradition. [There
had been major disturbances in the Ten Years' War (18681878), a failed attempt to break with
Spain; during the war of independence that began in 1895 but which resulted only dependence
on the U.S.; and the revolution of 1933, which tried to restore constitutional order and
democracy.] In the 1933 events Fulgencio Batista, an army sergeant, emerged and he dominated
Cuba for decades. Cuban nationalists, with some reason, blamed U.S. foreign policy for Cuba's
problems.
By 1962, after the US began to give "covert" assistance to Cuban exiles opposing the revolution,
Castro had adopted MarxismLeninism as the ideology of the Cuban Revolution. This is can be
seen in the Second Declaration of Havana, delivered on February 4, 1962.
The historic circumstances which permitted certain European countries and the United States
of North America to attain a high industrial development level put them in a position which
enabled them to subject and exploit the rest of the world.
What motives lay behind this expansion of the industrial powers? Were they moral, "civilizing"
reasons, as they claimed? No. Their motives were economic.
Wherever roads are closed to the peoples, where repression of workers and peasants is fierce,
where the domination of Yankee monopolies is strongest, the first and most important lesson is to
understand that it is neither just nor correct to divert the peoples with the vain and fanciful
illusion that the dominant classes can be uprooted by legal means which do not and will not
exist. The ruling classes are entrenched in all positions of state power. They monopolize the
teaching field. They dominate all means of mass communication. They have infinite financial

resources. Theirs is a power which the monopolies and the ruling few will defend by blood and
fire with the strength of their police and their armies.
The duty of every revolutionary is to make revolution. We know that in America and throughout
the world the revolution will be victorious. But revolutionaries cannot sit in the doorways of their
homes to watch the corpse of imperialism pass by. The role of Job does not behoove a
revolutionary. Each year by which America's liberation may be hastened will mean millions of
children rescued from death, millions of minds, freed for learning, infinitudes of sorrow spared
the peoples. Even though the Yankee imperialists are preparing a bloodbath for America they will
not succeed in drowning the people's struggle. They will evoke universal hatred against
themselves. This will be the last act of their rapacious and caveman system....
Document Analysis (Doc A)
1. Who are the main subjects in this document? Who are the Yankees?

2. What political ideology or ideas expressed in this document demonstrate contempt for the
U.S.?

3. What evidence can you find in this document that points to an impeding show down
between Cuba and the U.S.?

4. Why do you think Castro dislikes the U.S.? Is it justified? What ideas justify his claim?

Doc B (Modified)
President John F. Kennedy's address to the nation on the build up of Soviet nuclear weapons in
Cuba and the establishment of a United States blockade of Cuba.
For Immediate Release, October 22, 1962
Office of The White House Press Secretary
The White House
Radio-TV Address of the President to the Nation from The White House
October 22, 1962
(As Actually Delivered)
Good evening, my fellow citizens:
The characteristics of these new missile sites indicate two distinct types of installations.
Several of them include Medium Range Ballistic Missiles, capable of carrying a nuclear warhead
for a distance of more than 1000 nautical miles. Each of these missiles in short, is capable of
striking Washington, D. C., the Panama Canal, Cape Canaveral, Mexico City, or any other city in
the Southeastern part of the United States, in Central America, or in the Caribbean area.
Additional sites not yet completed appear to be designed for intermediate range ballistic missiles
-- capable of traveling more than twice as far -- and thus capable of striking most of the major
cities in Western Hemisphere, ranging as far North as Hudson's Bay, Canada, and as far South as
Lima, Peru. In addition, jet bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons, are now being
uncrated and assembled in Cuba, while the necessary air bases are being prepared.
This urgent transformation of Cuba into an important strategic base -- by the presence of these
large, long-range, and clearly offensive weapons of sudden mass destruction -- constitutes an
explicit threat to the peace and security of all Americas, in flagrant and deliberate defiance of the
Rio Pact of 1947, the traditions of this Nation and Hemisphere, the Joint Resolution of the 87th
Congress, the Charter of the United Nations, and my own public warnings to the Soviets on
September 4 and 13. This action also contradicts the repeated assurances of Soviet spokesmen,
both publicly and privately delivered, that the arms build-up in Cuba would retain its original
defensive character, and that the Soviet Union had no need or desire to station strategic missiles
on the territory of any other nation
Finally, I want to say a few words to the captive people of Cuba, to whom this speech is being
directly carried by special radio facilities. I speak to you as a friend, as one who knows your
deep attachment to your fatherland, as one who shares your aspirations for liberty and justice for
all. And I have watched and the American people have watched with deep sorrow how your
nationalist revolution was betrayed -- and how your fatherland fell under foreign domination.
Now your leaders are no longer Cuban leaders inspired by Cuban ideals. They are puppets and
agents of an international conspiracy which has turned Cuba against your friends and neighbors
in the Americas -- and turned it into the first Latin American country to become a target for
nuclear war -- the first Latin American country to have these weapons on its soil.

These new weapons are not in your interest. They contribute nothing to your peace and wellbeing. They can only undermine it. But this country has no wish to cause you to suffer or to
impose any system upon you. We know that your lives and land are being used as pawns by
those who deny you freedom.
Many times in the past, the Cuban people have risen to throw out tyrants who destroyed their
liberty. And I have no doubt that most Cubans today look forward to the time when they will be
truly free -- free from foreign domination, free to choose their own leaders, free to select their
own system, free to own their own land, free to speak, and write, and worship without fear or
degradation. And then shall Cuba be welcomed back to the society of free nations and to the
associations of this Hemisphere.
My fellow citizens: Let no one doubt that this is a difficult and dangerous effort on which we
have set out. No one can foresee precisely what course it will take or what costs or casualties
will be incurred. Many months of sacrifice and self-discipline lie ahead -- months in which both
our patience and our will will be tested -- months in which many threats and denunciations will
keep us aware of our dangers. But the greatest danger of all would be to do nothing.
The path we have chosen for present is full of hazards, as all paths are -- but it is the one most
consistent with our character and courage as a nation and our commitments around the world.
The cost of freedom is always high -- but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall
never choose and that is the path of surrender or submission.
Our goal is not the victory of might, but the vindication or right -- not peace at the expense of
freedom, but both peace [underline] and [/underline] freedom, here in this Hemisphere, and, we
hope, around the world. God willing, that goal will be achieved.
Document Analysis (Doc B)
1. Who do you think Kennedy is directly addressing? Why?

2. What facts or ideas demonstrate Kennedys foreign policy?

3. Why do you think Kennedy released this statement to the public? What was his
motivations?

4. Based on the document, what judgement would you make about Kennedys approach to
the Cuban Missile Crisis?

Doc C
Khrushchev Message to President Kennedy (Modified)
Moscow Domestic Service in Russian (Translated) October 27th, 1962
Esteemed Mr. President: I have acquainted myself with much satisfaction with your reply to U
Thant to the effect that steps will be taken to exclude contact between our ships and thus avoid
irremediable fateful consequences. This reasonable step on your part strengthens my (Belief) that
you are showing concern to safeguard peace, and I note this with satisfaction.
The main thing that must be done is to normalize and stabilize the state of peace among states
and people.
I understand your concern for the security of the United States, Mr. President, because this is the
first duty of a President. However, we are worried about the same questions, and I bear the same
obligations as chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers.
You have been worried concerning the fact that we have helped Cuba with weapons with the aim
of strengthening its defensive capacity--yes, precisely its "defensive capacity"--because no
matter what weapons it possesses, Cuba cannot equal you. These are different quantities, all the
more so if one takes into consideration the modern means of extermination.
Our aim has been and still is to help Cuba. And no one can deny the humaneness of our motives,
which are to enable Cuba to live in peace and develop in the way its people desire.
You want to make your country safe. This is understandable, but Cuba, too, wants the same
thing. All countries want to make themselves safe.
But how are we, the Soviet Union and our Government, to assess your actions which are
expressed in the fact that you have surrounded the Soviet Union with military bases, surrounded
our allies with military bases, literally disposed military bases around our country, and stationed
your rocket armaments there? This is not a secret. American officials are demonstratively saying
this. Your rockets are situated in Britain and Italy and aimed against us. Your rockets are situated
in Turkey.
You are worried by Cuba. You say that it worries you because T is a distance of 90 miles by Sea
from the American Coast. However, Turkey is next to us. Your sentries walk up and down and
look at each other. What do you consider, then--that you have the right to demand security for
your own country and the removal of those weapons which you call offensive and do not
acknowledge the same right for us?
You have placed destructive rocket weapons, which you call offensive, in Turkey, literally at our
elbow, now then does admission of our equal military capacities tally with such unequal relations
between our great states? This cannot be made to agree in any way.
.I think that it would be possible to end the conflict quickly and normalize the situation and
then people would breathe more easily, considering that the statesmen who are vested with
responsibility, have good sense, an awareness of their responsibility, and the ability to solve
complex questions and not bring things to the catastrophe of war.
I therefore make this proposal. We agree to remove from Cuba those means which you regard as
offensive means. We agree to carry this out and declare this pledge in the United Nations. Your

representatives will make a declaration to the effect that the United States on its part, considering
the uneasiness and anxiety of the Soviet State, will remove its analogous means from Turkey.
Let us reach agreement as to the span of time needed for your and us to achieve this. After this,
persons enjoying the confidence of the U.N. Security Council might check on-the-spot
fulfillment of the pledges assumed. Of course, the authorizing of the Governments of Cuba and
Turkey are necessary for entry into those countries of these plenipotentiaries and for inspect on
of fulfillment of the pledge assumed by either side.
Document Analysis (Doc C)
1. Based on this document, what can you say about the relationship between President
Kennedy and Chairman Khrushchev?

2. What does Khrushchev argue about U.S. nuclear arms in Turkey? What does this say
about his foreign policy?

3. Do you agree or disagree with the actions of Khrushchev? Why or why not?

4. Based on this document and Doc B, what is similar about the foreign relation policies
between Khrushchev and Kennedy? What is different?

Doc D

This map was used in President John F. Kennedys Cuban Missile Crisis meetings, standing
committee, September 1962 to October 1962 to show location in Cuba of potential missile range.
The red rings represent the various range of nuclear missiles that were stationed on the island of
Cuba. Only parts of the Northwestern United States was clear from direct attack.
Document Analysis (Doc D)
1. How does this map relate to Doc B?

2. Given what you know from reading Doc B, how would this map affect Kennedys
speech?

Doc E

Abandoned base
This photograph of Medium Range Ballistic Missile (MRBM) Launch Site Two at San Cristobal,
Cuba, was taken on November 1, 1962, four days after Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev
promised to remove the missiles. This photograph highlights the former launch positions.
Document Analysis (Doc E)
1. What can you infer about this photograph?

2. Who do you think took this photo?

3. This photograph was taken four days after Khrushchev promised to remove the missiles.
What does this say about Khrushchev?