July 26-nov 22


From an album published in 1959 by a Havana food company

Today Cuba celebrates the 60th anniversary of the beginning of its revolution on July 26, 1953. Later this year America will commemorate the 50th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination on November 22, 1963,

The events are ancient but linked. The connection between Cuba’s revolution and the death of the 35th American president remains a live issue in the political culture of both countries.

The assassination of JFK is one reason why this conflict between the United States and Cuba endures to this day.

The leaders of the Cuban Revolution in their youth.

Some will scoff at the notion that the events of 50 years ago could possibly be relevant to Cuban-American politics today But when it comes to the U.S.-Cuba relationship remarkably little has changed in a half century.

In 2013, as in 1963, the United States imposes an economic embargo against the island, drastically limiting free trade and travel in a way that it does with virtually no other nation.

Now, as then, Cuba is a one-party state headed by a man named Castro, which controls the economy and free expression in the name of an impoverished egalitarian socialism and dignified Cuban sovereignty.

Now, as then, the two governments maintain a relationship of scornful disdain and diplomatic refusal.

It didn’t have to be this way.

In the fall of 1963, President John F. Kennedy was privately searching for a way to end this impasse. His brutal assassination in Dallas on November 22, 1963 — and what it said about the struggle for power across the Florida Straits — insured the ideological impasse between Washington and Havana would endure for decades.

Bay of Pigs defeat

Cuba defined JFK’s short presidency.

Cuba was easily the most controversial foreign policy issue of Kennedy’s thirty four months in office — and for good reason. For the average Americans, Cuba was closer than Vietnam and more familiar than the Soviet Union. The national rebellion that brought Fidel Castro to power in January 1959 ended decades of U.S. domination of the island’s government. Havana would no longer be a decadent tourist destination for adventurous Americans.

Fidel Castro, tormenter of empire

For those invested in the political and economic institutions of Latin America in the 1960s, Cuba’s emergence as an independent republic was disturbing.

For those who believed U.S. domination of Latin American was exploitative and unjust, the Cuban Revolution was inspiring.

Whatever one’s politics, everyone could agree: Fidel Castro’s Cuba was a test of American power. The question, as JFK took office in January 1961, was, How would America respond?

Castro’s government expropriated the landed interests who had long dominated the island’s economy and diverted national resources to the poor majority. Castro and his revolutionary security forces routed the criminal syndicates, led by gangster bosses Meyer Lansky and Santos Trafficante who dominated tourism, gambling, and prostitution in Havana. They also hounded the CIA, forcing undercover operatives like David Morales and David Atlee Phillips to abscond to Miami. They demanded one-party discipline to repel yanqui domination.

Jack Kennedy, the youngest elected president in U.S. history, responded conventionally. He deemed Castro unacceptable. He approved continuation of the Eisenhower administration’s secret plans to overthrow and/or kill him, despite Castro’s unquestionable popularity with the Cuban people.

In early 1961, JFK signed off on the CIA-sponsored invasion plan as blessed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the U.S. armed forces. But when Castro routed the exile army at the Bay of Pigs in April 1961, the new president refused to provide direct U.S. military support for the invaders, insuring their defeat. To the exiles in Miami and the hawks of Washington, JFK was weak, if not treacherous.

Castro’s victory at the Bay of Pigs raised the geopolitical stakes, forcing a question that reverberated throughout the hemisphere: Would the United States let the nations of Latin America exercise their right to self-determination? Or would the United States invoke threats to its national security as justification for defining Latin American sovereignty in terms of Washington’s self-defense?

Soviet premier Nikita Khruschev with JFK before they both lost their jobs.

Kennedy responded conventionally.

Missile crisis statesmanship

After the Bay of Pigs, JFK continued to seek Castro’s overthrow via a renewed secret war, run by the CIA in south Florida. When the Soviet Union responded with the secret installation of nuclear missiles in Cuba to defend Castro’s socialist experiment, JFK found himself engulfed by the missile crisis of October 1962.

Kennedy responded with his greatest feat of statesmanship. Overruling the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the majority of his civilian advisers, JFK refused to invade Cuba, He found a way to give the Soviet premier Nikita Khruschev a face-saving way to back down and remove the missiles without war.

The hawks in the Pentagon, the CIA and the conservative journals said Kennedy had squandered the chance to eliminate Castro. But most historians now agree JFK’s daring and adroit diplomacy averted a war that was much more likely to go nuclear than his generals knew.

After the October 1962, JFK was a different kind of president.

While the hawks loathed his principled refusal to invade Cuba, he gained confidence in rejecting the logic that had twice brought United States to the brink of a war on the island. JFK had lived through war and did not romanticize it. The terrifying brush with nuclear war in October 1962 made JFK made an unconventional president.

In a word, JFK changed. In his famous speech at American University in June 1963, he embraced a strategy of peace, of co-existence with communism.

That summer, JFK began to entertain feelers from Castro, conveyed via ABC news correspondent Lisa Howard, that he was open to restoring normal diplomatic relations as long as Kennedy “went first.” JFK refused but he authorized William Attwood, a U.S. official at the United Nations, to keep the dialog going.

At the same time, his conventional impulses persisted. The CIA continued to conspire to assassinate Castro, probably with the blessing of JFK’s brother, Attorney General Bobby Kennedy who still hoped to overthrow Castro and install a reformist but pro-American government in Havana.

In his book, On November 19, 1963, deputy CIA director Richard Helms visited JFK in the Oval Office, and brought a machine gun, supposedly supplied by Cuba to revolutionaries in Venezuela. With this prop Helms sought to persuade JFK to take more aggressive action against Cuba. Kennedy was non-committal, saying sarcastically that the sight of a gun in his office made him feel much more secure.

The tragedy of Dallas

Three days later, JFK was shot dead as his motorcade passed in front of a friendly crowd in Dallas. A suspect named Lee Harvey Oswald was soon arrested.

The first JFK assassination conspiracy theory, as floated by the CIA-funded Cuban Student Directorate

In Miami CIA-funded exiles floated the first JFK conspiracy theory, paid for by U.S. taxpayers. They charged that the Oswald and Castro were “the presumed assassins.”

In Washington the successor government of Vice President Lyndon Johnson quickly mobilized to blame the crime on Oswald, a Castro supporter.

In Havana Castro sensed “a Machiavellian plot” to blame Cuba for a crime perpetrated by Kennedy’s enemies high in his own government, a scenario the Washington press corps did not care–or dare–to investigate

Everywhere, perceptions of political reality diverged radically. In the United States, JFK’s assassination epitomized epitomized the baneful influence of Castro’s demagoguery. In Havana, JFK’s death exposed the treachery of the North American colossus.

Who was right?

In September 1964 the Warren Commission, named after the liberal Chief Justice Earl Warren, but composed mostly of conservative Washington insiders, ratified that the theory of the “lone gunman.” The Washington press corps fell in line, even if most of the American people did not.

Polls show that most Americans believe that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy of his enemies, though there is little agreement about who was responsible. Among the most plausible suspects are the enemies of JFK’s Cuba policy.

The legacy of Dallas

Kennedy’s assassination proved formative. In the fifty years that followed 1963, JFK’s vision of normalizing relations between the two countries would recur–and would be literally shot down.

It was another decade before the White House again began to explore the kind of rapprochement with Havana that JFK had pondered in the late 1963. In 1975 Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, impressed by the irrationality of the U.S.-Cuban conflict, decided a little beisbol diplomacy might help. As Cuba scholar Peter Kornbluh has documented, Kissinger began to explore the idea of preparing the American people for the idea of normalizing relations with Cuba via exhibition baseball games.

It was a sensible idea. Baseball is a common passion of the people of the two countries and many native-born Cubans had gone on to glory in the North American leagues. But Kissinger’s scheme for détente with Cuba was, like JFK’s, aborted by violence.

On October 6, 1976, Luis Posada Carriles, a Cuban exile who had worked for the CIA, planted a bomb on a Cuban airliner returning to Cuba from Venezuela. All 78 people on board were killed. It was the worst terrorist attack on a civilian airliner in the Western Hemisphere until the attacks of September 11, 2001. It had the fingerprints of CIA agents all over it, and the U.S. government did nothing to apprehend the culprits.

In response Castro broke off all contact with the U.S. government and U.S.-Cuban relations again went into a deep freeze..

It would be twenty years before another U.S. administration attempted to thaw relations with Havana. In the mid-1990s Bill Clinton touted “people to people” contacts as the balm for hostilities between the two nations. His effort at detente also ended in violence.

In February 1996, the Cuban Air Force shot down two civilian aircraft, flown by anti-Castro exiles who had repeatedly flown into Cuban air space without permission. Four Cuban-Americans were killed. The White House and Congress blasted Cuba as a rogue state and relations returned to the now-normal state of offended hostility.

Since 2008 President Obama has made it slightly easier for Americans to visit the island but Washington’s irrational and hypocritical embargo is unchanged. The great champions of free trade in Washington fall silent in deference to the Cuban-American lobby, which still dominates U.S. policymaking.

All of which is fine with the government of President Raul Castro. The U.S. embargo keeps the creative destruction of Western capitalism off the island, giving Castro’s government more time to manage the tricky but now-inevitable transition from inefficient socialism to a more open market economy.

All the while, the governments in Washington and Havana remain almost totally estranged.

Strange but true: The relationship between the American and Cuban people has never recovered from the gunfire in Dallas fifty years ago.

·                                 Tags:

·                                 Bay of Pigs

·                                 CIA

·                                 Cuba

·                                 FIdel Castro

·                                 Missi

One comment

1.    Hans Trayne says:

July 26, 2013 at 10:04 am

For those that missed this event when it happened, when the national news broadcast films & photos of Lee Oswald handing out ‘Hands Off Cuba’ leaflets in New Orleans those older than me recognized and commented that ‘we are going to war’. The same sentiment was expressed again when I was older when the Twin Towers fell.

I’d bet the CIA comes clean before Castro would even consider it.


Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *

Email *


In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more


·         Best of JFK Facts

"Investigator's tape exposes Bill O'Reilly's JFK fib" (Jan. 31, 2013)

"Court upholds the benefits of disclosure about CIA officer in JFK story" (June 19, 2013)

"1,100 JFK documents ignored in Obama's push to open records" (May 14, 2013).



"Top 5 JFK files Brennan should make public" (Feb. 5, 2013)

"If there was a conspiracy, wouldn't somebody have talked?" (Jan. 2, 2013)

"What did Washington political elite think of JFK's death?" (June 14, 2013)

·         Support JFK Facts

JFK Facts is the premier destination on the Web for high-quality information and reasoned debate about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

We are supported by the Mary Ferrell Foundation and readers like you.

Your financial contribution will sustain independent voices and research on this key moment in American history.

Donate Now

The site is dedicated to improving media coverage and public understanding of JFK's assassination, educating the young, and demanding the release of records still held in secret by U.S. government agencies.

More about us here.

All donations are tax deductible.

·         Moderator

Jefferson Morley, author and former Washington Post reporter, is the moderator of JFK Facts.

Morley has written about the JFK story for national publications including the Post, New York Times, New York Review of Books, Slate, Salon, TheAtlantic.com, and the Washington Monthly. He won the 2009 PEN/Oakland Censorship Award for his JFK reporting. He is author of "Our Man in Mexico; Winston Scott and the Hidden History of the CIA" (University Press of Kansas, 2008).

Rex Bradford is the webmaster of JFK Facts, He is creator of MaryFerrell.org, the most comprehensive Web site of government records on the assassinations of JFK, Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King.

Bookstore: Search JFK titles here

§                            May 2013 (32)

§                            April 2013 (36)

§                            March 2013 (34)

§                            February 2013 (19)

§                            January 2013 (39)

§                            December 2012 (42)

§                            November 2012 (42)

§                            October 2012 (2)

April 23, 2013

April 19, 2013

April 27, 2013

April 9, 2013

April 8, 2013

April 22, 2013

April 10, 2013

·         General



                                         April 27, 1964


TO:             J. Lee Rankin

FROM:   Norman Redlich

         The purpose of this memorandum is to explain the reasons why
certain members of the staff feel that it is important to take certain
on-site photographs in connection with the location of the approximate
points at which the three bullets struck the occupants of the Presidential

         Our report presumably will state that the President was hit by
the first bullet, Governor Connally by the second, and the President by
the third and fatal bullet.  The report will also conclude that the
bullets were fired by one person located in the sixth floor southeast
corner window of the TSBD building.

         As our investigation now stands, however, we have not shown that these events could possibly have occurred in the manner suggested above. 
All we have is a reasonable hypothesis which appears to be supported by the medical testimony but which has not been checked out against the physical facts at the scene of the assassination.

         Our examination of the Zapruder films shows that the fatal third
shot struck the President at a point which we can locate with reasonable accuracy on the ground.  We can do this because we know the exact frame (no. 313) in the film at which the third shot hit the President and we know the location of the photographer.  By lining up fixed objects in the movie frame where this shot occurs we feel that we have determined the approximate location of this shot.  This can be verified by a photo of the same spot from the point where Zapruder was standing.

         We have the testimony of Governor and Mrs. Connally that the
Governor was hit with the second bullet at a point which we probably
cannot fix with precision.  We feel we have established, however, with the help of medical testimony, that the shot which hit the Governor did not come after frame 240 on the Zapruder film.  The governor feels that it came around 230 which is certainly consistent with our observations of the film and with the doctor's testimony.  Since the President was shot at frame 313, this would leave a time of at least 4 seconds between the two shots, certainly ample for even an inexperienced marksman.

         Prior to our last viewing of the films with Governor Connally we
had assumed that the President was hit while he was concealed behind the sign which occurs between frames 215-225.  We have expert testimony to the effect that a skilled marksman would require a minimum 2 seconds between shots with this riffle.  Since the camera operates at 18 1/3 frames per second, there would have to be a minimum of 40 frames between shots.  It is apparent, therefore, that if Governor Connally was even as late as frame 240, the President would have to have been hit no later than frame 190 and probably even earlier.

         We have not yet examined the assassination scene to determine whether the assassin in fact could have shot the President prior to frame 190.  We could locate the position on the ground which corresponds to this frame and it would then be our intent to establish by photography that the assassin would have fired the first shot at the President prior to this point.  Our intention is not to establish the point with complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the hypothesis which underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole assassin.

         I had always assumed that our final report would be accompanied by a surveyor's diagram which would indicate the approximate location of the three shots.  We certainly cannot prepare such a diagram without establishing that we are describing an occurrence which is physically possible.  Our failure to do this will, in my opinion, place this Report in jeopardy since it is a certainty that others will examine the Zapruder \films and raise the same questions which have been raised by our examination of the films.  If we do not attempt to answer these observable facts, others may answer them with facts which challenge our most basic assumptions, or with fanciful theories based on our unwillingness to test
our assumptions by the investigatory methods available to us.

         I should add that the facts which we now have in our possession, submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and Secret Service, are totally incorrect and, if left uncorrected, will present a completely
misleading picture.

         It may well be that this project should be undertaken by the FBI
and Secret Service with our assistance instead of being done as a staff project.  The important thing is that the project be undertaken

 That's why Connally decided to hold the press conference later and tell what he remembered, but WITHOUT naming any frame numbers.

Which press conference? You mean the one from his bed, before anyone had
bothered to number the Zapruder film frames and certainly before Connally
had a chance to see the slides, before the slides had even been prepared?

I am not saying that Connally is a perfect witness. I just find it an
amazing coincidence that his opinion of Z-230 matches my line-up of the
acoustical evidence.

 See my video of his press conference.

Just say no to the SBT. Just say no.