JFK’s “Peace Speech” on June 10 1963 - A Catalyst for Conspiracy
We honor most presidents on their birthday, but few people
even know that JFK was born on May 29,
1917 and if he wasn’t killed in Dallas November 22, 1963 - he
would be 96 years old today. But it’s hard to imagine an old and wrinkled JFK
sitting out his senior years in his rocking chair.
Instead we remember JFK on the day of his death, and the
lack of a legal resolution of his murder has fueled the continuing debate over
the causes of his assassination and has overshadowed his administration, his
policies, accomplishments and what he actually did as President.
The Kennedy family had requested that he not be honored on
his death but instead his life be remembered for what he accomplished - and
indeed there are many things that he is remembered for - some good, some bad.
He brought music and poetry back to the White House, blundered at the Bay of
Pigs, saved the world from nuclear anialiation, ushered in Civil Rights for
all, ventured into outer space and put men on the moon, but the one thing we
should think of him for the most was his stand on war and peace.
He even wrote a book about it “The Strategy of Peace,” a strategy he put into practice in October
1962 when we went to the brink over the Soviet missiles in Cuba, and as a
result, installed the hot line phone link between Washington DC and Moscow,
began the SALT - Strategic Arms Limitation Talks to decrease the numbers of
nuclear weapons, and on June 10, 1963, gave his famous “Peace Speech” at the
graduation ceremony at American University in Washington.
Now there’s an historical marker at the outdoors spot at the
end of the athletic field, and just as we have been holding a moment of silence
at Dealey Plaza on November 22 for decades, members of the Coalition on
Political Assassinations (COPA) have been assembling there at noon every June
10th for the past dozen years or so in an attempt to honor JFK for his policies
and accomplishments.
The June 10th affair is very informal and usually, after a
brief introduction by John Judge, the dozen or so people who show up take turns
saying something about JFK or read an excerpt from his June 10th speech or one
of his speeches.
JFK at AU: “…I have, therefore, chosen this time and place
to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth too
rarely perceived. And that is the most important topic on earth: peace. What
kind of peace do I mean and what kind of a peace do we seek? Not a Pax
Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of
the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the
kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, and the kind that enables
men and nations to grow, and to hope, and build a better life for their
children – not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women, not
merely peace in our time but peace in all time…”
Well here we are a half century later and its quite clear
that we have not achieved JFK’s vision of a true and lasting peace, but instead
have tried and failed to impose a “Pax-Americana” in Vietnam and Iraq, and our
world standing has decreased considerably since JFK was president.
JOHN NEWMAN
JOHN NEWMAN
For JFK the man, his June 10th speech was very important,
and he chose that time and place to make his points - and afterwards, with a
crowd of thousands of college students anxious to embark on summer vacation, and
in the limo on the way back to the white house he asked his assistant Ted
Sorenson, who helped write the speech, “Do you think they got it?”
While Kennedy was talking about the students, the speech was
actually addressed to the Soviet Russians, and while the speech went pretty
much unnoticed in the media at the time, the Soviets certainly did get it.
When Gorbachev visited Dallas Dealey Plaza Sixth Floor
Museum
“I’ve long been
interested in the life of John F. Kennedy. He was certainly a great president
of the United
States
“President Kennedy’s
remarks on June 10, 1963
at American University
“The best memory of
this man would be to understand his deeds and thoughts and to translate them in
policies and more importance in the life of nations. He looked far ahead and he
wanted to change a great deal. Perhaps it is this that is the key to the
mystery of the death of President John Kennedy.”
Signed
The President of the USSR
Mikhail Gorbachev
October 12, 1998
Mikhail Gorbachev
JOHN JUDGE
The Speech That Got JFK Murdered?
by John F. Kennedy
Delivered June 10, 1963President John F. Kennedy's speech, "A Strategy of Peace," was the
As author/researchers Peter Janney and James
W. Douglass have made clear, Kennedy prepared this speech with only a handful
of close, trusted aides, and were careful to keep its contents secret from the
national security establishment. As Janney says: "The powerful
speech marked an abrupt departure from Cold War bluster and announced a new era
of cooperation and coexistence."
This is remembered as one of Kennedy’s finest and most
important speeches, and the changes it heralded, many scholars believe, was the
catalyst for the conspiracy that ended his life, and changed for the
worse the course of American and world history.
JFK:
President Anderson, members of the faculty, board of
trustees, distinguished guests, my old colleague, Senator Bob Byrd, who has
earned his degree through many years of attending night law school, while
I am earning mine in the next 30 minutes, distinguished guests, ladies and
gentlemen:
It is with great pride that I participate in this
ceremony of the American University Methodist Church
Professor Woodrow Wilson once said that every man sent out
from a university should be a man of his nation as well as a man of his time,
and I am confident that the men and women who carry the honor of graduating
from this institution will continue to give from their lives, from
their talents, a high measure of public service and public support. "There
are few earthly things more beautiful than a university," wrote John
Masefield in his tribute to English universities – and his words are equally
true today. He did not refer to towers or to campuses. He admired the splendid
beauty of a university, because it was, he said, "a place where those who
hate ignorance may strive to know, where those who perceive truth may strive to
make others see."
I have, therefore, chosen this time and place to discuss a topic
on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth too rarely perceived. And
that is the most important topic on earth: peace. What kind of peace do I mean
and what kind of a peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world
by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the
slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on
earth worth living, and the kind that enables men and nations to grow, and to
hope, and build a better life for their children – not merely peace for
Americans but peace for all men and women, not merely peace in our time but
peace in all time.
I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war
makes no sense in an age where great powers can maintain large and relatively
invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those
forces. It makes no sense in an age where a single nuclear weapon contains
almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces in
the Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons
produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and
seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn.
Today the expenditure of billions of dollars every year on
weapons acquired for the purpose of making sure we never need them is essential
to the keeping of peace. But surely the acquisition of such idle stockpiles –
which can only destroy and never create – is not the only, much less the most
efficient, means of assuring peace. I speak of peace, therefore, as the
necessary, rational end of rational men. I realize the pursuit of peace is not
as dramatic as the pursuit of war, and frequently the words of the pursuers
fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.
Some say that it is useless to speak of peace or world law
or world disarmament, and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet
Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe
we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must reexamine our own
attitudes, as individuals and as a Nation, for our attitude is as essential as
theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who
despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward, by
examining his own attitude towards the possibilities of peace, towards the
Soviet Union, towards the course of the cold war and towards freedom and peace
here at home.
First examine our attitude towards peace itself. Too many of
us think it is impossible. Too many think it is unreal. But that is a
dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable,
that mankind is doomed, that we are gripped by forces we cannot control. We
need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade; therefore, they can be
solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny
is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly
unsolvable, and we believe they can do it again. I am not referring to the
absolute, infinite concept of universal peace and good will of which some
fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny the value of hopes and dreams but
we merely invite discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and
immediate goal.
Let us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable
peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual
evolution in human institutions – on a series of concrete actions and effective
agreements which are in the interest of all concerned. There is no single,
simple key to this peace; no grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or two
powers. Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many
acts. It must be dynamic, not static, changing to meet the challenge of each
new generation. For peace is a process – a way of solving problems.
With such a peace, there will still be quarrels and
conflicting interests, as there are within families and nations. World peace,
like community peace, does not require that each man love his neighbor, it
requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their
disputes to a just and peaceful settlement. And history teaches us that
enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever. However
fixed our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often
bring surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors. So let
us persevere. Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable.
By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less
remote, we can help all people to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move
irresistibly towards it.
And second, let us
reexamine our attitude towards the Soviet Union . It is
discouraging to think that their leaders may actually believe what their
propagandists write. It is discouraging to read a recent, authoritative Soviet
text on military strategy and find, on page after page, wholly baseless and
incredible claims, such as the allegation that American imperialist circles are
preparing to unleash different types of war, that there is a very real threat
of a preventive war being unleashed by American imperialists against the Soviet
Union, and that the political aims – and I quote – "of the American imperialists
are to enslave economically and politically the European and other capitalist
countries and to achieve world domination by means of aggressive war."
Truly, as it was written long ago: "The wicked flee
when no man pursueth."
Yet it is sad to read these Soviet statements, to realize
the extent of the gulf between us. But it is also a warning, a warning to the
American people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see only
a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as
inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than
an exchange of threats.
No government or social system is so evil that its people
must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism
profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can
still hail the Russian people for their many achievements in science and space,
in economic and industrial growth, in culture, in acts of courage.
Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have
in common, none is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique
among the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other. And no
nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet
Union in the Second World War. At least 20 million lost their
lives. Countless millions of homes and families were burned or sacked. A third
of the nation's territory, including two thirds of its industrial base, was
turned into a wasteland – a loss equivalent to the destruction of this country
east of Chicago
Today, should total war ever break out again – no matter how
– our two countries will be the primary target. It is an ironic but accurate
fact that the two strongest powers are the two in the most danger of devastation.
All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24
hours. And even in the cold war, which brings burdens and dangers to so many
countries, including this Nation's closest allies, our two countries bear the
heaviest burdens. For we are both devoting massive sums of money to weapons
that could be better devoted to combat ignorance, poverty, and disease. We are
both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle, with suspicion on one side
breeding suspicion on the other, and new weapons begetting counter-weapons. In
short, both the United States Soviet Union and its allies,
have a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace and in halting the
arms race. Agreements to this end are in the interests of the Soviet
Union as well as ours. And even the most hostile nations can be
relied upon to accept and keep those treaty obligations, and only those treaty
obligations, which are in their own interest.
So let us not be blind to our differences, but let us also
direct attention to our common interests and the means by which those
differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least
we can help make the world safe for diversity. For in the final analysis, our
most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe
the same air. We all cherish our children's futures. And we are all mortal.
Third, let us reexamine our attitude towards the cold war,
remembering we're not engaged in a debate, seeking to pile up debating points.
We are not here distributing blame or pointing the finger of judgment. We must
deal with the world as it is, and not as it might have been had the history of
the last 18 years been different. We must, therefore, persevere in the search
for peace in the hope that constructive changes within the Communist bloc might
bring within reach solutions which now seem beyond us. We must conduct our
affairs in such a way that it becomes in the Communists' interest to agree on a
genuine peace. And above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear
powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of
either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in
the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy – or of
a collective death-wish for the world.
To secure these ends, America
Meanwhile, we seek to strengthen the United Nations, to help
solve its financial problems, to make it a more effective instrument for peace,
to develop it into a genuine world security system – a system capable of
resolving disputes on the basis of law, of insuring the security of the large
and the small, and of creating conditions under which arms can finally be
abolished. At the same time we seek to keep peace inside the non-Communist
world, where many nations, all of them our friends, are divided over issues
which weaken Western unity, which invite Communist intervention, or which
threaten to erupt into war. Our efforts in West New Guinea ,
in the Congo Middle East , and the Indian subcontinent, have
been persistent and patient despite criticism from both sides. We have also
tried to set an example for others, by seeking to adjust small but significant
differences with our own closest neighbors in Mexico Canada
Speaking of other nations, I wish to make one point clear.
We are bound to many nations by alliances. Those alliances exist because our
concern and theirs substantially overlap. Our commitment to defend Western
Europe and West Berlin , for example, stands
undiminished because of the identity of our vital interests. The United
States Soviet
Union at the expense of other nations and other peoples, not
merely because they are our partners, but also because their interests and ours
converge. Our interests converge, however, not only in defending the frontiers
of freedom, but in pursuing the paths of peace. It is our hope, and the purpose
of allied policy, to convince the Soviet Union that she,
too, should let each nation choose its own future, so long as that choice does
not interfere with the choices of others. The Communist drive to impose their
political and economic system on others is the primary cause of world tension
today. For there can be no doubt that if all nations could refrain from
interfering in the self-determination of others, the peace would be much more
assured.
This will require a new effort to achieve world law, a new
context for world discussions. It will require increased understanding between
the Soviets and ourselves. And increased understanding will require increased
contact and communication. One step in this direction is the proposed
arrangement for a direct line between Moscow Washington
We have also been talking in Geneva Geneva
The only major area of these negotiations where the end is
in sight, yet where a fresh start is badly needed, is in a treaty to outlaw
nuclear tests. The conclusion of such a treaty, so near and yet so far, would
check the spiraling arms race in one of its most dangerous areas. It would
place the nuclear powers in a position to deal more effectively with one of the
greatest hazards which man faces in 1963, the further spread of nuclear arms.
It would increase our security; it would decrease the prospects of war. Surely
this goal is sufficiently important to require our steady pursuit, yielding
neither to the temptation to give up the whole effort nor the temptation to
give up our insistence on vital and responsible safeguards.
I'm taking this opportunity, therefore, to announce two
important decisions in this regard. First, Chairman Khrushchev, Prime Minister
Macmillan, and I have agreed that high-level discussions will shortly begin in Moscow
Second, to make clear our good faith and solemn convictions
on this matter, I now declare that the United
States
Finally, my fellow Americans, let us examine our attitude
towards peace and freedom here at home. The quality and spirit of our own
society must justify and support our efforts abroad. We must show it in the
dedication of our own lives – as many of you who are graduating today will have
an opportunity to do, by serving without pay in the Peace Corps abroad or in
the proposed National Service Corps here at home. But wherever we are, we must all,
in our daily lives, live up to the age-old faith that peace and freedom walk
together. In too many of our cities today, the peace is not secure because
freedom is incomplete. It is the responsibility of the executive branch at all
levels of government – local, State, and National – to provide and protect that
freedom for all of our citizens by all means within our authority. It is the
responsibility of the legislative branch at all levels, wherever the authority
is not now adequate, to make it adequate. And it is the responsibility of all
citizens in all sections of this country to respect the rights of others and
respect the law of the land.
All this – All this is not unrelated to world peace.
"When a man's way[s] please the Lord," the Scriptures tell us,
"He maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him." And is not
peace, in the last analysis, basically a matter of human rights: the right to
live out our lives without fear of devastation; the right to breathe air as
nature provided it; the right of future generations to a healthy existence?
While we proceed to safeguard our national interests, let us
also safeguard human interests. And the elimination of war and arms is clearly
in the interest of both. No treaty, however much it may be to the advantage of
all, however tightly it may be worded, can provide absolute security against
the risks of deception and evasion. But it can, if it is sufficiently effective
in its enforcement, and it is sufficiently in the interests of its signers,
offer far more security and far fewer risks than an unabated, uncontrolled,
unpredictable arms race.
The United States
We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to
try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where
the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task
or hopeless of its success. Confident and unafraid, we must labor on – not
towards a strategy of annihilation but towards a strategy of peace.
