[commanderkai]

I was always curious about what people thought about how Diefenbaker handled himself during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and since this site has a pretty broad stretch of informed individuals, I might as well ask here. Diefenbaker and Kennedy disliking one another is pretty public knowledge, so once the Cuban Missile Crisis began to unravel, Diefenbaker was doubtful of American claims about the missiles, and publicly called for a United Nations inspection of the sites to confirm the claims of the United States.

More critically, at least in my opinion, is that Diefenbaker refused to match the United States and NATO's mobilization in the increasingly likelyhood of war with the Soviet Union. The Canadian military began mobilizing without Diefenbaker's orders to do so. Although Diefenbaker did order the mobilization a few days later, by the time he did, the crisis was winding down, and the military already was mobilized.

So, my question is...was Diefenbaker right or wrong to question Kennedy and delaying mobilization, and was the Canadian military right or wrong in mobilizing behind Diefenbaker's back?

[Freakinoldguy]

It was a clusterfuck. The Government couldn't make up their mind what to do and kept the military waiting, till the Admirals sent both Fleets to sea without proper government authority.

This decision was instrumental in having some Senior Naval Personnel "retired" and other people believe it led to amalgamation in order to put the Navy in it's place.

So how did Dief do during the missle crisis?

Not well.

[commanderkai]

Freakinoldguy wrote:

So how did Dief do during the missle crisis?

Not well.

Was the military right? Like, well, did it have the justification and the legitimacy to go behind Diefenbaker's back, like that?

[Freakinoldguy]

commanderkai wrote:

Freakinoldguy wrote:

So how did Dief do during the missle crisis?

Not well.

Was the military right? Like, well, did it have the justification and the legitimacy to go behind Diefenbaker's back, like that?

Legally no, morally yes.

Considering everyone in the western world thought we were gonna see that big bright light in the sky, it's easily understandable why they did what they did.

We were closest to the brink of nuclear armageddon mankind has ever come to, including every other crisis we faced before and since. If Niki hadn't had a rush of shit to the brain and realised Kennedy wasn't playing one upmanship we likely wouldn't be here now discussing it.

So I guess being ex Navy I feel they were completely justified to go to sea and try and stop what everyone believed was invevitable.

It was a pretty scary scenario and when something like that happens you don't need cabinet meetings, a session of parliment and a parlimentary vote before you act. With the world on the brink we needed a clear cut decision immediately and we didn't get it.

We got waffling and talking and more talking and more talking. So no Dief didn't do well as a crisis leader.

[BeaverFever]

Freakinoldguy wrote:

It was a clusterfuck. The Government couldn't make up their mind what to do and kept the military waiting, till the Admirals sent both Fleets to sea without proper government authority.

This decision was instrumental in having some Senior Naval Personnel "retired" and other people believe it led to amalgamation in order to put the Navy in it's place.

So how did Dief do during the missle crisis?

Not well.

Well the conservatives have named a yet-to-be built (or designed?) Icebreaker after him so his name will be associated with our presence at sea. But I guess they don't really have too many other PMs to choose from. CCGS Mulroney, perhaps?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

BeaverFever wrote:

Freakinoldguy wrote:

It was a clusterfuck. The Government couldn't make up their mind what to do and kept the military waiting, till the Admirals sent both Fleets to sea without proper government authority.

This decision was instrumental in having some Senior Naval Personnel "retired" and other people believe it led to amalgamation in order to put the Navy in it's place.

So how did Dief do during the missle crisis?

Not well.

Well the conservatives have named a yet-to-be built (or designed?) Icebreaker after him so his name will be associated with our presence at sea. But I guess they don't really have too many other PMs to choose from. CCGS Mulroney, perhaps?

It would probably have an extra large bulbous bow

[Scape]

Perfect!

[Scape]

Having a military that can not be trusted to maintain order is worse then having no military at all. Bolting under fire is in no way justified. They could have easily tipped the precarious situation out of control by their actions. Thankfully that was not the case and they were alive to be relived of command.

We can all look in hindsight and judge with what we know now but the fact remains that the acted without orders and without a chain of command there is no order. Instead of a military we have a street gang with better equipment.

[sandorski]

Scape wrote:

Having a military that can not be trusted to maintain order is worse then having no military at all. Bolting under fire is in no way justified. They could have easily tipped the precarious situation out of control by their actions. Thankfully that was not the case and they were alive to be relived of command.

We can all look in hindsight and judge with what we know now but the fact remains that the acted without orders and without a chain of command there is no order. Instead of a military we have a street gang with better equipment.

Indeed. Heads would roll if I were PM and that happened.

[Freakinoldguy]

sandorski wrote:

Scape wrote:

Having a military that can not be trusted to maintain order is worse then having no military at all. Bolting under fire is in no way justified. They could have easily tipped the precarious situation out of control by their actions. Thankfully that was not the case and they were alive to be relived of command.

We can all look in hindsight and judge with what we know now but the fact remains that the acted without orders and without a chain of command there is no order. Instead of a military we have a street gang with better equipment.

Indeed. Heads would roll if I were PM and that happened.

They did.

[sandorski]

Freakinoldguy wrote:

sandorski wrote:

Scape wrote:

Having a military that can not be trusted to maintain order is worse then having no military at all. Bolting under fire is in no way justified. They could have easily tipped the precarious situation out of control by their actions. Thankfully that was not the case and they were alive to be relived of command.

We can all look in hindsight and judge with what we know now but the fact remains that the acted without orders and without a chain of command there is no order. Instead of a military we have a street gang with better equipment.

Indeed. Heads would roll if I were PM and that happened.

They did.

Good.

[commanderkai]

Scape wrote:

Having a military that can not be trusted to maintain order is worse then having no military at all. Bolting under fire is in no way justified. They could have easily tipped the precarious situation out of control by their actions. Thankfully that was not the case and they were alive to be relived of command.

We can all look in hindsight and judge with what we know now but the fact remains that the acted without orders and without a chain of command there is no order. Instead of a military we have a street gang with better equipment.

But they did report to the Defense Minister. They did have a chain of command, but just not to the Prime Minister. Would an irrational choice made by the Prime Minister justify the actions of the military to make sure that rational decisions were made? This is the Cuban Missile Crisis, after all, the United States/NATO and the USSR/Warsaw Pact was on the brink of war, and Diefenbaker was basically telling the United States that we could not be depended upon because of petty squabbling between Diefenbaker and Kennedy.

Something I've always wondered. Does the Canadian military have some parallel to the American military's Oath of Enlistment?

Oath of Enlistment, for reference wrote:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

[Freakinoldguy]

commanderkai wrote:

Something I've always wondered. Does the Canadian military have some parallel to the American military's Oath of Enlistment?

Oath of Enlistment, for reference wrote:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Our oath is to the Queen, so, in essence while our military is employed by the Canadian Government I suppose technically their allegience is really to the Governor General their Commander in Chief Representing the Queen.

Quote:

The Pledge of Allegiance Act reads as follows:

"2. (1) Every person who, either of his own accord or in compliance with any lawful requirement made of the person, or in obedience to the directions of any Act or law in force in Canada, except the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Citizenship Act, desires to take an oath of allegiance shall have administered and take the oath in the following form, and no other:

"I, ...................., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God.

"(2) Where there is a demise of the Crown, there shall be substituted in the oath of allegiance the name of the Sovereign for the time being.

R.S., c. O-1, s. 2; 1974-75-76, c. 108, s. 39."

So fault them if you will but at least they, thinking armageddon was imminent acted when our PM couldn't or wouldn't and his inaction likely goes alot deeper than the because he didn't like Kennedy theory.

[commanderkai]

Freakinoldguy wrote:

So fault them if you will but at least they, thinking armageddon was imminent acted when our PM couldn't or wouldn't and his inaction likely goes alot deeper than the because he didn't like Kennedy theory.

Thanks for the little military protocol lesson. I figured the military had some sort of parallel to the Oath of Enlistment, but I didn't know what it was. I wonder if the Governor General gave support behind the Defense Minister in secret? Would be quite a dark secret in Canadian history.

I do have a lot of questions about why Diefenbaker didn't take action, though, in my eyes, it comes down to either A) Diefenbaker didn't trust Kennedy or B) Diefenbaker didn't believe the evidence. I'm not sure which is correct, so that's why I wanted the discussion. I do think Diefenbaker royally fucked up though.

[saturn_656]

Scape wrote:

Having a military that can not be trusted to maintain order is worse then having no military at all. Bolting under fire is in no way justified. They could have easily tipped the precarious situation out of control by their actions. Thankfully that was not the case and they were alive to be relived of command.

We can all look in hindsight and judge with what we know now but the fact remains that the acted without orders and without a chain of command there is no order. Instead of a military we have a street gang with better equipment.

The Soviets were cruising towards North America, cocked, locked and ready to rock with nuclear weapons... and if it were up to that damned fool Dief the Canadian military would have been on the collective john with its pants around its ankles when the shooting began.

Canada needed a leader. In that dark hour we found it in the Defence Minister and the Admiralty.

The Prime Minister?

Who knows where the fuck he was. Sure as hell wasn't paying attention to the current events, that's for damned sure.