Talk:Vienna summit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Lack of context
The following would make the article easier to get into:
- What was the stated purpose of the summit? As it is, it sounds like they met for the sake of meeting and talked about random stuff (which might actually have been the case, but if so, it would be nice if it were mentioned explicitly (and more formally)).
- What was the political climate, and what was the process that led up to the summit? This would make easier to understand why it was initially considered a diplomatic triumph. It would also be nice background knowledge for putting the summit in context.
-- Saligron 00:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Misleading Information?
Taking a look at the article and then at BBC's articles about the Summit, I'm coming upon two different conclusions:
"However, it may seem, in retrospect, to have been a failure. The two leaders became increasingly frustrated at the lack of progress of the negotiations. After the summit, Khrushchev realized he had underestimated Kennedy. Kennedy, meanwhile, felt that he had to avoid giving the same impression of weakness which he had demonstrated before the summit, and felt he had demonstrated to Khrushchev during the summit. He later claimed of Khrushchev, "He beat the hell out of me." [article]
"As a result of the summit, Khrushchev thought of Kennedy as weak, and thought that he would crumble under pressure. He said that he pitied the American people because they had this leader. As a result of this, Khrushchev didn't fear US retaliation in the future Cuban Missile Crisis." [1]
Is it possible for anyone to clear up what really was the outcome of the Summit?
Felinius 04:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
