How to Edit



Paper Guidelines
•Have an argument articulated in a thesis statement (1-3 sentences) in the first two paragraphs of
the paper .
•
•This thesis then should be the basis for the paper’s organization.
•
•The argument need not require outside research.
•

George Orwell
•What is above all needed is to let the meaning choose the word, and not the other way about. In
prose, the worst thing one can do with words is to surrender to them.
•
•i. Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
•ii. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
•iii. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
•iv. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
•v. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday
English equivalent.
•vi. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
•

Examples
•I cannot agree with this statement. The interpretation seemed to be strongly biased in favor of
the United States and the Western ideology as is suggested by the fact it was used until the end of
the Cold War. Since then more information has become available and it has become clear that
Khrushchev got the promise of removal US nuclear weapons from Turkey and understood it was also it
Kennedy’s interest to keep that promise and not diminish US credibility in future negotiations with
the USSR.
•I would also argue that Kennedy’s position was adequate to the situation and in no way an
overreaction. The US had local superiority and overall nuclear superiority, although they could not
know it for certain at the time, and the threat of nuclear weapons so close to the US coast would
mean rewriting the whole US strategy, while also probably prolonging the tense period of the Cold
War. This was not at all compatible to the US long-term goals and also presented clear, immediate
threat as well.
•To sum up there was not a clear winner or loser, but both sides have learned from this crisis.
Unfortunately for Khrushchev it also meant the rise of strong opposition that plotted against him.
•207 words

•There is a number of problems with the view that Kennedy was the one who took a strong position
and Khrushchev the one who backed down. Instead I would say that both were not only willing to
accept a compromise solution, but also actively searching for one.
•In fact at the beginning the initiative was on the USA’s side, and they were the ones who had to
do something. Looking at it from this perspective, it doesn’t seem that Kennedy took a particularly
strong stance, rather he opted for one of the  milder options on their list. By imposing a blockade
he showed his resolve if if the Soviets push on, but he also showed that there are other paths.
Kennedy also considered many other aspects to the problem as more or equally important to whether
he is going to look weak. Most importantly, he placed the need to prevent war above all other
interests. Although most members of his advisory group argued at one point for a tougher stance, he
kept on searching for a more lenient solution.
•In regards to Khrushchev, I wouldn’t say his reaction equals to backing down. He knew there was no
way he could continue with his plan once the missiles were discovered, however he kept holding on
to hope that he could gain something out of the situation, as he in the end did. In the end
American missiles were removed from Turkey and the USA promised not to invade Cuba. Khrushchev
didn’t want to escalate the crisis, and so he opted for an agreement, but that doesn’t make his
approach significantly different from Kennedy’s.
•272 words

•It is my belief that the Cuban Missile Crisis is no exception to the historic rule: that history
is written by the ‘winners’. In retrospect, there was no winner nor loser in this situation, but
rather a heavily negotiated tie. However, in the end the USSR perished and the US remained- and
sources to cover for the US stance on the crisis are abundant and accessible. The US sphere of
influence on historical accounts surely are superior. The aforementioned interpretation does not
hold up, mainly due to the time in which it was adopted. The Cold War was centred around
manipulation of the current state of events and status, from both sides. The idea of Kennedy taking
a strong position to which Khrushchev had to bow only favours the American interest of how history
views the crisis. Any other narrative would have lowered American morale and threatened common the
belief of superiority which fostered trust in the system. Besides, there would not have been an
alternative scenario in which one or the other would not back down, nor follow through with the
threat of nuclear retaliation. The cold war indeed was a heated and intense period of geopolitical
altercation, which required measures previously uncalled for. This, however, does not imply that
either side was insane enough to sacrifice themselves (and the rest of the world) for their
ideological cause. I would argue that it is not too far off to consider this a case of two
child-like figures playing pretence with extremely dangerous toys at their disposal.
•256 words