Historian’s Blog Assignment #3: Primary Source Analysis
Analyzed by: Hayden Look 10/13/14
Throughout all forms of history, there are life-changing, world-shaping events that pave
the way for the events of the future. Within recent American history, one such event comes in the
form of the Cuban Missile Crisis. With the increasing threat of Soviet nuclear missiles being held
in Cuba, President John F. Kennedy and his administration held the fate of the world in their
hands. Kennedy could either attack Cuba and assure a Soviet retaliation on a nuclear level, which
would in turn lead to an all out nuclear war, or he could establish a blockade upon the Cuban
nation and play the first game of “nuclear war chicken”. Obviously, society still survives from
this standoff, which means both the Americans and Soviets were able to maneuver around
worldwide destruction during the tensions of 1962, but these events held implications for the
futures of both the United States and the Soviet Union. The analytics and interpretations of such
implications have been under constant debate and discussion since the events transpired almost
fifty-two years ago. One benefit in understanding all these different viewpoints is the relative
recent timeframe of the events of 1962, which lead to many historical documents, first-hand
accounts, and other forms of recollection that come from reliable sources. However, through
such a vast plethora of knowledge, sources must be analyzed for their contents validation and
confirmation of reliability, which leads to primary sources analysis.
One such primary source that will be analyzed in this particular excerpt is The Cuban
Missile Crisis, written by Abram Chayes. The first step in determining the validity of any source
material is to look at the validity of the author. Abram Chayes was born in 1922 in Chicago and
went on to attend Harvard College and graduated from Harvard Law School in 1949. Chayes
then went on to serve a major role in Kennedy’s presidential campaign and upon Kennedy’s
election, was appointed legal advisor to the State Department1. This in turn led Chayes to hold a
major role in the Cuban Missile Crisis and many related events that followed. In analyzing the
validity of Chayes’ opinion, and whether his account truly is first-hand seems to be confirmed
due to his close and trusted standing within the Kennedy administration. As a legal advisor to the
State Department during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Chayes would have consulted on many of the
actions and proceedings that the Kennedy administration utilized during the nuclear standoff
with the Soviet Union. Now that Chayes personal background and experience validates his
opinion, another question comes into play as to whom Chayes recount is intended for. Through
reading through the preface of his monograph, Chayes most likely wrote this recollection for any
individual who simply wanted to broaden their knowledge upon the subject of the Cuban Missile
Crisis, which in turn demonstrates how Chayes values the consumption of historical knowledge
and the betterment it provides within our society2.
Chayes states within his book that he was given a grant by the Carnegie Corporation to
write about his recall of the events of the Cuban Missile Crisis3. So in retrospect, although
Chayes wanted to write his account of the Cuban Missile Crisis, he did need outside funds to
supplement the expenses, which could lead to some bias due to his recount relied on a certain
opinion of his book. Although such a bias is a stretch in this case, it certainly is a possibility.
However, within his preface, Chayes states how this particular account of events his more solely
intended for academic and historical use for later generations whom want to expand and develop
their knowledge on the subject. Despite Chayes’ actual presence within the Cuban Missile Crisis,
his recounts to come in the form of a book, which can lead to unintentional biases. Although
1
“Abram Chayes”. Wikipedia.org, last modified 21 July, 2013. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abram_Chayes
Chayes, Abram. Cuban Missile Crisis. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974. Print.
3
Chayes, Abram. Cuban Missile Crisis. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974. Print.
2
Chayes utilizes many secondary sources and opinions within the book, it is still primarily his
own first-hand account of the events that transpired during 1962. This means that much of
Chayes information comes from his own point of view and his own experience. In short, much
of the information that Chayes can provide are events that he was directly involved with. Chayes
cannot provide a reader within insights on Soviet proceedings of such a case, and in many areas,
even his experiences within Kennedy’s administration are limited. Although these factors may
not in turn lead to biases, in can create them through the absence of certain knowledge,
experiences, and viewpoints that Chayes simply was not a part of. That being said, Chayes’
account is clearly a qualitative source do the fact that it offers description of the events of 1962
and not statistics on the Cuban Missile Crisis.
One final source of analysis on the validity of Chayes’ material comes in the form of its
particular relevance. In order to understand the validation behind the material, it must be
determined that the particular material relates to all aspects: the author, the audience, and event
the purpose and format. The first point is easy to confirm due to the fact that the events of the
Cuban Missile Crisis held an immediate effect on Chayes and therefore confirms his first-hand
experience and account of such an event as the legal advisor to the State Department. The
audience on the other hand is a little bit less relevant to the Cuban Missile Crisis. As stated
before, Chayes wrote this account for a scholarly and educated audience that is simply seeking
more information on the proceedings of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Although most of this
audience was not present during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the events of 1962 still hold a
significant relevance to the present. Had the Cuban Missile Crisis been handled improperly, it
would have almost undoubtedly resulted in nuclear war that would have destroyed both
countries, and therefore there would be no present United States or Russia as we know them
today. Therefore, such implications provide a particular relevance to the material for the
audience. In addition, due to Chayes’ particular experience and presence during the proceedings
of the Cuban Missile Crisis provide both relevance and reliability towards the material that he
recollects in his book. As stated previously, the form of publication as a book means that Chayes
is more or less deriving his own personal accounts and writing more of a memoir than anything
like a historical legal document, which can lead to biases, even if they are unintended.
In conclusion, Chayes’ The Cuban Missile Crisis can clearly be labeled a reliable source
material in the terms of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Due to his actual presence within the Kennedy
administration, Chayes offers insight into the proceedings that took place during such a period of
turmoil for world history. However, in complementation to Chayes’ viewpoints within the
Kennedy administration, accounts from a member of Nikita Khrushchev’s administration would
offer a similar interpretation, but from the Soviet perspective. Other forms of source material that
could provide further insight into the Cuban Missile Crisis would include legal documents,
government documents, and in turn other first-hand accounts of the events of 1962. However, in
Chayes’ particular case, he provides an accurate and scholarly, first-hand account of the Cuban
Missile Crisis on a reliable, primary account.