Response to Zelikow and May

Abstract

I am pleased by the generally constructive tone of Philip D. Zelikow and Ernest R. May's (2000 [this issue]) response the Presidential Studies Quarterly (September 2000) cri tiques of The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It is gratifying that they have recognized the legitimacy of our concerns and have decided reas sure . .. scholars of our dedication the perfection of this task (p. 788). However, let me clarify a few points in this ongoing and mutual effort produce the most accurate missile crisis transcripts. Zelikow and May are puzzled that given my position and access at the John F. Ken nedy Library, I did not attempt correct or improve the [original] transcripts the library had released (p. 789). The 1983 transcripts, commended at the time by McGeorge Bundy, were prepared by professional archivists and I was not involved. I urged the library pro duce complete transcripts as each tape was declassified, but I was overruled on the grounds of costs, and a policy decision was made abandon transcribing altogether. I was then assigned listen and evaluate the tapes provide guidance for scholars, since subse quent openings would no longer include transcripts. The editors have now twice claimed in print that when we appeared on a panel at the Kennedy Library in 1997, they invited me suggest corrections. In fact, no such conversa tion ever occurred. I chatted briefly with May about the fact that he had been on my doctor ate general exam some thirty years before, and I merely shook hands with Zelikow. Zelikow and May claim have made every effort include corrections, as promised in the first edition, in new printings. The fact remains that corrections made by the fourth printing barely scratched the surface. Also, changes superceding earlier printings should have been specifically identified. In fact, these corrections were never even mentioned. I share the editors' regret that Harvard University Press, likely on commercial rather than sub stantive grounds, refused to issue a more folly revised Kennedy Tapes' (p. 791). In their letter the Atlantic, on their web site, and in a national mailing, the editors claimed that none of these amendments is very important. None of it changes what a reader of the transcripts takes away concerning the essence or even the minute details of the discus sions. They now seem have softened their argument, insisting that their basic interpreta tion of the crisis has not been undermined or contradicted by these corrections. I agree. I