“…those with even the smallest speck of cynicism in their hearts will be wondering why the cruel fates lured them into this quagmire of syrup.”
Tor Thorsen, REEL.COM, review of the movie Serendipity 2001

Questions need answers. The questions that surrounded the assassination of John F. Kennedy needed, in order to calm a shocked nation, to be answered quickly by the Warren Commission. In the years following the release of the Warren Commission Report some information surrounding the accused assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, has been clarified by researchers, the House Select Committee on Assassinations, independent researchers and through information obtained from previously classified documents.

One such question dwelt with Lee Harvey Oswald’s defection to the Soviet Union in 1959 shortly after he had been released, approximately three months early, from the Marine Corp. The implications are as obvious today as they were in the hours immediately following the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Was Oswald a Soviet agent? Was Oswald and American intelligence asset?

Shortly after the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald reporters began to pry open the history of this mans short life. A stunned nation, thirsting for any information, was shocked to learn that Oswald, a former Marine, had been a defector to the Soviet Union.

With the death of President Kennedy a reality, both the United States and the Soviet Union had an inherent interest in establishing just what impact the unfolding information about Oswald’s Russian journey and life would have on the investigation that would follow. A tense international situation had been created by this horrid event.

Heightened tensions were a regular part of the brinkmanship that accompanied the cold war period of the early 1960’s. Francis Gary Powers and the U2, The Bay of Pigs, the “Cuban Missile Crisis,” Berlin and the Congo had all been recent front-page news headlines. Delicate disarmament discussions were in progress during the month of November 1963 in Geneva. The Soviets and the Americans were once again attempting to negotiate a nuclear test ban treaty and trying to prevent the unthinkable, the nuclear destruction of the world.

If it were to be proven that Lee Harvey Oswald had been an agent of the Soviet Union or the United States, a cold chill might replace the warming climate for negotiations that were currently in progress. As Lyndon Johnson would say to Chief Justice Earl Warren, there was the possibility of thirty-nine million deaths.

Both countries were quick to deny any connection to Lee Harvey Oswald. Any admission by the Soviet Union that Oswald was a spy for them could have, at that time, led to war. And how could the United States ever say, on the one hand, that Oswald was an agent of the United States but was not involved in a conspiracy to assassinate the President. How would the American public react if they were to discover that both countries had a connection to Oswald?

In later life, Major General Edwin Anderson Walker, the other man Oswald has been accused of attempting to assassinate in April of 1963, would claim that Lee Harvey Oswald had worked for both the Soviets and the Americans. (interviews) Why would he come to these conclusions?

The suspicious nature of the press and the earliest conspiracy theorist were intrigued by the travels of this young Marine who had defected to Russia. Almost immediately two questions were developed from the disclosures of the Warren Commission that provide fodder for researchers.

Centering on two bits of information researchers found numerous reasons to ascribe to the belief that Oswald must have received help traveling to the Soviet Union. These “reasons” were laid to rest in the years that followed the assassination and no longer seen to attract the attention of modern researchers.

But we might ask, “Have we been misled?” Let’s re-examine the record once again.

First: There were no direct flights from London to Helsinki, Finland that would have allowed Oswald to arrive in Helsinki, Finland in time to register at the Torni Hotel by midnight on October 10, 1959 when he did in fact register. There was speculation from Warren Commission critics that Oswald may have been transported by the military or by some means other than commercial carrier. This speculation would suggest that Oswald would have needed the support of either the CIA or some other covert agency to travel to Finland within the known time constraints.

Second: Lee Harvey Oswald received a travel visa to enter Russia through the Soviet Consulate in Helsinki, Finland in an unusually short period of time. Originally it was believed that Oswald received his visa in about 48 hours. We now know that it took only 24 hours. The CIA stated to the Warren Commissioners, as represented in their report, the normal processing time for a travel visa to be issued by Soviet authorities during this time period (1959) was usually between 5 and 7 days.

Upon investigating these questions I found that both had been answered sufficiently enough to satisfy most researchers.

In responding to the requests of the Warren Commission, the CIA stated that they could not identify any direct flight from London to Helsinki that would have allowed Oswald to arrive in Helsinki with sufficient time to check into the Torni Hotel. It took until 1994, thirty-one years after the Kennedy assassination, for researcher Chris Mills to discover that there were two airline flights that Oswald could have selected. The first, via Copenhagen, left London at 8:05 AM and arrived in Helsinki at 5:05 PM, the second left London at 8:50 AM and stopped in Stockholm before arriving in Helsinki at 5:35 PM. Either of these flights would have placed Oswald in Helsinki in time to register at the Torni Hotel.

The CIA seems to have been unable to locate this information for publication by the Warren Commission or omitted the information to perhaps protect the name of a person who would have been on one of those other flights.

Did the CIA in fact know which flight Oswald was on when he traveled to Helsinki? A close examination of the Warren Report suggests that the CIA did in fact know which flight Oswald used to travel to Finland.

Is this odd? Page 257 of the Warren Commission report states: “…his (Oswald) plane fare from London to Helsinki, where he received his visa, cost him $111.90”. There is no footnote for this item given in the Warren Report. If the CIA could not or would not identify the flight, how did they know the exact price of the ticket? If they did know which flight, and the cost, why did the CIA only say, they could not identify any direct flight from London to Helsinki that would allow Oswald to check into his Hotel at the time we know that he in fact did check in?

Other expenditures in the same section have commission exhibits as backup documentation or are accompanied by comments such as, “…cost him about…” or “…probably purchased…” and “…was about…” when dealing with his travel costs. Once again, if the CIA and the Commission would not say which flight Lee Harvey Oswald took to Helsinki, how were they so exact about the price of the flight?

A new, even greater question has been created by the lack of candor on the part of the intelligence community because they failed to be more precise in their investigation. The new question is: “Why did the CIA neglect to identify these possible flights?” Once again I am mystified by the omission of these details by the CIA and the potential cover up of a sensitive name that may have been on a passenger lists for either of these flights. Is it possible that Oswald meet someone along the way to Helsinki on one of these flights? Is it possible that the person he met would have been Major General Edwin Walker? In early October, 1959 Walker was traveling from Little Rock, Arkansas to Augsburg, Germany.

The answer to the second question is even more surprising, when compared to the original information provided by the Warren Commission. The following is taken directly from the Warren Report and should be reviewed before we examine the “new” evidence that deals with Oswald’s ability to receive a visa to enter Russia in less than 48 hours.

“On September 4, (1959) the day on which he was transferred out of MACS-9 in preparation for his discharge, Oswald had applied for a passport at the Superior Court of Santa Ana, Calif. His application stated that he planned to leave the United States on September 21 to attend the Albert Schweitzer College and the University of Turku in Finland, and to travel in Cuba, the Dominican Republic, England, France, Germany, and Russia. The passport was routinely issued 6 days later. (Appendix XIII of the Warren Report: Biography of Lee Harvey Oswald, Soviet Union).


“Oswald went directly home after his discharge, and arrived in Fort Worth by September 14…(Appendix XIII of the Warren Report: Biography of Lee Harvey Oswald, Soviet Union).


“On September 17, Oswald spoke with a representative of Travel Consultants, Inc., a New Orleans travel bureau; he filled out a “Passenger Immigration Questionnaire,” on which he gave his occupation as “shipping export agent” and said that he would be abroad for 2 months on a pleasure trip. He booked passage from New Orleans to Le Harve, France, on a freighter, the SS Marion Lykes, scheduled to sail on September 18, for which he paid $220.75. On the evening of September 17, he registered at the Liberty Hotel. The Marion Lykes did not sail until the early morning of September 20…(Appendix XIII of the Warren Report: Biography of Lee Harvey Oswald, Soviet Union).


“The Marion Lykes carried only four passengers. Oswald shared his cabin with Billy Joe Lord, a young man who had just graduated from high school and was going to France to continue his education. Lord testified that he and Oswald did not discuss politics but did have a few amicable religious arguments, in which Oswald defended atheism… No one on board suspected that he intended to defect to Russia. (Appendix XIII of the Warren Report: Biography of Lee Harvey Oswald, Soviet Union).


“Oswald disembarked at Le Havre on October 8. He left for England that same day, and arrived on October 9. He told English customs officials in Southampton that he had $700 and planned to remain in the United Kingdom for 1 week before proceeding to a school in Switzerland. But on the same day, he flew to Helsinki, Finland, where he registered at the Torni Hotel; the following day, he moved to the Klaus Kurki Hotel. (Appendix XIII of the Warren Report: Biography of Lee Harvey Oswald, Soviet Union).

“Oswald probably applied for a visa at the Russian consulate on October 12, his first business day in Helsinki. The visa was issued on October 14. It was valid until October 20 and permitted him to take one trip of not more than 6 days to the Soviet Union. He also purchased 10 Soviet “intourist vouchers” which cost $30 a piece. He left Helsinki by train on the following day, crossed the Finnish-Russian border at Vainikkala, and arrived in Moscow on October 16.” (Appendix XIII of the Warren Report: Biography of Lee Harvey Oswald, Soviet Union).

Oswald needed to be a “frugal” man to have saved enough money to travel to the
Soviet Union immediately upon being discharged from the Marines. Are the actual travel arrangements reported in the Warren Commission consistent with the character of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Appendix XIV of the Warren Commission Report contains an, “Analysis of Lee Harvey Oswald’s Finances From June 13, 1962, Through November 22, 1963.” Within this analysis we find this quote: “The estimate reflects Oswald’s FRUGAL living habits during this period, as described in chapter VI of this report.” (Emphasis on the word frugal is my own)

“In November 1959, Oswald told an American reporter in Moscow, Aline Mosby, he had saved $1,500 (not $1,600) while in the Marines. It is entirely consistent with Oswald’s known FRUGALITY that he could have saved the money from the $3,452.20 in pay he received while he was in the Marines. Moreover, despite his statement to Aline Mosby, he may not actually have saved $1500, for it was possible for him to have made the trip to Russia in 1959 for considerably less than that amount.’ (Warren Report Appendix XII, Oswald In The Soviet Union, emphasis mine)

This question has surfaced in my mind:

“Why didn’t Lee Harvey Oswald travel from La Harve, France to Paris and then take a plane to Helsinki?”

Oswald would have arrived in Helsinki one day earlier by following this route and he would have accomplished his mission of arriving in Helsinki while spending a lesser amount of money.
The question of, “How did Oswald receive his visa to travel in the Soviet Union so easily?” also quickly surfaced. The Warren Report answered these queries in this manner:
“Rumors and speculations that Oswald was in some way associated with or used by agencies of the U.S. Government grew out of his Russian period… Insinuations were made that Oswald had been a CIA agent or had some relationship with the CIA and that this explained the supposed ease with which he received passports and visas… The Commission has concluded on the basis of its own investigations of the files of Federal agencies that Oswald was not and had never been an agent of any agency of the U.S. Government (aside from his service in the Marines) and was not and had never been used by any U.S. Government agency for any purpose.” (Warren Report, Oswald And U.S. Government Agencies Pg. 659, emphasis mine)
It should be noted that after being discharged from the Marines in September of 1959, Lee Harvey Oswald still had an obligation to the Marine Reserve. On September 13, 1960 Lee Harvey Oswald actually received his “undesirable discharge” from the Marine Corps because of his failure to report for his reserve obligation.
Technically speaking, until September 13, 1960 Oswald’s actions are exempted from the statement above.
Upon closer scrutiny of the words used in the Warren Commission Report Oswald’s duty in the Marines was exempted. “…was not and had never been an agent of any agency of the U.S. Government (aside form his service in the Marines) and was not and had never been used by any U.S. Government agency for any purpose.” I question here the phrase as written. Does this statement allow for the possibility that Oswald was used by an agency of the U.S. Government while he was in the Marines? He was a radar operator in Astugi, Japan (where the U-2 spy plane was operating from) when he first started talking of going to Russia. And he was also considered to be in the Marine reserve until September of 1960 when he received his dishonorable discharge while in the Soviet Union.
On August 17, 1963 Mr. William Stuckey hosted a radio debate on Oswald’s activities on behalf of the Fair Play for Cub Committee. Mr. Stuckey recalled that Lee Harvey Oswald said, “…it was in Japan that he made up his mind to go to Russia and see for himself how a revolutionary society operates…” (Warren Report Chapter VII, Lee Harvey Oswald: Backround and Possible Motives, pg. 390)
While in Japan, Daniel Powers observed that:
“…when Oswald arrived in Japan he acquired a girlfriend, ‘finally attaining a male status or image in his own eyes.’ That apparently caused Oswald to become more self-confident, aggressive and even somewhat pugnacious, although, Powers ‘wouldn’t say that this guy is a troublemaker.’ Powers said ‘now he was Oswald the man rather than Oswald the rabbit.’ Oswald once told Powers that he didn’t care if he returned to the United States at all.” (Warren Report Chapter VII pg. 386)
Gerald Posner writes in his book, Case Closed:
“His contact with Japanese Communists may have come through a hostess at Tokyo’s Queen Bee, one of the three most expensive nightclubs in the capital. The club was frequented by officers and foreign businessmen who ogled the one hundred beautiful hostesses, some of whom were informants for Japanese and foreign intelligence agencies.” Posner based this information on what he referred to as an “interview with confidential intelligence source.” Posner went on to point out that, “An evening at the Queen Bee cost anywhere form $60 to $100. Oswald made $85 a month and he was extremely tightfisted…That makes it unlikely Oswald bought any dates at the Queen Bee. But some of his fellow Marines saw him with a striking and well-dressed Japanese woman on several occasions, and later during his stay in Japan, he was seen with a Eurasian woman who reportedly spoke Russian.” (Case Closed, pg. 25)
Was Oswald “used” by an agency of the U.S. Government while he was in Japan? Did he decide to travel to Russia at this time? Was he helped along the way to Russia?
Let’s examine the known facts more closely.

If we were to take out a map or by just using a sheet of paper we can chart the course Oswald followed on his trip to Russia. Oswald began his journey by being processed out of the Marines on September 4, 1959. On the same day he applies for his Passport in Santa Ana, California. By September 14 Oswald has arrived in Fort Worth, Texas where his mother lives. Connect the dots and note the dates.

Lee Harvey Oswald is known to have been in New Orleans, Louisiana on September 17. He booked passage on the SS Marion Lykes to Le Harve, France on that date. The ship sailed on September 20, 1959 and arrives in La Harve on October 8. Connect the dots and note the dates.

Oswald then takes an overnight ferry to Southhampton, England and disembarks on the morning of October 9. He meets with custom officials and declares that he has $700 and will be staying one week and then will continue his travels to school in Switzerland. Oswald then, apparently, travels to London and departs on the same day for Helsinki, Finland. He arrives in Helsinki and the Warren Commission believed he applied for his Russian visa on October 12, 1959, the first business day of the week. The visa was issued on October 14. Connect the dots and then imagine the travel time he would have saved if he would have gone to Paris and then Helsinki instead of the route he followed.

We can only speculate on his motivation for taking the circuitous route he did.

In 1993 former KGB Colonel Oleg Nechiporenko published his book, Passport to Assassination. Within this publication, Nechiporenko has reproduced a photocopy of Oswald’s 1959 visa application form. To the surprise of most assassination researchers the application was signed and dated by Oswald on October 13, 1959, one day later than had been assumed by the Warren Commission. Lee Harvey Oswald received an entry visa from the Soviet consulate within twenty-four hours. Was he just a lucky fellow that happened to stumble into the one Soviet Embassy in the world were he would receive and immediate visa or was there a “guiding hand” that played into these events?

In 1978 the House Select Committee on Assassinations spent time dealing with the issue of Oswald’s Soviet entry visa. They were able to review the information available to the Warren Commission in 1964 and to supplement it with information that had since been made available. The comments of the Select Committee deserve review:

“The relative ease with which Oswald obtained his Soviet Union entry visa was more readily amenable to investigation. This issue is one that also had been of concern to the Warren Commission. In a letter to the CIA dated May 25, 1964, J. Lee Rankin inquired about the apparent speed with which Oswald’s Soviet visa had been issued. Rankin noted that he had recently spoken with Abraham Chayes, legal adviser to the State Department, who maintained that at the time Oswald received his visa to enter Russia from the Soviet Embassy in Helsinki, normally at least 1 week would elapse between the time of a tourist’s application and the issuance of a visa. Rankin contended that if Chayes’ assessment was accurate, then Oswald’s ability to obtain his tourist visa in 2 days might have been significant.

“The CIA responded to Rankin’s request for information on July 31, 1964 (more that two months later, my note). Helms wrote to Rankin that the Soviet Consulate in Helsinki was able to issue a transit visa (valid for 24 hours) to U.S. businessmen within 5 minutes, but if a longer stay were intended, at least 1 week was needed to process a visa application and arrange lodging through Soviet Intourist. A second communication from Helms to Rankin, dated September 14, 1964, added that during the 1964 tourist season, Soviet consulates in at least some Western European cities issued Soviet tourist visas in from 5 to 7 days.

“In an effort to resolve this issue, the committee reviewed classified information (note that this says classified information) pertaining to Gregory Golub, who was the Soviet Consul in Helsinki when Oswald was issued his tourist visa. This review revealed that, in addition to his consular activities, Golub was suspected of having been an officer of the Soviet KGB. (my note here again) Two American Embassy dispatches concerning Golub were of particular significance with regard to the time necessary for issuance of visas to Americans for travel into the Soviet Union. The first dispatch recorded that Golub disclosed during a luncheon conversation that:

Moscow had given him the authority to give Americans visas without prior approval from Moscow. He (Golub) stated that this would make his job much easier, and as long as he was convinced the American was “all right” he could give him a visa in a matter of minutes…

“The second dispatch, dated October 9, 1959, 1 day prior to Oswald’s arrival in Helsinki, illustrated that Golub did have the authority to issue visas without delay. The dispatch discussed a telephone contact between Golub and his consular counterpart at the American Embassy in Helsinki, it is reproduced here as recorded in the HSCA record:

…Since that evening (September 4, 1959) Golub has only phoned (the U.S. consul) once and this was on a business matter. Two Americans were in the Soviet Consulate at the time and were applying for Soviet visas through Golub. They had previously been in the American consulate inquiring about the possibility of obtaining a Soviet visa in 1 or 2 days. (The U.S. Consul) advised them to go directly to Golub and make their request, which they did. Golub phoned (the U.S. Consul) to state that he would give them their visas as soon as they made advance intourist reservations. When they did this, Golub immediately gave them their visas…

“Thus, based upon these two factors, (1) Golub’s authority to issue visas to Americans without prior approval from Moscow, and (2) a demonstration of this authority, as reported in an embassy dispatch approximately 1 month prior to Oswald'’s appearance at the Soviet Embassy, the committee found that the available evidence tends to support the conclusion that the issuance of Oswald’s tourist visa within 2 days after his appearance at the Soviet Consulate was not idicative of an American intelligence agency connection. Note: if anything, Oswald’s ability to receive a Soviet entry visa so quickly was more indicative of a Soviet interest in him.”

J. Lee Rankin made an inquiry about Oswald’s travel visa, to Richard Helms, head of the CIA, on May 25, 1964. Helms did not respond until July 31, sixty-seven days later. Helms would not or could not supply the information that was later made available to the Select Committee on Assassination. Abraham Chayes, State Department Attorney, felt that, “Oswald’s ability to obtain his tourist visa in 2 days might have been significant.”

The information about Golub and his ability to provide a visa through the Soviet Embassy in Helsinki in fewer than 48 hours was either two highly classified or unavailable to the head of the CIA in 1964.

A magician will use slight of hand to deceive audiences into believing what they see is reality. In most cases the appearance of what is called “magic” is, in reality, the mechanics of illusion. Lee Harvey Oswald somehow managed to enter Russia through the one embassy in Europe where an American could receive a visa within 24 hours. This is a reality not an illusion. The information about how this was accomplished easily reappeared in 1978 but had apparently vanished in 1964. In the case of Oswald’s air transportation from London to Helsinki, the information did not appear until 1994.

Examined more closely these “new” revelations become even more interesting.

First: Lee Harvey Oswald traveled to La Harve, France then, for some reason, traveled West back to Southampton, England rather than directly North and East to Helsinki. The reportedly frugal Oswald then went directly to London and caught a plane, with one stop along the way, to Helsinki, Finland. If Oswald had gone to Paris, instead of taking an overnight ferry ride to England, then traveled from Paris to Helsinki, he would have arrived in Helsinki one day earlier and perhaps more significantly, he would have spent less money getting to Helsinki.

Did the frugal Oswald know he was going to Helsinki before he went to England? One could speculate that he, at least at that time, October 8th, was not yet sure how he was going to get to exactly where he was going. The State Department would not have the information needed for entry into the Soviet Union until September 9th. Information which, according to the House Select Committee on Assassinations was classified until 1978.

Second: The American Ambassador to Finland sent information to the State Department that outlined the ease with which a visitor could get a visa through the Soviet Consulate in Helsinki. Obviously this information was not common. The information, in fact, remained classified until 1978. Could Oswald have discovered this information on his own? Only the State Department was aware of Mr. Golub’s ability to issue a travel visa immediately from Helsinki. And this information, as we have seen, was classified. Remember that the State Department only became aware of the information on the very same day that Oswald purchased a ticket for a $111.90 that would put him at the only location where he could immediately receive a visa. And it was a ticket that paid for transportation to Helsinki on a plane that the CIA, for some reason, did not identify for the Warren Commission.

Third: The two messages sent by the American Embassy in Helsinki were sent on September 4th, 1959 and October 9th, 1959. Both days are significant days in Oswald’s travel from the United States to Finland.

September 4th, 1959 was the day that Oswald “was transferred out of MACS-9 in preparation for his discharge.” It was also the day that “Oswald applied for his passport at the Superior Court of Santa Ana, Calif.” The time difference between Helsinki, Finland and Santa Ana, California is 10 hours. If some sort of covert operation was in play that required Lee Harvey Oswald would gain easy entry into the Soviet Union was planned, the information contained in the U.S. State Department message of September 4 could have been forwarded to
Santa Ana, California and could have arrived that same day. Was that information actually the guiding hand that began his journey?

October 9th, 1959 was the day that Lee Harvey Oswald arrived in England, having diverted from a direct route to Helsinki. London is two time zones from Helsinki. The second message from the American Ambassador to Helsinki not only confirmed the information contained in the September 4th message but added the necessary detail of the need for “advanced intourist reservations” before applying for a visa.

Oswald followed these instructions to the letter and received his visa from the Soviet Embassy in Helsinki in less than 24 hours after he applied.

Coincidence?

Not only did Oswald travel too the Soviet Union, he also returned. Coincidences surrounding the filing of his application and his ultimate departure from Russia may also be significant when we compare his life to the lives of two other players in the Kennedy assassination mystery.

Jim,

You mention that Walker claimed in interviews that Oswald worked for both the USSR and the US? I hadn't heard of Walker making such comments before. Can you expand on this?

Greg

Hope this helps (quoted in part):

The Man Oswald Missed - In his last interview, Gen. Edwin Walker defended his place in history by Robert Wilonsky

"......It was on April 10, 1963 that Lee Harvey Oswald narrowly missed putting a bullet through Walker's head. Had it not been for a window frame that deflected the 6.5 mm bullet harmlessly onto a stack of papers, the general would have died three decades ago, a martyr for his right-wing cause. As it is, his history is forever intertwined with that of the president he despised.

Walker, in his own mind miraculously spared JFK's fate, was left with an obsession with the assassination, convinced that Oswald was part of a communist plot to kill both himself and the president.

Walker believed the Warren Commission Report was "85 percent right" and that Oswald alone killed JFK. But he also maintained that not only did the Kennedys know that Oswald shot at him, but that the Dallas Police Department had arrested Oswald the night of the shooting and that Attorney General Bobby Kennedy had ordered Oswald's release from custody. How Oswald could be part of a communist plot to kill a right-wing radical and JFK - and be protected by the president's brother - Walker couldn't quite explain.

The FBI claimed it didn't learn of Walker's attempted murder until December 3, 1963, when Marina Oswald, Oswald's widow, told the feds that Oswald had plotted to kill the general. She not only turned over a note from Oswald that instructed her on what to do in case he was captured, but also revealed that when Lee returned home that night, he was "nervous," saying he had just tried to kill Edwin Walker. She also gave the agents copies of surveillance photos Lee had taken of the general's old Turtle Creek mansion.

According to a December 26, 1963, letter sent from the Secret Service to Jesse Curry, then the Dallas police chief, Oswald told his wife, "It was best for everybody that I got rid of Walker."

The general has spent three decades turning over in his mind why Oswald would have targeted him and Kennedy, two men who, to most people, appeared at odds with each other and at political poles. But Walker figured it differently: he and JFK weren't so different. Both were fairly conservative when it came to matters of foreign policy, Walker said, and he never really saw himself as the right-wing extremist portrayed in the media.

"There are similarities in everything," Walker said, laughing. "But I wouldn't make a newspaper article out of it."

And, of course, it could have been that Oswald, obsessed in his own way, thought Gen. Edwin Walker was a more powerful, influential figure than he really was. One of the hundreds of theories swirling around the assassination holds that Oswald believed that by killing Walker, whom he considered to be racist and anti-Semitic, he would wreak havoc on the Dallas political scene - the hoped-for effect of the Kennedy assassination on a smaller scale.

But for Walker it was simple: The Commies wanted him dead, and the Kennedys didn't much like the general either, so they sent their boy Lee to kill him. History would tell us Oswald's act that April night (and November afternoon) was out of calculated, illogical violence, but Walker would tell you it was part of some grand international scheme to bury the right, to bury God.

"I completed 30 years of military service and made my home in Dallas when the president gets shot by a Communist," Walker said. "How do you younger people explain it? The policy was wrong. I couldn't prosecute a communist because he knew Khrushchev and because he knew Kennedy, and in my opinion Oswald was a ward of both states. You know bloomin' well he was a ward of the Kennedy state and a ward of the Khrushchev state."
Then, and to his dying day, Walker was convinced communism, whether it finally had been beaten by Jesus or the cash register, had left scars that affect us every day. "Everything's a little off-keel," he said. "A little abnormal.

"You know, I can't systematize the whole world, but you can do it one person at a time," he said, perhaps the only time in the conversation when he really reflected on his life's work. "But back then, I had a bit more influence than that. 'Course, you young people don't remember that."

Jim Root

Thanks Jim, appreciate you posting that.

I believe Oswald did go to Russia on behalf of his government, ostensibly as some sort of back channel to mutual cooperation.

Of course... Ike was prez at the time, not Kennedy.

Jim,

Good seminar. I will try to reply at greater length and with more thought, but for now I'm struck by the quote you have from Walker:
Oswald was a ward of both states. You know bloomin' well he was a ward of the Kennedy state and a ward of the Khrushchev state."
In a sense, I believe he was correct; both Kennedy and Khrushchev were secretly working together through still highly classified correspondence to escape their respective positions as hostages to both nations' hard-liners and nationalistic dogma.

Tim

Good Paper
Ties in with LEGEND, the book that shows the intricacy of DeMorenschildts' relationship with the Oswalds. A reasonable conclusion is that DeMorenschildt was the CIA handler appointed to watch Marina Oswald, who was in the family of a colonel in the GRU (KGB?)... then DeMorenschildt damn near adopted Oswald.

The basic point is so clear....ANYONE who could leave the Marines and defect into Russia only to counter-defect back to the States was obviously either an intelligence asset for the USA, an intelligence asset for the USSR, or both.
The fact that Oswald did classified U-2 related radio/radar work at Atsugi shows that he was a Naval Intelligence asset. The fact that over 100,000 doses of MK/ULTRA CIA LSD was in the safe at Atsugi shows that he was in immediate contact with MK/ULTRA Manchurian Candidate programmers while still in the Marines. (Colby documents @ frankolsonproject.com)
He was interrogated in Dallas, no report was released.
He was murdered before trial, therefore becoming a "lost" alleged assassin.
His own papers were filled with ridiculously self incriminating photos and documents, and he was in contact with FBI agent Hosty and CIA domestic WH agent Howard Hunt.
His palm print was found on the Mannlicher Carcanno after it was known not to be there.
Is this suspicious? Evidence of a conspiracy?
Of course it is.........
Shanet

Interesting thought. Do you know that in his book The Secret Wars of the CIA, journalist Joseph Trento claims that it was a faction of the KGB that orchestrated the JFK assassination, and that the same faction, within a year, organized the bloodless coup that removed Khruschev from power in the Soviet Union? Kind of a KGB "rogue elephant" theory, I guess.

More like a kind of hardliner, mutuality of interests theory, with U.S. and Soviet rogue militarists cooperating in the interests of their common ideology: perpetual war.

Tim

I have a few differing opinons on why Oswald was helped into the Soviet Union that may all tie together (just because we may have wanted to kill several birds with one stone).

1) The downing of the U-2 in many ways weakend Khrushchev position in Moscow. While a triumph could be claimed in bringing the U-2 down the Soviets were at the same time admitting that they had been unable to do this for years.....the US was ahead of them in technology. (Challenging the stability of the Khrushchev regime, a stated US policy goal)

2) If Oswald had contact with a Soviet Intelligence cell in Japan that had been infiltrated by the US the credibility of that organization (ie our agent in place) would be enhanced by providing information that led to the successful distruction of a U-2. (Oswald going to Russia and being questioned by KGB who would come to the coclusion that he could not be an agent would make information that he had provided to agents in Japan easier to believe)

3) The WS117L program was in full swing and the technology of the U-2 was outdated anyway. I find the launch of TIROS I on April 1, 1960 the most intriguing piece of my thread.

4) The cancellation of the Paris Summit (would the Soviets sign anything anyway without an agreement on Berlin)

5) Support in electing John F. Kennedy to the Prescidency or reversing the policies of Eisenhower and MAD, however you may want to look at that.

Oswald was so important or so well watched by both countries that when he bagan his departure from Russia the careers of two men were sacrificed by, I believe, their govenments.

When the State Department alerted the US embassy in Moscow that Oswald had maintained his citizenship and would be allowed back into the US, General Edwin Walker's Pro Blue Program became a newsworthy subject that led to his resignation from the Army (distancing him from the Kennedy Administration, read plausible deniability) If Walker had met Oswald on Oswald's way into Russia he could be being returned to the US to embarras the US Government.

When the Soviet Union informed Oswald that he would be allowed to leave Russia, Norsenko (sp) makes his first contact with the CIA. It just so happens that he is the man that has infromation on Oswald and can show that he has never been an agent of the Soviet Union thus, I believe, protecting what is thought to be a very effective intelligence cell in Japan.

I find it most distressing to find that two men, one Russian and one American, who have strong intelligence links within their oun countries would play such an important role in distancing Oswald from the administrations of both.

Was Oswald that important? As it turns out, in history, yes!

Jim Root

The LBJ telephone tapes show that despite the evidence that Hoover has provided linking Oswald with left-wing groups, the KGB, the Soviets, Castro’s Cuban government, etc., Johnson was determined to believe that Oswald was the lone gunman.

Johnson wants people to believe the reason for this is his fear of a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. Russell and Halleck do not question the logic of this argument. What Johnson appears to be saying is that if the public becomes convinced that Oswald was part of a conspiracy that involved Fidel Castro, he would come under such political pressure he will be forced to order an invasion of Cuba. If he does this, the Soviet Union will order a nuclear attack on the United States. As this will result in the deaths of 40 million Americans in the first hour, he therefore has to cover this conspiracy up and instead convince the world that Oswald was a lone assassin.

Yet the historical evidence suggests that this would never have happened if the United States invaded Cuba. The Soviets would have reacted in the same way as the American did when they invaded Hungary in 1956? The whole of the Cold War shows that both sides were given freedom to control their own geographical area. The argument that unless Oswald is found guilty of being the lone assassin, there will be a nuclear war is ridiculous. Yet, Johnson uses it over and over again.

Why then was Johnson so keen to believe that Oswald was a lone assassin? Why did he not take the opportunity to invade Cuba?

Too complicated.
Johnson was apprached by CIA/MI with the "facts" about Kennedy's incapacity, and with Douglass Dillon on board, went along with the sanction.
He benefitted but did not initiate.

John

Let me try a different angle using the same information (just brainstorming of course).

Oswald had been used by the Soviets, while in Japan, as an agent. The Soviets were obviously aware of this as was the US (Angleton CIA counter intelligence connection/operation). If that information were to come out (ie Soviet agent murders the President of the US) forget CUBA or anything else. This would be considered an act of war in and of itself! Problem is, Oswald was also an agent of the US and to top it off Kennedy is killed in Dallas, Texas......Johnson is in deep trouble if he does not go along with the official line his whole world could fall apart. Soviets (unofficially and in their own self interest) cooperate by sending Nosenko to cover their tracks even if it costs them some assets. And everyone is looking over their shoulders wondering who set up who from 1963 till tomorrow.

Jim Root

Shanet

Perhaps I am too simplistic because I always believe that there is only one person who makes the final decision. One person at the top. One person who TAKES the authority. One person who can run the operation with military percision. One person that can provide enough distractions and create enough fear that the operation will be a success.......Maxwell Taylor is my guess.

Jim Root

According to Robert Kennedy, John Kennedy was very impressed with Maxwell Taylor. Do you have any theories on this? Why were the Kennedy's so easily fooled?

I once read on the internet that Gary Francis Powers had stated after the incident that the U2 shootdown was the "fault of Lee Harvey Oswald" - a combo of his Atsugi work and supposed temporary "defection". I forgot to bookmark and could never locate it again. Has anyone ever heard this or possibly cite a document to verify that this might have actually occurred? It seems that it could provide some insight into why Oswald may have been set-up in such an apparently cold and ruthless manner to be the "patsy" - if that was the accepted belief of some. Thanx.

Nevermind. I still can't find the actual quote - but there are plenty of references to it. Here is one from Mae Brussell's "Nazi Connections to JFK Assassination" from 1983.

Atsugi was only one station on Oswald's Far East intelligence route; he was also at the U-2 base at Subic Bay in the Philippines and, for a short while, at Ping-Tung. Taiwan In 1959 he was transferred to a Marine base at Santa Ana, California for instructions in radar surveillance. His training officer had graduated from the Georgetown School of Foreign Service, which had close Agency ties. In May, 1960, when President Eisenhower was planning a summit meeting with Soviet Premier Khrushchev, a U-2 was shot down over Russia and its pilot captured. The pilot, Francis Gary Powers, later blamed his demise on Lee Harvey Oswald. The U-2 affair effectively sabotaged Ike's summit meeting.

Powers "later blamed"... this was still prior to the assassination - or, not?

JL Allen

It was not until after the assassination of Kennedy that Powers believed Oswald had anything to do with his exploits. He may have had suspicions of sabatage and Oswald does, of course, fit right into any sort contrived plot to take the U-2 down. So does the lack of sophistacation of the camera used, etc.

A little over a year ago a friend of mine had arranged for Powers son and I to chat. Unfortunatly my daughter broke her back on the afternoon that I was to have had this opportunity to meet with him. I have tried to e-mail Francis Gary Powers Jr. on this exact subject (his suspicions about Oswald) in attempt to tie down a primary source to no avail.

There is alot of info on Powers and the U-2 incident. Here is one:

Francis Gary Powers --the spy who fell from the skies


American U2 Spy plane

In 1962 espionage became big news as the 'U2 Incident' grabbed world headlines. Pilot Gary Powers was shot down as he flew the sinister U2, designed for covert surveillance, over Soviet territory, sparking one of the biggest international crises of the Cold War. The US demanded his safe return. The USSR wanted to know what he was doing up there in the first place.

Shot down on 01 May 1960, Powers was held in prison for two years until 1962, when he was exchanged for Soviet Col. Rudolf Abel in the most dramatic East-West spy swap ever to occur in Cold War Berlin. Powers stepped on to the eastern end of the Berlin's Glienicke Bridge spanning the River Havel on February 10 in 1962. At the other end of the bridge, stood Colonel Rudolf Abel, a heavily muffled Soviet master-spy, seized earlier by US security agents after setting up a red spy network in New York in the late 1950s.

At a precisely arranged signal, the two men strode on to the bridge, marching purposefully towards one another, Powers heading westward, Abel eastwards. In the middle of the bridge they passed each other silently, with barely a nod of their heads. That spy-swap operation was to be the forerunner of many such East-West prisoner exchanges to take place on the Glienicke Bridge over the next 27 years in Berlin

Criticized when he returned to the United States for not ensuring the revolutionary plane was destroyed or killing himself with poison, Powers was cold-shouldered by his former employers at the Central Intelligence Agency and eventually died in 1977 at the age of 47 when a television news helicopter he was piloting crashed in Los Angeles.



Francis Gary Powers, seated at the witness stand, holds a model of a U-2 spy-plane as he begins his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in 1962.
On 01 May 2000, U.S. Officials presented Powers' family with the Prisoner-of-War Medal, the Distinguished Flying Cross and the National Defense service medal during a 30-minute ceremony held at the Beale Air Force Base, north of Sacramento and home to the modern US U2 force. It marked the 40th anniversary of the incident.

"The mind still boggles at what we asked this gentleman and his teammates to do back in the late 1950s -- to literally fly over downtown Moscow... -- alone, unarmed and unafraid," Brig. Gen. Kevin Chilton, the 9th Reconnaissance Wing Commander told the some 350 people gathered at Beale Air Force Base.

CIA and Air Force officials presented the awards, something the pilot's son Francis Gary Powers, Jr., saw as an important step in recognizing those who served their country during the Cold War. "We wanted to make sure that my father was honored with the medals he deserved for being a prisoner of war," said Powers, who arrived at the ceremony straight from a three-hour flight in a U2 plane. "It took a little bit of letter writing and a couple of people to help us, but today that's been done."

Powers, Jr., 34, has devoted much of his time to seeing his father's memory honored, and is working to establish a permanent Cold War Museum in Washington, D.C. to educate the public about the period of US-Soviet rivalry.

The ceremony ended with a fly-by of a lone U2 plane.

The Kennedys were so impressed with Max Taylor, especially Bobby, that he named a son after him. My candidate for top militarist operative is Lansdale, heading up Mongoose (with its private army) and remaining loyal to the Dulles/Angleton wing of the agency. He was particularly incenced about the overthrow of Diem, and angered by the waivering support for aggressive Cuba and Vietnam policies by the administration.

Lansdale, Diem & Nhu:

Click to view attachment

Tim

Tim

I may be wrong but I believe Lansdale and Taylor were at odds with each other over Vietnam, especially the Diem episode. Taylor went to great lengths to distance himself from direct confrontation with others.

Jim Root

I don't understand the point of that. I would note that one was an overt militarist while one was the counterinsurgency type, the difference between the two being about methodology, not ideology.

Tim

John

In a 1961 issue of Time Magazine, Kenneth B Newton worte:

"I recall the General (Maxwell Taylor) spoke at a Veterans of Foreign Wars banquet in Boston at the Sheraton Plaza in 1946, which Mr. Kennedy attended. They were well acquainted at that time." (Picture was attached of the two sitting with each other)

Taylor was an out spoken critic of the Eisenhower administration and a proven war hero, both attracted Kennedy.

July 28, 1961 Time:

"Taylor left himself few allies in the Pentagon when he shucked his uniform and stormed back into civilian life in 1959. the Air Force is still enraged at his criticism of massive retaliation, calls his book "The Unclean Strumpet." "Says one former member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: 'Taylor was consistent I'll say that for him. He never stoppped pressing the case for limited war, and he never demonstrated much understanding of the other side of the picture. Well, he was wrong all the way, and he was consistent in that, too."

"...S.L.A. Marshal (Detroit News, a retired brigadier general and one of the nation's leading military historians...., has serious reservations about the man he followed through Normandy, Holland, Belgium and Korea. 'I think I know Max Tayor as well as any man in America. He was an extraordinary battle commander - the most tightly self disciplined officer I ever knew. But Taylor is the wrong man for this job. Taylor is not a conciliator. He's actively interested in the exercise of power for his own sake."

Kennedy may have bet his life on the abilities of Maxwell Taylor.

Jim Root

Tim

Both wanted to exercise control over events in Vietnam. One had the power to do so, the other did not. (Diem)

Jim Root

Jim
Great posts.
Maxwell Taylor was the initiator of a great deal of interagency military cooperation after Kennedy was gone. Guenther Lewy points out a growing interdependency of the armed forces paramilitary and the civilian CIA paramilitary during the mid 1960s. Taylor pushed the revolutionary counter-insurgency vietnamese program known as OPERATION PHOENIX onto a young officer name William Colby. He was a very high ranking officer, somewhere in the stratosphere of MacArthur, really. Because of the JCS. In the Cold War strategy was set by the civilian executive in concert with the Air, Naval, Armed and Marines top planning, research and intelligence group, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and one Admiral or General was the Chair. Not quite a Cabinet post, but a power node of first magnitude. In compromising relationship with Edwin Walker, a very dark scenario.
Seven Days in May or Seventeen Seconds in November.
It is where the evidence is going Jim, I agree
The Warren Commission and the 25th Amendment washed out the history......officially. And gave legal cover and legitimacy to the new incumbents. Possibly, from a new theoretical approach. I don't like it one bit.
Shanet

What is the alternative to "limited war?" All or nothing nuclearism. Such a M.A.D. standoff could last for awhile, but one mistake within that framework spelled Armageddon. So, for example, if the Russians had rolled into Berlin, since there was no incremental response available, the answer was to launch all-out nuclear war? As I have said, it worked for awhile, when we had a nuclear monopoly, and then still a massive superiority, but those days were coming to an end. Our policy of encirclement through the 1950s, such as placing Jupiter missiles in Turkey right on the Russian border, had not been matched by the Soviets until they deployed missiles to Cuba. The hypocracy of our policy was obvious and could not be maintained. Kennedy foresaw this, did not want to be cornered into pressing "the button," and had to battle his own government to change things. When those Jupiter missiles became a bargaining chip, which JFK had foreseen, he ranted angrily: "When was the last time I ordered those friggin' missiles removed - not the last three times, just the last time?"

Tim

When you say one had the power and the other did not, are you comparing Taylor and Lansdale, or Diem and Thieu? Who is the one and who is the other?

Tim

Tim

I guess you could look at it either way. I was actually refering to Lansdale and Taylor.

Landsdale was personal friends with Diem and a major supporter of his since before the fall of the French. Diem ended up dead. Taylor got his "limited war" and Thieu became President for a while.

Jim Root

check out:

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB29/

Jack

From Beschloss, The Crisis Years, pgs 652-653:

"Ngo Dinh Nhu warned South Vietnamese generals in August that the Limited Test Ban might foretell wholesale American 'appeasement' of communism and that Saigon must be ready to stand alone. Diem declared martial law. Nhu's shock troops raided pagodas in five cities and arrested 1,400 Buddhist monks and nuns. Harriman concluded that the U.S. could no longer support the Diem-Nhu govt. On Saturday, August 24, he and Roger Hilsman...drafted a cable...signed by George Ball authorizing Lodge in Saigon to set the wheels in motion for a coup. The message informed the new envoy that the 'U.S. government cannot tolerate a situation in which power lies in Nhu's hands.' If Diem refused to remove him and redress the Buddhist problem, 'we must face the possibility that Diem himself cannot be preserved.' Lodge was asked to carry this message to 'key military leaders' and also to 'make detailed plans as to how we might bring about Diem's replacement should this become necessary.'

Harriman and Hilsman wanted to send the message immediately to prevent Nhu from strengthening his position. Rusk, McNamara, McCone, and Bundy were all out of town....

On Monday morning at the White House, Kennedy was astonished when McNamara, McCone, and Taylor all loudly objected to the sending of the cable. Taylor charged that an 'anti-Diem group centered in State' had exploited the absence of principal officials to send out a message that would otherwise have never been approved. They did not receommend that the President embarrass himself by revoking the cable. Forrestal offered to resign and take the blame. Kennedy snapped, 'You're not worth firing....' Robert Kennedy noted that after what he called 'that famous weekend,' Harriman seemed to age ten years.

Kennedy later told Charles Bartlett, 'My God, my government's coming apart!' Robert Kennedy recalled that week as 'the only time, really, in three years that the government was broken in two in a disturbing way.' He later said, 'Diem was corrupt and a bad leader...but we inherited him.' He thought it bad policy to 'replace somebody we don't like with somebody we do because it would just make every other country as can be that we were running coups in and out.'

General Taylor had sent a cable to Saigon saying that 'authorities are now having second thoughts' about Diem. This infuriated the President, who did not wish to appear as if he was waffling. Lodge replied, 'We are launched on a course from which there is no respectable turning back: the overthrow of the Diem government....' Kennedy cabled Lodge, 'I know that failure is more destructive that an appearance of indecision.... When we go, we must go to win, but it will be better to change our minds than fail.'"

In this we see that Taylor and Lansdale, along with Nixon's V.P. candidate and former JFK senatorial opponent Henry Cabot Lodge, were of a single mind with regard to support for Diem. In October, JFK issued the order for withdrawal of U.S. troops. The policy was due for overall review the weekend of November 23-24, but by then Diem and Nhu had been murdered and Kennedy's body (supposedly) was lying in state in the East Room of the White House. By November 26, NSAM 273 reversed JFK's policy on Vietnam.

Tim

____________________________

John:

Because LBJ knew full well that LHO was not the lone assassin, and that Castro had no part in the murder. But it was a good ploy to blackmail people to do the WC whitewash. I always wondered what on earth they had on Earl Warren to cause him to cry. I guess it was really that simple: convince him that if he did not head the commission and satisify the public then nuclear war was a possible next step. It sounds insane to me, that a man of Warren's intelligence and legal reasoning could have been so conned, but I have yet to hear a better explanation for why he permitted his name to become synonymous with the lie of the century.

Dawn

Dawn:

One of my very favorite movies, Seven Days In May, was showing on cable this past weekend; I watched it twice. During the key confrontation between the president and the Chairman of the JCS, when the president suggests that the general stand by the constitution and run for the office in a year, the general's retort is that the president is too much a "weak sister" [like Shanet's unfitness framework] to last that long. The president then makes the argument: to paraphrase, the president asks "Did it occur to you that if the Soviets saw the U.S. govt. taken over by a military coup, you wouldn't have to wait for them to attack?" That is a reasonable recitation of the geopolitical reality existant in 1963; if the Soviets believed that the U.S. had been taken over by a military coup, they would have concluded that the preemptive first strike so long resisted by JFK was now imminent. This is an interpretation of the "40 million dead" argument used on Warren that is not generally recognized. Usually, analysts have seen the argument as being that if we admitted that it was a Cuban plot we'd have had no choice but to invade Cuba, which would then trigger nuclear war. The Seven Days In May analysis provides a better explanation of the condition with which Earl Warren was presented. LBJ was covering up a military coup.

Tim

__________________

Tim:
I totally agree, but I still think LBJ was also participating, in so far as we can ever really know. (Perhaps I am also just holding onto my first view, very much reinforced since moving to Tx. and studying the case from that perspective.)

Funny you should mention that movie, I was talking with a close pal in Boston on Sat and John and I were discussing that movie. In fact later that day it was one of two I asked my husband to rent, the other was Spiderman 2, which he did rent.

Will rent "7 Days" for next weekend.
Dawn

ps Am looking into scanning Yankee/Cowboy War onto computer. Carl gave the ok today, just have to locate the publisher.

I think the Gahlen docs may be online too, will call Jim Lasar tomarrow to find out.

__________________

Tim:
I totally agree, but I still think LBJ was also participating, in so far as we can ever really know. (Perhaps I am also just holding onto my first view, very much reinforced since moving to Tx. and studying the case from that perspective.)

Funny you should mention that movie, I was talking with a close pal in Boston on Sat and John and I were discussing that movie. In fact later that day it was one of two I asked my husband to rent, the other was Spiderman 2, which he did rent.

Will rent "7 Days" for next weekend.
Dawn

ps Am looking into scanning Yankee/Cowboy War onto computer. Carl gave the ok today, just have to locate the publisher.

I think the Gahlen docs may be online too, will call Jim Lasar tomarrow to find out.

Dawn:
Is saying that "LBJ was covering up a military coup" not sufficiently consistent with thinking that "LBJ was also participating?"
Tim

LBJ was covering up a military coup: many would agree with that.
Sad event. Handed him a fait accompli then he called everybody in for WC and the 25th amendment.
By 1968 all Lyndon Johnson could say in his first memoirs was that Vietnam's heavy US casualties were a fair price for vigilance in Indonesia and Asia,
Funk and Wagnalls 1969.

Richard Russell and the Root brothers personify the closed door censored secret tax based expenses that run unchecked, unbridled.

Anti Trust enforcement has dwindled to nothing, Martin Marietta, Lockheed all bundled now in giant international conglomerates. That is really the beneficiary, the large corporate private US industry firms, the revolving door beltway elites.
Anti Trust enforcement was Robust in the early 1960s non existent today.
the Keratsu, the german, dutch, swiss and british multinational organizations (under free trade) largely unregulated, or regulated by hostile obstructionists.
A corporate military coup.

Tim

Food for thought:

The Pentagon Papers
Gravel Edition
Volume 2
Chapter I, "The Kennedy Commitments and Programs, 1961," pp. 98-127
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1971)


"The report Nolting sent on Taylor's final meeting with Diem also contains some interesting material....It leaves the impression that Diem was still not really anxious to get American troops deeply involved, despite his favorable reaction at the meeting of the 24th, which, in turn, was a reversal of his reaction at the meeting on the 19th. Because of this, the impression left by the whole record is that Taylor came to the conclusion that some sort of ground troop commitment was needed mainly because of what he heard from Diem's colleagues and his military people, rather than from Diem himself.

...From MAAG Chief McGarr, Washington received an account of Taylor's meeting with "Big Minh," then Chief of Staff, later Head of State for a while after Diem was overthrown. It is interesting because it was one of the very few reports from Saigon in the available record suggesting that the Diem regime might be in need of more than administrative reforms. Minh complains that the Vietnamese army was "losing the support of the people" as indicated by a "marked decrease in the amount of information given by the population." He warned, further, that "GVN should discontinue favoring certain religions . . ." But McGarr stressed the administrative problems, particularly the need for an "overall plan." His reaction explicitly concerns what he saw as the "military" aspects of Minh's complaints. But Ambassador Nolting's cables and the main paper of the Report show a very similar tendency to take note of political problems, but put almost all the emphasis on the need for better military tactics and more efficient administrative arrangements.

....Big Minh was pessimistic and clearly and frankly outlined his personal feeling that the military was not being properly supported. He said not only Viet Cong grown alarmingly, but that Vietnamese armed forces were losing support of the people. As example, he pointed out marked decrease in amount of information given by population. Minh said GVN should discontinue favoring certain religions, and correct present system of selecting province chiefs. At this point Minh was extremely caustic in commenting on lack of ability, military and administrative, of certain province chiefs. Minh was bitter about province chief's role in military chain of command saying that although Gen. McGarr had fought for and won on the single . . . command (issue) which had worked for a few months, old habits were now returning. Also, on urging from Gen. McGarr he had gone on the offensive, but province chiefs had not cooperated to extent necessary. He discussed his inability to get cooperation from GVN agencies on developing overall plans for conduct of counterinsurgency. Minh also discussed the need to bring sects back into the fold as these are anti-communist. Although above is not new Minh seemed particularly discouraged....When analyzed, most of Minh's comments in military field are occasioned by lack of overall coordination and cooperation. This re-emphasizes absolute necessity for overall plan which would clearly delineate responsibility and create a team effort....

From "Instruments of Statecraft: U.S. Guerilla Warfare, Counterinsurgency, and Counterterrorism, 1940-1990"

"Upon taking office, Kennedy brought Lansdale to the White House for a meeting of top Pentagon, State Department, and National Security Officers, and-apparently to their horror-intimated there that Lansdale could be the next U. S. ambassador in Saigon. The new administration's Undersecretary of Defense, Roswell Gilpatric, reminiscing on his dealings with Lansdale years later for an archive oral history project, explained that although Lansdale was an outcast with his military peers, and perhaps even less esteemed by the State Department, the White House was impressed with him:

"Lansdale was not in favor . . . during my period, with either the military or with the State Department. He was in the doghouse with both of them. And I was convinced they were wrong. I was convinced he was not a wheeler dealer; he was not an irresponsible swashbuckler, and I finally succeeded in getting him his star as a general-very difficult . . . he was the object of some distrust. I thought and still think he was a very able person.... Anyway, he remained active, both in connection with Southeast Asia and Cuba, up until the time I left in January of '64.

"Although General Lansdale's boundless self-confidence that a small nucleus of bold, brave, brilliant Americans led by himself could "turn around" asubversive insurgency survived the long decline of his protege Ngo Dinh Diem, Lansdale would not return to Vietnam until the Johnson administration'sbuildup of U. S. ground forces was well underway. Although publicly acclaimed for his counterinsurgency savvy, by 1964 the military's professional counterinsurgents began to tire of Lansdale's simplistic approach. General Maxwell Taylor, who had replaced Henry Cabot Lodge as ambassador in June 1964, shared McGeorge Bundy's low opinion of Lansdale's schemes, and together they refused to have Lansdale in a position of authority inSaigon. In 1961, Taylor had been asked by President Kennedy to pick up the pieces after the Bay of Pigs invasion, and he chaired a committee of inquiry that was brutally critical of CIA incompetence. Lansdale's handling of his post-Bay of Pigs assignment to kill Castro, in the same gung ho spirit as the invasion, may have been perhaps too much for Taylor to stomach."

Taylor had a tremendous capacity to minipulate situations to his own benifit. Lansdale was no match for Taylor's palace intrigue. Lansdale was moved out of Vietnam and involved in Cuba where he lost credibility. In the meantime, Diem dies, Kennedy dies and Taylor has a "brush fire" war.

Jim Root

Dawn

From your statement dealing with Earl Warren:

"I always wondered what on earth they had on Earl Warren to cause him to cry. I guess it was really that simple: convince him that if he did not head the commission and satisify the public then nuclear war was a possible next step. It sounds insane to me, that a man of Warren's intelligence and legal reasoning could have been so conned, but I have yet to hear a better explanation for why he permitted his name to become synonymous with the lie of the century."

Dawn

I looked into Warren's life a bit and found some interesting bits and pieces.

A) His father was murdered and the case was never solved.
He was in favor of and seems to have worked with John J. McCloy in the relocation of Japanese/Americans during WWII.
C) After his involvement with the establishment group (Japanese relocation) he received the outside financial support to run for and win the Governorship of California
D) Won reelection after winning both the Republican and Democratic primaries.
E) Was Dewey's Vice Presidential running mate in 1948, blasting Truman for his Communist leanings which led to the Smith Act Trials.
F) Made a deal with Eisenhower during the 1952 campaign to support him in exchange for a promise to get the next Supreme Court position.
G) The next Supreme Court position to open just happend to be the Chief Justice - Eisenhower had misgivings
H) Eisenhower nominates and Earl Warren wins approval as Chief Justice without any prior experience as a Judge
I) Warren helps to overturn the Smith Act Cases
J) Courts used to change US social policies toward minorites in a way that mirrored the McCloy changes that were recommended and made in the armed forces.

I would refer to Warren as a man who made his pact with the "insiders" by 1942 and helped to "guide" America from that point on. He was a natural for the Warren Commission.

Jim Root

Nosenko and the bloody brinksmanship, these holds the key.
W\hoever put Oswald in place aat TBS 11/63 knew he was a double agent, ie, unexplainable. The US guys had to have understood that allowing Osald to ingress and debrief so long in Minsk, was the equivalent of, or going to be perceived by, the 1959/1960/1961/1962 Kremlin KGB as a false defector.

They knew he looked like a false defector when they watched him go over in 1959, and so you must assume the 2nd Soviet and the 13th division in USSR thought Oswald was a false defector, a false communist, while he was in Minsk and at Dallas, with Marina.

We know that both sides did this program plans, sent emigrees over, false communists to Russia, false liberals to America...they knew at least he was a risk to have turned. Probably Bishop David Philips Attlee, Desmond FItzgerald, Cubella, Hunt, Hosty and DeMorenscheidt, Cartha DeLoach and capt Siewell all knew this about the unfortunate "lost alleged assassin." Brinksmanship. Worst guy in the world PR wise, not on FBI lists, commie, exile in Russia, this is not good for Hoover.

When it came out that it was this guy, the cabinet level executives had everyone dying to cover it up. Nosenko knew a lot, and Epstein believes Oswald really went to Mexico City, the Russian and Cuban Embassies 10/63.
This was triply agentry.
If Oswald was triple agent the stakes were indeed huge if he were perceved part of team, never thought of it so clearly............He manged to be American, Russian and Cuban all at once....

Tanks Tim Thanks Dawn

Lyndon Baines Johnson was a patsy--- until the 25th exonerated him in 1967.

Jim,

Your writings on the subject of Max Taylor are masterful. Your citing the above relevant passages from the Pentagon Papers has indeed convinced me that there is alot more to the story of Max Taylor than I previously realized. I have generally viewed him favorably, due to my view that the Kennedy administration was struggling mightily to free its choicelessness from the bonds of the absolutist nuclear policies of Mutual Assured Destruction (M.A.D.) and the rigidity of Massive Retaliation. In that environment, any approach was preferable to nuclear "brinksmanship." In this sense, Taylor was well-suited to Kennedy's efforts, and Kennedy himself shares some of the blame for creating an environment better suited to "brushfire wars." Nevertheless, without Kennedy around, Taylor was unfettered in his enthusiasm and influence.

I have always been intrigued by the role of brothers during this period of the late 1950s and early 1960s: The Kennedys, Dulleses, Bundys, Rostows, to name a few. That said, Max Taylor, along with Walt Rostow, had strongly advocated for greater support in Vietnam as early as the fall of 1961. As McNamara said, "Such steps, they noted, would mean a fundamental 'transition from advice to partnership' in the war." [In Retrospect, p. 38] But these proposals were always viewed by Kennedy as a substitute, a cultural sublimation, for the likelihood of what would otherwise be nuclear war. We don't read nearly enough in these analyses of the Bundys and Rostows. But as for Max Taylor, he went from greatly admired by the Kennedys early in the administration, to despised less than three short years later.

I appreciated you picking up the theme of Seven Day In May in this regard. That movie also parallels closely the environment in the U.S. that deadly autumn of 1963, when JFK ratified the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. As I said previously:

One of my very favorite movies, Seven Days In May, was showing on cable this past weekend; I watched it twice. During the key confrontation between the president and the Chairman of the JCS, when the president suggests that the general stand by the constitution and run for the office in a year, the general's retort is that the president is too much a "weak sister" [like Shanet's unfitness framework] to last that long. The president then makes the argument: to paraphrase, the president asks "Did it occur to you that if the Soviets saw the U.S. govt. taken over by a military coup, you wouldn't have to wait for them to attack?" That is a reasonable recitation of the geopolitical reality existant in 1963; if the Soviets believed that the U.S. had been taken over by a military coup, they would have concluded that the preemptive first strike so long resisted by JFK was now imminent. This is an interpretation of the "40 million dead" argument used on Warren that is not generally recognized. Usually, analysts have seen the argument as being that if we admitted that it was a Cuban plot we'd have had no choice but to invade Cuba, which would then trigger nuclear war. The Seven Days In May analysis provides a better explanation of the condition with which Earl Warren was presented. LBJ was covering up a military coup.

In addition to the quote from Ted Dealey about the president being a "weak sister," there is also the Dealey phrase: "we need a man on horseback." The mention of General Walker in the same sentence with McCarthy is also telling. It's important that we not forget the environment and cultural mindset with which JFK struggled. Within hip Pentagon circles, as noted by David Halberstam, it was recognized that "Kennedy was afraid of the nuke." They discussed a trip to a silo at which the President had literally "blanched" a the site of the missile. This ties directly to Shanet's "unfitness" framework, in which a president who lacked the constitution to convincingly play the game of nuclear "brinksmanship" had to be removed for the nation's good, necessitating the 25th amendment. I recommend the book "The Best And The Brightest" to anyone interested in this area. I unfortunately shed myself of shelves full of books a few short months ago, full of personal notes and annotation, and can therefore not cite the above passage's page number. The book opens with a great scene involving Robert Lovett and his recommendation of McNamara for the Secretary of Defense, after being offered the position himself.

Tim

Tim

"But as for Max Taylor, he went from greatly admired by the Kennedys early in the administration, to despised less than three short years later."

Is this a motive (element) for the crime?

Or, turn it around....from the Seven Days in May thread....Could Taylor have percieved of Kennedy as ungrateful? Undeserving?

Once again:

"...S.L.A. Marshal (Detroit News, a retired brigadier general and one of the nation's leading military historians...., has serious reservations about the man he followed through Normandy, Holland, Belgium and Korea. 'I think I know Max Tayor as well as any man in America. He was an extraordinary battle commander - the most tightly self disciplined officer I ever knew. But Taylor is the wrong man for this job. Taylor is not a conciliator. He's actively interested in the exercise of power for his own sake."

Jim Root

"Could Taylor have percieved of Kennedy as ungrateful? Undeserving?"

According to Shanet's theory of incapacity, yes; Taylor would have considered JFK "undeserving" after the secret deal with Khrushchev, the no-invasion pledge on Cuba, and the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Tim

Tim

I am perhaps to simple, in my complex way. Taylor perhaps just wanted to assure that he got his Vietnam War. Who knows a successful conclusion and he might become President (Caesar) himself.

Just a thought,

Jim Root

That really is military thinking, something I've never understood.

Tim
I am perhaps too simple, in my complex way. Taylor perhaps just wanted to assure that he got his Vietnam War. Who knows a successful conclusion and he might become President (Caesar) himself.
Just a thought,
Jim Root

"That really is military thinking, something I've never understood."

Let's see:

General George Washington
General Andrew Jackson
General William Henry Harrison
General Zachary Taylor
Captain Abraham Lincoln (Black Hawk War)
General Ulysses S. Grant
General Rutherford B. Hayes
General James A Garfield
Quartermaster General Chester A. Arthur
Col. Benjamin Harrison
Col. Theodore Roosevelt
Sec. of War William Howard Taft
General Dwight Eisenhower

In the 1960's the thought of a "war hero" becoming president was not out of the question.

How about PT 109, Artillery Captain Truman, "Tail Gunner Joe," Fighter pilot Bush (1 and 2 for that matter) or "Swift Boats?" Many believed Colin Powell could have been president. If MacArthur had not "faded away" he may have been elected.

The military has been a stepping stone to the presidency since the inception of this country. Taylor was already a World War II war hero and a Korean War Hero. Eisenhower had turned Taylor's dream of being presidential timber into kindling. The successful rise of Kennedy provided Taylor with a new platform and new opportunities. An end to the escalation in Vietnam would distroy any possibility of Max achieving his rightful "triumph." (mens rea)

Jim Root

Right on Jim! We just had an election in which the history to which you refer was reified. No wartime president has ever lost reelection. As the Prouty character in the movie JFK said, to paraphrase, the ability to make war is the organizing principle of society.

Tim Carroll

Unless you take the position that LBJ plotted JFK's murder, how, pray tell, did LBJ know, immediately after the assassination, that Castro was not behind it? There was evidence coming out of Mexico City (whether true or false is beyond the point UNLESS LBJ knew the evidence was false) that LHO had been encouraged by Castro agents or even KGB agents to kill Kennedy. Some people argue that some CIA agents were planting this evidence either to precopitate an invasion of Cuba or to precipitate a cover-up. In either event, it was not unreasonable for LBJ to fear foreign involvement in the assassination.

The possibility of Cuban involvement in the assassination increased dramatically with the revelation of all of the CIA's efforts to kill Castro, giving Castro the strongest possible motive (self-defense) to kill Castro.

Your statement that immediately after the assassination LBK knew that LHO was not a lone assassin and that Castro was not behind it simply defies logic (and common sense, for that matter).

Tim

I will take a different position from your comment:

"Unless you take the position that LBJ plotted JFK's murder, how, pray tell, did LBJ know, immediately after the assassination, that Castro was not behind it?"

If Oswald was an intelligence asset of the US (my thought is that he had been an unknowing agent along the lines of Angleton's "orchid man"), the CIA or others in the government (McCloy and Dulles types) would have known a great deal about Oswald and when he was captured, would have to cover the trail wihtout creating an international conflict.

Their greatest fears may have been realized....a person who had been used by the US to penetrate a Soviet intelligence cell....who may in fact be well known to Soviet intelligence....shoots first at his contact (Edwin Walker)....then kills the President. If allowed to speak freely in a trial the Cold War covert methods employed by the US and the Soviets would be exposed to the world. Everyone is involved without being involved. Everyone has motive to cover up the crime because the truth is more unbelivable than the fiction.

LBJ was in an unwinable position....especially if the truth was similar to what I suggest. The whole mess could be pinned on Johnson just as easily as anyone else and the public would buy it.

The only thing that the CIA types would not want you to believe is that Oswald did it and had a motive. That could unravel everything. Negligence that leads to murder is, I believe, what brings a charge of manslaughter. And there was plenty of guilt to go around in this case.

Jim Root

I agree with a most if not all of your comments here.

It would have been devestating to America had it been determined that LHO had links to either American intelligence or Soviet intelligence.

If LBJ did not do it (John is making a convincing case LBJ did it to save himself a jail sentence but had LBJ wanted to do it I think he could have arranged an assassination that did not put his good friend Connally in harm's way) perhaps, after Hoover's 11/23/63 call to him he started to suspect possible CIA involvement and that would motivate his cover-up as much as his fear of possible foreign involvement.

I think there are numerous reasons why RFK consented to the cover-up. One would be a fear that one of his anti-Cuban plots backfired. A second would be fear of the exposure of some of JFK's risky sexual alliances.

Tim

When we say "the cover-up" are we making a statement that may mean different things to different people.

When the CIA responded to the Warren Commissions question reguarding Oswald's flight from London to Helsinki with the statement that, There were no direct flights from London to Helsinki, Finland that would have allowed Oswald to arrive in Helsinki, Finland in time to register at the Torni Hotel by midnight on October 10, 1959 when he did in fact register. " We have a truthful statement of fact.

Is it a cover-up when a truthful statemnt is made in answer to a legitimate question? At a minimum I would have to answer perhaps and I lean toward the belief that this is a provable example of an attempt to "cover-up" information that the CIA wished to withold from the Commission/public. Why?

We now know that there were two flights, neither "direct" since each made one stop, that would have allowed Oswald to arrive in Helsinki in time to check into the Torni Hotel. The Commission report goes on to state that Oswald's flight cost him exactly $111.90. This seems to indicate that the flight Oswald took was known to someone but that there was a desire to keep the information about exactly which flight a secrete. The report succeeded in this untill 1994 when the two available flights were uncovered and the records of who was on the available flights had long since been discarded, lost to historians.

My point is that without telling a lie there was the ability to withhold information from the public. If Oswald were, in fact, involved in an intelligence stratagem National Security Council 10/2 and NSC 5412 would mandate a "cover-up" (plausible deniablity).

Nothing more sinister (although very sinister) than that! And those at the highest levels of government could be compelled to accept this logic in the name of "National Security."

The perfect crime?

Jim Root

I have a few serendipitous comments to make myself, and they are all, in one way or another related to information and analysis that has been posted on this thread.....
One of the truly obscure items regarding the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff is that while General Lansdale is seen as being a key person by those who believe that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy, J.F.K. himself seemed to warm up to Lansdale, ironically President Kennedy also wanted to, [and did] meet William Harvey
who was fighting with everyone on a quicker manner of disposing of Castro. Declassified document that mention William Harvey primarily depos of other persons are emphatic that William Harvey was very frustrated at the slow pace that SGA and Maxwell Taylor went with regards to proceeding with more intensity than the pinprick raids that had taken place until the summer of 1963, and President Kennedy definitely felt the same way.
But I definitely feel there is good reason to believe that Harvey was involved in the assassination as well as Lansdale......Regarding Maxwell Taylor, even if he were involved I believe that whatever evidence proving such will not be found in any declassified documents, as they are probably already destroyed.
But the last comment of mine is strictly an opinion.

Some other interesting comments......Whatever the agenda, Harvey soon found himself mired in two colossal messes: the failed Bay of Pigs operation, and then the bungling attempts by the Kennedy Brothers to overthrow the Castro regime, Operation MONGOOSE. Harvey's own tortured niche was described in hearings of the Church committee in 1976: an attempt to use the Chicago gangster Johnny Rosselli to assassinate Castro. This plot, among many others, failed. (The best MONGOOSE read I've encountered is Don Bohning's "The Castro Obsession.")
The last item alone had earmarks of a career-ender. But more painful to Harvey, a veteran field man, was the attempt by Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy to act as grand marshal of MONGOOSE, despite his utter ignorance of covert activities. Old-timers dined out for years on stories of the verbal clashes between the young Kennedy and the rough-hewn Harvey. Dave Murphy, Harvey's long-time colleague in the Berlin Operations Base, quoted his friend as calling the younger Kennedy and his aides [i]"Fifth Avenue cowboys."
Months of bitterness climaxed in October 1962. A MONGOOSE colleague related to Stockton several exchanges in October 1962 -- the day of Harvey's final fall from grace -- in the White House, as the missile crisis simmered. Whether both Kennedys were present, or the attorney general alone, is disputed. But the remarks seem an accurate rendition of Harvey's anger: "We heard that Bobby said to Harvey, 'I could train agents at my house in Virginia!' . . . Harvey retorted, 'as baby-sitters?'"
Harvey was incensed to learn that Bob Kennedy ordered three boats of operatives already enroute to Cuba be recalled. Harvey's view was that they could add valuable intelligence on the Soviet missile sites.

Robert.......While Harvey may have really felt that way, JFK and Bobby certainly had cause to worry about how ALPHA-66, the CRC, JMWAVE operatives and Interpen's actions against Cuba could effect what the "Soviets might do in Berlin," a fact that was seemingly of little or no interest to Kennedy's ideological enemies
And, as was previously written on this thread, while LBJ's rhetoric about a nuclear exchange causing 30 to 40 million casualties, may seem hollow with 45 years of retrospect, that wouldn't have been the case, then or now if there had been a real life version of Seven Day's In May.


Nevertheless, and more to the point, this post concerns something that has not been covered on this thread and that is in relation to the CIA people responsible for Western Hemisphere Station Operations out of Mexico City.......
At what could be considered the nexus of the KGB/CIA interactions prior to the assassination, you will find the acronyms TUMBLEWEED, which was a FBI acronym, if I am not mistaken and AEBURBLE.


John Newman [Oswald and the CIA] certainly is an authority on this area, and in one of his presentations on the OSWALD/CIA book he, at one point mentioned AE/DURBILL as a new acronym. Someone at maryferrell.org posted on the comments section a correction of sorts stating, in effect, that it was really AE/BURBLE and accoring to more than one document, AE BURBLE was someone named Guenther Schulz, although personally I believe it will be proven that the name is actually Guenther Schultz......
Guenther Schulz, is a name that everyone interested in nailing down the rest of the story of 1963, should, at a minimum be aware of, if not trying to ascertain what his job description was, as well as what his title was .
I would suggest possibilities as to variants of his name, and the use of a ü instead of the generic u.......
See
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...o?startIndex=60
Also there is more on this issue here.
more here
The day after the assassination of President Kennedy document 104-10419-10021 noted the following information “Bagley stated that he wished to point out that Kostikov, known KGB agent is the same person who was been in touch with the bureau double-agent Guenther Schulz in the case referred to as TUMBLEWEED provided by Guenther Schulz who is being operated by us against the Soviets."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=235964

Robert

One of the lead negotiators in the Cuban Missle affair was John J. McCloy and part of McCloy's displeasure with Kennedy after the successful negotiations with the Soviets was that Kennedy did not use that time to complete a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, instead settleing for a Limited Test Ban Treaty. I have read that part of the negotiations with the Soviets included a guarentee of security to Castro's Cuba, i.e. no invasion. The continuation and control of MONGOOSED given to Robert Kennedy could have been interpreted by McCloy as a violation of the agreement that had been reached with the Soviets. McCloy had been involved for since before the end of WWII in a "special arrangement" with the Soviets to insure that the world would never engage in a WWIII or nuclear holocaust. I might suggest that a violation of this singular arrangement may have set the course/ball moving toward the elimination of Kennedy.

June 1963!

Jim Root