Curtis LeMay and John F. Kennedy

[John Simkin]

Sorry, Mark, I beg to differ. There is no way that LeMay was crazy.

At the time the US nuclear arsenal far outnumbered the Soviets. LeMay was right that had we gone into Cuba there is no way the Russians would have done anything about it.

Why even your mentor John Simkin has made that very point.

I was talking about 1964 when the missiles had been removed. David Talbot makes the point on page 167 of "Brothers" that in October 2002 it was revealed that Soviet military had forty thousand troops in Cuba, not the 10,000 that LeMay had argued was there. What is more, the Soviet commanders were equipped not only with strategic missiles but with tactical nuclear missiles, and they had the delegated authority to use them to repel an American invasion. In other words, the invasion of Cuba would have resulted in a nuclear war. It is a good job that JFK and not LeMay were in charge in 1963.

Tim has been a passionate supporter of the Young Americans for Freedom on this forum. The organization was established in 1960 by William Buckley to support Barry Goldwater in his efforts to become president. He was on record of wanting to invade Cuba and to use nuclear weapons in Vietnam. In 1963 JFK told his friends that he hoped that the Republicans would nominate Goldwater as their candidate for the 1964 election (he feared they would nominate George Romney). JFK was convinced that the American people would never elect someone who suggested the use of nuclear weapons or the invasion of other countries to solve international conflict. In 1964 LBJ defeated Goldwater because he was seen as the "peace candidate" in Vietnam (how wrong they were).

In 1968 George Wallace, the racial segregationist, persuaded LeMay to become his running-mate in the newly formed American Independent Party. Wallace had a 21% approval rating until LeMay gave a nationally televised press conference where he argued that the government should consider using nuclear weapons to bring an end to the Vietnam War. This shocked the American public and LeMay's comments helped Richard Nixon win an easy victory.

I agree with Tim that LeMay was not crazy. Tim was not crazy when he supported Goldwater or the bombing and invasion of Iraq. These are primarily moral issues. On 20th July, 1961, at a National Security Council meeting, General Lyman Lemnitzer, supported by LeMay, presented JFK with an official plan for a surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union. Kennedy was disgusted and walked out of the meeting and later remarked to Secretary of State Dean Rusk "and we call ourselves the human race."

Tim attempts to justify LeMay because he thinks the same way. He does not mind if hundred of thousands of civilians are killed by dropping nuclear weapons or creating firestorms as long as these people are not Americans. Luckily for us, the American people had the wisdom of not electing Goldwater and LeMay into office. It is a shame that they forgot the lessons of history by electing George Bush as president.

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

"Tim attempts to justify LeMay because he thinks the same way. He does not mind if hundred of thousands of civilians are killed by dropping nuclear weapons or creating firestorms as long as these people are not Americans."

Wrong, John. As I stated above, the only American president ever to "nuke" hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians was a Democrat, a man whose election was supported by JFK. All I did was explain that the rationale for using nuclear weapons in Vietnam was equivalent to Truman's rationale for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Whether Truman's decision was morally correct is indeed a difficult one. Remember the Japanese militarists had started the war with a surprise attack that killed close to 3,000 innocent Americans. Truman understood that unless he could stop the war immediately, tens of thousands of innocent American soldiers would die. He knew that to stop that carnage, he would have to employ the new weapons that would kill 100,000 innocent Japanese. The problem was that the aggressors in the war were Japanese. Analogize to the war against Germany. Let us assume the 10,000 lives at risk were not American soldiers but Jews in concentration camps. If their deaths could be prevented through killing 100,000 German civilians, what would be the correct moral decision?

Often in a war there are no easy moral answers.

[James Richards]

Something that is probably worth mentioning regarding LeMay. Network Electronics, a company that LeMay had been a board chairman, said that during LeMay's run for VP, Nelson Bunker Hunt, son of H.L. Hunt, set up a $1 million investment fund for Lemay so he wouldn't suffer any financial losses during the campaign.

It's good to have friends in high places.

FWIW.

James

[Tim Gratz]

I do not think the bombing of Hiroshima can be compared to the Holocaust. The Germans intended to eliminate Jews from the face of the earth.

[John Simkin]

John wrote:

"Tim attempts to justify LeMay because he thinks the same way. He does not mind if hundred of thousands of civilians are killed by dropping nuclear weapons or creating firestorms as long as these people are not Americans."

Wrong, John. As I stated above, the only American president ever to "nuke" hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians was a Democrat, a man whose election was supported by JFK. All I did was explain that the rationale for using nuclear weapons in Vietnam was equivalent to Truman's rationale for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I am fully aware that Truman was a Democrat. When will you grasp the point that I do not look at the past with the eyes of a party activist? I have my own political ideology that has very little to do with any existing political parties in the UK, US or anywhere else for that matter. It was one of the first things that I learnt at university when studying history. The party hack is always a very poor historian.

I agree with General Dwight Eisenhower that there was no military reason for dropping those two atom bombs on Japan. It was a political decision that was about sending a message to America's future enemies. The Soviet Union, along with all those powers who felt they might have to stand up to the United States in the future, thought they also needed nuclear weapons.

This issue has been discussed at some depth here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6554

In this thread I am more concerned about LeMay's views about Cuba and the use of nuclear weapons in the 1960s. I am also interested in connecting it to the views of LBJ. After the assassination of JFK he told political friends that he wanted the FBI/Warren Commission to come up with the view that Oswald was the lone-gunman because he did not want to invade Cuba in case it caused a nuclear war. As I have said, given the sphere of influence policy adopted by the super-powers during the Cold War, this would not have happened. Yet, LBJ was willing to bomb and send troops to Vietnam that was on the borders of China. This was a far more reckless decision than invading Cuba. Why?

[Myra Bronstein]

Something that is probably worth mentioning regarding LeMay. Network Electronics, a company that LeMay had been a board chairman, said that during LeMay's run for VP, Nelson Bunker Hunt, son of H.L. Hunt, set up a $1 million investment fund for Lemay so he wouldn't suffer any financial losses during the campaign.

It's good to have friends in high places.

FWIW.

James

The same Nelson Bunker Hunt that paid for the "Wanted for Treason" ad that greeted the doomed President Kennedy upon his arrival in Dallas?

[James Richards]

Something that is probably worth mentioning regarding LeMay. Network Electronics, a company that LeMay had been a board chairman, said that during LeMay's run for VP, Nelson Bunker Hunt, son of H.L. Hunt, set up a $1 million investment fund for Lemay so he wouldn't suffer any financial losses during the campaign.

It's good to have friends in high places.

FWIW.

James

The same Nelson Bunker Hunt that paid for the "Wanted for Treason" ad that greeted the doomed President Kennedy upon his arrival in Dallas?

Yep, that's him. Hunt was one of three who financed that ad. The other two were Edgar Crissey and Harvey Bright.

James

[Myra Bronstein]

Does anyone still believe that propaganda about needing the atom bomb to end WW2?

Even high ranking military men of the era knew better, as shown in this interview with one:

Military man: The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb.

The Press: You mean that, sir? Without the Russians and the atomic bomb?

Military man: Yes, with the B-29…

The Press: General, why use the atomic bomb? Why did we use it then?

Military man: Well, the other people were not convinced…

The Press: Had they not surrendered because of the atomic bomb?

Military man: The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.

The military man was Curtis LeMay.

http://www.antiwar.com/henderson/?articleid=11405

LeMay knew that the Japanese were done for before the big bombs were dropped 'cause he had already bombed the snot out of them with conventional bombs:

"Take, for example, Curtis E. LeMay, the Air Force general who led B-29 bombing of Japanese cities late in the war. LeMay once said, "There are no innocent civilians, so it doesn't bother me so much to be killing innocent bystanders." And he was as good as his word: in one night of fire-bombing Tokyo, he and his men killed 100,000 civilians. So we can be confident that any doubts he had about dropping the atom bomb would not be based on concern for Japanese civilians."

So was he crazy?

He was a sociopath for sure, but that also describes many of his peers and colleagues and everyone in the massive plot to murder President Kennedy.

I guess LeMay was just a man of his time.

And Kennedy wasn't.

[Myra Bronstein]

Something that is probably worth mentioning regarding LeMay. Network Electronics, a company that LeMay had been a board chairman, said that during LeMay's run for VP, Nelson Bunker Hunt, son of H.L. Hunt, set up a $1 million investment fund for Lemay so he wouldn't suffer any financial losses during the campaign.

It's good to have friends in high places.

FWIW.

James

The same Nelson Bunker Hunt that paid for the "Wanted for Treason" ad that greeted the doomed President Kennedy upon his arrival in Dallas?

Yep, that's him. Hunt was one of three who financed that ad. The other two were Edgar Crissey and Harvey Bright.

James

That's fantastic information James. I never even heard of Crissey and Bright.

Thanks...

[Tim Gratz]

To Myra:

What is the DSM?

[John Simkin]

Something that is probably worth mentioning regarding LeMay. Network Electronics, a company that LeMay had been a board chairman, said that during LeMay's run for VP, Nelson Bunker Hunt, son of H.L. Hunt, set up a $1 million investment fund for Lemay so he wouldn't suffer any financial losses during the campaign.

It's good to have friends in high places.

FWIW.

James

The same Nelson Bunker Hunt that paid for the "Wanted for Treason" ad that greeted the doomed President Kennedy upon his arrival in Dallas?

Yep, that's him. Hunt was one of three who financed that ad. The other two were Edgar Crissey and Harvey Bright.

James

That's fantastic information James. I never even heard of Crissey and Bright.

Thanks...

You will find out about Harvey Bright here:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbrightH.htm

I am sorry I do not have a page on Edgar Crissey. How much have you got on him James?

[Myra Bronstein]

Something that is probably worth mentioning regarding LeMay. Network Electronics, a company that LeMay had been a board chairman, said that during LeMay's run for VP, Nelson Bunker Hunt, son of H.L. Hunt, set up a $1 million investment fund for Lemay so he wouldn't suffer any financial losses during the campaign.

It's good to have friends in high places.

FWIW.

James

The same Nelson Bunker Hunt that paid for the "Wanted for Treason" ad that greeted the doomed President Kennedy upon his arrival in Dallas?

Yep, that's him. Hunt was one of three who financed that ad. The other two were Edgar Crissey and Harvey Bright.

James

That's fantastic information James. I never even heard of Crissey and Bright.

Thanks...

You will find out about Harvey Bright here:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbrightH.htm

I am sorry I do not have a page on Edgar Crissey. How much have you got on him James?

Thanks John.

[James Richards]

I am sorry I do not have a page on Edgar Crissey. How much have you got on him James? (John Simkin)

Unfortunately, not much, John.

He was a graduate of Southern Methodist University, an Air Force veteran of WW2 and he was the Dallas representative of the Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Co.

He associated with several right-wing elements in Dallas including the Grinnan family.

Crissey's wife Betty, was a prominent Dallas socialite.

FWIW.

James

[Charles Drago]

I am fully aware that Truman was a Democrat. When will you grasp the point that I do not look at the past with the eyes of a party activist? I have my own political ideology that has very little to do with any existing political parties in the UK, US or anywhere else for that matter. It was one of the first things that I learnt at university when studying history. The party hack is always a very poor historian.

In this thread I am more concerned about LeMay's views about Cuba and the use of nuclear weapons in the 1960s. I am also interested in connecting it to the views of LBJ. After the assassination of JFK he told political friends that he wanted the FBI/Warren Commission to come up with the view that Oswald was the lone-gunman because he did not want to invade Cuba in case it caused a nuclear war. As I have said, given the sphere of influence policy adopted by the super-powers during the Cold War, this would not have happened. Yet, LBJ was willing to bomb and send troops to Vietnam that was on the borders of China. This was a far more reckless decision than invading Cuba. Why?

John succinctly has summarized my own approach to historical analysis. I might add that the religious hack is an equally inept and untrustworthy "historian."

Why was LBJ "willing to [attack] Vietnam that was on the borders of China"? I won't reprint any of my recent enlightening (for me, at least) exchanges with Robert Charles-Dunne in which the ultimate purpose(s) of sheepdipping LHO as a Castro agent are debated and, as it happens, some of the points herein raised by John are addressed. You may find them to be provocative and relevant.

Rather, I offer by way of response the following:

During the period of the Vietnam conflict, China did not pose a credible nuclear threat to the U.S. or its European allies.

The threat of conventional Chinese intervention was deemed to be low absent a U.S. invasion of North Vietnam -- which never occured, despite pressure from ostensibly powerful Right Wing elements.

Surrogate warfare was the most direct form of conflict acceptable to the superpowers.

Both China and, to a greater degree, the Soviet Union had much to gain from the military, political, and cultural destruction of America hastened by the latter's actions in Vietnam.

The threats to profit and power posed by Communist control of Golden Triangle drug trade resources in particular and all of political Southeast Asia in general were sufficient, in the eyes of powerful criminal interests inside and outside what is conventionally termed "government." to justify the risks attendant to America's Vietnam/Cambodian adventure.

So too were the direct profits derived from extended land war in Asia to the military-industrial complex -- the war machine.

Charles

Edited August 15, 2007 by Charles Drago

[William Kelly]

Now that we know that Gen. LeMay was the temporary chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in September, 1963, and chaired the meetings at which Des Fitz briefed them on the CIA/DOD maritime operations against Cuba, I thought this thread should be revived.

Bk