Leslie Sharp
-
Posts
2,131 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Leslie Sharp
-
-
On 1/4/2023 at 12:33 PM, Chuck Schwartz said:
Leslie, I noticed there was not much about LeMay in Coup in Dallas. I read on another website you might be doing some new research on LeMay. Finding anything interesting?
Chuck, apologies for a belated response. Yes, I've been researching the November 22 meeting in the Gold Room at the Pentagon between the Joint Chiefs and their equivalent from the Federal Republic of Germany. As you probably know, records indicate that Curtis LeMay was not in DC that day, but was, instead, on a hunting trip in Canada. A seasoned Canadian researcher has done extensive research into the circumstances of that trip. With his permission, and in light of our pursuit of former members of Hitler's Third Reich apparatus, I'm incorporating those details in a (forthcoming) monograph specific to the military history of the Bundeswehr generals who met with Taylor, Lemnitzer, et al as President Kennedy was being assassinated in Dallas.
A draft introduction . . .
While searching for information that might explain how John Connally ended up in the jump seat of the president’s limo, I was advised by Vince Palamara to check William Manchester’s account of the day. Although Manchester merely reiterates that the seating arrangements were as chaotic at Love Field as they had been earlier that morning in Fort Worth, the following jumped off the page of his award winning book, "The Death of a President: November 22-November25, 1963":
On Friday, November 22 in Washington DC, "Tight security was also enforced in the Pentagon's Gold Room, down the hall from McNamara, where the Joint Chiefs of Staff were in session with the commanders of the West German Bundeswehr [armed forces of the Federal Republic of Germany]. General Maxwell Taylor, the Chiefs' elegant, scholarly Chairman, dominated one side of the table; opposite him was GENERAL FRIEDRICH A. FOERTSCH* [emphasis added], Inspector General of Bonn's armed forces. Everyone was dressed to the nines—the Germans out of Pflicht [duty], the Americans because they knew the Germans would be that way—and the meeting glittered with gay ribbons and braid. . . .
Simultaneously the Pentagon’s command center sounded a buzzer, awaken-
ing General Maxwell Taylor, who was napping in his office between sessions
with the Germans. McNamara had a tremendous reputation, and he
deserved it. Despite his deep feeling for the President — the emotional
side of his personality had been overlooked by the press, but it was very
much there — he kept his head and made all the right moves. An ashen-
faced aide came in with the bulletin. Jerry Wiesner studied the man’s
expression as the secretary read it. Wiesner thought: The Bomb’s been
dropped. McNamara quietly handed the slip around — Wiesner felt momentary relief; anything was better than a nuclear holocaust — and then
the Secretary acted quickly. Adjourning his conference, he sent Mac
Bundy back to the White House in a Defense limousine and conferred
with Taylor and the other Joint Chiefs. Over the JCS signature they dis-
patched a flash warning to every American military base in the world;
1. Press reports President Kennedy and Governor Connally of Texas shot
and critically injured. Both in hospital at Dallas, Texas. No official in-
formation yet, will keep you informed.
In the Pentagon McNamara and the Joint Chiefs remained vigilant,
though after their conference in the Secretary's office the Chiefs decided
they should leave sentry duty to subordinate sentinels and rejoin their
meeting. General Taylor in particular felt that it was important to present
a picture of stability and continuity, that it would be an error to let their
visitors from Bonn suspect the depth of the tragedy until more was known.
At 2:30 he and his colleagues filed back into the Gold Room. He told the
Germans briefly that President Kennedy had been injured. General Fried-
rich Foertsch replied for his comrades that they hoped the injury was not
too serious. The Chiefs did not reply, and for the next two hours they
put on a singular performance. Aware that the shadow of a new war might
fall across the room at any time, they continued the talks about dull mili-
tary details, commenting on proposals by Generals Wessel and Huekelheim
and shuffling papers and directives with steady hands. Even for men with
their discipline it was a stony ordeal, and it was especially difficult for
Taylor, who had to lead the discussion and whose appointment as Chair-
man had arisen from his close relationship with the President. As America’s
first soldier he would be expected to make the first military decision should
war come. Meanwhile he had to sit erect and feign an interest in logistics
and combined staff work. At 4:30 the meeting ended on schedule. The
Joint Chiefs rose together and faced their rising guests. Taylor said evenly,
“I regret to tell you that the President of the United States has been killed.”
The Germans, bred to stoicism, collapsed in their chairs.
-
On 11/21/2021 at 11:08 AM, David Andrews said:
Would love to see or hear the Irv Kupcinet "At Random" TV show episode (March 1964) in which Marguerite Oswald is interviewed on a panel featuring Hjalmar Schacht.*
https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/marguerite-oswald-interview-44578/
The Museum of Broadcast Communications doesn't make this available in its Online Collections.
_____
*You know you've read too many WW II books when you can spell that name on the first go.
Dave, I missed this last year. FYI, the museum advised me that the recording can be reproduced and sent to you for $100++. I put it on the back burner, but will likely order it after the first of the year. If I do, I'll transcribe it, and — unless there are copyright restrictions — share it here on Ed Forum.
-
On 10/2/2022 at 4:50 AM, Benjamin Cole said:
For example, the 15 June 1978 HSCA interview of Mr. Angleton which, thanks to Alan Dale and Jeff Morley, was found at the National Archives, listened to, transcribed and made available to us. It's an absolute master class in gaining some small understanding of the mind of James Angleton.
https://jfkfacts.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Angleton-HSCA-interview.pdf
here
Benjamin,
I transcribed one of the three tapes for Jeff. I did so out of gratitude for his providing a quality forum, jfkfacts.org. Listening to a clearly inebriated Angleton ramble on and knowing that every word must be transcribed correctly was a challenge. And yes, I wanted to wash my brain when I finished. The man was an evil genius. -
World Commerce Corporation and Otto Skorzeny, future strategist for the assassination of President John Kennedy.
" . . .quango, an acronym for ‘quasi-autonomous nongovernmental organization, a term coined in the 1970s inspired by remarks of the president of Carnegie Corporation in 1967 describing “a genus of organization which represents a noteworthy experiment in the art of government.”" . . . At first [Gen. Wild Bill] Donovan appears to have played no formal part in the establishment of either BACC or WCC, although his law firm, at that time known as Donovan Leisure Newton Lombard & Irvine, acted as "legal advisers.” (A few amateur historians have written that Allen Dulles’s law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell, served as advisers to BACC and WCC, but we found no hard evidence of that. Additionally, it has been written that Dulles encouraged Donovan to participate in BACC and WCC, but again no hard evidence of that was found.) This leads us to speculate that Donovan may have initially been the “face” of WCC rather than the inspiration as those listed in early documents for WCC include Harry Beaston Lake and W. W. Cumberland, both investment bankers at the firm Ladenburg Thalmann, 25 Broad St. NYC.
In 1879, American banker Ernst Thalmann, teamed up with Adolph Ladenburg, the scion of a German banking family. As confirmed in “History of Ladenburg Thalmann,” by World War II the firm was providing banking services for British Security Coordination (BSC), including acquisition of foreign currency which was required in small denominations by a plethora of British covert wartime agencies as well as escape packs for Allied aircrew. The SOE turned to the BSC, and the close links between the BSC and Donovan's OSS meant that there was continual collaboration between all three entities in support of this task. Harry Lake and Bill Donovan shared an address at the exclusive One Sutton Place for a number of years. It should be noted that Lake was on the board of the American Moroccan Corporation, which will have greater relevance as we pursue the role of Thomas Eli Davis, Jr. in Chapter 5.
In a convenient web of other addresses, Donovan’s law partner, George Stanley Leisure lived at 640-660 Park, sharing a prestigious address with J. Russell Forgan, another founding board member of World Commerce. Leisure was on the board of financial investment giant Empire Trust whose web extends over time to those active on the ground in Dallas that managed the immediate aftermath of the assassination. Forgan’s company, Glore Forgan was heavily invested in J. Peter Grace’s W. R. Grace & Co., a global maritime shipping concern. Grace, the first Grand Master of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, a.k.a. the Knights of Malta, in America, sat on Forgan’s board for decades.
Of note, at the height of the war, the man at the official helm of the SOE, Roundell Palmer, the 3rd Earl of Selborne, was also in charge of economic warfare, placing him in close proximity to decisions involving the services Ladenburg Thalmann provided. Reporting directly to Lord Selborne was Viscount Frederick Leathers, a former Minister of Transport who was placed in charge of war support. For those more familiar with the esotericism that pre-occupied the shadows of power at the time, both in the US and Britain, both men were alleged members of the Prieuré de Sion, a neo-chivalric fraternal order with alleged roots in the Crusades, established legally in 1956 in France. In an instance of continuity, Viscount Leathers later appears in the roster of board members of the World Commerce Corporation.
Brown explains that among those legal advisers [Donovan and Leisure’s firm] was Lt. Col. Otto C. Doering, Donovan’s second in command at the OSS. Donovan only became an official director of WCC in October 1947. At the same time, Edward R. Stettinius, Secretary of State from November 1944 to July 1945, who had substantial holdings in WCC joined the board. According to Brown, in due course a number of other people prominent in intelligence and special operations joined the firm, as directors, officer, or shareholders. They included J. Russell Forgan of the Glore Forgan group of merchant bankers (and future career ambassador David Bruce’s successor as chief of OSS Europe; Lester Armour (former deputy chief mission to Moscow who would inherit the chairmanship of the Swift Armour packing company of Chicago); W.K. Eliscu (a member of Donovan’s OSS staff); Lieutenant Colonel Rex L. Benson (staff member of the British Secret Intelligence Service and chairman of merchant bankers Robert Benson and Company of London. Here it should be noted that Benson was the lead SOE interrogator of Otto Skorzeny after his surrender. Brown adds that the WCC board also included several persons who had been prominent in the Canadian intelligence services.
In addition, Brown tells us that people with intelligence connections, but not formally members of any intelligence service, took an interest in the corporation.They included Nelson Rockefeller (son of John D., and former coordinator of Inter-American Affairs, an organization with intelligence responsibilities and associations in South America); John Jay McCloy (former undersecretary of the War Department and high commissioner in Germany) Richard Mellon (of Gulf Oil corporation); and Sir Victor Sassoon. The list of WCC board members and “interested parties'' reflects America and Britain’s future power brokers that would influence matters on a global scale as the Cold War escalated.
With so many powerful corporate titans interested in the WCC, in hindsight the holding company emerges as a quango, an acronym for ‘quasi-autonomous nongovernmental organization, a term coined in the 1970s inspired by remarks of the president of Carnegie Corporation in 1967 describing “a genus of organization which represents a noteworthy experiment in the art of government.” Were the founders of the WCC following European models established under fascist regimes for the control of and profit from global supply chains and markets, and did that agenda require the services of the sophisticated intelligence apparatus established by Donovan and Stephenson being shuttered by democratically elected government officials after the war? A former employee of WCC recounts, “The idea was to take advantage of the organization and international contacts that were set up during the war… The goal was to set up various companies, mostly in Central and South America.” And as British writer and wartime intelligence officer Roald Dahl argued in support of the creation of WCC, “we all needed jobs in civilian life.”
It is believed that BACC/WCC was initially funded in part with about $10 million that was in the accounts of the OSS London office at the time of Germany’s surrender. Eustice Mullins writes: “This money could not be ‘returned’ to the U.S. Government without stating where it had come from. As proceeds from dealings in gold and jewels, an inquiry could provoke a Congressional investigation.”
Follow the Money and the Arms
About the same time that Donovan and Stephenson began seriously organizing BACC, word began to leak out in certain Washington, D.C. quarters about nefarious activities of certain OSS officials and agents who had been involved in the wartime looting of enormous amounts of gold, gems, diamonds, antiquities and art. Some credible reports centered on what appeared to be a large number of OSS officials who had stolen millions in gold from captured poopoo stockpiles and hidden warehouses. Some prestigious banks in Europe and North Africa were said to have amassed millions of dollars in gold and diamonds. Eventually these reports linked up to post-war accounts concerning former SS officer Otto Skorzeny, and a few of his fellow officers, who had been given substantial amounts of gold, some of which had come from OSS-looted coffers. Substantial amounts of gold also flowed from other sources. There can be little doubt that these rumors either influenced, or made their way into Col. Richard Park’s report. — Coup in Dallas
-
The question is, if Oswald was at Monterrey Language Institute, why is there such a discrepancy in reports of his skills. I thought immersion was part of the program and that you didn't leave without a decent level of proficiency.Could that record be part of his backstory?
-
On 9/29/2022 at 7:23 AM, Michael Griffith said:
Hi, Leslie. Yes, I was at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California, twice, from 1982-1984 (Arabic) and from 1986-1987 (Hebrew). DLI is also known as the Presidio of Monterey because that's the official name of the Army installation where DLI is located.
When I began to study the JFK case and came across Rankin's comment that Oswald attended "the Monterey School of the Army," it jumped out at me because I knew from my own experience that 99% of the military people who are sent to DLI work in an intelligence field, and that no one goes there unless they receive orders to go there.
I'm saying 99% just to be safe. In fact, I never knew any military person at DLI who did not work in an intelligence field.
A friend, recruited by the agency (and non-military), was sent to MLI almost immediately upon signing up. She tells hilarious stories of how she landed Russian language by faking that her grandmother was Russian-born. (Fooling the agency must be so very satisfying.) She soon fell head over heals with a Navy guy and the first night they realized he was in the "Korean" program and their romance would soon be doomed, and it was. She was off to Europe or Latin America or both, and he was posted in a recon plane over North Korea. Twenty-five years later they reconnected and lived together until his untimely death from consequences of PTSD. Apparently waterboarding was part of the training for those guys flying over North Korea.
Question is, if Oswald was at MLI, why is there such a discrepancy in reports of his skills. I thought immersion was part of the program and that you didn't leave without a decent level of proficiency.Could that record be part of his backstory?
-
3 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:
I think it boils down to this: If we want more people to realize that JFK's murder was a despicable, vile act of treason committed by powerful immoral people, we cannot insult a large chunk of our audience.
No matter how much one wants to twist and distort JFK's statements and record, the fact of the matter is that he was conservative on some issues, moderate on some issues, and liberal on some issues. But the more important point is that his murder would be just as vile and unacceptable if he had been a Goldwater Republican or a Eugene McCarthy Democrat. Honest, ethical prosecutors do not let a murder victim's politics determine how vigorously they prosecute his killers.
I don't understand what "insulting an audience", intentional or not, has to do with solving a cold case murder investigation.
The perceived politics of the victim, John Kennedy, are certainly relevant. Rabid anti-communists and proto-fascists of the period were persuaded President Kennedy was soft on communism. In fact, the Ellen Rometsch Affair was a set up, the final straw, to convince those on the fence that his murder was not simply justified, but an imperative for the survival of "our nation." -
On 9/20/2022 at 7:48 AM, Pete Mellor said:
Ron, that's another million-dollar question, 'stationed where after coming back before his discharge'?
Seeing as how the Marine Corps weren't paying Oswald's last quarter of earnings prior to his defection to the Soviet Union.
On the question of Lee Harvey Oswald as patsy:'And in mid-November 1963, Pierre Lafitte, in New Orleans, would jot down in his datebook: “On the wings of murder. The pigeon way for unsuspecting Lee [Oswald]. Clip, clip his wings,” no doubt a reference to Jean Filliol’s tactic of manipulation within his assassin camps. — Coup in DallasAmong the Dick Russell's bullet points in his analysis of Pierre Lafitte's datebook which is the center of Hank Albarelli's investigation:• That Lee Harvey Oswald was just as he claimed after his arrest – a patsy set up to take the fall (“October 25: Oswald set in place,” meaning that he was set in place in Texas School Book Depository building. November 9: “On the wings of murder. The Pigeon way for unsuspecting Lee.”From Coup in Dallas: ' . . . The answer may be found in the synonymous terms, “patsy,” “pigeon,” “scapegoat,” understood in the collective as one who is sacrificed to take the blame for a crime; one whose role is to distract investigators while the criminals go “scot-free.” . . .. . . Even in death, Oswald continued to fulfill the critical function of diversion for almost six decades. Millions still fail to fully understand the coup in Dallas because, for many, Lee Harvey Oswald continues to be the central focus of research into the cold case. Even those insisting on his utter and complete innocence have, to a degree, perpetuated the deleterious effect the patsy has had on the pursuit of truth. Committed to interrupting that cycle, this investigation avoided the pitfalls and considered Oswald’s cameo performances in the broadest context of the drama. Who cast him in the role, and who could maneuver him onto stage at the right time? It was evident from Lafitte’s records that caretaker was key.' -
On 9/15/2022 at 11:07 PM, Ron Bulman said:
Please continue Leslie. The Monterrey Language Institute, in relation to Oswald?
No Ron, I was hoping to discuss Monterrey with Michael Griffiths as I have a couple of friends he may have crossed paths with.
-
On 9/13/2022 at 10:00 AM, Michael Griffith said:
When it comes to the JFK case, I simply do not care what someone thinks about the 1/6 issue. I see no point is discussing the issue in a JFK forum, (1) because it has nothing to do with the case, and (2) because people who are interested in the JFK case do not all hold the same views on the 1/6 matter.
I learned long ago that very intelligent persons can be severely wrong on one issue but rock solid on another issue. Sometimes it boils down to a matter of interpretation, to the fact that individuals can interpret the same body of facts very differently.
I can agree to disagree with someone on non-JFK-related issues and still value their views on the JFK case. For example, I think Mark Lane's book on the Vietnam War is total garbage (even the very anti-war Neil Sheehan savaged the book in the New York Times Book Review). But, I think Lane did outstanding work on the JFK case. I think the interviews he did for his 1967 documentary were historic and crucial; in fact, I include a link to the documentary on my JFK site. Yet, I would not touch his Vietnam War stuff with a 10-foot poll.
Several weeks before Hank Albarelli suffered a health crisis that would soon take his life in June 2019, he summarized for this coauthor, I think serious consideration should be given now to doing 3-4 end pages that speak generally to Fourth Reich. Rise of—revamped to these times but true Nazism—good way to end the book.
Excerpt:' . . . McCarthy’s search for communists was aided by Kohlberg’s alliance with FBI director J. Edgar Hoover to compile the infamous Red Channel book that blacklisted individuals in television and radio. Germane to the arcane aspects as this analysis, an area Albarelli never shied from, Kohlberg was known for playing on the “dark side,” planting innuendo and casting doubt on the loyalties of his targets. Blackmail of adversaries was not beneath any within his milieu which included McCarthy’s counsel, Roy Cohn. A close friend and advisor to Massachusetts businessman Robert Welch, cofounder of the John Birch Society, Kohlberg served on the original national council of the Birch Society where, prior to his death in 1960, he would have interacted with Robert Morris and Generals Willoughby and Walker—all of whom were central to this investigation into the assassination of President Kennedy.
***
Once described by Rhodes Scholar and Princeton professor John V. Fleming as a “notorious reactionary if not an outright Fascist,” Isaac Levine had evolved rapidly, both philosophically and politically, toward rabid anti-communism. It was Levine who had advised a young congressman, Richard Nixon, that Levine’s colleague Whittaker Chambers, a writer and editor for Luce’s Time magazine had confirmed to Asst. Sec. of State Adolf Berle that his low-level State Department official was a Soviet spy. Algur Hiss, the official, was charged with espionage. His trial and conviction contributed to the lingering atmosphere of paranoia following the Amerasia scandal, the first major US spy case of the post-World War II era, and set the stage for what would descend into aggressive red-baiting of any who might harbor even the most innocuous communist sympathies.
After the guilty verdict in the Hiss trial was announced, an exuberant Joe McCarthy officially launched his career in Wheeling, West Virginia with an infamous speech titled “Enemies from Within.” That day he became the country’s most vocal, visible anti-communist, but his personal notoriety barely disguised the wealthy corporatist forces behind him in a campaign to instill fear and distrust throughout the government and the population writ large. Eventually, this thin veneer of anti-communism would be exposed as Protofascism. Inevitably the Cold War heated up, and Isaac Levine, who had sown the seeds for the Hiss trial with his friend and esteemed statesman Adolf Berle, became a major voice of anti-Soviet propaganda.
***
In another example of the far-right backing Senator Joe McCarthy enjoyed was fascist sympathizer J. Russell Maguire of Thompson Machine Guns, dealt with at length in an early chapter of this book. Maguire’s American Mercury magazine had promoted American poopoo George Lincoln Rockwell, as well as providing an audience for a young Christian evangelical Rev. Billy Graham, and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover.
Maguire’s magazine was eventually sold off to a shadow company of Willis Carto with General Edwin Walker remaining on as military advisor and partial owner. It was Carto who single handedly brought Holocaust Denial to the US around the same time that McCarthy and his team, including Roy Cohn [political and business mentor to Donald J. Trump] launched their red-baiting. It cannot be ignored that Carto’s final propaganda sheet, American Free Press provided a venue for a number of reporters and journalists who in the mid 2000s would infiltrate the Kennedy assassination research efforts under the guise of truth seeking that they sold as being in alignment with John F. Kennedy’s philosophy and policies had he lived to serve out his term. In fact, history insists that contributors to AFP are closely aligned with Carto’s legacy, not that of John F. Kennedy.'
We really should find time to discuss the Monterrey Language Institute.
-
On 9/6/2022 at 7:53 AM, Ron Ege said:
" . . .conservatism" . . . is a canard." Agree.
I would not doubt that some see "liberalism" as being "extreme left". That too, a canard.
On the social scale, the extreme right and the extreme left are both authoritarian.
Typically, neither works out very well for the masses.
I agree, Ron, in theory, but Albarelli's investigation into the assassination of JFK did not uncover "extreme left, authoritarian" operatives.
-
7 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:
Someone who tries to overthrow the government
and kill the vice-president and the speaker of the House
while attacking the Congress while it is in session
to determine the outcome of a presidential election is not a conservative.
6 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:I’ve been trying to make that point - thank you
As have we.
Bringing this back to the original post, we identified an extreme element who may have posed as "conservative" within their own small world in 1963 — Robert G. Storey, Algur Meadows and Jack Crichton in Dallas come to mind — but who in fact were aligned with and profiting from an international, extreme, authoritarian ideology intent on destroying any move toward democracy e.g. labor rights, regulation, taxation, on an international scale.This history, in context of current events, should not be discarded lightly — a point I'm attempting to make with Mr. Griffith.
The debate over the term "conservatism", in my opinion, is a canard. We are hopefully staring down the rise of the extreme right yet again. -
On 9/3/2022 at 6:08 AM, Michael Griffith said:
Are you really, seriously, actually suggesting that I didn't mention the Skorzenys in my brief review of CID because I was trying to "deflect" from the Skorzenys? Gosh, seriously? I also did not mention David Ferrie, Guy Banister, David Atlee Phillips, Alan Dulles, and Richard Helms. It was just a brief Amazon review. The names I included and omitted were not based on any ideological agenda.
So you believe that more than 1% of Americans buy into Skorzeny's virulent brand of fascism and racism??? Well, I feel sorry for you. I can tell you that as a Trump volunteer who got to talk with dozens of Trump supporters and got to hang around hundreds of others, I never heard one word that would suggest such thing.
I can't fathom why anyone who shares Skorzeny's anti-Semitic views would support Trump, since Trump is ardently pro-Israeli, since part of Trump's family is Jewish, since Trump has many Jewish friends, since Trump has invested in Israel, since Trump was the only president who had the guts to move our embassy in Israel to its rightful place in Jerusalem, and since Trump (before he became president) even appeared in political ads in Israel endorsing Benjamin Netanyahu.
Anyway, regarding your follow-on reply, I appreciate the corrections on the info about Albarelli and the datebook, etc. I will correct my review accordingly.
Mike, my responses in italics.
Are you really, seriously, actually suggesting that I didn't mention the Skorzenys in my brief review of CID because I was trying to "deflect" from the Skorzenys? Gosh, seriously? I also did not mention David Ferrie, Guy Banister, David Atlee Phillips, Alan Dulles, and Richard Helms.For the record, Ferrie, Banister, DAP, Dulles, and Helms do not appear in the primary source material that is the center of Hank’s investigation, so it’s only logical you wouldn’t mention them in a review of Coup.
The concern is that the Skorzenys occupy a full chapter, titled The Skorzenys (some 50 pages) of a book you reviewed, and they do so because their involvement in the assassination plot was among the more sensational aspects of what Hank considered the “scoop” he had virtually stumbled across when he arrived on that doorstep to discuss the Olson murder. Failing to identify them as active players suggests you may not have read the book you assigned one star. Fred Litwin, who read nine pages of the book, reviewed it on Amazon with one star and 58 readers found it "helpful", is fresh on my mind so perhaps I'm overreacting. You're of course entitled to review according to your conscience and bias. We all have them by the way.
Skorzeny was the impetus behind Major Ralph Ganis’ contact with Hank to collaborate on a Skorzeny-centered manuscript. Avoiding mention of Ilse and Otto is a misrepresentation of the significance of Hank’s investigation and the resulting breakthrough book.
It was just a brief Amazon review. The names I included and omitted were not based on any ideological agenda.
Those you did identify by name vs. those you chose to couch in pronouns like “two retired high-ranking generals” — there were three, Willoughby, Walker, and del Valle who by the way had histories of extreme right racism both in and out of official military service — seems to reflect avoidance.
So you believe that more than 1% of Americans buy into Skorzeny's virulent brand of fascism and racism???
I believe, as did Hank — spelled out clearly in one of his last emails — that there is a real and present danger of the Reich rising from the ashes not only in America but on a global scale. You may not agree.
Coup is an exposé, and as such, it does not, nor should it conform to an arbitrary definition of a "successful" book on the assassination.Well, I feel sorry for you. I can tell you that as a Trump volunteer who got to talk with dozens of Trump supporters and got to hang around hundreds of others, I never heard one word that would suggest such thing.
I applaud anyone who “walks their talk” and our First Amendment rights are guaranteed. We are still a democracy, albeit hanging by a thread.
I can't fathom why anyone who shares Skorzeny's anti-Semitic views would support Trump, since Trump is ardently pro-Israeli, since part of Trump's family is Jewish, since Trump has many Jewish friends, since Trump has invested in Israel, since Trump was the only president who had the guts to move our embassy in Israel to its rightful place in Jerusalem, and since Trump (before he became president) even appeared in political ads in Israel endorsing Benjamin Netanyahu.
I hope you will reread the Postscript.
Anyway, regarding your follow-on reply, I appreciate the corrections on the info about Albarelli and the datebook, etc. I will correct my review accordingly.
Thanks for taking care of that.
Regards.
-
On 8/27/2022 at 6:49 AM, Michael Griffith said:
We'll just have to agree to disagree about Bobby's motives for saying what he said. I don't think he was posturing. I would note that even when Bobby turned against LBJ's handling of the war, he never once said that JFK intended to withdraw all troops, much less that he intended to completely disengage from South Vietnam.
I think it is a very big deal that JFK did not want to introduce ground troops (aka combat troops). I think JFK would have handled the Vietnam War much more competently than LBJ did. However, I think Arthur Schlesinger put it best when he said "it is impossible to say with assurance" what JFK would have done about Vietnam.
This is one reason it is problematic and discrediting when conspiracy theorists insist that JFK absolutely, positively would have completely withdrawn and disengaged from Vietnam no matter what. Aside from a handful of second-hand anecdotes given many years after the fact, there is simply no evidence for such a position.
Michael, I think you may be the right person to broach this with: Have you studied the history of increase in American personnel in Vietnam from approx. 700 when Eisenhower left office to approx. 16,000 in November 1963? As Commander in Chief, wouldn't JFK sign off on those deployments, or were they made without his knowledge? The latter seems implausible to me. Also, do the numbers reflect some kind of rotation, or is it an accurate count of how many US military — regardless of role — were on the ground in Vietnam when he announced a slow withdrawal? I've exhausted my search for records that might reflect an official order, a signature, for the (presumably) incremental increase during the nearly three years K was in office. Thanks for any info. or recommendation for further research.
-
3 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:
I don't think your attacks on America First are sound or well sourced. Ditto for your sweeping, tar-brush attacks on Trump supporters. Why, why, why include material in your book that is going to turn off and alienate a large chunk of your potential audience? Why imply that one cannot really care about JFK's death if one believes in America First and supports Trump?
Your conclusion that the Amerasia spy case was much ado about nothing is contradicted by very strong evidence. Citing the fact that Truman's Justice Department swept the matter under the rug is not at all convincing.
Just FYI, when I first reviewed CID on Amazon, I gave it five stars. At that point, I was 2/3 of the way through the book and had not encountered the large amount of liberal preaching that comes in the last third of the book. I was so surprised and disappointed by the liberal preaching that reduced my rating to one star, although I still said that the book is a very important and worthwhile work.
Michael, you're not responding to the specifics so I think this discussion has either plateaued or drawn to a close. Cognitive dissonance is unsettling at best, but your rationale for shifting from five stars to one star because you were perturbed that the investigation led to a series of spiderwebs made up mostly of extreme right ideologues — on an International scale — is illogical and somewhat dumbfounding.
I'll close, respectfully, by saying that if this book alienates, as you suggest, a large swath of today's assassination community, maybe we should ask who and what shifted the ethos within said community? When Hank launched this investigation, he anticipated he might hit a wall constructed by insiders intent upon discrediting his work but he was confident the underlying spirit of the community — in spite of internal squabbling — had its head on straight; it was only toward the end that he realized we might hit a much more powerful wall, one steeped in the very authoritarian ideology we were exposing.Btw, I have two friends who were at Monterrey Language Inst. in the 1970s. We might compare notes privately?
All the best, and thank you again for reading Coup. -
On 8/4/2022 at 4:24 PM, Michael Griffith said:
I think the book is very important and worthwhile, but its needless and irrelevant heavy dose of ultra-liberal politics substantially ruined the book for me and will turn off many centrists and center-right people. I mean, it borders on fringe to claim that Trump's election in 2016 was based on a resurgence of fascism, homophobia, racism, and xenophobia, or all of the above. "Make America Great Again" and "America First" are "fascist," and even "neo-Na-i," ideas??? Really? I lost count how many times the book says that Trump and his supporters are "anti-immigration." No, they're not anti-immigration; they are anti-illegal immigration--there's a huge difference.
I'm no big fan of Trump's as a person. I think he's a man of bad character and bad behavior, but he was not the first less-than-ideal man we've had in the White House.
I was surprised by the book's poor scholarship on the Amerasia case (pp. 603-604). I don't know if Albarelli wrote the segment and then Kent and/or Sharp revised it, or if Kent and/or Sharp wrote the segment. The segment substantially misrepresents the evidence, especially the nature of the government docs that were found in the Amerasia office. The segment's argument that "even the Justice Department" concluded that the people involved were merely guilty of "an excess of journalistic zeal" is erroneous. In truth, the Truman Justice Department whitewashed the matter and ignored the clear evidence of serious espionage. Albarelli was a thorough researcher, so if he wrote that segment, that means he had a serious blind spot when it came to dealing with communist espionage in the 1940s.
Michael, Please read the postscript more carefully. The America First material is sound and well sourced. That it offends your own political bias hardly constitutes factual inaccuracy.
Regarding the Amerasia Spy Case: We cite primary source material including the Dictionary of American History and the highly disenchanted former Communist Freda Utley, author of the The Dream We Lost in which she expresses disgust with the system and with the Soviet Union. Ultley also assisted Joseph McCarthy compile his lists of Communist suspects.
What I find interesting in your consistent approach is that instead of informing your peers of the significance of the Amerasia Case, and why it might be a factor in understanding this investigation, you opt to deflect by reviewing the material through what I believe is a fairly transparent political bias.
For your edification, the Coup manuscript is copyrighted as a joint work manuscript; perhaps you might read up on the definition. However, to defuse any suggestion that Hank fell short of expectations, I am the author of the section; I did the research, Hank read the final draft, and we both agreed it was revelatory and belonged in the book.
It was revelatory because it identifies Archbold van Beuren as having been johnny on the spot at the Amerasia office. van Beuren was the Chief of Security for William "Wild Bill" Donovan, head of the OSS.
Donovan and Dulles established the World Commerce Corporation and recruited SS Otto Skorzeny (and his wife Ilse) to run a number of operations under that banner from their perch in Madrid after the war. To suggest van Beuren didn't meet Otto Skorzeny seems patently absurd.
Before the outbreak of WWII, Archbold van Beuren had co-founded the highly popular NY based Cue Magazine. Following his service in the OSS directly under Donovan, he returned to Cue and Previews Inc., the global real estate firm he and his partners had created. Ilse Skorzeny was then brought on board Previews — a gig which served her very well over the years. She was able to navigate International travel fairly unimpeded. Not only did she profit as a r.e. agent, she pursued the interests of Otto — whose travel was somewhat limited after the Dachau trial! — with very little, if any interference. Previews Inc. was her cover. The president of Previews used the Adolphus Hotel as an adjunct office — networking with Dallas powerbrokers —until the firm opened an office in the Oak Lawn neighborhood in the spring of 1963, despite already having a strong presence in the region near the campus of TCU in Fort Worth.
Pierre Lafitte notes in his datebook the NYC address of van Beuren's Previews, Inc. in context of key meetings in 1963. He also notes that Ilse Skorzeny dined with her "uncle" Hjalmar Schacht, 'Hitler's Favorite Banker,' at the Old Warsaw in Oak Lawn the second week of November 1963, just blocks from her new office while in town.
Surely you recognize the significance and accept that the aforementioned — regardless of your interpretation of the actual Amerasia incident — was a critical aspect of Hank's investigation. He certainly did. -
On 9/1/2022 at 6:08 PM, Michael Griffith said:
I didn't mention Skorzeny and his wife because they have nothing to do with the non-assassination-related liberal political preaching in the book. My point is that the book would appeal to a wider audience if it did not have such a heavy dose of liberal politics and did not tar-brush conservatives.
I don't know of anyone who thinks that identifying Skorzeny and his wife's role in the plot is either liberal or conservative, since 99% of Americans detest Skorzeny's racist, fascist ideology.
Michael, I want to correct the record related to several errors in your review of Coup in Dallas:
You write,
"Albarelli became aware of the existence of the Lafitte datebook in 2008."LS: Incorrect. Hank became aware as early as 2000 that Pierre Lafitte had maintained records. He states specifically that it was only over time that he became aware of the datebook.
You also write:
"After finally gaining access to the datebook from Lafitte’s widow . . . "LS: To Clarify, Hank did not come into possession of the actual datebook until late 2018.
And you write further:
"Albarelli and his team spent years researching the evidence related to the entries in the datebook."
LS: A small thing perhaps, but worth noting that yours is pure conjecture. You suggest that he/we had access to the complete datebook for years when in fact he/we did not. You might have reached out to Hank's coauthors to verify.
I think it's more appropriate to allow Hank to tell the story of his investigative coup, but first, I would draw further attention to how you chose to recap the sensational revelations left by Pierre Lafitte.
You write:
" . . . The Lafitte datebook chronicles the actions of major and minor participants in the JFK assassination plot, including a French assassin named Jean Soutre, Jack Ruby, Thomas Eli Davis, Clay Shaw, two retired high-ranking military generals, several rogue CIA officers/officials, and others."
LS: To be clear, the Ruby datebook entry does not indicate that he was directly involved in the actual killing of Kennedy, yet you lump him with one of the assassins, Jean Souetre.
Conversely, you choose to refer to "two retired high ranking military generals" instead of naming General Charles A. Willoughby and General Edwin A. Walker who Lafitte tells us were involved with (or at least contributed to consideration of) the selection of the hit teams. Why leave their names out of one of the more important paragraphs in your review? You continue on to refer to "several rogue CIA officers/officials, and OTHERS" [emphasis added]. Who did you mean by "others"? and why would you avoid identifying them? Were you referring to the Texas Republican gubernatorial candidate Jack Crichton? Or perhaps Hjalmar Schacht, Hitler's Favorite Banker?
LS: For those interested, and in an effort to ensure that your version of Hank's experience doesn't sink into the official record, the following is the relevant portion of his introduction to Coup:
H.P. Abarelli Jr.: Before I completed my book on Frank Olson’s murder, I had the opportunity to meet the one person who was quite close to Lafitte, his wife. I had been informed by a highly respected journalist for the New York Times, John Crewdson, that Lafitte had been living in a small town in New England for at least twelve years. By chance, I had relatives in a nearby town, and I turned to them for help in locating Lafitte. As it turned out, he was living openly with his wife. Understandably, I traveled as quickly as possible to the place where they resided, which was quite easy because I was still living in Vermont where I’d gone to write the Olson book. Of course, I shared the location and address with the DA’s office in Manhattan, but ventured there on my own.
I was too late to find Pierre. He had passed away before my arrival. But, as said, I had the opportunity to meet his wife Rene. Our meeting was a cautious one, but I felt that by being honest about my interests and objectives an initial bond of friendship was formed. That bond grew steadily stronger through the time that Rene relocated to the Miami, Florida area. As far as I know, nobody from the Manhattan District Attorney’s office ever made the same trip I did.
Through additional meetings with Rene, I became aware that Pierre, like George White, had kept datebooks within which he would jot down certain things, often specific to matters he was working on at the time.
-
On 9/1/2022 at 6:08 PM, Michael Griffith said:
I didn't mention Skorzeny and his wife because they have nothing to do with the non-assassination-related liberal political preaching in the book. My point is that the book would appeal to a wider audience if it did not have such a heavy dose of liberal politics and did not tar-brush conservatives.
I don't know of anyone who thinks that identifying Skorzeny and his wife's role in the plot is either liberal or conservative, since 99% of Americans detest Skorzeny's racist, fascist ideology.
As an aside, Michael, and not to digress into a political debate, you cannot seriously contend that only 1% of Americans are active racists and (closet) proto-fascists, not considering what we've lived through the past six years.
You're reviewing a book, Coup in Dallas, that is centered on Hank's investigation which exposed the direct role of SS Otto and Ilse Skorzeny in the assassination of President Kennedy. How is avoiding mention of these SS n a z I s not suggestive of someone attempting to deflect from the Skorzenys because a racist, fascist ideology with roots in their own [the Skorzenys et al] is alive and well in America today?
I ask, why does the assassination of Kennedy and the other democratic-leaning world leaders of the era matter? Because, and I hesitate to invoke the tired cliché, "unless you understand history .... " It was our observation, before Hank left this world, that we're in the midst of repeating it.
Perhaps if we stay with the evidence presented in Coup, along with our fact-based accompanying analysis of the milieu of extreme right conservatives — yes, for the most part they were card carrying — who were prominent leaders in the religious, academic, corporate & financial, government, and military arenas during the 1930s, and follow the trajectory of their aligned ideology on an International scale that advanced the careers and the influence of characters like maniacal Gen. Pedro de Valle (named in the Lafitte material), Dulles's friend Gen. Charles Willoughby (named in the Lafitte material), racist anti-semitic Gen. Edwin Walker (named in the Lafitte material), we can come to some understanding. -
20 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:
I'm not Miachel. But I have to wonder if JFK might have acquiesced over time to the JCS to increase the number of "advisors" to appease them over his refusal to introduce combat troops.
I agree that it is logical JFK may have acquiesced to JCS pressure for more advisors in order to buy time until he could gain footing and support for, not only no combat troops, but ultimately a slow withdrawal. But where are the documents? Even his library couldn't provide documents that define the increase to nearly 16,000: how many in what increments during what time period, and who signed off, etc.
-
20 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:
I'm not Miachel. But I have to wonder if JFK might have acquiesced over time to the JCS to increase the number of "advisors" to appease them over his refusal to introduce combat troops.
My apologies Ron, and to Michael Griffith for misspelling his name initially. I believe I edited it to read Michael.
I'm new on Ed Forum and learning the ropes by hit or miss.
I'll try to not make the same error twice.
best, L. -
10 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:
First, yes, I've read Galbraith's article. Unlike some folks here, I like to read both sides before I make arguments on a subject.
Two, the problem is that you are ignoring that these were plans, objectives, goals, but they were not absolute and unalterable--they were conditional, and the crucial condition was that South Vietnam be able to defend herself.
Three, you folks keep ignoring the plain language of NSAMs 263 and 273 (first draft) that the U.S. would continue to aid South Vietnam even after the withdrawal had been executed.
This is why it is problematic and discrediting when Stone's JFK documentary has Newman citing the secret McNamara debrief to the effect that JFK was prepared to pull out even if South Vietnam fell to the communists. In April 1964, RFK made it crystal clear that this was not the case. NSAM 263 and 273 both clearly envision U.S. aid even after a withdrawal and even in the absence of any American troops on the ground--however, one of Taylor's recommendations approved in NSAM 263 stated that a small number of trainers may have needed to remain in country.
You folks would be fine if you would just stick to what the facts support: JFK wanted, intended, desired to withdraw all troops as soon as possible and to avoid using regular combat troops. Yes, absolutely. That is totally clear. But, any total pullout would be based on the situation on the ground. He had no intention of abandoning South Vietnam to communist tyranny. He was going to continue to give South Vietnam weapons and supplies, and he was even willing to provide air support if needed.
Have any of you watched Dr. Selverstone's 2016 video yet? The evidence he presents therein is a fraction of the evidence that will be in his upcoming book The Kennedy Withdrawal: Camelot and the American Commitment to Vietnam.
Michael, I'm curious if you've wrestled with President Kennedy's having been ultimately responsible for increasing US presence in Vietnam — regardless of the role those advisors/servicemen are alleged to have been filling — from some 700 when he took office to approx. 16,000? Agreed, he made it quite clear he intended to begin a slow withdrawal, but I've yet to find an explanation for the over 20 fold increase during his nearly three years as Commander in Chief. Does that number reflect rotation? Were his hands tied? Were the increases in such small increments he didn't truly absorb the escalation? You may know better than I whether experts in this field of research have addressed the increase. I've requested documents, but none to date have resolved the dilemma.
-
5 hours ago, Bill Fite said:
The fact is the orders were given from the President to the JCS and then noted in the memo.
Have fun in the imaginary land it seems you inhabit.
Has General Theodore Mataxis surfaced in your studies?
-
17 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:
I probably shouldn't comment here, I've got A Secret Order but not Coup yet. Not really familiar with the details on Skorzeny about his teams, work for different governments. Not like Paul or Leslie for sure.
But I wonder, given his n a z i background. Might he have ever been utilized by Allen Dulles? Given Dulles actions in Sweden in WWII, his involvement in Paperclip/Gehlen/Von Baun/the rat lines through Israel to Soth America. Might they have shared similar thoughts/objectives?
Yes, Ron, as Albarelli writes in Coup, Skorzeny was recruited to serve American intelligence. Bill Donovan and Allen Dulles put him to work post WWII in their World Commerce Corporation scheme where he worked in league with WCC president Frank Ryan, then posted to Madrid. Skorzeny also set up shop with the likes of Rexist Party leader Leon DeGrelle, global arms dealer Victor Oswald (former OSS asset) who was a close friend of Ryan, and SS Johannes Bernhardt who was providing support to Franco in reequipping his military.
One could say that the Gehlen Org (Uphill) was responsible for facilitating US control over the brains of German science and industry, while Skorzeny was responsible for stabilizing n a z i brawn in the event the Soviets made a move. It appears Otto and Reinhard worked in tandem, but with a predictable degree of competition for resources. There's a lengthy memo from Skorzeny to John McCloy proposing, in detail, that McCloy support his efforts to maintain some 200,000 former n a z i soldiers. We all know McCloy's later role alongside Allen Dulles with the Warren Commission.
Of interest, in 1961, Frank Ryan came to defense of General Edwin Walker:
The action taken regarding Major General Edwin Walker is amazing. Is it a crime nowadays to be a patriot? Is it a crime to teach Americanism to our troops? Must a general be “relieved of command” when he is giving his troops something to fight for? Who is relieving of command those in government who are responsible for the Communist foothold in this hemisphere? Who is being “relieved of command” for other Communists favoring actions in our State Department?
—Frank T. Ryan, President
World Commerce Corporation
June 25, 1961
-
Thanks Paul.
Just to be clear, had Lafitte left any clues that Mossad was active in the assassination, Hank wouldn't have hesitated to expose that explosive revelation. The closest hint from Lafitte would be Angleton who had a long history with the Israelis and their intel, so no, it's not illogical to consider the possibility.
However, if we're studying "boots not the ground", what are the names of those within Mossad or the Israeli government directly involved in meetings in the lead up to Dallas? Are there Mossad shooters in Dealey? Is Otto Skorzeny still liaising with Rafi, for example?
Much has been made of Skorzeny's (alleged) role in taking out Nasser's scientists at the behest of the Israelis. But how long did that association last? And why concentrate on that episode at the expense of studying Skorzeny's other clients during the Cold War?
My answer (and I believe this would have been Hank's), the Jews were an easy target in this investigation. Conversely, we are just now, in the past couple of years, looking seriously at the remnants of the n a z I Reich that Mae Brussell alerted us to in the 1980s.
Jean Rene Souetre expelled from the US 18hrs after JFKA?!
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Ron, Pierre Lafitte — a central character in Hank Albarelli's investigation who maintained a datebook throughout 1963 — wrote,
SOUETRE AND DAVIS IN APRIL HERE [HOTEL]
-SHAW WHERE?
—Lafitte datebook, MAY 9, 1963
We concluded that the Shaw named in the datebook is Clay LaVerne Shaw of New Orleans (board member of Perminde), and argue that since Lafitte knew Shaw personally, and Lafitte knew Souetre personally, then logically, Shaw was at the very least familiar with Souetre. (The Davis named in this May 9 entry is Teas native Thomas Eli Davis Jr, who has been credibly named as having run guns with Jack Ruby among others.)
From Coup in Dallas . . .
Shortly after JFK’s assassination, on December 9, 1963, the US State Department’s consulate in Tangier, Morocco, sent a “Priority” cable to Secretary of State Dean Rusk concerning an American named Thomas Eli Davis, Jr. The next day, copies of the cable were forwarded by Secretary Rusk’s office to top-ranking officials at the CIA, including DCI John McCone, Counterintelligence chief James Jesus Angleton and Deputy Director of Plans Richard Helms. Additional copies were sent to the Office of Naval Intelligence and the National Security Agency. A handwritten list on the CIA’s cable copy indicates that it was distributed to eight additional top-ranking officers at the CIA.
(Note: Young Thomas Eli Davis was referred to as both Jr. and III in various government documents, newspaper accounts and family records. Experienced national reporter Seth Kantor explained, “Davis preferred to put ‘Jr.’ at the end of his name, even on legal documents,” but that as Davis’ name was identical to his father (living at the time) and his grandfather, III would be more accurate. The reader will encounter both Jr. and III, depending on the respective source material.)
The cable stated that Thomas Eli Davis, Jr., carrying US passport number D236764 issued in New Orleans on January 31, 1963, had been arrested in Tangier the day before, December 8, for “trying to sell two Walther pistols.” . . .
. . . That Thomas Davis was in Mexico City “at a hotel thing” with Lee Harvey Oswald in September 1963 is a stunning and dramatic revelation. It is fully supported by jottings in the datebook of Pierre Lafitte for the dates September 29 and September 30, 1963. Lafitte’s entries make it quite clear that he had advance knowledge about Lee Harvey Oswald’s trip to Mexico City. The datebook for September 22, 1963, reads: “Oswald-Mexico.” On the same day, Lafitte entered the name “Gaudet” into his date book, and then, on September 26, he writes, “O traveling.” On September 27, after Lee Oswald had arrived in Mexico City, Lafitte entered the words: “Oswald—Comercio hotel- to meet with Tom D. at Luma.” About half an inch below this, Lafitte writes: “Meet with Broglie-Luma re O.” And on September 29, he wrote: “Tom at embassy—done.” On Oswald’s last day in Mexico, Lafitte writes: “Cable to Madrid- all ok- tell Tom D. O says come to Madrid.” That entry in particular looms large as we pursue Davis’ further role in the assassination.