Bill Kelly's Review of David Talbot's new book "The Devil's Chessboard"

[Glenn Nall]

...The Dulles brothers, Harriman, and others of their circle helped create Nazi Germany and revive its economy, industry and military along fascist lines. Great heroics there, if decades of accumulated private profit and governmental murder equal heroics. Your arguments for Allen Dulles's heroism are the same as those that have sustained a hard-right versus hard-left system worldwide, with the US continually backing repressive, murderous, rightist governments. Surely the US could have attempted something more moderate and humane after WW II, which was what Kennedy was after. Yet Allen Dulles: "That little Kennedy - he thought he was a god."

Politics is a fuzzy business. Allen Dulles and Joe Kennedy might have been compeitors -- but at one time Joe Kennedy predicted that Hitler was going to win WW2.

If the only choices we have are Hard Right and Hard Left, David, then I must lose, because I'm in the middle. But it's so fuzzy -- we must define our terms.

When you say Hard Right, do you mean, as Hitler meant, and as the KKK mean, White Supremacy? If so, then I can't be with them -- I'm not White.

When you say Hard Left, do you mean State Ownership of all Property? If so, then I can't be with them -- I advocate Private Property as sanity itself.

If these are the meanings of the terms, then Allen Dulles wasn't on the Hard Right. The problem with the Cold War was that the USSR was openly advocating the abolition of Private Property. That's a declaration of War all by itself.

Worse than that, the Marxist "Communist Manifesto" openly advocated the Abolition of: (1) Private Property; (2) Religion; (3) the Family; (4) the Nation. It was like a science-fiction nightmare.

This was the Hard-Left in the Cold War. Just because Allen Dulles opposed that nonsense -- did that make him a Neo-Nazi?

I don't think so.

The problem with any criticism of Allen Dulles that suggests he was a Neo-Nazi is that it is inspired by the Hard Left. For the Left-wing, EVERYTHING that isn't Hard Left is too far Right -- and they use the word "Nazi" as a euphemism.

So, as I say, we must define our terms.

In the objective study of US History, I regard Allen Dulles as a Great American. What a genius he was. He brought stability to the world during the Cold War -- which required only the greatest of minds.

By contrast, a mediocre mind like General Edwin Walker, who claimed to be Anticommunist, was really a Segregationist, and so he made Allen Dulles' work that much more difficult. General Walker gave America a bad name, IMHO, while Allen Dulles did great work that will stand the test of time.

But first, it must stand the test of this new book by David Talbot. I still don't have my own copy, but I will get one soon. Allen Dulles didn't kill JFK -- that's my position. I'm a CTer, not a LNer, but I totally absolve Allen Dulles and the CIA high-command from the murder of JFK.

Now -- if somebody has already condemned the CIA and Allen Dulles, then by mere proxy and innuendo they will conclude that Dulles and the CIA killed JFK, right?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

nope. not right. there are alternatives.

[James DiEugenio]

In the objective study of US History, I regard Allen Dulles as a Great American. What a genius he was. He brought stability to the world during the Cold War -- which required only the greatest of minds.

Allen Dulles is directly responsible for the slaughter that took place in Guatemala after the Arbenz coup. Approximately 150 to 200K were killed by the fascist dictators who took over after Arbenz was ousted by the CIA.

Allen Dulles is directly responsible for the tens of thousands who were killed, tortured or imprisoned by the SAVAK after the CIA deposed Mossadegh. But beyond that, it was that coup which began the bitter resentment in the Arab world against the USA.

Allen Dulles was directly responsible for the murder of Patrice Lumumba in Congo, which ended up in the deaths, torture and imprisonment of thousands of his followers by the despots Tshombe and Mobutu.

​In those three cases, the crimes that these men committed were simple: they wanted to give the resources of their lands over to the people who lived there. Because in each instance, these Third World countries had been either colonized, or purchased by American and European imperialism. This made those corporate interests incredibly wealthy and the people who lived in those countries more or less slaves.

Since Dulles was an attorney for many of these interests, and since his idea of politics coincided with theirs--namely that oligarchy is better than democracy--he performed these acts with alacrity and without pity or empathy.

Paul, if this is greatness, if this is heroism, if this is genius, then your ideas about politics are so bizarre, that I don't think there is much to discuss with you.

Edited October 18, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[David Andrews]

I agree that it's time to get the book, read it, and discuss that. I've got my name on the library list, so I'm out of this till then.

[James DiEugenio]

I am out of this also, since as noted elsewhere, Trejo cannot even find the current edition of my book.

Edited October 18, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Glenn Nall]

whew.

when i get these posts in my email, they're without formatting, and the italics were absent from the first line, so that what i thought i was reading was James saying he regards ADulles as a Great American, while going on to describe the very accurate behaviors he undertook that cost thousands of innocent lives.

i'm glad i came to see the post and clear up my confusion, that your first line was a quote. Paul is claiming objective study and his acclaim for Allen Dulles' patriotism.

cute. i enjoy humor.

[Chris Newton]

I think that Allen Dulles' CIA had given Hungarian revolutionaries during operations REDSOX/REDCAP encouragement and hope that if they could instigate revolution that the U.S. government would surely back there cause (with arms and military intervention). Fast forward to 1960 and Dulles' operators are telling the cubans the same thing. When US intervention fails to materialize for the Cuban situation, the big difference is that the pissed off revolutionaries were here, walking our streets, not thousands of miles away across the ocean in Budapest.

I had dated a Hungarian woman while I was in Germany in the '80s who had been smuggled out of Hungary in the trunk of a car as a child. She had described to me a populace very bitter about the support they didn't receive from the West but especially bitter with the US because of the promises -direct promises- that I can only imagine came from Radio Free Europe.

My question is: does Talbot address Dulles and the Hungarian revolution?

[James DiEugenio]

Yes he does.

But not as a major subject, only as an example of he and his brother's extreme ideas and their attempt to run their own foreign policy.

I just got done with his section on Lumumba. Its one of the best short treatments of that subject that I have seen.

As is his section on the CIA's support for the 1961 OAS coup attempt on DeGaulle.

[Paul Trejo]

I've ordered David Talbot's new book via amazon.com, the only place I could find it today.

Here's what we see in the Prologue:

"Given free reign by President Eisenhower to police the world against any insurgent threat to US dominion, Dulles' CIA overthrew nationalist governments in Africa, Latin America and the Middle East, and even targeted troublesome leaders in allied European countries....Meanwhile, his brother John Foster Dulles -- Eisenhower's official Secretary of State -- brought the gloom of a doomsday-obsessed vicar to his job, with his frequent sermons on Communist perfidy and his constant threats of nuclear annihilation." (David Talbot, "The Devil's Chessboard", 2015)

At first glance, this writing is biased from the start. Those who sided with the Left-wing during the Cold War surely opposed the "interference" of the USA in the rise of Communist regimes in Africa, Latin America, the Middle East and Europe. But those who considered the true terror of a world without Private Property, Religion, Family, Nation, or the Bill of Rights -- i.e. people like Allen Dulles -- felt perfectly justified in preventing the spread of the Marxist-Leninist claptrap.

Is David Talbot going to be one-sided throughout his book? Will he take the side of the USSR and the Leftwing from beginning to end? We shall soon see. I patiently await my own copy.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 18, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[James DiEugenio]

I am now up to Dulles' firing.

This was done not just for the Bay of Pigs, but also because DeGaulle communicated to Kennedy that the CIA was backing the OAS coup against him. And Kennedy actually told the French ambassador that the CIA was such a big agency and so complex that he could not swear he could control it.

Edited October 18, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Trejo]

I just finished reading David Talbot's treatment of Ruth Paine. I found it well-researched and well-written. It was objective and honest, if wry and ironic.

Talbot is a superior writer.

What a far cry from the lynch-mob treatment given to Ruth Paine by attorney Carol Hewett and her quislings, Steven Jones, Barbara LaMonica and James DiEugenio.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Here are a couple quotes from David Talbot's new book, in which he references Ruth and Michael Paine:

Appearing before the Warren Commission, Ruth and Michael Paine seemed confused and tentative when it came to assigning guilt to Oswald. They both agreed that while he was a man of headstrong convictions, he did not impress them as a dangerous sort, and, like George de Mohrenschildt, they said Oswald rather liked Kennedy. "I had never thought of him as a violent man," Ruth testified. He had never said anything against President Kennedy....There was nothing that I had seen about him that indicated a man with that kind of grudge or hostility." (David Talbot, The Devil's Chessboard, p. 543)

The Paines seemed to grow more convinced of Oswald's guilt over time. But nowadays Michael is not as cocksure as Ruth. As he talked about those ancient, catastrophic days, he seemed bewildered, like someone trying to explain a collision he had survived long ago. He still wavered back and forth, just as he did with the Warren Commission. "Oswald...liked Kennedy. Oh, he did! He said, 'JFK is my favorite president!' " (David Talbot, The Devil's Chessboard, p. 545)

Edited October 30, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Gene Kelly]

Chris/Jim:

Your parallels to Hungary are instructive. A good treatment of the frustration and failure of that CIA 'operation' is contained in "Harlots Ghost" by Norman Mailer (I believe this is what drove Frank Wisner to extremes). I think Castro was the end of Dulles' CIA world influence era. He and his dangerous minions were desperate to place blame for their monumental failures in Cuba somewhere... and JFK became a convenient scapegoat. You are right-on with the analogy to the bitter abandoned Cuban revolutionaries. That sentiment was intentionally stirred up throughout 1963. Kennedy is unfortunately stuck within the last pathetic paramilitary attempts to invade/eliminate the Communist boogeyman in Vietnam, Central America and of course the island 90 miles off of our coast. All of them (in retrospect) are strategic failures and wastes of human life. DeGaulle and France is another key data point ... the dots become better connected.

Gene

[James DiEugenio]

Glad you brought that up Gene.

Talbot's chapter on DeGaulle and the OAS is really good.

But the capper is the interview that DeGaulle gave after the JFK murder.

It was never fully translated into English before.

Its a barn burner. He sounds like Castro the day after. In some aspects he is even more extreme.

He knew precisely what really happened.

[Tom Neal]

I am now up to Dulles' firing.

This was done not just for the Bay of Pigs, but also because DeGaulle communicated to Kennedy that the CIA was backing the OAS coup against him. And Kennedy actually told the French ambassador that the CIA was such a big agency and so complex that he could not swear he could control it.

A Frenchman among the DP cadre has been a persistent rumor. Do you suppose he was there as a "thanks for the help with DeGaulle in 1961" gesture from the French assassins?

Tom

Edited October 31, 2015 by Tom Neal

[Chris Newton]

James DiEugenio, on 18 Oct 2015 - 3:56 PM, said:

I am now up to Dulles' firing.

This was done not just for the Bay of Pigs, but also because DeGaulle communicated to Kennedy that the CIA was backing the OAS coup against him. And Kennedy actually told the French ambassador that the CIA was such a big agency and so complex that he could not swear he could control it.

A Frenchman among the DP cadre has been a persistent rumor. Do you suppose he was there as a "thanks for the help with DeGaulle in 1961" gesture from the French assassins?

Tom

We've speculated about Corsican and OAS hitman for years. Maybe Talbot's exposure of CIA involvement in the '61 coup attempt and his ID of Bill Harvey in Dallas will eventually bring us 360 degrees and we'll find out that we should have trusted our instincts concerning the Dinkin "intercept" and not trusted the intelligence community and main stream media that down played it or flat out ignored it.