Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Bay of Pigs Thing


Recommended Posts

  • 6 months later...

All I can say about that document is that it is far from the full story of what was authorized, what was directed, and what was understood to be in play by the CI officers directly off the beachhead who were directly in communications with the Navy command ship...that the full and un-sanitized story will be in my upcoming book out in April - its title ("In Denial" is actually a good characterization of the document posted by Bart. 

As a side note, even the CIA historian would later harshly condemn the Navy for its failures in support of the operation.  Not something the Navy or its JCS representative would admit to under any circumstances (but sort of given away by the destruction of all operational materials on board the aircraft carrier before the Navy command ship even left the area).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I can get my foot in my mouth here...  From what may be a fading memory, I thought JFK authorized only the pre landing attacks of the airfields the day before, that they wiped out all but 3 , maybe 6 of the T-33's.  That because JFK wouldn't change his mind, like Dulles thought he would, the surviving T-33's devastated both landing parties and those on the beach.  

But this says they took down four B-26's on the day of the attack and two more two days later?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its way, way more complex than that Ron,  actually JFK authorized both subsequent air strikes in B-26's flown by American pilots, as well as Navy air cover for ground attacks.....all I can tell you is that the story is far more complex than anything you have seen in print so far,  far more convoluted. And it covers over a year in time, with the actual Cuba Project as approved by Eisenhower totally failing as of October, 1960 - what the CIA executed at the Bay of Pigs was not what either Ike or JFK has authorized with presidential directives. Of course the initial CIA IG report caught a good deal the CIA failures which is why it was suppressed, but none of the official inquires were privy to the information we have now - a good bit of which was totally undocumented. 

About all I can do at this point is to say that I think I finally have it all covered in my upcoming book and I'm really looking forward to discussing the whole story as we can now see it - which I assure you is far different than anything in the history books (or the JFK books so far).   Including the Navy's role and their side games with Bissell which nobody wanted to talk about.

The book will be out on April 17, in Print and Kindle....  https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B082MTQS2G/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i8

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was that Jim but I'm not at all bashful about the new book....so much crap has been written about this that its time to dig in and bring out the real history.  If there are any objections I'll stop posting about it here but of course the point is it can't be discussed until someone know its exists and actually reads it. Besides, it will give everyone a few new villains, including Richard Bissell and two Navy Admirals - all of whom lied to JFK.

I'll go even a step beyond that,  In Denial is also going to be important as background and context to understand the full nature and range of the assassination projects against Castro including the personnel that were most likely the ones turned against JFK in Dallas....how about that for a teaser.   The good news on that is nobody will have to pay for those new studies - they it will be freely available in the Wheaton Names White Paper that David Boylan and I will publish, and in my Thesis paper on the assassination.  Both of which I hope will be done and posted by the end of this summer.

Edited by Larry Hancock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

It was that Jim but I'm not at all bashful about the new book....so much crap has been written about this that its time to dig in and bring out the real history.  If there are any objections I'll stop posting about it here but of course the point is it can't be discussed until someone know its exists and actually reads it. Besides, it will give everyone a few new villains, including Richard Bissell and two Navy Admirals - all of whom lied to JFK.

I'll go even a step beyond that,  In Denial is also going to be important as background and context to understand the full nature and range of the assassination projects against Castro including the personnel that were most likely the ones turned against JFK in Dallas....how about that for a teaser.   The good news on that is nobody will have to pay for those new studies - they it will be freely available in the Wheaton Names White Paper that David Boylan and I will publish, and in my Thesis paper on the assassination.  Both of which I hope will be done and posted by the end of this summer.

I wish you had interviewed James Rothstein for your book who has a topic devoted to him in our forum. He was on the Essex during the Bay of Pigs invasion and helped supervise the loading of two nuclear bombs aboard the ship in preparation for the invasion. He is in contact today with a few sailors on other ships that were involved in the invasion. He could tell you about his and others being denied certain Veterans benefits because the role of the Essex has been covered up officially due to the nuclear bombs being on board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do cover the Essex story in considerable detail including the loading of very special ground attack munitions - not nuclear weapons. During my research I reviewed remarks from many of the ship's personnel, including his story - which you had written about earlier. Some of that information was included, some was not, based on what I could corroborate.  I'll leave it at that for the present - my goal in replying to Ron on this thread was simply to point out that I don't feel a lot of confidence can be placed in much of what has previously appeared in the histories of the event. 

As Jim pointed out, the book should be discussed in a separate section, once it is in print and available.  No doubt that discussion will be lively.

If you are in touch with Mr. Rothstein and he wants to discuss his experience privately I'd welcome his email at larryjoe@westok.net

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Burke was far more involved in the Navy operations than JFK understood and had ordered measures JFK appears to have been unaware of, measures far beyond the presidents directive for the operation. He had also pushed for much stronger rules of engagement than JFK was willing to accept. 

During the actual landings he pressed the President for authority to conduct ground strikes with Navy aircraft against Cuban forces and was agitated that JFK only authorized that to a limited extent.  Burke clearly wished to fully engage the Cuban military, which would have been an act of war and totally illegal.  That's a story in itself. 

He and others also appear to have totally failed to prepare a contingency plan that JFK had ordered.  

But perhaps most depressing, is that when JFK did authorize Navy air,  Burke and the commander on the Essex totally blew it and covered up their mistakes....the CIA Historians report goes into that in great detail.  Aside that, Burke's own oral Navy history is fascinating and he himself admits that he had seriously problems communicating with and understanding JFK during that period of time.

 

Edited by Larry Hancock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

It was that Jim but I'm not at all bashful about the new book....so much crap has been written about this that its time to dig in and bring out the real history.  If there are any objections I'll stop posting about it here but of course the point is it can't be discussed until someone know its exists and actually reads it. Besides, it will give everyone a few new villains, including Richard Bissell and two Navy Admirals - all of whom lied to JFK.

I'll go even a step beyond that,  In Denial is also going to be important as background and context to understand the full nature and range of the assassination projects against Castro including the personnel that were most likely the ones turned against JFK in Dallas....how about that for a teaser.   The good news on that is nobody will have to pay for those new studies - they it will be freely available in the Wheaton Names White Paper that David Boylan and I will publish, and in my Thesis paper on the assassination.  Both of which I hope will be done and posted by the end of this summer.

No objections here Larry plug away.. 😉  I also am eager to see your White paper and Thesis.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

I do cover the Essex story in considerable detail including the loading of very special ground attack munitions - not nuclear weapons. During my research I reviewed remarks from many of the ship's personnel, including his story - which you had written about earlier. Some of that information was included, some was not, based on what I could corroborate.  I'll leave it at that for the present - my goal in replying to Ron on this thread was simply to point out that I don't feel a lot of confidence can be placed in much of what has previously appeared in the histories of the event. 

As Jim pointed out, the book should be discussed in a separate section, once it is in print and available.  No doubt that discussion will be lively.

If you are in touch with Mr. Rothstein and he wants to discuss his experience privately I'd welcome his email at larryjoe@westok.net

Larry:

James Rothstein called me today because I had sent him a copy of the Timeline of sorties flown in the Bay of Pigs as posted by Bart Kamp above. He told me that he was familiar with some of the Timeline but that the Essex was part of a different operation. He also told me that his brother was on the Independence during the invasion. He knows too much about the Bay of Pigs to reduce it all to an email. He, like me, has only a limited amount of sand left n his hour glass (I'll be 82 this month and he is close behind me.) He is willing to be interviewed.  I suggest that you telephone him if you want his oral history. I am sending his phone number to you using the forum's message service so expect a notification.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...