Why Col. L. Fletcher Prouty's Critics Are Wrong

[Norman T. Field]

The book "The Soong Dynasty" is very interesting on this subject. 

[Michael Griffith]

21 hours ago, Norman T. Field said:

The book "The Soong Dynasty" is very interesting on this subject. 

I've haven't read The Soong Dynasty, but I'd bet good money that it does not claim that Soong "controlled" Chiang. I'd also bet good money that it does not claim that Soong was the wealthiest man in the world.  

I haven't read The Soong Dynasty, but I've read many books and many articles on the Sino-Japanese War, Chiang Kai-shek, and the Pacific Theater in WW II, and not one of them makes the false claim that Soong controlled Chiang. Again, for about the tenth time, Soong resigned in disgust from Chiang's government in 1933 and did not return for nine years because he could not persuade Chiang to be as tough against the Japanese as Soong thought he should be. 

Prouty's errors about Soong and Chiang, as bad as they are, are not nearly as egregious as his bizarre claims that FDR and Stalin reached an agreement at the Tehran Conference about Mao standing down in China, that Chiang and his delegation attended the Tehran Conference, that Elliott Roosevelt saw the Chinese delegation at Habanaya Airport in Iraq on the way to Tehran, that Elliott Roosevelt knew the Chinese delegation was at the Tehran Conference, that Churchill was delayed at a Russian checkpoint in Tehran because he had no ID on him, and that while Churchill and his delegation were allegedly delayed at the checkpoint the Chinese delegation stood up in their cars and openly laughed and pointed at the British delegation.   

Edited October 4, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Paul Brancato]

5 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

I've haven't read The Soong Dynasty, but I'd bet good money that it does not claim that Soong "controlled" Chiang. I'd also bet good money that it does not claim that Soong was the wealthiest man in the world.  

I haven't read The Soong Dynasty, but I've read many books and many articles on the Sino-Japanese War, Chiang Kai-shek, and the Pacific Theater in WW II, and not one of them makes the false claim that Soong controlled Chiang. Again, for about the tenth time, Soong resigned in disgust from Chiang's government in 1933 and did not return for nine years because he could not persuade Chiang to be as tough against the Japanese as Soong thought he should be. 

Prouty's errors about Soong and Chiang, as bad as they are, are not nearly as egregious as his bizarre claims that FDR and Stalin reached an agreement at the Tehran Conference about Mao standing down in China, that Chiang and his delegation attended the Tehran Conference, that Elliott Roosevelt saw the Chinese delegation at Habanaya Airport in Iraq on the way to Tehran, that Elliott Roosevelt knew the Chinese delegation was at the Tehran Conference, that Churchill was delayed at a Russian checkpoint in Tehran because he had no ID on him, and that while Churchill and his delegation were allegedly delayed at the checkpoint the Chinese delegation stood up in their cars and openly laughed and pointed at the British delegation.   

All first hand accounts. Are your sources first hand accounts? 

[Norman T. Field]

7 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Regarding the comment of a previous posted, "I'd also bet good money that it does not claim that Soong was the wealthiest man in the world.  "

You would loose that bet, for it does make that claim. Selling off American war supplies to the Japanese was but one of his lucrative endevors. 

[Michael Griffith]

On 10/3/2023 at 12:51 PM, Jeff Carter said:

Prouty’s source for Chiang’s presence in Teheran is a US government history of the Vietnam war published by the Government Printing Office in 1984.

Mao’s agreement to suspend the civil war until defeat of Japan was published in newspapers around the time of D-Day.

Let's see that 1984 document that supposedly says Chiang and his delegation were at the Tehran Conference. Let's see it. I suspect you're just taking Prouty's word about the document and have not seen it yourself. Let's see that document.

Over the last two days, I've been researching this issue again and have found solid proof that Chiang and his group could not have been in Tehran during the conference, which proof I will post tomorrow.

As for newspaper articles about Mao's agreeing to suspend the civil war, (1) D-Day was in June 1944, not December 1943, and (2) you've ignored my reply about the agreement between Chiang and Mao that they reached years earlier. This fact is very well documented. Those newspapers were probably just quoting Mao reaffirming that the civil war was on hold until the Japanese were defeated. Again, the fact that Chiang and Mao agreed years earlier to not fight each other in order to defeat the Japanese is an undisputed matter of record. You can find it discussed in many books, one of which I quoted in my reply. 

On 10/3/2023 at 1:27 PM, Jeff Carter said:

Speaking of checking out, the Encyclopedia Brittanica online describes TV Soong:

a “financier and official of the Chinese Nationalist government between 1927 and 1949, once reputed to have been the richest man in the world… He resigned as finance minister in 1931 though his influence—largely due to his wealth and his growing international prestige—remained great.”

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Song-Qingling

Prouty's information is therefore hardly a fabrication. The characterization of such is wrong and ill-motivated.

Uh, but Soong was not the richest man in the world. Not even close. Do you guys just not care about facts when it comes to Prouty's nonsense? Who "reputed" that Soong was the richest man in the world? Who said that? Whoever said that was badly misinformed. Just because some people "once" speculated that Soong was the richest man in the world does not change the fact that Soong was not even close to qualifying for that label. 

And where is the evidence that Soong "controlled" Chiang and that Chiang "knew he was working for" Soong? Huh? Where is it? As someone who's been researching the Sino-Japanese War and Chiang Kai-shek for many years, I can assure that you won't find a single scholarly book on the subject that makes those claims about Soong. 

@Norman T. FieldYou would loose that bet, for it does make that claim. Selling off American war supplies to the Japanese was but one of his lucrative endevors. 

Wrong. I just bought the Kindle edition of the book. Seagrave, the book's author, does not say that T. V. Soong was the richest man in the world.

On page 481, he quotes a Nationalist (Kuomintang) press release that, in passing, said that Soong was "one of the wealthiest men in the world," not the wealthiest. Even this claim is wrong. The Kuomintang may have believed this about Soong, but they were clearly not aware of how Soong's wealth compared to that of a number of other rich men in America and Europe.

On page 18, Seagrave speculates that Soong "may have been the richest man on earth." "May have been" is not a positive declaration, but speculation. But this speculation is wrong. Even the Kuomintang did not make such a claim about Soong. 

On page 451, Seagrave says that it was "scuttlebutt at high levels in Washington and London" that "by the end of the war," Soong was "one of the richest men on earth," and he identifies the statements about Soong's reported American holdings as part of the speculation then current among high officials in Washington and London. 

Finally, on page 482, Seagrave says this about Soong in the 1950s:

          T. V. was frenetically busy wheeling and dealing in oil stocks, commodity futures, and new technology. He energetically pursued the reputation he was earning as the “richest man in the world.”

This brings up another point: Soong acquired much of his wealth at the end of WW II, and he increased his wealth after China fell to the Communists by moving to America. So by any factual measurement, Soong was not "the wealthiest man in the world" in 1943 and 1944. He was not even the richest man in the world after he moved to America. 

Edited October 4, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Michael Griffith]

On 10/3/2023 at 11:09 AM, W. Niederhut said:

The thing about this repetitive John McAdams/Michael Griffith "Swift Boat Vetting" defamation of Col. L. Fletcher Prouty is that the same old defamatory tropes can be repeated indefinitely on social media.

Rinse and repeat the bunk until people believe it's true.

The CIA propaganda people have been aggressively trying to discredit Prouty for more than 30 years for his insights about NSAM 263 and his identification of Allen Dulles's favorite black ops man, Ed Lansdale, in Dealey Plaza (which was corroborated by General Victor Krulak.)

And, despite posting book-length, repetitive smears here about Prouty, Michael Griffith has never even read Prouty's own book, describing the details of his work on the McNamara/Taylor Report, NSAM 263, and his trip to Antarctica in November of 1963.

Nor has Griffith posted his sources for insisting that Chiang Kai-shek's delegation never met secretly with Stalin in Tehran-- despite the fact that Chiang was, in fact, invited to Tehran.

How are people supposed to respond to this kind of redundant Swift Boat Vetting propaganda?

The consensus after 2004 was that John Kerry needed to respond more aggressively and repetitively to the repeated Swift Boat Vet ads on television.  The smear job worked.

But, honestly, it becomes tiresome and boring to respond to Griffith's repetitive defamation of Prouty on the forum.

I'm taking a break from the task.

A few points in reply to your latest balmy diatribe:

Some of Prouty's fiercest critics have been liberals and ultra-liberals, some of whom are as hypercritical of the CIA as you are. 

Prouty's erroneous "insights" about NSAM 263 have been debunked and rejected even by the vast majority of liberal scholars. 

You complain about the alleged "smearing" of Prouty and then turn around and spew ugly, outlandish smears against Edward Lansdale. Krulak's alleged "corroboration" of Lansdale's alleged presence in Dealey Plaza is appears to be a hoax. His supposed "corroboration" is in a letter that purports to be from Krulak to Prouty in which Krulak endorses the claim that Dealey Plaza tramp photo #1 shows Lansdale with his back to the camera! But there is considerable doubt about the authenticity of that letter because Krulak denied that Lansdale was in Dealey Plaza when he was interviewed, on tape, by Harrison Livingstone.

In the recording (LINK), you can hear with your own ears what Krulak says when he is asked if he gives any credibility to the claim that Lansdale was involved in the assassination and was in Dealey Plaza during the shooting. Krulak answers "NO," and then says, "I haven't the remotest knowledge of that. The only things that I've ever heard is what Prouty has told me." 

Then, Livingstone asks Krulak about Prouty's claim that one of the tramp photos shows Lansdale with his back to the camera. In response, Krulak says that Prouty had told him that but that he, Krulak, could not corroborate it: "Yes, he has told me that. I couldn't corroborate it because I don't have any independent information or evidence." 

Livingstone then asks Krulak if he has any reason to suspect that Lansdale might have been involved in the assassination. Krulak answers, "No, no, I would not." The Q&A about Lansdale occurs from 4:20 to 6:10 on the recording. 

Also, go read Prouty's ARRB interview and see how he waffled and back-peddled about his claim that the photo shows Lansdale from behind. Even Oliver Stone has repudiated Prouty's nutty clams about Lansdale.

As for your claim that John Kerry was the victim of a "smear job" by the Swift Boat veterans in 2004, I know you haven't bothered to read the research that those veterans presented. They did not "smear" Kerry but exposed his fraudulent war record and his even more disgraceful falsehoods about the conduct of American troops in South Vietnam.

Edited October 5, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Paul Brancato]

On 10/4/2023 at 11:58 AM, Norman T. Field said:

You would loose that bet, for it does make that claim. Selling off American war supplies to the Japanese was but one of his lucrative endevors. 

Fortunately I didn’t make that comment.

[Michael Griffith]

@W. Niederhut@Paul Brancato@Jeff Carter@Ron Bulman  As promised, here is more evidence that refutes Prouty's claim that Chiang Kai-shek and his group attended the Tehran Conference. But, first, allow me to note that, yes, I have read Prouty’s books The Secret Team and JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy. I’ve also watched three of his video-taped interviews, read his ARRB interview, read some of his correspondence, read two or three of his articles, and read his obscene defense of the Scientology fraud. With this understood, let’s continue. 

On the State Department's Office of the Historian website, there is a letter from Chiang's wife, Mayling, to FDR, dated 12/5/43, that proves that Chiang and his group could not have been in Tehran between the morning of 11/27/43, when they left Cairo, and the morning of 11/30/43, when they arrived at the Ramgarh military base. (In a previous reply, I assumed that Chiang left Cairo in the afternoon on 11/26/43, after the conference ended, but it turns out that he and his group did not leave Cairo until the following morning.) 

In her letter to FDR, Mayling stated that they arrived in Chungking, China, on the morning of 12/1/43, i.e., on the same day the Tehran Conference ended. And keep in mind that Chungking was five hours ahead of Tehran and Cairo. Madame Chiang then said that on the way to Chungking, (1) they stopped to do an inspection of the Chinese-American Composite Wing in Karachi, India/Pakistan, and then (2) stopped to do an inspection and to view a tank-artillery demo in Ramgarh. She further mentioned that after the Ramgarh visit, they stopped in Chabau, India, late that night, to meet with the generals in charge of the Ledo front. I quote from her letter: 

          My Dear Mr. President: The Generalissimo [Chiang] and I arrived in Chungking on the morning of December 1st. On our way we inspected the training of the Composite Wing in Karachi. We also stopped at Ramgarh for the day to inspect the troops and to attend the practice of tanks and artillery and finally, late that night, we stopped at Chabau where we had a conference with the generals commanding the forces at the Ledo front. Admiral Mountbatten met us at Ranchi and accompanied us to the Ramgarh manoeuvers. You will be glad to know that the Generalissimo was delighted with the training and spoke to the troops exhorting them to give their best in the coming Burma campaign. (LINK) 

So, before Chiang and his party spent the day in Ramgarh on 11/30/43, they stopped in Karachi to inspect the Chinese-American Composite Wing, which was stationed at Malir Field (the area was then part of India but is now part of Pakistan). The stop in Karachi must have occurred on 11/28/43 or 11/29/43 and probably lasted much of the day, as did the Ramgarh visit.

A U.S. Army history, titled United States Army in World War II: China-Burma-India Theater, confirms that on the afternoon of 11/26/43, i.e., the last day of the Cairo Conference, Chiang was preparing to return to Chungking. The term "Generalissimo" was a common nickname for Chiang: 

          The Allied leaders met the afternoon of the 26th at tea. . . . After tea the Prime Minister and Madame Chiang separately told Mountbatten that the Generalissimo had agreed on every point. Such was the situation when Churchill and Roosevelt with their key advisers departed for Tehran, and the Generalissimo prepared to go to Chungking. (LINK) 

This same U.S. Army history includes a photo of Chiang, his wife, and Admiral Mountbatten and others that was taken during Chiang's visit to Ramgarh (LINK, see page 67 for the caption). Here is the link to the photo from the U.S. Army history: LINK. 

The photo shows members of Chiang's staff standing to his left. The photo also shows two Chinese civilians dressed in suits standing to Mountbatten's right--these were probably two members of the Chinese delegation.  

The U.S. Army history also notes that the Chiang party flew to Ramgarh "on their way back from Cairo": 

          On 30 November 1943 the headquarters of the Chinese Army in India [Ramgarh] was visited by Generalissimo and Madame Chiang on their way back from Cairo. (LINK) 

Historian Jay Taylor confirms that Chiang flew home to Chungking after the Cairo Conference: 

          Chiang and his wife rose early on November 27 and made a dash to the pyramids, then headed for their airplane for the long flight home via India. (The Generalissimo: Chiang Kai-shek and the Struggle for Modern China, Belknap Press, 2011, p. 252) 

General Stilwell accompanied the Chiangs to their plane (Taylor, p. 252). 

On the flight home, Chiang wrote in his diary that the Cairo Conference was "an important achievement" (Taylor, p. 252). 

Another U.S. Army history, titled Strategic Planning for Coalition Warfare 1943-1944, states that Chiang, his wife, the Chinese delegation, and Chiang's staff arrived in Cairo on the morning of 11/22/43, the day before the conference started (LINK). This was Chiang's group. They flew together. There is no record that they ever separated and flew home on different planes. The above-mentioned Ramgarh photo shows members of Chiang's staff standing next to him and shows Chinese civilians standing next to Mountbatten. 

Thus, even though histories and narratives understandably merely refer to Chiang or Chiang and his wife arriving here, leaving there, etc., we should understand that Chiang's group accompanied him when he arrived in Cairo and when he departed from Cairo to fly home to Chungking. 

In an article about the Cairo Conference on the University of Nottingham's Asia Research Institute website, we read,  

          Chiang Kai-shek led the delegation as China’s main representative, while his wife Song Meiling and a number of important Guomindang generals and foreign affairs officials also attended. (LINK) 

Prouty also erred when he claimed that T. V. Soong was part of Chiang's group at the Cairo Conference. This is part of his bogus claim that he flew Soong and "his delegates" from Cairo to Tehran ("these were T. V. Soong's delegates"). In fact, Soong did not go on the Cairo trip because he had incurred Chiang's displeasure. Historian Ronald Heiferman notes that before the conference, Roosevelt and Secretary of War Henry Stimson discussed the fact that Soong would not be attending the conference,  

          The president and the secretary also discussed T.V. Soong's fall from the good graces of the generalissimo and how his absence from Cairo might affect the summit. Stimson told Roosevelt that General Somervell had described Soong as "the [N-word] in the woodpile in Chungking" (The Cairo Conference of 1943: Roosevelt, Churchill, Chiang Kai-shek and Madame Chiang, McFarland Publishes, 2014, p. 52) 

Soong, ever the fanatic, viewed the Cairo Conference as a failure, lamenting that it was "more costly than I could have imagined." Soong told a colleague that "had he accompanied the Generalissimo to Cairo, he could have orchestrated things. . . ." (Heiferman, p. 153). 

Thus, Prouty was clearly fabricating again when he said that he flew Soong and "his delegates" from Cairo to Tehran. Note, too, that Soong's forced absence from the conference further debunks Prouty's fiction that Soong "controlled" Chiang.  

Prouty was peddling pure bunk when he claimed that Chiang would have sided with the Japanese had he not been "controlled by" Soong. You will not find a single historian who will endorse such laughable fiction. 

Edited October 6, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[W. Niederhut]

Geez... More Michael Griffith bunk to de-bunk?

This never ends.

To simplify, bear in mind that Michael Griffith's objective in all of his Prouty posts has been defamation-- to claim that Prouty is a "nutty" conspiracy theorist and an unreliable historical witness.

The most important example is Griffith's repetitive denial of Prouty and General Krulak's positive identification of Ed Lansdale in Dealey Plaza.

They, certainly, ID'd their old colleague, Ed Lansdale in Dealey Plaza (and wondered what Lansdale was doing in Dealey Plaza!) but Krulak didn't want to end up on the wrong end of a CIA shotgun, and declined to publicize his awareness of Lansdale's presence in Dealey Plaza.

As for the Chiang Kai-shek issue, Prouty wrote (in JFK-- The CIA, Vietnam, and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy) that he had personally flown members of Chiang's delegation from Cairo to Tehran in a VIP Lockheed Lodestar.  Prouty was less specific in his book about transportation arrangements for Chiang and his wife from Cairo.

Prouty also reported that Chiang's meeting with Stalin in Tehran was "one of the best kept secrets of WWII," and was unknown to historians who have written about Tehran.

The 11/26/43 NYT cable that I posted (above) indicates that Chiang was, in fact, invited to attend the 11/28/63 Tehran Conference to meet with Stalin.

Looking at Michael Griffith's own reported timeline, (above) we have;

Chiang and his wife leaving Cairo on the morning of 11/27/43.

Chiang and his wife arrived at Ramgarh on the morning of 11/30/43.

Chiang and his wife arrived in Chungking on 12/1/43.

How does Griffith's timeline prove that Prouty was not telling the truth about Chiang and a Chinese delegation (that Prouty personally flew from Cairo to Tehran) being in Tehran?

Answer:  It doesn't.

It's another one of Michael Griffith's numerous Prouty defamation nothing burgers.

 

[Michael Griffith]

9 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Geez... More Michael Griffith bunk to de-bunk?

This never ends.

To simplify, bear in mind that Michael Griffith's objective in all of his Prouty posts has been defamation-- to claim that Prouty is a "nutty" conspiracy theorist and an unreliable historical witness.

The most important example is Griffith's repetitive denial of Prouty and General Krulak's positive identification of Ed Lansdale in Dealey Plaza.

They, certainly, ID'd their old colleague, Ed Lansdale in Dealey Plaza (and wondered what Lansdale was doing in Dealey Plaza!) but Krulak didn't want to end up on the wrong end of a CIA shotgun, and declined to publicize his awareness of Lansdale's presence in Dealey Plaza.

As for the Chiang Kai-shek issue, Prouty wrote (in JFK-- The CIA, Vietnam, and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy) that he had personally flown members of Chiang's delegation from Cairo to Tehran in a VIP Lockheed Lodestar.  Prouty was less specific in his book about transportation arrangements for Chiang and his wife from Cairo.

Prouty also reported that Chiang's meeting with Stalin in Tehran was "one of the best kept secrets of WWII," and was unknown to historians who have written about Tehran.

The 11/26/43 NYT cable that I posted (above) indicates that Chiang was, in fact, invited to attend the 11/28/63 Tehran Conference to meet with Stalin.

Looking at Michael Griffith's own reported timeline, (above) we have;

Chiang and his wife leaving Cairo on the morning of 11/27/43.

Chiang and his wife arrived at Ramgarh on the morning of 11/30/43.

Chiang and his wife arrived in Chungking on 12/1/43.

How does Griffith's timeline prove that Prouty was not telling the truth about Chiang and a Chinese delegation (that Prouty personally flew from Cairo to Tehran) being in Tehran?

Answer:  It doesn't.

It's another one of Michael Griffith's numerous Prouty defamation nothing burgers.

Uhhh, you left out the inspection visit in Karachi before the Ramgarh visit. How did you miss that? They left in the morning on 11/27, stopped in Karachi on 11/28 or 11/29 for an inspection visit, which would have taken the bulk of the day, and then stopped in Ramgarh. Ramgarh was 1,100 miles from Karachi. Karachi was 1,190 miles from Tehran, a 2280-mile round trip. Ramgarh was even farther from Tehran. Give me a break.

Prouty said the Chinese delegation arrived the same time the British delegation arrived, which was 11/27/43. No way. Just no way.

In addition, you simply brushed aside the photo that shows some of Chiang's staff and Chinese civilians with Chiang at Ramgarh. 

You simply brushed aside the Army history that says Chiang flew to Ramgarh on his way from Cairo.

You ignored the fact that Soong was not even at the Cairo Conference. 

You don't care that you cannot produce a single source that supports Prouty's ridiculous tale that Chiang and his delegation attended the Tehran Conference. 

You simply blindly take Prouty's word for his mythical trip and ignore all evidence to the contrary. Is there no silliness you will not float to avoid admitting that Prouty was a fraud. 

Edited October 6, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[W. Niederhut]

It's about 1,200 miles from Cairo to Tehran, and 1,200 miles from Tehran to Karachi.

Planes like the Lockheed Lodestar had a maximum cruising speed of 250 mph in 1943.

So, leaving Cairo on the morning of 11/27/43, Chiang Kai-shek could have been in Tehran within six hours.

He and his delegation could have been in Tehran by the afternoon of 11/27/43 and remained in Tehran for another 36 hours. 

They could have then flown to Karachi in six hours on 11/29/43.

Nothing in Griffith's alleged Prouty-defaming timetable refutes Prouty's account of flying Chiang's delegation to Tehran.

Edited October 6, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks William.  Nice one.

Just recall, this all started back in late 1991.

Two major points of contention.

Kennedy was getting out of Vietnam.

The 112th should have been there is Dallas.

Prouty was assaulted for both by his critics.

He was right on both.

[Michael Griffith]

14 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

It's about 1,200 miles from Cairo to Tehran, and 1,200 miles from Tehran to Karachi.

Planes like the Lockheed Lodestar had a maximum cruising speed of 250 mph in 1943.

So, leaving Cairo on the morning of 11/27/43, Chiang Kai-shek could have been in Tehran within six hours.

He and his delegation could have been in Tehran by the afternoon of 11/27/43 and remained in Tehran for another 36 hours. 

They could have then flown to Karachi in six hours on 11/29/43.

Nothing in Griffith's alleged Prouty-defaming timetable refutes Prouty's account of flying Chiang's delegation to Tehran.

This is a lot of desperate reaching and grasping. We both know that you cannot identify a plausible time slot when this supposed meeting could have occurred during your doubtful 36-hour window, i.e., between the afternoon of 11/27 and the early morning of 11/29, given the nearly hour-by-hour accounts and records we have of Stalin's whereabouts and activities during the Tehran Conference.

Your entire dubious 36-hour window requires the assumption that the Karachi visit occurred on 11/29. If the Karachi visit occurred on 11/28, your theory collapses.

Also, I notice that you keep ignoring a lot of contrary evidence:

-- You brush aside the fact that Madame Chiang said nothing about a trip to Tehran but said that Chiang's party flew from Cairo to Karachi to Ramgarh to Chabau and then to Chungking. 

-- You brush aside the fact that Chiang's diary says nothing about a trip to Tehran. 

-- You brush aside the fact that Elliott Roosevelt's extensive accounts of the Cairo and Tehran conferences say nothing about Elliott seeing Chiang and/or his delegation at Habanaya Airport in Iraq or at the Tehran Conference. 

Yet, according to Prouty's tale, he introduced Elliott to the Chinese delegation at Habanaya and Elliott saw the delegation in Tehran. 

-- You brush aside the several other sources that chronicle Chiang's travels from Cairo to Chungking and that say nothing about a detour to Tehran.

-- You brush aside the fact that you cannot produce a single source, official or unofficial, that corroborates Prouty's claim that Chiang and/or his delegation were at the Tehran Conference.

-- You brush aside the fact that not a single source confirms Prouty's bunk about FDR and Stalin reaching an agreement at Tehran to have Stalin order Mao to stand down. There is no record of this subject even being discussed at the conference, much less an agreement reached on it. 

Other problems:

-- According to the official FDR White House "Log of the Trip" found on the State Department's Office of the Historian website, FDR's flight from Cairo to Tehran was 1,310 miles and took 6.5 hours (LINK). By the way, that equals a cruising speed of 201.5 mph, not 250 mph. 

Also, that log, which is quite detailed, says nothing about Chiang and/or his delegation being at the Tehran Conference.

-- If Prouty used a Lockheed Loadstar to allegedly fly the Chinese group to Tehran, he would not have needed to stop for fuel at Habanayah Airport. The Loadstar had a range of 1,600 miles (and a cruising speed of 200 mph) (LINK). Prouty would have easily been able to make it from Cairo to Tehran without refueling, just as did FDR's plane. Thus, this is another part of Prouty's tale that does not check out.

-- According to Prouty, the Chinese delegation arrived at the same time the British delegation arrived. Prouty claimed that he was riding with the Chinese delegation and that the delegation's cars were right behind the British delegation. Then, claimed Prouty, when the British delegation was entering Tehran, they were stopped by a Soviet checkpoint and delayed because Churchill had no ID on him, and during this supposed delay, the Chinese delegation stood up in their cars and laughed and pointed at the British.

If so, then it is baffling that Churchill's adoring daughter, Sarah Churchill, said nothing about what would have been a very noteworthy event and a major insult to her father. Sarah worked in British Air Force intelligence and served as an aide to her father. She was known as his "right-hand man." She accompanied him on most of his overseas trips. She accompanied him to the Cairo and Tehran conferences. She wrote extensively about her experiences at those conferences, including in her wartime correspondence with family members.

In her writings, Sarah said quite a bit about the Tehran Conference. She described the slow ride through narrow, busy streets to the British compound. She talked about the lax security provided for their car ride from the airport to the British compound in Tehran. She talked about a toast that FDR made to her during one of the dinners at the conference. In her letters to her mother, she talked about how her father was quite sick when they arrived in Tehran and how he had to miss the welcome dinner that evening because he was so sick (Sarah Churchill to Clementine Churchill, 4 December 1943, Churchill Archives Centre, SCHL 1/1/7). 

Yet, she said nothing about her father being insultingly delayed by Soviet troops for an alleged lack of ID. Nor did she say anything about seeing Chiang and/or his delegation at the Tehran Conference. 

-- According to Prouty's tale, Churchill had no ID on him when his delegation was allegedly stopped at a Soviet checkpoint because he was supposedly wearing a military jumpsuit that had no pockets! This is the kind of bad blunder you make when you try to add false details to a fabrication to make it seem believable. I defy anyone to find me one example of a British or American WWII-era (or any era) military jumpsuit, aka flight suit, that has no pockets. 

In my 21 years in the U.S. military, I never saw a flight suit that had no pockets. I spent five years on an RAF base in England and saw lots of British Air Force and Navy personnel in their jumpsuits, since it was (and is) a popular uniform because of its loose, comfortable fit. I never saw one that had no pockets. 

I did a little digging on Google and found a number of pictures of WWII-era British military flight suits, and not one of them shows a jumpsuit with no pockets. Here are just a few of my search results:

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

Furthermore, even if we make the silly assumption, for the sake of argument, that Churchill was wearing a jumpsuit that had no pockets, one of his aides surely would have had Churchill's ID and travel documents readily available. 

Finally, here are more sources that say that Chiang did not attend the Tehran Conference:

The Last Empress: Madame Chiang Kai-shek and the Birth of Modern China (2009), by Hannah Pakula. Pakula says Chiang did not attend the Tehran Conference. Indeed, she points out that Stalin expressly rejected the very idea of having of any other leader besides Churchill and FDR attend the conference:

          The protocol for the Cairo meeting had not been easy to establish. Since Russia was not at war with Japan, it was impossible to have one meeting to include all four leaders, and it was decided that Roosevelt and Churchill would meet Chiang in Cairo—-the generalissimo insisted on being first—-and then move on to confer in Tehran with Stalin, who demanded that “there should be absolutely excluded the participation of the representatives of any other power.” (p. 469)

The Forgotten Ally: China's World War II, 1937-1945 (2013), by Rana Mitter. Mitter says that the Cairo Conference was "the first and only conference in which China participated" (p. 336). And:

         As his aircraft bore Chiang back to Chongqing, events taking place some 1,800 kilometers from Cairo, in the Persian capital of Teheran, would change the picture significantly. Stalin had refused to join the others at Cairo, but at Teheran, meeting only Roosevelt and Churchill, he made his views clear. (p. 311)

         The kaleidoscope kept shifting for Chiang. He had been reminded of the precariousness of his command when he stopped over in India on the way back from Cairo, where he spoke to General Zheng Dongguo and inspected the 33,000 men of the Chinese Army in India (X Force), based at Ramgarh in Bihar province. (p. 312)

Chiang Kai-shek, Generalissimo of Nationalist China (1968), by Cornelia Spencer. Spencer notes that Chiang did not attend the Tehran Conference, and that Chiang was furious when he later learned that in Tehran FDR had told Stalin he would not let China control Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores after the war (p. 217).

Stilwell and the American Experience in China (1970), by Barbara Tuchman. Tuchman says that only Churchill, FDR, and Stalin met in Tehran, and that FDR sacrificed China's interests to Stalin at the conference (p. 523).

Madame Chiang Kai-shek (2006), by Laura Tyson Li. Li, too, has Chiang and his wife returning to China after the Cairo Conference and has FDR and Churchill going to Tehran to meet Stalin: 

          The Chiangs departed for China and Roosevelt and Churchill flew to Teheran, where Stalin spoke disparagingly of China and opposed her elevation to great-power status. (p. 246)

BTW, in Seagrave's book The Soong Dynasty, he has FDR and Churchill going from Cairo to Tehran, not Chiang, and he has Chiang only learning about developments at the conference when he was in Chungking: 

          Churchill and Roosevelt proceeded from Cairo to confer with Stalin in Teheran, where FDR was finally persuaded to give up those Asian battle plans to devote attention to the Allied invasion of Europe. When word of this reversal reached Chungking, Chiang Kai-shek was incensed (p. 394).

Edited October 6, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[W. Niederhut]

So sick of Michael Griffith's verbose McAdams-style forum fiction defaming Col. L. Fletcher Prouty.

The Cairo-Tehran-Karachi timeline is not my "theory" about Prouty.  It's arithmetic.

My "theory" is simply that Prouty was always a straight shooter and a credible historical witness who flew Chiang's delegation to Tehran.  He wrote honestly about his experiences and observations-- including his observations about the drafting of the McNamara/Taylor Report, NSAM 263, and Ed Lansdale in Dealey Plaza.

Griffith began his latest defamation of Prouty by describing a lengthy, multi-page scenario purporting to show that Chiang and his delegation couldn't possibly have conferred with Stalin in Tehran on the evening of 11/27/43, or during the day and/or evening of 11/28/43.

People can do the math without my assistance.

 

[Michael Griffith]

19 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

So sick of Michael Griffith's verbose McAdams-style forum fiction defaming Col. L. Fletcher Prouty.

The Cairo-Tehran-Karachi timeline is not my "theory" about Prouty.  It's arithmetic.

My "theory" is simply that Prouty was always a straight shooter and a credible historical witness who flew Chiang's delegation to Tehran.  He wrote honestly about his experiences and observations-- including his observations about the drafting of the McNamara/Taylor Report, NSAM 263, and Ed Lansdale in Dealey Plaza.

Griffith began his latest defamation of Prouty by describing a lengthy, multi-page scenario purporting to show that Chiang and his delegation couldn't possibly have conferred with Stalin in Tehran on the evening of 11/27/43, or during the day and/or evening of 11/28/43.

People can do the math without my assistance.

Your willingness to ignore contrary evidence is both amazing and discrediting.

You once again just brush aside all the records and scholarly sources that say Chiang and his group were never in Tehran but flew straight from Cairo to Karachi to Ramgarh to Chabau to Chungking.

You also ignore the evidence that Prouty clearly fabricated when he said that Churchill was wearing a military jumpsuit with no pockets, that Prouty had to refuel in Habanaya, that Churchill's delegation was delayed at a Soviet checkpoint because he had no ID on him, that at Tehran FDR and Stalin agreed to have Stalin order Mao to stand down, that Elliott Roosevelt saw the Chinese delegation at Habanaya and in Tehran, that Soong was part of the Chinese delegation, that Chiang would have sided with the Japanese had he not been "controlled" by Soong, etc., etc., etc.

How you can view Prouty as a "straight shooter" in the face of this evidence, not to mention his back-peddling and retractions in his ARRB interview and his prolonged and close associations with Holocaust deniers and white supremacists, is beyond me.

 

Edited October 7, 2023 by Michael Griffith