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

[Jeff Carter]

I am away right now, and cannot appropriately refute some of the notions being posted here. But, like the Vietnam threads, Griffiths is flooding the discussion with obscure rightist revisionism. Describing the Imperial Japanese Army as “brave” and reluctant occupiers of China is pure revisionism. 

He has a personal animus towards Prouty, evident for some months now, and it clouds his perspective.

[Michael Griffith]

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

I am away right now, and cannot appropriately refute some of the notions being posted here. But, like the Vietnam threads, Griffiths is flooding the discussion with obscure rightist revisionism. Describing the Imperial Japanese Army as “brave” and reluctant occupiers of China is pure revisionism. 

He has a personal animus towards Prouty, evident for some months now, and it clouds his perspective.

LOL! "Obscure rightist revisionism"??? You have no clue what you're talking about. You find me one reputable Asia/WWII scholar who supports Prouty's whacky claim that Chiang and his delegation attended the Tehran Conference, that at the Tehran Conference FDR and Stalin made an agreement for Stalin to order Mao to stand down, that Soong "controlled" Chiang, that Soong was "the wealthiest man in the world," that Churchill and his delegation were held up at a checkpoint in Tehran because Churchill had no ID on him, that Chiang normally would have sided with the Japanese, etc., etc. This is wingnut material. Sheesh, you must be kidding. 

Speaking of the Tehran Conference, here is the State Department document on the agreements reached at the Tehran Conference--notice that it says nothing about any agreement between FDR and Stalin to have Stalin order Mao to stand down in China:

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1943CairoTehran/d424

Here are the State Department documents on the proceedings of the Tehran Conference--notice they do not mention Chiang or his delegation being in attendance:

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1943CairoTehran/ch8

Since the New York Times had already announced that Chiang would be invited to a FDR-Churchill-Stalin meeting, if Chiang and his group had attended the Tehran Conference, there would have been no reason to keep their presence a secret.

Here is the State Department's collection of post-Tehran Conference papers, all 66 of them--notice that not one of them says a word about Chiang or his delegation attending the conference:

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1943CairoTehran/ch14

Are these sources what you would call "obscure rightist revisionism"?

And, FYI, the sources I've cited in threads on JFK and the Vietnam War are hardly "obscure" or even necessarily "rightist." Max Hastings is hardly a "rightist revisionist." Nor is Dr. Lien-Hang Nguyen. Nor was Truong Nhu Tang. Hastings and Nguyen would be quite shocked to hear themselves described as "obscure rightist revisionists." Tang would have viewed anyone who put that label on him as delusional.

For that matter, many of the scholars I've cited in those threads are liberal scholars who reject the fringe Stone-Prouty-Newman-DiEugenio theory that JFK was determined to unconditionally abandon South Vietnam after the election. Even the vast majority of liberal historians reject this myth, not to mention the even more-extreme idea that JFK's alleged determination to unconditionally withdraw from Vietnam was the reason he was killed. If anyone is peddling "obscure revisionism" it is the handful of researchers who peddle Prouty's bizarre, debunked claims.

Finally, before you venture into the subject of the Sino-Japanese War, you might want to do a little homework. Peter Harmsen is hardly a "rightist" or a "revisionist." If you think this of Harmsen just because of the statements I quoted from his book, you have done very little reading on the subject. You might want to start by reading Harmsen's book, and also Dick Wilson's book When Tigers Fight: The Story of the Sino-Japanese War, 1937-1945, and David Macri's book Clash of Empires in South China. Nobody but an unread partisan would call Harmsen, Wilson, and Macri "obscure rightists" or even "revisionists." (News flash: We who posit a JFKA conspiracy are viewed as "revisionists" by all of academia.)

Edited October 2, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Paul Brancato]

What is the source for your rebuttal? 

[Michael Griffith]

37 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

What is the source for your rebuttal? 

What is the source for your inane question? Although I suspect this will not address your question, I will note that I listed a number of mainstream scholarly sources in my "rebuttal." Did you not see them? 

You guys have no clue how far out in La La Land Prouty's claims are regarding FDR's alleged agreement with Stalin concerning Mao and Chiang at the Tehran Conference. They are nonsensical fiction that any Asia or WWII scholar would laugh to scorn. There was no such agreement, nor was there a need for such an agreement. 

Nor would any Asia or WWII scholar endorse Prouty's fiction that T. V. Soong "controlled" Chiang and that Chiang was "working for" Soong. That is just total nonsense.

Prouty fabricated these wingnut tales to make himself look important and knowledgeable, and because he assumed his audience wouldn't know enough to realize he was spewing pure bunk.

[Paul Brancato]

If Prouty’s claims about JFK plans to leave VN were only his statements that would be one thing. But the NS memoranda are real, and the ‘liberal’ journalists who deny this are in fact revisionists. Why would I or anyone care what these ‘liberal’ say? Our media has perpetuated the myth that JFK was killed by a lone nut with no political objectives. Is that what you believe Michael? A simple yes or no would be appreciated.

[Michael Griffith]

3 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

 

If Prouty’s claims about JFK plans to leave VN were only his statements that would be one thing. But the NS memoranda are real, and the ‘liberal’ journalists who deny this are in fact revisionists. 

Those memoranda do not prove that JFK was going to unconditionally withdraw from Vietnam after the election. Not even close. Anyone who says otherwise either hasn't read them or is so emotionally committed to this myth that they refuse to face facts. 

Why would I or anyone care what these ‘liberals’ say?

Well, because when anyone cites a conservative source, or even a moderate source, you and several others here reflexively reject it, usually without even having read it.

You should care that even the vast majority of liberal scholars reject the Stone-Prouty-Newman-DiEugenio myth because it shows what a fringe, dubious, bogus theory it is. 

Needless to say, all moderate and conservative scholars reject the theory as well. 

If I were to cite a conservative figure who said JFK was killed because he wanted to cut taxes on the rich so massively, and if that person had made the same nutty, ridiculous claims that Prouty has made, and if that person had spent years palling around with extremists and Holocaust deniers, including speaking at their gatherings and praising two of their journals--if I were to cite such a person, you guys would not be offering up all of these amazingly lame denials and excuses for him.

Our media has perpetuated the myth that JFK was killed by a lone nut with no political objectives. Is that what you believe Michael? A simple yes or no would be appreciated.

Are you serious? You can't be serious. It says volumes that you would even ask me such an absurd question. No, I most certainly do not believe in the lone-gunman theory. How you could not know this after my many posts in this forum is truly a mystery. Here's my website on the case: https://sites.google.com/view/jfkassassinationwebsite/home.

Now, getting back to subject at hand, let me make you a promise: You will not find a single Asia/WWII scholar who will support Prouty's bogus claim that FDR and Stalin reached a Mao-standdown agreement at the Tehran Conference. There was no need for such an agreement. The subject was not even on the agenda. Not one of the numerous State Department documents from/about the conference mentions any such discussion or agreement. And none of the four dozen or so books that I've read about WWII say anything about such an agreement. Prouty was just making up bunk. 

Similarly, you will not find a single Asia/WWII scholar who will say that Soong "controlled" Chiang, because they all know that Soong was so frustrated with Chiang that he left Chiang's government in 1933 and did not return for nine years. Some "control," hey?

And, no, Soong was not even remotely close to being "the wealthiest man in the world." He wasn't even in the ballpark. 

How you guys can just keep denying reality about Prouty is beyond me. Do you really want to get to the truth about the assassination, or do you want to slavishly adhere to your mythical far-left version of it?

Edited October 2, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[W. Niederhut]

4 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

If Prouty’s claims about JFK plans to leave VN were only his statements that would be one thing. But the NS memoranda are real, and the ‘liberal’ journalists who deny this are in fact revisionists. Why would I or anyone care what these ‘liberal’ say? Our media has perpetuated the myth that JFK was killed by a lone nut with no political objectives. Is that what you believe Michael? A simple yes or no would be appreciated.

Ron Bulman just posted a White House press release from October 2, 1963 about JFK's intention to get out of Vietnam by December 31, 1965.  (It's on Ron's "SIXTY" thread.)

I wonder how Michael Griffith will Liberty Lobby this one... 🤥

[Paul Brancato]

Michael - do you really want to get to the truth about the assassination? 

[Ron Bulman]

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Ron Bulman just posted a White House press release from October 2, 1963 about JFK's intention to get out of Vietnam by December 31, 1965.  (It's on Ron's "SIXTY" thread.)

I wonder how Michael Griffith will Liberty Lobby this one... 🤥

Oh, do we need that one here too?  I quit reading much of Michael's posts a while back.  Sort of a self imposed ignore.

October 2, 1963 (Wednesday)[edit]

• The White House announced that withdrawal of American troops from South Vietnam could be completed by December 31, 1965, following a report to President Kennedy by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara and General Maxwell D. Taylor, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The first 1,000 of 15,000 troops were to be withdrawn before the end of 1963.^[4] However, Kennedy's successor, Lyndon Johnson, reversed the withdrawal and there were eventually 550,000 American troops in the Vietnam War.^[5]

[Kirk Gallaway]

 I was I was looking for a column in the NYT on Oct 3rd, 1963. But it turns out,  it's pretty conditional, but still interesting.. I wish I could copy excerpts, but I can't. Check it out.

VIETNAM VICTORY BY THE END OF '65 ENVISAGED BY U.S.

 

Officials Say War May Be Won if Political Crisis Does Not Hamstring Effort WARN ON REPRESSION McNamara and Taylor Tell the President and Security Council of Their Mission Based on Recommendations Policy May Be Reviewed PRESIDENT GETS VIETNAM REPORT

 

WASHINGTON, Oct. 2—The United States said tonight that the war in South Vietnam might be won by the end of 1965 if the political crisis there did not "significantly" affect the military effort.

 

 

https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1963/10/03/89964179.pdf?pdf_redirect=true&ip=0

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

October 2, 1963 (Wednesday)[edit]

• The White House announced that withdrawal of American troops from South Vietnam could be completed by December 31, 1965, following a report to President Kennedy by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara and General Maxwell D. Taylor, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The first 1,000 of 15,000 troops were to be withdrawn before the end of 1963.^[4]

 

This is from a Wikipedia article. The source for it is Chicago Tribune, October 3, 1963, p1.

 

[Michael Griffith]

13 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Ron Bulman just posted a White House press release from October 2, 1963 about JFK's intention to get out of Vietnam by December 31, 1965.  (It's on Ron's "SIXTY" thread.) I wonder how Michael Griffith will Liberty Lobby this one... 🤥

I guess the press release is news to you and Ron Bulman, but in fact it's very old news and proves nothing. That press release merely referred to the conditional withdrawal plan that was under consideration, the same plan that I've discussed at great length in this forum. As I've documented, the plan was formulated precisely because the war effort was going well, contrary to the Newman-DiEugenio myth that the war was going "terribly." See my thread "The Myth that JFK Was Killed Over the Vietnam War" for some of the evidence that the war was indeed going well.

As mentioned, the plan was conditional. It was conditioned on the situation on the ground. If the war began to go badly, the plan would be suspended. 

And notice that the press release said the withdrawal "could" be completed by 12/31/65, not "would" be completed by then.

Liberal historian Stanley Karnow, who was a strident critic of the Vietnam War and an ardent Kennedy admirer, rejected the liberal spin on the conditional withdrawal plan:       

          Former members of Kennedy's staff cite a Pentagon plan for a phased withdrawal of American advisers as proof that he would have disengaged from Vietnam. They point out that 1,000 advisers did in fact depart in late 1963. But as the anonymous authors of the Pentagon Papers note, the reduction was "essentially an accounting exercise," partly calculated to demonstrate that progress was being made in the war. Many of the men were pulled out under routine rotation procedures, or for medical or administrative reasons. They were replaced by others, so that the force ceiling had hardly changed by the end of the year. (“No, He Wouldn’t Have Spared Us Vietnam,” Washington Post, November 20, 1983, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1983/11/20/no-he-wouldnt-have-spared-us-vietnam/8164ae04-33b6-4463-99c5-9382ceb2a8bb/)

The myth that JFK was determined to unconditionally withdraw from Vietnam after the election was part of the low-hanging fruit in Stone's JFK that critics pounced on and used as an excuse to tar-brush the entire movie. It was part of the bunk that Prouty and Newman peddled to Stone and that Stone unfortunately accepted.

Many of the other blunders in the film, blunders that critics gleefully hammered, also came from Prouty:

-- Prouty's claim that he was sent to the South Pole to keep him from intervening in the Dallas security arrangements. (He later admitted this claim was false when he was interviewed by the ARRB. It's too bad he didn't tell Oliver Stone that it was false.)

-- Prouty's claim that Ed Lansdale played a key role in the assassination plot and that Lansdale was in Dealey Plaza during the shooting.

-- Prouty's claim that a photo of some tramps in Dallas on the day of the shooting unmistakably showed Lansdale with his back to the camera. (Prouty back-peddled on this claim in his ARRB interview.)

-- Prouty's claim that a newspaper in New Zealand had too much information on Oswald too quickly after the assassination.

-- Prouty's claim that an officer in the 112th MI Group told him they were ordered to stand down for the Dallas motorcade. (When interviewed by the ARRB, Prouty casually admitted that, contrary to what he'd claimed in writing for years, he did not have the notes that he had allegedly taken during his alleged phone call with the 112th MI Group. And, oddly, the ARRB interviewers did not ask a single follow-up question when Prouty said he no longer had the notes, such as, "What happened to those notes? How did you lose them? When did you misplace them? Why didn't you make xerox copies of them?")

Stone's JFK would have been a much harder target to attack, and would have seemed far more credible, if Stone had not made the sad mistake of believing Prouty's nonsense. Stone later repudiated Prouty's lies about Lansdale, but by then it was too late to do any good.

Edited October 3, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[W. Niederhut]

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.

 

Edited October 3, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Jeff Carter]

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. 

The esteemed Malcolm Blunt said in an interview that he used to be somewhat influenced by the “swift-boating” attacks on Prouty’s integrity - until he gradually realized Prouty’s information usually eventually checked out.  The swift-boat attacks began only in the wake of Stone’s “JFK”, and their purpose then as now was to deflect from or prevent informed understanding of the Cold War era.

[Jeff Carter]

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.