Where was the pushback?

[Sandy Larsen]

24 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

50 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

If Harriman was in on the plot, it's hard to believe he could behave so recklessly as to give a clue as to who did it (by saying who didn't do it).

What’s reckless about it?  He told the truth — the Soviets weren’t involved.  He lied about consulting other Kremlinologists.

 

It's reckless because he has to make up a big whopper about all the Kremlinologists saying something they didn't say, which will make what he said look suspicious.

If all Harriman knew about was the plot to kill Kennedy (not the Mexico City stuff), he could have safely said nothing about the Soviets not being involved. I mean, what was the purpose of his blurting out that Soviets weren't involved? He knew they weren't (according to your hypothesis), so why does he feel to need to say they weren't?

 

24 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

50 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I think its more likely that he could see the writing on the wall... rumors of Soviet involvement, leading to international tension, leading to who knows what.

We do know what — the United States had first strike nuke dominance over the Soviets until 1965 (see The Perils of Dominance by Gareth Porter.)

 

Nobody wants a nuclear war, even if they know they will win it.

 

24 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

50 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

So, as one of the leading Kremlinologists, he nipped any Soviet suspicion in the bud.

In this scenario Averell Harriman unilaterally on the spot decided he had to protect the entire US government — the entire world! — from suspecting the Soviets even though he had no idea whether they were involved or not.

He risked committing treason?

 

Under your scenario, there was no need for him to lie about the Kremlinologists. Yet yet did.

So if lying about them gets him accused of treason, then that could happen equally under your scenario as under mine.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

It's reckless because he has to make up a big whopper about all the Kremlinologists saying something they didn't say, which will make what he said look suspicious.

Look suspicious to whom?  LBJ welcomed the lone assassin scenario, don’t you think?

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

If all Harriman knew about was the plot to kill Kennedy (not the Mexico City stuff), he could have safely said nothing about the Soviets not being involved.

I don’t follow.  Why wouldn’t he know the entire plot?

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I mean, what was the purpose of his blurting out that Soviets weren't involved?

To reinforce the lone assassin scenario and convince Johnson to order Cliff Carter to call Dallas assistant DA Bill Alexander and tell him to drop the business about an international communist conspiracy.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

He knew they weren't (according to your hypothesis), so why does he feel to need to say they weren't?

See above.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Nobody wants a nuclear war, even if they know they will win it.

There were plans on the table to bomb the hell out of Cuba.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Under your scenario, there was no need for him to lie about the Kremlinologists. Yet yet did.

Of course there was.  See above.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

So if lying about them gets him accused of treason, then that could happen equally under your scenario as under mine.

 

If Harriman claimed the Soviets had nothing to do with it before he knew that was a fact — wouldn’t that indicate his ultimate loyalty was to the Soviet Union?

Everyone in the government fell in line with the Lone Nut theory.

Edited August 26, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Sandy Larsen]

34 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

If Harriman claimed the Soviets had nothing to do with it before he knew that was a fact — wouldn’t that indicate his ultimate loyalty was to the Soviet Union?

 

Do you believe that Harriman was s Soviet spy?

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Do you believe that Harriman was s Soviet spy?

 

Only in your scenario which I don’t buy at all.

[Sandy Larsen]

36 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

44 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Do you believe that Harriman was s Soviet spy?

Only in your scenario which I don’t buy at all.

 

Oh, okay.... it's just a coincidence then that earlier I read that Russian defector Anatoliy Golitsyn claimed Harriman was a Soviet spy, and then you wrote what you did.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Oh, okay.... it's just a coincidence then that earlier I read that Russian defector Anatoliy Golitsyn claimed Harriman was a Soviet spy, and then you wrote what you did.

 

“A capitalist will sell you the rope to hang him.” — the Soviets coined that phrase for Harriman.  He ran the Lend-Lease program aiding the Soviets in 1940-1.  At the same time his Union Banking Corp financed 45% of Hitler’s raw material purchases.  He was Churchill’s favorite Yank.

Harriman played all ends against the middle.

[Sandy Larsen]

8 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

“A capitalist will sell you the rope to hang him.” — the Soviets coined that phrase for Harriman.  He ran the Lend-Lease program aiding the Soviets in 1940-1.  At the same time his Union Banking Corp financed 45% of Hitler’s raw material purchases.  He was Churchill’s favorite Yank.

Harriman played all ends against the middle.

 

Cliff,

I think you're a smart guy and I'm trying really hard to see your point of view.

Will you tell me why it is that Harriman told and let others believe that all the Kremlinologists agreed that the Soviet wouldn't/didn't do the assassination? In your scenario.

It seems like there was no need for him to do that. He knew the Russians weren't involved, true. But he also knew that if he waited for the investigation, that would become known.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Cliff,

I think you're a smart guy and I'm trying really hard to see your point of view.

Will you tell me why it is that Harriman told and let others believe that all the Kremlinologists agreed that the Soviet wouldn't/didn't do the assassination? In your scenario.

Because he wanted to take the “commie conspiracy” scenario off the table only leaving the Lone Nut scenario.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It seems like there was no need for him to do that. He knew the Russians weren't involved, true. But he also knew that if he waited for the investigation, that would become known.

He didn’t want to wait.  He wanted to put an end to rumors.  After his meeting with LBJ the gov’t put its shoulder to the Lone Nut scenario.

[Cory Santos]

23 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Because he wanted to take the “commie conspiracy” scenario off the table only leaving the Lone Nut scenario.

He didn’t want to wait.  He wanted to put an end to rumors.  After his meeting with LBJ the gov’t put its shoulder to the Lone Nut scenario.

Cliff!   You just got here and already on internet arguing.   I told you, mellow man.  I made sure your wine chiller was full.  

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Cory Santos said:

Cliff!   You just got here and already on internet arguing.   I told you, mellow man.  I made sure your wine chiller was full.  

In that case — see y’all on the 60th!

[Cory Santos]

1 minute ago, Cliff Varnell said:

In that case — see y’all on the 60th!

No just mellow.  Keep posting.  I don’t want you messing up the guest house while I’m gone.  

[Sandy Larsen]

53 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Because he wanted to take the “commie conspiracy” scenario off the table only leaving the Lone Nut scenario.

 

Okay, I took that into consideration and more carefully reread your earlier quotations.

I've got to admit that Harriman does look awfully suspicious. But what would his motive be. Reading through his Wikipedia article, it seems like he got on well with Kennedy.

Without a motive, I'm more inclined to believe that he didn't call for the hit. That he was aware of the plot but for some other reason.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Okay, I took that into consideration and more carefully reread your earlier quotations.

I've got to admit that Harriman does look awfully suspicious. But what would his motive be. Reading through his Wikipedia article, it seems like he got on well with Kennedy.

Without a motive, I'm more inclined to believe that he didn't call for the hit. That he was aware of the plot but for some other reason.

 

From Spanning the Century: The Life of W. Averell Harriman, by Rudy Abramson, pg 624:

<quote on, emphasis added>

Some of Averell's friends, including [Roger] Hilsman, who had heard Bob Kennedy muse about the possibility of Harriman as secretary of state, thought there was still a chance that Averell might yet get the Foggy Bottom job he long coveted.  But that had been before the notorious coup cable [243 authorizing Diem coup 8/24/63].

    Though the President had avoided criticism of Averell in the episode, Harriman knew Kennedy's confidence in him was shaken.  After working his way to the seventh floor, he was suddenly viewed as a problem.  Almost overnight, he looked ten years older.  Privately, the President and the attorney general talked of finding a way to rehabilitate him, to find a job that would get him out of the Vietnam business.  There was a need to put more emphasis on hemispheric matters, and the President thought that one way to solve two problems might be to create a new post of undersecretary for Latin American affairs for him.

As deeply as the administration had involved itself in the machinations against Diem, Kennedy still appeared stunned when the long-anticipatred coup ended with the assassination of Diem and Nhu on November 1.  The United States could technically claim that it had been a Vietnamese affair; but the administration had conditioned the atmosphere, beginning with the Harriman-Hilsman cable to Lodge.

<quote off>

Harriman had the same motivation for whacking Kennedy as he did Diem.

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Harriman had the same motivation for whacking Kennedy as he did Diem.

 

What was Harriman's motive for whacking Diem?

 

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

What was Harriman's motive for whacking Diem?

 

To maintain an American military presence in SE Asia, which was threatened by Diem and Kennedy both.

I’m of the view a pan-institutional international cabal sought to wrest control of global heroin production from the Corsican Mafia, to replace Turkey as the center for smack production with the Golden Triangle.  I strongly suspect this effort involved the Sicilian-American Mafia and their elite WASP allies like Harriman and the Bushes.

Edited August 27, 2023 by Cliff Varnell