The Report that got Allen Dulles Fired

[James DiEugenio]

This is my latest substack that is fast becoming my most popular essay yet.

It had the highest view number and the highest open number of anything I have written so far.

But it tells a little related story as to just how Dulles got canned and the role of Robert Lovett in that termination.

Its still free and will be for a few months more.  Get it while you can. You won't be disappointed.  

https://jamesanthonydieugenio.substack.com/p/the-report-that-got-allen-dulles?utm_campaign=reaction&utm_medium=email&utm_source=substack&utm_content=post

 

[Ron Bulman]

Well fudge.  The first three paragraphs were very interesting.  Then it wants me to subscribe to proceed.  Which I may well do, in a few months.

[James DiEugenio]

The quotes by DeGaulle about Kennedy's death at the end are really sensational.

They even go past Castro and Nikita K.

[James DiEugenio]

4 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Well fudge.  The first three paragraphs were very interesting.  Then it wants me to subscribe to proceed.  Which I may well do, in a few months.

Its not supposed to do that Ron, sorry, I will have to do what I did last time then.

[James DiEugenio]

Here you go Ron:

 

The Report that got Allen Dulles Fired

                                    

One of the most distinguished aspects of David Talbot’s The Devil’s Chessboard is that it shows just what conflicts led to the termination of Allen Dulles by President John Kennedy.  In his milestone biography of Dulles, Talbot showed that the prevailing wisdom, that it was only the Bay of Pigs, was likely incomplete. There were two other crises going on around the same time that multiplied Kennedy’s doubts about being able to live with Dulles as CIA Director.

James’s Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribed

Talbot had a book translated into English from the French which described Kennedy’s tense and worried reaction to the Secret Army Organization (OAS) attempt to overthrow President Charles DeGaulle. The OAS was a group of military veterans who violently disagreed with DeGaulle’s decision to grant the former French colony of Algeria its independence.  That disagreement led to several attempts to assassinate DeGaulle.  It has been proven beyond any serious doubt that the CIA was knowledgeable and complicit in these plots.  Even a friendly source for the Agency, Andrew Tully, admitted such was the case.( CIA: The Inside Story, pp. 48-49, 54; also NY Times, 4/29/61, and The Nation 5/20/61)

The OAS actually attempted an overthrow in Paris in April of 1961, the same month as the Bay of Pigs operation. As Talbot notes, Allen Dulles had a rather lengthy history of antagonism with the French president. And DeGaulle suspected the coup plotters were acting with the knowledge and support of the Agency. (Talbot, pp. 413-14)

As the overthrow attempt began to materialize, Kennedy phoned Herve Alphand, the French ambassador in Washington.  He assured him that he had nothing to do with the attempt.  But he qualified that by saying “…the CIA is such a vast and poorly controlled machine that the most unlikely maneuvers might be true.” (ibid, p. 418) But he made a public pledge :” In this grave hour for France, I want you to know of my continuing friendship and support as well as that of the American people.” (Talbot, p. 419) Kennedy even offered miliary support, which DeGaulle declined. Due to superb leadership by DeGaulle and the loyalty of the French people who arranged themselves into militias, the coup failed.  But as early as 3 months into his presidency Kennedy understood that Dulles was up to things that the president did not endorse.

But there had already been a suggestion of that two months earlier.

As Richard Mahoney noted in his excellent book JFK: Ordeal in Africa, before the 1960 election, Kennedy asked Averill Harriman if he should openly endorse the Congo’s Patrice Lumumba. (Mahoney, p. 59) Belgium had titularly set Congo free, the largest and one of the richest countries in sub-Sahara Africa. Lumumba’s party had won the elections in May of 1960 under a constitutional plan.  In June, Lumumba began to form his government. On June 23^rd Lumumba gave his first public speech promising national unity, the sovereignty of the will of the people and a neutralist foreign policy.  (Jonathan Kwitny, Endless Enemies, p. 55) Lumumba’s ascension, and the hopes he had of making Congo a model for Africa, did not last long.

Neither Belgium, England, or France wanted Congo to be free from European imperialism. Especially in the Katanga region, the richest area of the huge country.  So they encouraged  and paid Moise Tshombe to lead a breakaway state.  The Belgians still in country helped recruit mercenaries for Tshombe’s army. (Kwitny,p. 55) But there was a fourth antagonist to Lumumba: the USA. Allen Dulles was aware of the European scheming to break off Katanga months before it happened. (John Newman, Countdown to Darkness, p. 153) Dulles quickly joined the anti-Lumumba forces which now mushroomed. The Belgians dropped paratroopers, and Katanga declared itself a separate state. Lumumba did what he had to do:  he went to the UN and Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold, and also to the Russians. When this happened, the CIA station chief in Leopoldville now said that Congo, as had been the case in Cuba, was experiencing a classic communist takeover. (Newman, p. 223) When that cable arrived in Washington, President Eisenhower instructed Dulles to begin assassination efforts against Lumumba. (Newman, p. 227)

By September 1960, the CIA had three agents in Leopoldville assigned to kill Lumumba. These were Sidney Gottlieb, master of poisons; and two mercenaries code named WIROGUE and QJWIN, part of the ZR Rifle assassination program. But Hammarskjold’s deputy, Rajeshwar Dayal, protected Lumumba by placing him under house arrest. But when Lumumba decided to escape and make his way to his political base in Stanleyville, the CIA changed tactics. The Agency now monitored his progress and cut off his escape routes. He was captured and sent to Katanga. (Newman p. 295) He was executed by firing squad and his body soaked in sulphuric acid. This was the sorry end to the first democratically elected leader of a post-colonial nation in sub-Sahara Africa.

As historian John Morton Blum noted in his book Years of Discord, from the cable traffic, it appears the CIA was consciously encouraging Lumumba’s murder to occur before Kennedy’s inauguration. (p. 23) Which it did by three days. Yet, Dulles did not inform Kennedy of the murder.  This happened almost a month later when ambassador to the UN, Adlai Stevenson, called Kennedy while a White House photographer was taking pictures of the president with his children. The famous picture taken at the time epitomizes the difference between Dulles and JFK. Kennedy’s face is torn with sorrow and he has his hand over his eyes.  It was so inconsequential to Dulles that he did not even deign to inform his commander in chief.

The third event in this sequence of Dulles/Kennedy conflict is, of course, the Bay of Pigs operation. I will not go into it in any detail since it has been written about so often.  I will just state that due to the belated discovery of Dulles’ 1965 notes on an article he was going to pen on the subject, he knew that the operation was doomed. He had planned on Kennedy salvaging the project with direct American intervention once he saw it failing. Kennedy declined. While Dulles was writing a draft of the article, he told his editor Willie Morris, “That Kennedy, he thought he was a god.” (James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, second edition pp. 47-48)

This segues into the main topic. Attorney General Robert Kennedy was part of the Taylor Commission, the White House inquiry into why the operation was such an abject failure. After some acute questioning of Dulles, he realized what the director’s secret agenda had been: direct American intervention. Yet, just about a week before the operation, this is something JFK had specifically said he would not do. (ibid)

Once Bobby Kennedy realized that Dulles had deliberately deceived the president, he decided Allen had to go.  But since Dulles was so well established, RFK realized that he needed to have another icon with which to counter him. Joseph Kennedy had served on what was the forerunner to the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. He told his son that he knew of a blistering but suppressed report written by Robert Lovett and David Bruce about Dulles and his mismanagement of the CIA. Somehow, RFK got hold of the 1956 Bruce-Lovett Report. He copied pages and took copious notes from it.

Today, there are three main sources on this watershed report: Peter Grose’s Gentleman Spy, Arthur Schlesinger’s  Robert Kennedy and His Times,  and Tim Weiner’s Legacy of Ashes.  The last features several pages of the actual report in an appendix. Incredibly, some of the report is still redacted. Lovett and Bruce were very upset that Dulles had let the CIA become a covert action agency rather than an intelligence gathering one. But further, the covert actions were largely done through unvouchered funds which could not be traced. And the approval for such actions was pretty much pro forma. The governance of the operation was done by the Agency until its conclusion.  After the fact, the National Security Council was then briefed in an off the record oral report done from a biased point of view. Finally, there was almost never any cost or liability for failure.

The report also states that paramilitary operations and psychological warfare were done in consultation between the CIA and the foreign head of state. Sometimes, that foreign head of state was the opposition which the CIA had brought to prominence. Often, the ambassador was out of the loop.  Which means there was a split in American policy. Which allowed the foreign head of state to play off one power center against the other. People in the State Department and diplomatic corps were thus left without full knowledge of what American policy was. Bruce and Lovett wrote that they had heard complaints about this directly from people at State.

For instance, the CIA had covertly influenced local news media, labor groups, political figures and other activities abroad. Again, this led to differences of opinion between the CIA and State Department. And Dulles did not really care who was running these operations or what their political judgment and orientation was. Thus strange things were bound to occur due to the accent on themes suggested from headquarters. (Author’s Note: This idea clearly presages what happened in the case of Lumumba.)

Lovett and Bruce asked: what impact did these CIA operations have on our present alliances?  What will that impact be tomorrow?  They then built to this  peroration:

We are sure that the supporters of the 1948 decision to launch this government on a positive psychological warfare and paramilitary program could not possibly have foreseen the ramifications of the operations which have resulted from it.  No one, other than those in the CIA immediately concerned with their day to day operation, have any detailed knowledge of what is going on.

Bobby Kennedy brought in former Secretary of Defense and Under Secretary of State Lovett twice.  Once to testify before the Taylor Commission, and once in consultation with the president. Lovett had not one kind  word for what Dulles had done with the Agency. But in 1956 the Bruce-Lovett report was ineffective since Eisenhower was under the influence of John Foster Dulles. (Schlesinger, pp. 477-78) But now, after being lobbied by his brother, President Kennedy decided the whole top level of the CIA had to go: Dulles, Deputy Director Charles Cabell, and Director of Plans  Richard Bissell.

Bobby Kennedy went even further.  He called in Secretary of State Dean Rusk and asked him if there was any other member of the Dulles family still in their employ. Rusk said yes, Allen’s sister Eleanor. She was thus terminated also. (Leonard Mosley, Dulles, p. 473-74) It is interesting to note that it was Eleanor who stopped the cooperation of her brother with editor Willie Morris on the Bay of Pigs article for Harper’s magazine. (Ibid, p. 479)

Let us close with some comments on the first incident studied, the plots to kill DeGaulle. Recall, Kennedy complained to the French that he was unaware at times of what the CIA was doing. But, as shown above, they had a role in OAS murder plots and the overthrow attempt. When DeGaulle returned from Kennedy’s funeral he said to his information director that Oswald was simply part of a front.  A trial would have been very bad and people would have talked.  Therefore they brought in a clean up man, “supposedly in defense of Kennedy’s memory!”

The French president then said that this was all hogwash. It was “Better to assassinate an innocent man than to let a civil war break out.  Better an injustice than disorder.”  He then predicted:

But you’ll see. All of them together will observe the law of silence…..In order to not lose face in front of the whole world.  In order to not risk unleashing riots in the United States. In order to preserve the union and avoid a new civil war. In order to not ask themselves questions. They don’t want to know.  They don’t want to find out.  They won’t allow themselves to find out. (Talbot, pp. 567-68)

There was one thing left out of this perceptive summation.  The man who Kennedy terminated would then serve on the commission inquiring into his death.  Not just that, Dulles would be the single most active member of that dubious body. (Walt Brown, The Warren Omission, pp. 85-87)

After all, thanks to Kennedy, he didn’t have a job.

James’s Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribed

 

 

 

 

16 Likes

·

2 Restacks

16

12

2

Share

 

12 Comments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Robert Morrow]

On 6/24/2024 at 10:39 PM, James DiEugenio said:

The quotes by DeGaulle about Kennedy's death at the end are really sensational.

They even go past Castro and Nikita K.

French President Charles De Gaulle believed the JFK assassination was a high level domestic American conspiracy and the International Herald Tribune reported this on Oct. 19, 1967

Web link: http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/D%20Disk/deGaulle%20Charles%20Attitude%20Toward%20JFK%20Assassination/Item%2003.pdf

From a 10/20/1967 Washington Post article, “De Gaulle Viewed Death of JFK as Conspiracy,” based on the previous day’s International Herald Tribune:

QUOTE

 Paris, Oct. 19, 1967 

          To the large body of frenchmen who believe President Kennedy was the victim of a deep conspiracy, the chief Frenchman himself has now been added – President De Gaulle.

          A new book by historian Raymond Tournoux, France’s leading and respected De Gaulle authority, quotes the General as saying:

          “The police were in on the job. Either they ordered it to be done, or else they allowed it to be done. In any case, they are in on the job.”

          According to Tournoux, this was De Gaulle’s considered conclusion upon his return from Kennedy’s Washington funeral in late 1963.

          The General’s views are reported in Tournoux’s new study, “La Tragedie du General” (The General’s Tragedy). It will be published in a few days, although the magazine Paris-Match has already published extracts.

          (Asked in Washington if the White House was aware of sentiments attributed to De Gaulle, President Johnson’s press secretary George Christian said, “I have never heard of this until this moment.”)

          Tournoux, who gathered his material from exhausting research, among the persons with whom the General talks freely, reports the following:

          In his refusal to believe that the Kennedy assassination could have been the work of a lone fanatic, de Gaulle compared it to assassination attempts against himself here in France.

          “His story is my story. What happened to Kennedy almost happened to me. The assassination of the President of the United States in Dallas is the assassination which could have struck down the French Chief of State in 1960, 1961, 1962, here or in Algiers.”

          De Gaulle also saw a parallel between the already mounting conflict between whites and Negroes in America and the struggle between Algerian Moslems and Europeans as a background to the assassination attempt.

          “It’s like a cowboy and Indian story. But it’s really only an OAS story. “The OAS, or Secret Army Organization, was a terrorist group which fought to keep Algeria French.)

          “The police are thick with the (Algerian) ultras. The (American) ultras are the Ku Klux Klan, the John Birch Society and all those secret extreme rightist associations.

          “It’s the story which would have happened to us if we hadn’t given independence to Algeria. It’s the story of races who can’t get along.”

          For the General, Lee Harvey Oswald was only an unfortunate “front man” designated in advance as the scapegoat to set off an anti-Communist “which hunt” to “distract attention.”

          “They got hold of this Communist who wasn’t really one, a nullity, a fanatic …a marvelous accused. The idea was to make people believe that the guy acted out of fanaticism and love for Communism.”

          The General said “they” planned to shoot Oswald on sight to prevent a trial, but things went wrong. Oswald got suspicious and took flight. A policeman got killed. There were witnesses. A trial had to be avoided at all cost. Things might have come out.

          “So the police got hold of an informer, someone they had where they wanted him. That guy killed the false assassin on the pretext of defending Kennedy’s memory.”

          “What a laugh,” concluded the General. “Every police in the world is alike when it comes to dirty work.”

UNQUOTE

Charles de Gaulle, who was almost assassinate by the OAS, was convinced that the JFK assassination was a high level domestic USA plot

 

Gene Kelly post (9-28-2022) at Education Forum

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28191-what-did-jfk-do-that-caused-certain-powerful-people-to-have-him-killed/page/3/

 

QUOTE

It is instructive to recall Charles de Gaulle's reaction. When de Gaulle moved to end the French war in Algeria, he induced a strong reaction from his military and far-right circles, including several assassination attempts and a coup. De Gaulle was convinced that the French military coup attempts against him in spring 1961 were instigated by the CIA. President Kennedy told the French ambassador that he (JFK) was not in full control of his own intelligence agency. And when JFK was assassinated in Dallas, President de Gaulle confided that Kennedy was the victim of the same national security forces that had targeted him. David Talbot addresses this in "The Devil's Chessboard" and quotes the French President:

“What happened to Kennedy is what nearly happened to me ... His story is the same as mine ... It looks like a cowboy story, but it’s only an OAS story. The security forces were in cahoots with the extremists.”

Talbot also highlights the similarities of JFK's murder with the plot to bring down Charles De Gaulle - the people involved (retired French generals, rightwing French, poopoo sympathizers, and White Russians), the role of Allen Dulles, the motive behind it (Algerian independence and fear of Communist stronghold in strategic, oil-rich North Africa) - all bear an eerie similarity to the circumstances surrounding the assassination of JFK.  His summary quote about Dulles is right on the money ... Dulles’s job was to hijack the US government to benefit the wealthy. 

UNQUOTE

June, 16, 1975 Guardian and Chicago Tribune articles: The CIA says that it was asked by French hard right radicals in 1965 for help in murdering Charles De Gaulle

 

Web link: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/16/general-de-gaulle-cia-assassination-plot-1975#comments

The Guardian, June 16, 1975:

This morning’s Chicago Tribune reports that congressional leaders have been told by CIA officials that French dissidents approached the CIA 10 years ago to ask for American help in a conspiracy to kill the French President.

 

The killer was to be an “old soldier.” He was to wear a poisoned ring on one of his fingers. And he was to shake the General’s hand in what the Tribune said today would have been “a clasp...of lethal friendship.”

 

According to the newspaper in an exclusive copyrighted story that indicates no sources or dateline, a CIA officer travelled to Capitol Hill within the past fortnight to brief Senators and Congressmen on the kind of stories they can expect to unearth when they read the Rockefeller Commission’s censored (by President Ford) section on political assassinations; and what to expect when the two congressional select committees begin to investigate the subject.

In the secret briefing, the CIA man reportedly told the Congressmen that French dissidents – the Algerian connection was not mentioned, but the plot was allegedly hatched after the failure of the 1961 and 1962 OAS attempts on the General’s life – had made contact with the CIA in 1965 and 1966.

At the time, the Johnson administration was less than happy with de Gaulle, who was by then an ardent opponent of the Vietnam war, and had thrown US servicemen out of French military bases.

The plan, as reportedly put to the CIA, involved infiltrating an agent, wearing the poisoned ring – perhaps with a curare-tipped needle on its outer surface – into a group of old soldiers attending a reception at which the General would appear.

The agent would wait in line to have his hand shaken, deliberately lagging so that the General would be tired and his hand would be numb from shaking the hands of so many more enthusiastic soldiers.

Finally, that “clasp...of lethal friendship,” and the General would fall to the ground while the assassin strolled calmly off into the throng.

The tribune’s sources could not say if the CIA had ever done more than entertain the plan; no evidence exists, the paper says, to show that Mr Johnson knew anything of this; and no one will say if the ring wearing old soldier ever existed.

Only one thing is certain: de Gaulle is dead. He collapsed watching television at his home in Colombey-les-deux-Eglises.

Edited yesterday at 03:35 AM by Robert Morrow

[Chuck Schwartz]

I read the essay and the 12 comments following.  It confirms my belief that A. Dulles was probably the driving force behind the murder of JFK.

[Matthew Koch]

8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Here you go Ron:

 

The Report that got Allen Dulles Fired

                                    

One of the most distinguished aspects of David Talbot’s The Devil’s Chessboard is that it shows just what conflicts led to the termination of Allen Dulles by President John Kennedy.  In his milestone biography of Dulles, Talbot showed that the prevailing wisdom, that it was only the Bay of Pigs, was likely incomplete. There were two other crises going on around the same time that multiplied Kennedy’s doubts about being able to live with Dulles as CIA Director.

 

As Richard Mahoney noted in his excellent book JFK: Ordeal in Africa, before the 1960 election, Kennedy asked Averill Harriman if he should openly endorse the Congo’s Patrice Lumumba. (Mahoney, p. 59) Belgium had titularly set Congo free, the largest and one of the richest countries in sub-Sahara Africa. Lumumba’s party had won the elections in May of 1960 under a constitutional plan.  In June, Lumumba began to form his government. On June 23^rd Lumumba gave his first public speech promising national unity, the sovereignty of the will of the people and a neutralist foreign policy.  (Jonathan Kwitny, Endless Enemies, p. 55) Lumumba’s ascension, and the hopes he had of making Congo a model for Africa, did not last long.

Neither Belgium, England, or France wanted Congo to be free from European imperialism. Especially in the Katanga region, the richest area of the huge country.  So they encouraged  and paid Moise Tshombe to lead a breakaway state.  The Belgians still in country helped recruit mercenaries for Tshombe’s army. (Kwitny,p. 55) But there was a fourth antagonist to Lumumba: the USA. Allen Dulles was aware of the European scheming to break off Katanga months before it happened. (John Newman, Countdown to Darkness, p. 153) Dulles quickly joined the anti-Lumumba forces which now mushroomed. The Belgians dropped paratroopers, and Katanga declared itself a separate state. Lumumba did what he had to do:  he went to the UN and Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold, and also to the Russians. When this happened, the CIA station chief in Leopoldville now said that Congo, as had been the case in Cuba, was experiencing a classic communist takeover. (Newman, p. 223) When that cable arrived in Washington, President Eisenhower instructed Dulles to begin assassination efforts against Lumumba. (Newman, p. 227)

By September 1960, the CIA had three agents in Leopoldville assigned to kill Lumumba. These were Sidney Gottlieb, master of poisons; and two mercenaries code named WIROGUE and QJWIN, part of the ZR Rifle assassination program. But Hammarskjold’s deputy, Rajeshwar Dayal, protected Lumumba by placing him under house arrest. But when Lumumba decided to escape and make his way to his political base in Stanleyville, the CIA changed tactics. The Agency now monitored his progress and cut off his escape routes. He was captured and sent to Katanga. (Newman p. 295) He was executed by firing squad and his body soaked in sulphuric acid. This was the sorry end to the first democratically elected leader of a post-colonial nation in sub-Sahara Africa.

 

Sorry, but Kwitny is the Source? 

Anyways, this is very inaccurate account about the Congo and leaves out the Mutiany that happened in the Congolese army that allowed Tshombe to make Katanga Independent. 

Can someone comment on this link so Jim can see it and watch the documentary that shows what really happened 

 

[James DiEugenio]

Well, thanks Chuck.

I did not mean to write it that way, I just meant to indicate how incompatible JFK's foreign policy was with what Dulles was about.

In the space of three months, Lumumba, overthrow of DeGaulle and the Bay of Pigs?

Bobby Kennedy bringing in Lovett was a smart move to be the icing on the cake. Because him and Bruce wanted to get rid of Dulles 5 years prior.

[James DiEugenio]

I  love what DeGaulle said last, talk about a prophecy:

But you’ll see. All of them together will observe the law of silence…..In order to not lose face in front of the whole world.  In order to not risk unleashing riots in the United States. In order to preserve the union and avoid a new civil war. In order to not ask themselves questions. They don’t want to know.  They don’t want to find out.  They won’t allow themselves to find out. (Talbot, pp. 567-68)

[James DiEugenio]

That is also some really interesting information that Bob Morrow added. 

I think that plot with the ring was covered up in the Church Commission. But it indicates that the CIA was trying to get rid of DeGaulle for a long time.

Thanks Bob.

[Benjamin Cole]

13 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

That is also some really interesting information that Bob Morrow added. 

I think that plot with the ring was covered up in the Church Commission. But it indicates that the CIA was trying to get rid of DeGaulle for a long time.

Thanks Bob.

This post is yet another reason why Jim DiEugenio is one of the few historians who can place the JFKA/RFK1A into context. 

Thanks to DiEugenio's efforts (and others) we can see the twin assassinations were not just human tragedies, but altered the course of US foreign-military policy for decades, and not for the better.  

Who wanted to control US foreign-military policies, and who organized the JFKA/RFK1A is still a relevant topic, 60 years on...

Also, were other US Presidents deposed, if by more civil means (no gunfire). 

[Chuck Schwartz]

Jim, I know you didn't write your essay in order to indict A. Dulles.  But, for it was yet another dot to connect in the case against him. 

[Chuck Schwartz]

"But, for it" should read "But, for me, it..."

[Paul Brancato]

On 6/25/2024 at 5:00 AM, Matthew Koch said:

Sorry, but Kwitny is the Source? 

Anyways, this is very inaccurate account about the Congo and leaves out the Mutiany that happened in the Congolese army that allowed Tshombe to make Katanga Independent. 

Can someone comment on this link so Jim can see it and watch the documentary that shows what really happened 

 

I get it. Jim has you on ignore, and by my commenting here it unavoidably comes to his attention. I hope he doesn’t mind my response here.
Does the movie shed light on Dulles being fired? That is the thrust of this thread. In my view of history the Dulles brothers are villains of the first order. What’s your view on them generally? 
I’ve read something about the Katanga ‘mutiny’. The movie is two hours long. Would you mind letting us know where the film maker discusses this? And if you know, could you tell us about the film maker?