JFK and the Neocons-- Two New DiEugenio Essays

[Kevin Balch]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

(Source 18) Hans Gisevius, testimony at Nuremberg War Crimes Trial (4th April, 1946)

It was Goebbels who first came up with the idea of setting fire to the Reichstag. Goebbels discussed this with the leader of the Berlin SA brigade, Karl Ernst, and made detailed suggestions on how to go about carrying out the arson. A certain tincture known to every pyrotechnician was selected. You spray it onto an object and then it ignites after a certain time, after hours or minutes. In order to get into the Reichstag building, they needed the passageway that leads from the palace of the Reichstag President to the Reichstag. A unit of ten reliable SA men was put together, and now Göring was informed of all the details of the plan, so that he coincidentally was not out holding an election speech on the night of the fire, but was still at his desk in the Ministry of the Interior at such a late hour... The intention right from the start was to put the blame for this crime on the Communists, and those ten SA men who were to carry out the crime were instructed accordingly.

(Source 13) Karl Ernst, signed confession (3rd June, 1934)

I, the undersigned, Karl Ernst, S.A. Gruppenführer... declare that, on February 27th, 1933, I and two others set fire to the German Reichstag. We did so in the belief that we should be serving the Führer and our movement. We hoped that we might enable the Führer to deliver a shattering blow against Marxism, the worst enemy of the German people. Before this pestilence is completely smashed, Germany cannot recover. I do not regret what I have done, and I should do the same thing all over again.

Who Set Fire to the Reichstag? (Classroom Activity) (spartacus-educational.com)

Why would Ernst sign a confession regarding the Reichstag fire in June, 1934? This was a month before the Night of the Long Knives when he was executed.

Even Ian Kershaw apparently believes it was Van der Lubber. What was Van der Lubber doing in the Reichstag as it was burning? Helping the fire brigade?

 

Gisevius was the anti-Hitler liaison to Allen Dulles. Isn’t Allen Dulles the mastermind of the JFK assassination? Gisevias was also an envoy to the Vatican. Wasn’t the pope complicit with the holocaust?

Edited July 27 by Kevin Balch

[James DiEugenio]

Kevin:

Try getting them to explain RFK’s proposal during a Cuban Missile Crisis EXCOMM meeting to stage a “Remember the Maine” (the exact words used as it was caught on tape)  

Please give me the references for where this is in The Kennedy Tapes, which is the definitive record of the CMC?

For good reason I have Galloway  on ignore, but when people quote him I have to look at his stuff.

Kennedy did not make any appointments.  These were all done by a committee led by Sorenson and its in his book. For example, Rusk was a real disappointment. This is why Kennedy ended up being his own Secretary of State, with his brother as ambassador at large.  Dillon was also, which is why Kennedy used James Saxon to counter him and the Fed.

 

As per LIsa Howard, please read Talbot's Brothers, (230-32)

 

 

Edited July 28 by James DiEugenio

[Jean Ceulemans]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

(Source 18) Hans Gisevius, testimony at Nuremberg War Crimes Trial (4th April, 1946)

It was Goebbels who first came up with the idea of setting fire to the Reichstag. Goebbels discussed this with the leader of the Berlin SA brigade, Karl Ernst, and made detailed suggestions on how to go about carrying out the arson. A certain tincture known to every pyrotechnician was selected. You spray it onto an object and then it ignites after a certain time, after hours or minutes. In order to get into the Reichstag building, they needed the passageway that leads from the palace of the Reichstag President to the Reichstag. A unit of ten reliable SA men was put together, and now Göring was informed of all the details of the plan, so that he coincidentally was not out holding an election speech on the night of the fire, but was still at his desk in the Ministry of the Interior at such a late hour... The intention right from the start was to put the blame for this crime on the Communists, and those ten SA men who were to carry out the crime were instructed accordingly.

(Source 13) Karl Ernst, signed confession (3rd June, 1934)

I, the undersigned, Karl Ernst, S.A. Gruppenführer... declare that, on February 27th, 1933, I and two others set fire to the German Reichstag. We did so in the belief that we should be serving the Führer and our movement. We hoped that we might enable the Führer to deliver a shattering blow against Marxism, the worst enemy of the German people. Before this pestilence is completely smashed, Germany cannot recover. I do not regret what I have done, and I should do the same thing all over again.

Who Set Fire to the Reichstag? (Classroom Activity) (spartacus-educational.com)

The Karl Ernst confession has been known to be a fake since the 1960's :

"Another important document, the signed confession by Karl Ernst, was also shown to be a forgery. Erich Wollenberg, a KPD member, who worked with Willi Münzenberg on the book, admitted that the "Ernst testament, which was concocted by a group of German Communists in Paris - including Bruno Frei and Konny Norden - after Ernst's murder on June 30th, 1934, and only published after Dimitrov himself edited it in Moscow." (28)

Two of the men, Ernst Hanfstaengel, and Richard Fiedler, mentioned by Ernst as knowing about the Nazi conspiracy to set fire to the Reichstag, both survived the war. They both told Tobias that the "Ernst confession was a complete fabrication". (29) Tobias was also able to show that Edmund Heines, who according to the document, helped Ernst to set the building on fire, was in fact that night at an election meeting in far-away Gleiwitz. "

https://spartacus-educational.com/Karl_Ernst.htm

Same for some letters he had send to a friend, fakes. 

Btw one of his associates, and also mentioned in the fake Ernst documents was Walter von Mohrenschildt (SA/NSDAP member, also executed Night of the Long Knives) a cousin to George de Mohrenschildt.  Another cousin was also SA and yet another SS (see topic I once started in 2022 on GDM's family). 

[W. Niederhut]

Jean,

     What do you make of Gisevius's Nuremberg testimony, implicating Ernst in the Reichstag fire?

     Also, are you and Kevin Balch aware that the Reichstag fire was used by Hitler as a pretext to establish a Nazi police state in Germany-- ending the Weimar Republic, and triggering the mass incarceration of opposition politicians, and the closure of the opposition press?

    Cui bono?

    Let's get our basic history facts straight here on the Education Forum.

    I trust that you don't also share Balch's opinion that Britain started WWII?

The Reichstag Fire | Holocaust Encyclopedia (ushmm.org)

Edited July 27 by W. Niederhut

[Jean Ceulemans]

Tobias is an interesting read (not that I agree with all he says).

https://archive.org/stream/ReichstagFire/Reichstag Fire_djvu.txt

Another is the Marxists reaction in 1934  I´ll try to find that in English

 

[Kevin Balch]

23 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Kevin:

Try getting them to explain RFK’s proposal during a Cuban Missile Crisis EXCOMM meeting to stage a “Remember the Maine” (the exact words used as it was caught on tape)  

Please give me the references for where this is in The Kennedy Tapes, which is the definitive record of the CMC?

For good reason I have Galloway  on ignore, but when people quote him I have to look at his stuff.

Kennedy did not make any appointments.  These were all done by a committee led by Sorenson and its in his book. For example, Rusk was a real disappointment. This is why Kennedy ended up being his own Secretary of State, with his brother as ambassador at large.  Dillon was also, which is why Kennedy used James Saxon to counter him and the Fed.

 

As per LIsa Howard, please read Talbot's Brothers, (230-32)

 

 

Page 100-101.

Robert Kennedy: “Let me say of course, one other thing is whether we should also think of whether there is some other way we can get involved in this through Guantanamo Bay or something. Or whether there’s some ship that … you know, sink the Maine again or something.”

There is another curious passage where JFK remarks to Bundy that (and I’m paraphrasing) “It’s as though we put missiles in Turkey”. Bundy replies, “Well we did it”.

At first, I though JFK was having a Biden moment as he himself put the missiles in Turkey over a year ago. How could he have forgotten? But what I think JFK was getting at was why is Khrushchev  putting the missiles in Cuba now, rather than soon after the missiles were deployed in Turkey.

To his credit, JFK seized upon the idea of the missile exchange early in the crisis. I believe it was actually suggested by Adlai Stevenson, who was figuratively thrown under the bus by Charles Bartlett’s account shortly thereafter.

I will check out the Talbot reference.

Have you read the book “Back Channel to Cuba: The Hidden History of Negotiations  Between Washington and Havana”?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00W1VH9LE/?coliid=I1CURN6QB3IKVG&colid=1LLH1ZZ3NP50V&psc=0&ref_=list_c_wl_lv_ov_lig_dp_it

[Kevin Balch]

21 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Also, are you and Kevin Balch aware that the Reichstag fire was used by Hitler as a pretext to establish a Nazi police state in Germany-- ending the Weimar Republic, and triggering the mass incarceration of opposition politicians, and the closure of the opposition press?

Yes. But that does not prove that the Nazis were responsible for the fire itself. Hitler was very adept at taking advantages of opportunities as they presented themselves. How do you explain Van der Lubber being in the Reichstag at the time of the fire?

Britain certainly followed policies that increased the odds of a war such as offering security guarantees to Poland that it could not back up. This encourage Polish intransigence in resolving the dispute over Danzig.

I am saying, or rather the FACTS are saying, that the Soviets were as guilty as Germany in starting the war.

[W. Niederhut]

2 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said:

Yes. But that does not prove that the Nazis were responsible for the fire itself. Hitler was very adept at taking advantages of opportunities as they presented themselves. How do you explain Van der Lubber being in the Reichstag at the time of the fire?

Britain certainly followed policies that increased the odds of a war such as offering security guarantees to Poland that it could not back up. This encourage Polish intransigence in resolving the dispute over Danzig.

I am saying, or rather the FACTS are saying, that the Soviets were as guilty as Germany in starting the war.

How do you explain Gisevius's Nuremberg testimony implicating Ernst and the Nazis in starting the Reichstag fire?

[James DiEugenio]

Kevin:

You do the same thing that Larry Tye does with that.

Bobby is summing up all the angles of consideration that they can use to counter what the Russians have done.  He is not recommending any certain arm of action.  As a good advisor he is trying to assemble all the options.  And then have the president choose what he wants to do.  Anyone can see that they are talking there, Bundy and Ball, and Alexis Johnson about having an excuse to attack the island.

In fact, we know that Bobby strongly objected to any overt  attack on the island.  And this infuriated Acheson.

As per the puzzlement on Turkey, that order was originally issued under Ike.  Kennedy thought they had been replaced by Polaris.

[Matt Cloud]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Kevin:

You do the same thing that Larry Tye does with that.

Bobby is summing up all the angles of consideration that they can use to counter what the Russians have done.  He is not recommending any certain arm of action.  As a good advisor he is trying to assemble all the options.  And then have the president choose what he wants to do.  Anyone can see that they are talking there, Bundy and Ball, and Alexis Johnson about having an excuse to attack the island.

In fact, we know that Bobby strongly objected to any overt  attack on the island.  And this infuriated Acheson.

As per the puzzlement on Turkey, that order was originally issued under Ike.  Kennedy thought they had been replaced by Polaris.

I love this.  I acknowledged yet another fraudulent penalty imposed  upon me by Ron Bulman or whatever just to come on and reply here.  

 

First, DiEugenio denies knowing of the quotation at issue.  Asks for citation.  Gets it.  And then purports to know the inner workings of "Bobby's" brain, and speaks ex cathedra in doing so.  What a joke.  What a fraud.  

Indeed, after lifting the neo-con thesis from me as the root to understanding the entire Kennedy episode, but not before putting me on ignore, he finds he needs to order some books to learn the subject.  Whatever the books say, Jim, Moynihan was the leader of the neo-cons.  As I instructed you, and as you rejected. Moynihan ran the US government, from at least 1982 on.  Probably as early as '77.  Moynihan was Deep Throat.  Moynihan lived, physically, at the center of the KGB-CIA nexus during the backchannel negotiations that resolved the Cuban Missile Crisis.  Tregaron.  Moynihan was the reason for the assassination.  He was The Fourth Man.  Understand this -- and you, anyone, will be 95% of the way toward solving the mystery this board purports to explore.

 

Edited July 29 by Matt Cloud

[Kevin Balch]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Kevin:

You do the same thing that Larry Tye does with that.

Bobby is summing up all the angles of consideration that they can use to counter what the Russians have done.  He is not recommending any certain arm of action.  As a good advisor he is trying to assemble all the options.  And then have the president choose what he wants to do.  Anyone can see that they are talking there, Bundy and Ball, and Alexis Johnson about having an excuse to attack the island.

In fact, we know that Bobby strongly objected to any overt  attack on the island.  And this infuriated Acheson.

As per the puzzlement on Turkey, that order was originally issued under Ike.  Kennedy thought they had been replaced by Polaris.

If a “sink the Maine” event is a bad option in March, why would it even be proposed in October when tensions were so high and the consequences far greater? I’m afraid I can’t buy that.

The Eisenhower administration proposed the missiles in 1957. After a difficult campaign of persuasion, Thor missiles were agreed to by the UK snd Jupiters for Italy and Turkey. When JFK took office, there was a review of the decision to proceed with the Turkish deployment. The matter was finally decided in favor or deployment after the Vienna Summit in June. The missiles were became operational in Turkey between November 1961 and March 1962 (Table 2 in Nash).

https://www.amazon.com/Other-Missiles-October-Eisenhower-1957-1963/dp/0807846473/ref=sr_1_1?Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.x=0&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.y=0&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.y88U9hQfD_N5v0n1VTP-PA.c76bXhEyyFuC4OAw5L12_rjhKbUAlup4IVrM6EWoi7k&dib_tag=se&qid=1722204151&refinements=p_27%3Anash%2Cp_28%3Aother+missiles+of+october&s=books&sr=1-1&unfiltered=1

The Polaris missiles made the Jupiters obsolete even before they were deployed, but getting them out of Turkey was feared to disrupt NATO. This was also a stumbling block in the resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis. NATO credibility and unity not only precipitated the crisis but hampered its resolution.

 

Edited July 28 by Kevin Balch

[Matt Cloud]

2 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

If a “sink the Maine” event is a bad option in March, why would it even be proposed in October when tensions were so high and the consequences far greater? I’m afraid I can’t buy that.

The Eisenhower administration proposed the missiles in 1957. After a difficult campaign of persuasion, Thor missiles were agreed to by the UK snd Jupiters for Italy and Turkey. When JFK took office, there was a review of the decision to proceed with the Turkish deployment. The matter was finally decided in favor or deployment after the Vienna Summit in June. The missiles were became operational in Turkey between November 1961 and March 1962 (Table 2 in Nash).

https://www.amazon.com/Other-Missiles-October-Eisenhower-1957-1963/dp/0807846473/ref=sr_1_1?Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.x=0&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.y=0&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.y88U9hQfD_N5v0n1VTP-PA.c76bXhEyyFuC4OAw5L12_rjhKbUAlup4IVrM6EWoi7k&dib_tag=se&qid=1722204151&refinements=p_27%3Anash%2Cp_28%3Aother+missiles+of+october&s=books&sr=1-1&unfiltered=1

The Polaris missiles made the Jupiters obsolete even before they were deployed, but getting them out of Turkey was feared to disrupt NATO. This was also a stumbling block in the resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis. NATO credibility and unity not only precipitated the crisis but hampered its resolution.

 

Which brings us to The French Connection, and Watergate.

 

427. Memorandum From Egil Krogh, Jr. to Frank Cash

Washington, December 22, 1969.

SUBJECT Memorandum of Conversation Between President Nixon and Ambassador Handley with Dr. Daniel P. Moynihan and Egil Krogh

The President indicated his support for maintaining close, friendly relations with the Government of Turkey. The President and Ambassador Handley both emphasized the “gutsy” nature of the Turks’ support in the Middle East. Ambassador Handley reported that in his judgment, the Turkish Government have “pulled up their socks” in an effort to cooperate with the President’s deep concern about the drug problem. Handley mentioned to the President that this visit would help him considerably when he goes back to discuss the question with Prime Minister Demirel.

The President advised Ambassador Handley to tell Prime Minister Demirel that he is looking forward to a visit with the Prime Minister next year. The President indicated that the date would be somewhere between June and October of next year, but that he is not certain about what dates are available. Ambassador Handley stated that he felt Turkey would welcome a visit by the President if he could make it. The President gave a clipping from The New York Times dated December 22, 1969 to Ambassador Handley for transmittal to Prime Minister Demirel from the President. A copy of this clipping is attached. Ambassador Handley reported in response to the President’s question that the Astronauts were extremely well-received in Turkey. Handley mentioned some of the minor problems with Sixth Fleet visits in Turkey, but this was low-keyed.

 

Egil Krogh, Jr.

Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs

 

___

 

431. Memorandum From the Director of the Office of Turkish Affairs (Cash) to the Assistant Secretary of State for Near East and South Asian Affairs (Sisco)

Washington, June 18, 1970.

SUBJECT Let’s Not Throw the Turkish Baby Out With the Narcotics Bathwater

Last December Moynihan told Bill Handley and me that we should bomb the Blue Mosque in retaliation for the way the Turks are “aggressing” against us with opium.2 (The same day, incidentally, the President told Bill in low key, “do your best.”) We thought at the time Moynihan was joking. Now, I’m not so sure. I am becoming increasingly concerned that various people in the Government (including Rossides, who has demonstrated his disregard for US-Turkish relations, and Kleindienst)4 without responsibility for US foreign relations, but understandably anxious and frustrated over our horrendous narcotics problem, may be fully prepared to see irreparable damage done to all our other interests in Turkey in the attempt to solve this problem. And—worst of all—without any real prospect that our narcotics problem will thus be solved. At least with the “Johnson letter”5 there was a real chance that a Greek-Turkish war would be prevented. This was accomplished and, therefore, the risk—and the high price paid in damage to US-Turkish relations—was, in my view, justified. But if Turkey produced not one more poppy, our problem would not be solved. Opium is produced in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Burma, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, India, etc. etc. As long as there is a demand, there will be a supply. Furthermore, even if the USG can agree internally that opium should be eliminated worldwide, which is very doubtful, and could achieve this, which is even more doubtful, the experts say addicts would find a substitute—any substitute (LSD for example)—because their need is so compelling.

In other words, this is a problem that must be solved primarily at the heart, i.e. the user in this country, and secondarily by attempting to control what comes in over the borders of this country, not what goes out over the borders of any number of other countries throughout the world.

The argument is made that if an abrupt cessation of Turkish production could be obtained (which it can’t), narcotics dealers would be flushed out in their attempts to rearrange their supply lines to other sources. It seems incredible that as adroit as these criminals are, and with all the publicity our efforts with Turkey have been given—over our and the Turks’ objections—that other arrangements have not been made. Surely contingency planning is not a government monopoly.

All of this is not to say that we should not urge the Turks to do everything possible that will be of real assistance to us; we should and are. And we should be willing to pay the price the achievable results are worth.

The questions are: what will be of real assistance to us; what is achievable; and what should we pay? Since 1966 we have been putting heavy pressure on Demirel (to the point of irritating him considerably), and he has: been progressively reducing the provinces in which poppies may be grown (with a resultant loss of votes); cooperating with us in improving control, including permitting US agents to roam Turkey (a considerable risk for both him and us); and promised to end production in ‘71. He, incidentally, is the only one who has been willing to commit himself to eradication. All other Turks have emphasized increased controls only. If we lose Demirel—a real possibility even if we don’t add to his present serious difficulties— we lose the Turkish commitment to eradication.

Bill Handley says—and I think his telegrams show—that he has used every arrow in his quiver with the Turks on opium. Although they have been stupid in not sending someone from Ankara to the CCMS, we are convinced that they are doing as much as they can to help us.

I am certain from the various noises that have been made that we will quite soon be under very heavy pressure to use AID, PL 480, MAP, and anything else available as blunt instruments to bludgeon the Turks into doing our bidding. Anyone who knows the Turks knows this simply won’t work. They are just not amenable to that kind of persuasion. Worse yet, if there are even indications of this kind of direct pressure, such as a holdup of the program loan or a delay in PL 480, this will get the Turks’ backs up and may well cause a slackening in the cooperation we are presently getting on narcotics. If such pressure were to become public knowledge—as would almost certainly be the case— our other exceedingly important interests in Turkey would suffer. Our relations with Turkey can’t stand another “Johnson letter” with so little prospect of accomplishing what we wish.

 

 

See also:

 

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

This is what i mean:

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/30189-document-19-memorandum-jcs-chairman-maxwell-taylor-secretary-defense-deployment

[James DiEugenio]

And Kevin, it does matter how bad an idea is in the advisory stage.

The job of an advisor is to give all the alternatives.

When the decision phase comes, that is the time you voice your opinion.

And RFK did so.  

[Matt Cloud]

25 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

And Kevin, it does matter how bad an idea is in the advisory stage.

The job of an advisor is to give all the alternatives.

When the decision phase comes, that is the time you voice your opinion.

And RFK did so.  

Boy. This is more ... diengeniousness.   Total inversion.  Again

 

Kevin didn't say it doesn't matter.  His point is that the legitimacy of the idea does matter.  And since the idea had already come around months before and been dismissed as a bad one, why was it being re-circulated?  

"Because it's the job of an advisor at the advisory stage to give all alternatives, no matter how absurd, according to the DiEugenio Handbook of Governmental Advice."  

 

As an aside, aren't certain DOJ and other WH lawyers facing disbarment and worse for following the DiEugeio Handbook today, after the 2020 election?