Question for Soviet Conspiracy believers

[John Geraghty]

One theory is that the soviet union along with or without castro assassinated kennedy and it was covered up by LBJ to avoid a war.

I find one huge innaccuracy with this theory.

If there was a Soviet conspiracy Lemay, Tayloe and the rest of the hawks would have been all over it looking for a chance to invade Cuba or start pre-emptive strikes. We know that is what they wanted to do during the missile crisis. If they were willing to go to war over offensive missiles in Cuba, surely they would be willing to invade if their commander in chief was murdered, I would go so far as to say that they would stage a coup against LBJ in order to get their war and not seem standoffish and frightened of the Russians.

Why would these people not take this opportunity to act, they had been looking for an excuse for years.

I will not take 'they didn't like kennedy' as an answer as they hated the Soviets a damn sight more than Kennedy.

Unless this problem can be sorted out, the chance of a Castro/Khruschev conspiracy is extremely unlikely, back that up with the fact they had no motive.

John

[Ron Ecker]

I think LBJ had all the reason that he needed for a cover up. He was guilty as hell of what he was covering up. He knew good and well that the Russians or Castro had nothing to do with it.

I wondered where Tim got the story he has mentioned a couple of times of LBJ cowering in a bathroom on AF1 because he was afraid they were going to get him too. Just the other day I happened across the apparent source, which is a footnote in the biography RFK by C. David Heymann (p. 348):

"LBJ's initial fear of a 'worldwide plot' had caused a problem aboard Air Force One. According to air force Major Godfrey McHugh, Johnson, in his state of panic, had taken refuge in the plane's bathroom. 'He was scared to death,' said McHugh. '"They're going to kill us. They're going to shoot down the plane, they're going to kill us all." He'd gone berserk. I slapped him across the face, a quick one, and he seemed to regain his senses."

That is possibly the most ridiculous story I have ever read. The question is which one made it up, McHugh or Heymann.

Ron

[Larry Hancock]

John, although its probably pretty clear that I don't agree with either

the Soviet or Cuban scenario, we do have some indication that

there was a very high level of concern (although no significant military

or national security response) as soon as the Oswald/Kostikov connection

surfaced. Take a look at the Lancer site and read Newman's analysis of

the Mexico City to D.C. cable traffic. It gets so tense that CIA HQ tells them

to put all cables in clear language and not standard shorthand because the

risk of a mistake in interpretation is too great. Those folks were tense.

And its clear that at Mann's level the take was that the Soviets were very likely

behind Oswald and they were extremely bitter that LBJ and RFK suppressed the inquiry across all agencies there.

Plus, because of unavalable National Security transcripts, apparently missing AF1 traffic and other holes in the record, we don't really know how strong a response their may have been. I'm hoping that is going to be the topic of a presentation in November, let's just say the military response shows signs of being stronger than was later represented.

However, none of this has to mean more than that the bad guys were fully aware of how hot an item Oswald would be as a patsy. Of course that's only for that short crisis period before you begin asking yourself who would be so stupid as to sponsor somebody like Oswald who would leave an obvious trail to Cuban and or Soviet sponsorship....probably not either party. Sort of like Johnson relying on Mack Wallace to go into the TSBD and shoot the President, its just not a good odds thing.

-- Larry

[Mark Knight]

I believe that, despite what the press stated, the government of the United States was not nearly as much in the "circle the wagons" mode as has been reported, and not everyone was on the same page in the administration's hymnal. I'm coming to the belief that McGeorge Bundy, by virtue of his pronouncement from the White House Situation Room that there was "no conspiracy" while AF1 and the cabinet planes were still airborne after the assassination, may have done more to head off any invasion or nuclear confrontation than any other action that fateful day. [i'm still not 100% convinced, but I'm beginning to lean in that direction.]

Military facilities were placed on varying levels of alert, primarily because no one initially knew the extent of any possible foreign participation in the assassination, and no one knew whether a military invasion by a foreign power was indeed imminent. When no invasion had materialized within an hour and a half of the assassination, I believe that Bundy took it upon himself to declare there was no conspiracy for the sole purpose of advising politicians and military people alike that there was no need to launch a counterattack, nuclear or otherwise, against anyone. While the military had their window of opportunity to strike, they had no idea where to strike. Cuba or the Soviet Union were likely suspects, but there was no claim of responsibility from either of these nations...both of which were at that time quite braggadocious about their attempts to muzzle the "dogs of capitalism."

And since it is known that JFK had the 'hotline" phone to the USSR from the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis forward, I think it's inconceivable that NO ONE would've thought to pick up the "red phone" and get the Kremlin on the line as soon as possible after the assassination. Whether that actually happened or not, I've not read anywhere yet.

For a hawk such as LeMay, this was a golden opportunity...but if McBundy quashed his opportunity to sling some nukes at SOMEbody, perhaps Bundy was operating as a statesman and a keeper of world peace with his declaration of "no conspiracy," rather than having anything in mind that would close off avenues of investigation into LHO's background...and the "no conspiracy" declaration was twisted to a different purpose once the investigators got hold of it.

Just thinking "aloud" here...does any of this make sense to anyone else?

[Norman T. Field]

Given how Eisenhower gave the Soviets fits, and that Kennedy pulled the ICBMs out of Turkey, why would the Soviets whack JFK and risk his being replaced by a hard liner?

If you read Kruschev's memoirs, getting the ICBMs out of Turkey was the reason they put missles in Cuba in the first place.

First thing in the Russians mind is defense, borne from a thousand year history of being invaded by Mongols, Tartars, French and Nazis. The offensive weapons pointed at Moscow were a real big deal to them.

I just don't understand why the Soviets would get rid of someone who had just handed them what they perceived to be a major victory.

This dog won't hunt!

[Guest Stephen Turner]

The other great giveaway that Cuba, and the Soviets, had no hand in this is, Roberts murder, and Chappaquidick.Unless you buy the line that these events were unnconected,then the same "Group" is behind all three. Reality dictates that the perpertrators were domestic. and that the agenda was to keep the Kennedy's from the White house.Perhaps the destruction of one dynasty, to allow room for another. ( Just thinking out loud with that last bit

[Mark Stapleton]

Given how Eisenhower gave the Soviets fits, and that Kennedy pulled the ICBMs out of Turkey, why would the Soviets whack JFK and risk his being replaced by a hard liner?

If you read Kruschev's memoirs, getting the ICBMs out of Turkey was the reason they put missles in Cuba in the first place.

First thing in the Russians mind is defense, borne from a thousand year history of being invaded by Mongols, Tartars, French and Nazis. The offensive weapons pointed at Moscow were a real big deal to them.

I just don't understand why the Soviets would get rid of someone who had just handed them what they perceived to be a major victory.

This dog won't hunt!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Norman,

Well put. JFK's established a hotline, signed a nuclear test ban treaty, pulled the missiles out of Turkey and made dove-like speeches about how we all breathe the same air.....so then the Soviets knock him off? It's so ridiculous it doesn't merit serious consideration. There's also the minor details concerning how on earth the Soviets could nobble the SS, change the motorcade route and get the DPD to assist in the coverup. Then there's Jack Ruby. Those who propound such a theory insult our intelligence.

[Ron Ecker]

The other great giveaway that Cuba, and the Soviets, had no hand in this is, Roberts murder, and Chappaquidick.Unless you buy the line that these events were unnconected,then the same "Group" is behind all three.

Stephen,

Great point. And don't forget the King assassination. With Chappaquidick, if it wasn't an accident, they showed some originality. But with JFK, MLK, and RFK it was the straight lone nut scenario. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice . . .

Ron

Edited June 30, 2005 by Ron Ecker

[John Geraghty]

Neither Oswald nor the soviet Union/Cuba had the motive to kill Kennedy.

Castro and Khruschev are very intelligent people, to kill Kennedy would have been suicide for them.

Some would argue hardliners in the KGB, unless they staged a coup before or after the kennedy assassination there would be nothing to gain from the assassination.

I have heard no good, plausible reason why communists would kill kennedy.

I have heard several plausible reasons why citizens of the United States would want to get rid of him.

Pulling out of Vietnam, failing to invade Cuba, appeasing communism as his father had done with hitler, vowing to split the CIA, firing CIA sacred cows, oil depletion allowance.

John

[Tim Gratz]

Mark Stapleton wrote:

Norman,

Well put. JFK's established a hotline, signed a nuclear test ban treaty, pulled the missiles out of Turkey and made dove-like speeches about how we all breathe the same air.....so then the Soviets knock him off? It's so ridiculous it doesn't merit serious consideration.

I find it incredible how narrow-sighted you folks can be.

Khruschev did apparently want peace and was working with JFK. Clearly Khruschev would not have wanted to "whack" Kennedy (to use mobster language). But you lump "the Soviets" together as if everyone in the Soviet Union desired peace like Khruschev did. This is ridiculous on its face.

Angleton's investigation revealed that the Kennedy assassination was organized by a group of hard-liners in the Soviet Union who did not WANT peace--the same group that, less than a year later, orchestrated the ouster of Khruschev (and there is some evidence they would have been willing to assassinate Khruschev if necessary).

So both Kennedy and Khruschev wanted peace and both were eliminated.

The removal from power of Kennedy and Khruschev may not have been linked, but if those two events WERE linked, the sponsors came from within the Soviet Union. The reasoning is as follows: either the Soviet faction or almost anyone in the US with sufficient intelligence and funds could have shot Kennedy, but only Russians could organize an internal coup against Khruschev. Had Knhruschev been assassinated, then, possibly, US hard-liners might have killed them both. But the events indicate that if hard-liners removed Kennedy and Khruschev the hard-liners were Russian hard-liners not US hard-liners.

Of course you folks cannot understand this because you do not want to waste your precious time reading Trento's "The Secret History of the CIA" that details the results of Angleton's investigation and even names the Soviet officials involved. Why bother reading an opposing view? All it can do is cloud your thoughts, after all!

[Guest Stephen Turner]

So Tim.

Which hard-line faction of the KGB assassinated Robert, MLK, and did the dirty deed at Chappaquidick. Hmmm!! Keep your powder dry.

[Tim Gratz]

Stephen, try Aristotle Onassis for the RFK murder. Read "Nemesis".

Sen Ted Kennedy was almost as much of a skirt-chaser as his brother. As Pat has pointed out, the bridge was very hard to negotiate. And he was probably a little tipsy.

Some people don't see conspiracies where they do in fact exist (Gerald Posner and John McAdams, for instance). Others, however, see conspiracies that do not exist.

People who drink and drive have accidents every day of the week, my friend.

Edited July 1, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Stephen, try Aristitle Onassis for the RFK murder.  Read "Nemesis".

Sen Ted Kennedy was almost as much of a skirt-chaser as his brother.  As Pat has pointed out, the bridge was very hard to negotiate.  And he was probably a little tipsy.

Some people don't see conspiracies where they do in fact exist (Gerald and John McAdams, for instance).  Others, however, see conspiracies that do not exist.

People who drink and drive have accidents every day of the week, my friend.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim, I openly admire your tenacity, and think you perform a vital function on this Forum. And as you say some see conspiracies that do not exist.Others, like myself however, see massive evidence of a "Guiding hand" that ties all these events together,to the mutual benifit of a relatively small group of powerful individuals,carried out by their friends in various government agencies. My only wish is to seek out the truth,and am more than happy to have others ask hard questions of my reasoning,so keep on keeping on Tim.

[Tim Gratz]

Thanks, Stephen! It gets discouraging, sometimes, fighting for truth and justice!

I admit, of course, I MIGHT be wrong. And if I ever have to admit that on this Forum, you guys can really have some fun!

But if, as I sincerely believe, Angleton and Trento were right, then I will post a final, four word (not four-letter) sentence and say adeiu.

I should add that part of my belief is based on what you might call a hunch. You see, back in 1964, before any of this stuff came out, I wondered if there was a relation between the death of JFK and the ouster of Khruschev. "Concidence or conspiracy?" is of course a catch phrase to conspiracy-minded individuals the world over. And you must admit it was a bit co-incidental to have the leaders of the two great super-powers both replaced through extraordinary events less than a year apart.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Mark Stapleton wrote:

Norman,

Well put. JFK's established a hotline, signed a nuclear test ban treaty, pulled the missiles out of Turkey and made dove-like speeches about how we all breathe the same air.....so then the Soviets knock him off? It's so ridiculous it doesn't merit serious consideration.

I find it incredible how narrow-sighted you folks can be.

Khruschev did apparently want peace and was working with JFK.  Clearly Khruschev would not have wanted to "whack" Kennedy (to use mobster language).  But you lump "the Soviets" together as if everyone in the Soviet Union desired peace like Khruschev did.  This is ridiculous on its face.

Angleton's investigation revealed that the Kennedy assassination was organized by a group of hard-liners in the Soviet Union who did not WANT peace--the same group that, less than a year later, orchestrated the ouster of Khruschev (and there is some evidence they would have been willing to assassinate Khruschev if necessary).

The result of Angleton's "investigation" was as mad-hatter as he was.  If Soviet hard-liners wanted to put an end to the peace process, they would have eliminated their own figurehead and replaced him with someone more to their liking, making it unnecessary to dispose of the figurehead of the opponent country.  You are the most frequent invoker of the Keep-It-Simple-Stupid aphorism, so why do you consistently strain to make these things needlessly, arcanely complex?

It is ceaselessly amazing that you would posit Soviet hardliners had the means and motive to kill their own leader, and Kennedy, yet you refuse to even entertain the notion that US hardliners were capable of the same thoughts and deeds.  As per above, if US hard-liners wanted to put an end to the peace process, they would have eliminated their own figurehead and replaced him with someone more to their liking.  There is no need for foreign conspiracy, and citing Angleton as proof of anything only lowers your already questionable credibility here.

So both Kennedy and Khruschev wanted peace and both were eliminated.

The removal from power of Kennedy and Khruschev may not have been linked, but if those two events WERE linked, the sponsors came from within the Soviet Union.  The reasoning is as follows:  either the Soviet faction or almost anyone in the US with sufficient intelligence and funds could have shot Kennedy, but only Russians could organize an internal coup against Khruschev.  Had Knhruschev been assassinated, then, possibly, US hard-liners might have killed them both.  But the events indicate that if hard-liners removed Kennedy and Khruschev the hard-liners were Russian hard-liners not US hard-liners.

This is not "reasoning."  It is babble.

Of course you folks cannot understand this because you do not want to waste your precious time reading Trento's "The Secret History of the CIA" that details the results of Angleton's investigation and even names the Soviet officials involved.  Why bother reading an opposing view?  All it can do is cloud your thoughts, after all!

That's certainly the effect it's had on you.  Had it not scrambled your thought process, you wouldn't be claiming Cuban responsibility on even-numbered days, and Soviet responsibility on odd-numbered days.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>