Guatemala, Cuba and the JFK Assassination

[Tim Gratz]

Pat, if nothing else will you grant that it is historically wrong to convey the impression that the US was removing a "democratically-elected agrarian reformer" if Arbenz achieved his electoral success through the murder of his main opponent? Or is there one standard for the US and another for small Central American nations?

And are you aware that there was reliable information that Arbenz was to receive or had received an arms shipment from Czechloslovakia?

I am not prepared at this point to either justify or condemn PBSUCCESS. But my preliminary study has convinced me of three important facts: 1) we were not overthrowing a democratically elected leader but rather a murderer with blood on his hands; 2) the Communists intended to take control of Guatemala through Arbenz; and 3) PBSUCCESS had to do with stopping the feared Communist take-over rather than protecting the interests of a fruit company. (As noted, the leader of the Guatemala CP confirmed the last two points.)

The State Department records I posted reflect that we almost pleaded with Arbenz (or his ambassador?) to renounce Communism and we pledged to him that we would resolve his complaints about the United Fruit Company.

Again, my point is that it is a distortion of history to say that the CIA destroyed democracy in Guatemala. Any history of Guatemala should reflect how Arbenz came to power. Agreed?

By the way, the source of your comment about Dulles? Do you think that was merely his opinion? Is it not possible that a Communist killed Armas in retiliation for his role in the coup, and to stir up trouble in the country?

What we are left with is that there is no documentation that the CIA killed anyone (what did it do, pass a "hit-list" to Armas?) but it is clear that a Communist supporter or Arbenz killed his right-wing opponent and soon afer Armas deposed Arbenz a card-carrying Communist may have killed Armas. What is unfortunate is that these problems could not have been resolved short of violence. It would appear this was due to the intransigence of Arbenz.

Edited January 30, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[Larry Hancock]

Tim, I think you need to do a whole lot more research but I'll leave it to others to assist you with that. I will comment on one area which I have explored for my second edition.

It is true that there had been an arms purchase, and that the US via Robertson tried to stop it.....first by attacking a ship at sea, then by attacking a train carrying the arms shipment....and failing at both. One might question our right to do that but hey, Dulles was telling the President that the arms were intended to enable an attack on the Panama canal so obviously our interests were at stake.

However, when we did get some real intel on the weapons we found out that they were largely junk, surplus from the War which was not matched for combat nor appropriate for use in country. I'm sure you can find the references for all this as I did. Basically the Czechs had taken the opportunity to unload the stuff, no sign of any sophisticated stragegic plan to arm a Communist force. But of course Dulles didn't go back and say CIA had mis-evaluated the evidence and it didn't pose any danger (sound familiar?). Rather he kept using it as one of the reasons for continuing with PBSUCCESS.

[Pat Speer]

Tim, I think you need to do a whole lot more research but I'll leave it to others to assist you with that. I will comment on one area which I have explored for my second edition.

It is true that there had been an arms purchase, and that the US via Robertson tried to stop it.....first by attacking a ship at sea, then by attacking a train carrying the arms shipment....and failing at both. One might question our right to do that but hey, Dulles was telling the President that the arms were intended to enable an attack on the Panama canal so obviously our interests were at stake.

However, when we did get some real intel on the weapons we found out that they were largely junk, surplus from the War which was not matched for combat nor appropriate for use in country. I'm sure you can find the references for all this as I did. Basically the Czechs had taken the opportunity to unload the stuff, no sign of any sophisticated stragegic plan to arm a Communist force. But of course Dulles didn't go back and say CIA had mis-evaluated the evidence and it didn't pose any danger (sound familiar?). Rather he kept using it as one of the reasons for continuing with PBSUCCESS.

The arms shipment is indeed interesting. The official CIA history, as I remember, said that we were trying to create a situation where Arbenz would over-react to a provocation by Armas, whereby we could justify supporting Armas against Arbenz. Our Ambassador to the U.N., of course, was Henry Cabot Lodge, whose family's wealth had been derived from United Fruit. I believe he had relatives still on the board. Anyhow, as I remember it, the official story is that Armas stupidly did us a favor by buying all these weapons.

If you look through a lot of the early books about the CIA, they almost all site the discovery of this shipment as proof of the U.S.' need for foreign intelligence. They site that the arms shipment was discovered by our covert forces in Europe--and that we followed this arms ship all the way to Guatemala. The official history, I believe, reflects that it was sort of a bungled operation in that we lost track of this slow steamer as it crossed the ocean and that it almost made its way to Arbenz.

There is another school of thought, however, which I've encountered in several books written by Latin American historians. This school believes the weapons were a Northwoods-type provocation bought and shipped by the U.S. We had a legendary CIA agent Henry Heckscher on the ground in Guatemala. He had turned a few of Arbenz' generals against him. Arbenz had over-reacted by losing his confidence with the rest of his military. Upon his rise to power, Arbenz, not nearly as ruthless as you might think, had kept the same generals in place who'd served under dictators and wealthy land barons. These men were scared that Arbenz would create a large army made up of peasants. This would be a threat to their own power. They didn't want these weapons, and the shipment is sited as a reason so many of the generals failed to support Arbenz. Several sources cite that the number of weapons was so great compared to the number of Guat troops that it amounted to something like a 20 year supply. Of course, Robertson tried to bomb the ship and missed and sunk a British freighter, which proved a bit embarrassing. In any event, with Armas' troops supposedly pouring into the country, Arbenz failed to use these weapons, or even unload them from the ship, which raises the possibility that one, they were indeed junk, or two, he had never purchased them in the first place. I've often wondered if Heckscher, under cover as a German businessman, hadn't arranged for the weapons to be purchased and shipped.

Since Arbenz was not killed in the coup, I assume he did some interviews after the over-throw. I have not come across one interview with him, however. I suspect he did some in Spanish but that they were never translated or printed in English. Ydigoras-Fuentes was to eventually write a book. Has anyone here read it? What did he have to say about this arms shipment?

I wouldn't be so suspicious about the arms shipment except that the same minds who planned the Guat Op planned the Cuba Op. I believe it's a matter of historical record that the U.S. bought Russian arms and buried them on Latin American beaches--and tried to make it look like Cuba was dropping off these arms in order to export their revolution. It's been awhile since I read all this stuff. I need to whip out Bitter Fruit et al to better refresh my memory. But I do remember one thing quite clearly: Operation PBSUCCESS was a rather sleazy affair.

Edited January 31, 2006 by Pat Speer

[Tim Carroll]

Several researchers have pointed out that there could be a connection with the overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954 and the assassination of JFK. It is true that many of the CIA suspects in the death of JFK were also involved in the overthrow of Arbenz: David Atlee Philips, E. Howard Hunt, David Morales, Rip Robertson, Richard Bissell, Tracy Barnes, Allen Dulles and Henry Hecksher.

Remembering that there was a bit of adjusting necessary to maintain Guatemala, including the Lone Nut assassination of Castillo Armas in 1957, there was then a subsequent event along these lines. A little known international incident had occurred after the 1960 presidential election which, according to Piero Gleijeses, “had thrown the CIA into confusion and crippled the growth of the exile force.” In Guatemala, where the Cuban exiles were being trained, a group of young officers had revolted; one of their major grievances was the presence of the Cuban Expeditionary Force in their coun-try, which was by then an open secret. The revolt threatened to topple the government of President Ydigoras, who turned at once to the United States for help. He requested that the CIA make an airborne landing, which, fearing they might lose their base, they did. Richard Bissell has admitted, “I remember being called one night by our base commander in Guatemala. They wanted authorization to use the Brigade against the rebels. As it happened, they only had to use some of them. . . . A few brigade planes strafed the rebels.”[1] E. Howard Hunt reports somewhat differently that “several companies of the Brigade, disobeying their Cuban and American officers, had made an effective show of force at a rebel strongpoint and helped stifle the uprising.”[2]

1. Gleijeses, Piero. February 1995. “Ships in the night: the CIA, the White House and the Bay of Pigs.” Journal of Latin American Studies. v27 n1.

2. Hunt, E. Howard. 1973. Give Us This Day, New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, p. 170

T.C.

[John Simkin]

I am not prepared at this point to either justify or condemn PBSUCCESS. But my preliminary study has convinced me of three important facts: 1) we were not overthrowing a democratically elected leader but rather a murderer with blood on his hands; 2) the Communists intended to take control of Guatemala through Arbenz; and 3) PBSUCCESS had to do with stopping the feared Communist take-over rather than protecting the interests of a fruit company. (As noted, the leader of the Guatemala CP confirmed the last two points.)

The State Department records I posted reflect that we almost pleaded with Arbenz (or his ambassador?) to renounce Communism and we pledged to him that we would resolve his complaints about the United Fruit Company.

Again, my point is that it is a distortion of history to say that the CIA destroyed democracy in Guatemala. Any history of Guatemala should reflect how Arbenz came to power. Agreed?

By the way, the source of your comment about Dulles? Do you think that was merely his opinion? Is it not possible that a Communist killed Armas in retiliation for his role in the coup, and to stir up trouble in the country?

What we are left with is that there is no documentation that the CIA killed anyone (what did it do, pass a "hit-list" to Armas?) but it is clear that a Communist supporter or Arbenz killed his right-wing opponent and soon afer Armas deposed Arbenz a card-carrying Communist may have killed Armas. What is unfortunate is that these problems could not have been resolved short of violence. It would appear this was due to the intransigence of Arbenz.

You clearly have not read my original posting or checked my references. Tommy Corcoran was a paid lobbyist for Sam Zemurray and the United Fruit Company (this fact was not revealed until after the overthrow of Arbenz). Zemurray became concerned that Captain Jacobo Arbenz Guzman would be elected as president as early as 1950. Guzman was one of the heroes of the 1944 revolution that overthrew the American backed military dictatorship in Guatemala.

In the spring of 1950, Tommy Corcoran went to see Thomas C. Mann, the director of the State Department’s Office of Inter-American Affairs. Corcoran asked Mann if he had any plans to prevent Arbenz from being elected. Mann replied: “That is for the people of that country to decide.” Mann of course was a member of Harry S. Truman's Democratic administration.

Unhappy with this reply, Corcoran paid a call on the Allen Dulles, the deputy director of the CIA. Dulles, who represented United Fruit in the 1930s, was far more interested in Corcoran’s ideas. “During their meeting Dulles explained to Corcoran that while the CIA was sympathetic to United Fruit, he could not authorize any assistance without the support of the State Department. Dulles assured Corcoran, however, that whoever was elected as the next president of Guatemala would not be allowed to nationalize the operations of United Fruit.” (David McKean, Peddling Influence, 2004, page 220)

It was no surprise when in November, 1950, Arbenz received more than 60 per cent of the popular vote. Arbenz was not a communist. The people of Guatemala had no desire to return to a military dictatorship. What the peasant farmers (the majority of the population) wanted was land.

On 17th June, 1952, Arbenz announced a new Agrarian Reform program. This included expropriating idle land on government and private estates and redistributed to peasants in lots of 8 to 33 acres. The Agrarian Reform program managed to give 1.5 million acres to around 100,000 families for which the government paid $8,345,545 in bonds. Among the expropriated landowners was Arbenz himself, who had become into a landowner with the dowry of his wealthy wife. Around 46 farms were given to groups of peasants who organized themselves in cooperatives. (John Prados, Presidents’ Secret Wars: CIA and Pentagon Covert Operations, 1986, page 98)

In February 1953, 209,842 acres of United Fruit Company's uncultivated land was taken by the government which offered compensation of $525,000. Later the figure was increased to over a million dollars. This figure was “in line with the company’s own valuation of the property, at least for tax purposes” (David McKean, Peddling Influence, 2004, page 221). However, the company wanted $16 million for the land. While the Guatemalan government valued it at $2.99 per acre, the company now valued it at $75 per acre.

Of course you need to ask how United Fruit got this land in the first place. It had of course been given to them by the military dictator, Jorge Ubico. What right did Ubico have to give away land. How do you think you would feel if you were a landless peasant in Guatemala?

The strategy of Tommy Corcoran was to recruit Robert La Follette (a former progressive) to work for United Fruit. Corcoran arranged for La Follette to lobby liberal members of Congress. The message was that Arbenz was not a liberal but a communist.

Corcoran also contacted President Anastasio Somoza and warned him that the Guatemalan revolution might spread to Nicaragua. Somoza now made representations to Harry S. Truman about what was happening in Guatemala. After discussions with Walter Bedell Smith, director of the CIA, a secret plan to overthrow Arbenz (Operation Fortune) was developed (in exchange for a promise of a job with United Fruit after he retired). When the Secretary of State Dean Acheson discovered details of Operation Fortune, he had a meeting with Truman where he vigorously protested about the involvement of United Fruit and the CIA in the attempted overthrow of the democratically elected President Arbenz. As a result of Acheson’s protests, Truman ordered the postponement of Operation Fortune. It was because of this commitment to democracy that Republicans were later to accuse him of being "soft on communism". A tactic that McCarthyite Gratz is repeating on this Forum.

Samuel Zemurray, United Fruit Company's largest shareholder, ordered Corcoran to organize an anti-Arbenz campaign in the American media. This included the claim that Guatemala was the beginning of "Soviet expansion in the Americas".

Tommy Corcoran’s work was made easier by the election of Dwight Eisenhower in November, 1952. Eisenhower’s personal secretary was Anne Whitman, the wife of Edmund Whitman, United Fruit’s public relations director. Eisenhower appointed John Peurifoy as ambassador to Guatemala. He soon made it clear that he believed that the Arbenz government posed a threat to the America’s campaign against communism.

This is the background to the coup. United Fruit found it impossible to get the Democratic administration to overthrow a democratically elected government. Eisenhower and Nixon were not so concerned with protecting democracy in the Third World (Republican administrations since the war have followed Eisenhower's example).

The logic of Gratz's argument is that if the American government finds evidence that a foreign politician has been responsible for the death of an opponent (not too difficult to do as the CIA was involved in planting such information) during an election, the American president has the right to order the overthrow of that government.

Does that mean foreign governments have the same right if they discover evidence of American politicians killing one of their opponents? For example, we have evidence that LBJ was involved in the death of JFK. Does that give the UK or France the right to try and overthrow the American government?

Of course it doesn’t. Tim Gratz only wants America to have the right to overthrow governments it does not like. It is because of hypocrites like Gratz that America is hated so much in the world.

[Tim Gratz]

John, as I said before, regardless of the morality of the US effecting "regime change" (the current eumphemism) in Guatamela, you SHOULD have mentioned (assuming you knew it) that Arbenz arranged for the murder of his strongest opponent. As Pat Speer said, Arbenz was no saint. Your post left readers with the impression that the US had arranged for the overthrow of a nice, peace-loving democrat.

If you want to tell the history of Guatemala, you ought to tell ALL the story. When you delete any reference to the murder of Arbenz's opponent, you show your bias.

Do you condone it? Is assassination improper only when the subjects are left-of-center? Where is your outrage at Arbenz? (And you call me a hypocrite!)

To John: Can you answer honestly the following: Were you aware that Arbenz's primary political opponent was murdered? If so, why did you chose not to put it in your chronology?

John wrote: "People all over the world hate the United States"? Not in Cuba and in Mexico. Almost every day Cubans risk their lives crossing the straits of Florida to escape the paradise of your hero Fidel.

From today's "Key West Citizen":

Eight Cuban men and three women landed on Sombrero Beach early Monday.

The 11 Cuban nationals likely will be allowed to stay under the federal government's wet-foot, dry-foot policy, Border Patrol spokesman Steve McDonald said.

McDonald said the Cubans, who smelled of diesel, arrived in a homemade vessel about 6:30 a.m.

They had been at sea for two days with less than a gallon of water between them, one of them said.

"Crazy. It's crazy to do this," said another, who declined to give his name.

The group seemed relieved and optimistic about their future in the United States.

"They all appear to be in good health," McDonald said.

They first were taken to Marathon High School to await the Border Patrol. One of the Cubans returned to the beach with Border Patrol officers, but they were unable to locate the boat, McDonald said.

They were processed at the U.S. Border Patrol office in Marathon. Border Patrol officers expected to transport them to Miami, where a nonprofit agency will screen them to see whether any of them need to be detained, McDonald said.

In an unrelated case, 15 Cubans and a dog were sent back to Cuba on Monday, six days after the Coast Guard intercepted them 50 miles southwest of Key West. The crew of the Coast Guard cutter Reliance spotted the homemade vessel and boarded it Jan. 24. The migrants received food, water and medical attention, according to a press release the Coast Guard issued Monday.

Under the wet-foot, dry-foot policy, Cuban refugees who set foot on American soil may be allowed to stay. Those who are picked up in the water or aboard a vessel are returned to Cuba.

Edited January 31, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

John, as I said before, regardless of the morality of the US effecting "regime change" (the current eumphemism) in Guatamela, you SHOULD have mentioned (assuming you knew it) that Arbenz arranged for the murder of his strongest opponent. As Pat Speer said, Arbenz was no saint. Your post left readers with the impression that the US had arranged for the overthrow of a nice, peace-loving democrat.

If you want to tell the history of Guatemala, you ought to tell ALL the story. When you delete any reference to the murder of Arbenz's opponent, you show your bias.

Do you condone it? Is assassination improper only when the subjects are left-of-center? Where is your outrage at Arbenz? (And you call me a hypocrite!)

I of course condemn any person who kills or orders the killing of someone else. You only have to look at my website to realize this is the case. In fact, I would describe myself as a pacifist. It is also the reason why I am against capital punishment and the invasion of Iraq.

There is no evidence that proves Arbenz ordered the assassination of his political opponents. In fact, considering the polls suggested he was going to have a clear victory, he would have been silly to get involved in such actions. It is only when you have politicians like Richard Nixon, who fear they will be defeated, that they resort to such tactics.

What I do know is that the CIA has a long history of trying to set up left-wing political leaders. It is this CIA manufactured evidence that you find when surfing the net. For example, your claim that Castro was behind the assassination of JFK.

I notice you have not responded to the point that Pat Speer and I made about the rights of the American government and the CIA to overthrow foreign governments. Until you answer that question, I will continue to consider you a hypocrite.

[Tim Gratz]

John, I rather assumed you would say you were against political assassinations regardless of who sponsored them. But that makes it all the more curious why you did not mention the murder of Arbenz's opponent.

And I think you are blowing smoke when you say Arbenz would have handily defeated him. In what source did you find that poll?

Another question:

Do you condemn Castro for attempting to encourage Communist revolutions in other Caribberean and Central American countries? Fit for the goose, fit for the gander.

Was what happened in Guatemala "successful" in the long run? Perhaps not. But if a Communist takes over a country very close to the United States and starts to accept arms from Communist satellite countries (even if the Czechs snookered Arbenz, we did not know that at the time the arms shipment was discovered) does the US have the right to protect its vital interests (let alone its fruit imports) I'd say we do.

Perhaps the comment you made about "spheres of influence" comes to bear. In "All The Best Mind" it states that Frank Wisner cried when Allen Dulles refused to allow the CIA to offer any assistance to the Hungarian freedom fighters and had to listen to reports of the freedom fighters being slaughtered by the Russian troops. Should the United States have rendered aid to people trying to free their country from being the puppet of an imperialist nation whose self-proclaimed objective was to bury the United States?

As you know, I do not agree with political assassinations. I would probably even said we should not have assassinated Hitler (after the war started I think we could have targeted him). But would the twentieth century have been far less bloody had pro-democratic forces effected a coup against Hitler when his intentions were clear in the late thirties? That goes without saying. So are there circumstances in which a country, to protect its interests, and those of others, accomplish a regime change when the regime in question was not a legitimate one in the first place? I suggest such circumstances do indeed exist.

I would not want to render an opiniuon whether the situation in Guatemela in 1954 was sufficiently egregious to validate PBSuccess until I had read ALL of the literature (from both sides). It should be clear I believe the question is a close one given the fact that Arbenz did not gain power ("the regime") legitimately; a much harder question would arise if an American (speaking of the continent) who gained power in a legitimate election chose to align with the Communist bloc.

And John you must be drinking Pat Speer's proverbial kool-aide if you cannot admit that whoever murdered Arbenz's opponent did so to ensure the election of Arbenz.

Edited January 31, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

So Pat if Arbenz achieved office by murdering his opponent, did he deserve to stay in office?

Is the Simkin Forum now dedicated to the support of the assassination of right-wing politicians?

I thought political assassination was abhorrent regardless of who practiced it.

By the way, one of the articles I recently posted stated that before PBSUCCESS started the CIA had terminated the thought of political assassinations in Guatemala. Do you agree that there were no CIA assassinations of political leaders in Guatamela?

I detest assassinations whether ordered by Arbenz or Hunt, Bissell and their cronies at the CIA. What we should have done was arrest Arbenz and have a Guatemala court try him for the murder of Aranz and if convicted he should have been appropriately punished. Ditto every US politician and bureaucrat who plotted the murder of Castro. Conspiring to commit murder in this country is a crime even if the murder is to occur on foreign soil.

By the way, there is nothing wrong with the CIA acting (appropriately) to protect the interests of the citizens of this country. That is its purpose. (But of course I condemn the CIA plan you cite to destroy Catholic shrines and blame it on the Commies; that is more than inappropriate--it is in fact a crime.)

Parenthetically, I want to know why John so conveniently ignored telling members of the Arbenz murder of Arana.

I suppose this posting will end up with Tim Gratz making his usually point that he does not accept my sources (he is of course very keen to accept the claims made by CIA’s black propaganda campaigns). The documents that I requested when Gratz’s originally made the claims that I had failed to tell Forum members that the communists had murdered Carlos Arana, arrived this morning.

This story has two parts:

(1) CIA and Guatemala

In 1992 the Central Intelligence Agency hired the young historian Nick Cullather to write a history (classified “secret” and for internal distribution only) of Operation PBSUCCESS, which overthrew the lawful government of Guatemala in 1954. Given full access to the Agency’s archives he produced an insider’s account, intended as a training manual for covert operators, detailing how the CIA chose targets, planned strategies, developed black propaganda campaigns, organized the mechanics of waging a secret war, etc.

In 1995 President Bill Clinton ordered the declassification of CIA documents that no longer protected American security. As a result, Cullather’s account of this CIA operation was declassified in 1997.

Cullather was aware that it was possible that under a more secretive president, this document might be classified once again. This has of course happened under George Bush. See the following thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6187

Therefore Cullather decided to write an account of the events in Guatemala based on the CIA sources he discovered when he was doing his research. The book, Secret History: The CIA Classified Account of Operations in Guatemala 1952-1954, was published in 1999. The book however is very difficult to obtain and it took me sometime to track down a copy. He of course explains the role of the CIA in the “Carlos Arana” story.

(2) Background to the Death of Carlos Arana

In the 1930s Sam Zemurray aligned United Fruit Company closely with the government of President Jorge Ubico. The company received import duty and real estate tax exemptions from Ubico. He also gave them hundreds of square miles of land. United Fruit controlled more land than any other individual or group. It also owned the railway, the electric utilities, telegraph, and the country's only port at Puerto Barrios on the Atlantic coast.

In June, 1944, teachers in Guatemala went on strike for higher pay. Other professions joined the teachers in street demonstrations. Ubico sent in the army and over 200 protesters were killed. This included Maria Chinchilla, the leader of the teachers' union movement.

A few days later, a group of over 300 teachers, lawyers, doctors, and businessmen handed a petition to Ubico in which insisted that the demonstrators' actions were legitimate. At this stage, the United States withdrew its support of Ubico. General Francisco Ponce became Guatemala's new dictator. In an attempt to gain public support, Ponce announced democratic elections. He selected himself as presidential candidate, while the opposition picked the former teacher, Juan Jose Arevalo, who was living in exile in Argentina. Afraid that he would lose the election, Ponce ordered Arevalo's arrest as soon as he arrived back in Guatemala.

Appalled by the actions of Ponce, Jacobo Arbenz and a fellow junior officer, Major Francisco Arana, organized a military rebellion. They were quickly joined by other officers and attacked the pro-Ponce military and police forces. Ponce and Ubico were forced to abandon the country and Arbenz and Arana created a provisional junta with businessman, Jorge Toriello, and promised free and democratic elections.

Arbenz and Arana introduced a new constitution. Censorship was brought to an end, men and women were declared equal before the law, racial discrimination was declared a crime, higher education was free of governmental control, private monopolies were banned, workers were assured a forty-hour week, payment in coupons was forbidden, and labour unions were legalized. Juan Jose Arevalo won the first elections and attempted to begin an age of reforms in Guatemala. Arevalo described himself as a "spiritual socialist". He implemented sweeping reforms by passing new laws that gave workers the right to form unions. This included the 40,000 Guatemalans who worked for the United Fruit Company.

Sam Zemurray feared that Arevalo would also nationalize the land owned by United Fruit in Guatemala. He asked the political lobbyist Tommy Corcoran to express his fears to senior political figures in Washington. Corcoran began talks with key people in the government agencies and departments that shaped U.S. policy in Central America. He argued that the U.S. should use United Fruit as an American beachhead against communism in the region.

The problem was that Arevalo was not a communist. It therefore became the policy of United Fruit and the CIA to convince the Harry Truman administration that Arevalo was a communist. It was not too difficult for Zemurray and the CIA to recruit Arana in their attempt to overthrow Arevalo. Unlike Arbenz, Arana no longer supported Arevalo’s social reforms.

In July, 1949, with the backing of United Fruit and the CIA, Arana presented Arevalo “with an ultimatum demanding that he surrender power to the Army and fill out the remainder of his term as a civilian figure-head for a military regime.” (page 11 of the Secret History)

Arevalo realized that Guatemala’s experiment with democracy was in grave danger. He therefore appealed to Arbenz, who was still committed to the democratic system, to defend his elected government. Arbenz supplied Arevalo with the names of young officers who he knew to be loyal to the idea of democracy. Arevalo then ordered these officers to arrest Arana. Caught crossing a bridge, Arana resisted arrest, and during the resulting gunfight, Arana and several others were killed.

Arevalo then made the mistake of not telling the country about the attempted coup. Instead he claimed that Arana had been killed by unknown assassins. The CIA immediately spread the rumour that Arevalo and Arbenz had used communists to kill Arana. This resulted in another coup attempt by army officers loyal to Arana and the United Fruit Company. However, some members of the armed forces remained loyal to Arevalo. So did the trade unions that had originally overthrown the dictatorship of Jorge Ubico. Arana’s supporters were defeated and Arevalo remained in power. Once again Arbenz had become a national hero and his election to the presidency was ensured.

In the spring of 1950, Corcoran went to see Thomas C. Mann, the director of the State Department’s Office of Inter-American Affairs. Corcoran asked Mann if he had any plans to prevent Arbenz from being elected. Mann replied: “That is for the people of that country to decide.” Unhappy with this reply, Corcoran paid a call on the Allen Dulles, the deputy director of the CIA. Dulles, who represented United Fruit in the 1930s, was far more interested in Corcoran’s ideas. “During their meeting Dulles explained to Corcoran that while the CIA was sympathetic to United Fruit, he could not authorize any assistance without the support of the State Department. Dulles assured Corcoran, however, that whoever was elected as the next president of Guatemala would not be allowed to nationalize the operations of United Fruit.”

In 1951 Arbenz defeated Manuel Ygidoras to become Guatemala's new president. Arbenz had obtained 65% of the votes cast.

Harry Truman refused permission for the CIA to overthrow a democratically elected president. However, Dwight Eisenhower, did not share Truman’s views on democracy and soon after he was elected in November, 1952, he gave permission for the CIA to overthrow Arbenz. It is of course that the information that Tim Gratz, that loyal Republican, has been trying to conceal. It was not the only time in Eisenhower's eight year reign that he used the CIA to smear foreign political leaders as “communists”. It was a tactic that was also used by Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George Bush senior.

[Tim Gratz]

John I will reply at greater length later but I do not understand this sentence from your post:

It was not the only time in Eisenhower's eight year reign that he used the CIA to smear foreign political leaders as “communists”.

It does not even seem to follow what you previously wrote. You stated, and I agree with the facts, that Truman refused to allow the coup but Eisenhower did. How does that relate in any way to Eisenhower using the CIA to "smear" a foreign leader?

And by the way, why are you beating a dead horse? What does Guatemala have to do with the JFK case? Nothing as far as I can see.

The Cold War is over, John. The good guys (at least I consider the West "the good guys" won). The Cold War is no longer being played. You can second guess a "gambit" in the Cold War all you want (it's not just Monday morning hindsight, it's fifty year hindsight) but what the heck does it accomplish?

Let's go back and try to second guess some of the manuevers in the Second World War while we are at it. Makes as much sense in my opinion.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

And by the way, why are you beating a dead horse? What does Guatemala have to do with the JFK case? Nothing as far as I can see.

Well, by studying Guatemala and Iran in the 1950's, one might learn how a crackerjack bunch of guys earned their bones overthrowing governments. Were one to study the Guatemalan operation really hard, one might come across an example of a purported Communist framed for an assassination he didn't commit [not Arbenz, I should hasten to add], replete with a falsified diary and a number of other fabricated pieces of "evidence" that, when found, made it appear that a killing actually committed by CIA was to be blamed upon them damned Commies.

If you can imagine some possible relevance between that and the Kennedy case, perhaps it would move you to study the issue really hard. We await the results of your studies.

The Cold War is over, John. The good guys (at least I consider the West "the good guys" won). The Cold War is no longer being played. You can second guess a "gambit" in the Cold War all you want (it's not just Monday morning hindsight, it's fifty year hindsight) but what the heck does it accomplish?

Let's go back and try to second guess some of the manuevers in the Second World War while we are at it. Makes as much sense in my opinion.

Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. Your attitude exemplifies why, every generation or so, thousands of your best and brightest are sacrificed in military conflicts that, in retrospect, don't seem to have achieved anything.

[Tim Gratz]

Robert, I must beg to differ with you re your last point about wars accomplishing nothing.

Although Piper apparently does not agree (we know his friend Carto does not) I think the Allied victory in WWII did accomplish something. I do not know about you but I am glad I am not forced to salute swastikas and that my Jewish friends are safe from slaughter.

And I also happen to believe that our victory in the cold war accomplished something. Communism was every bit as evil as Naziism and Stalin probably slaughtered even more innocent people than Piper's hero, the Fuhrer.

Sometimes wars are necessary to defeat evil.

And I hate to bring it up but didn't the US once beat Canada in a war a couple of hundred years ago?

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

And I hate to bring it up but didn't the US once beat Canada in a war a couple of hundred years ago?

There you go again, demonstrating your superior knowledge of history. Were your assertion true, would you mind explaining why Canada is still a sovereign nation, has a parliamentary system, and is not part of your country?

You may have stolen land from Mexico at the point of a gun, but when faced down by your northern cousins you were severely routed, dear boy, and were pleased just to withdraw.

Want to learn some more about history? Why is your White House "white?" Canadians are responsible for that, friend. Please do hit the books and then perhaps we can continue this fascinating waltz down memory lane, with you all the while asserting that it is pointless to dwell on old history.

Edited February 25, 2006 by Robert Charles-Dunne

[Thomas H. Purvis]

John I will reply at greater length later but I do not understand this sentence from your post:

It was not the only time in Eisenhower's eight year reign that he used the CIA to smear foreign political leaders as “communists”.

It does not even seem to follow what you previously wrote. You stated, and I agree with the facts, that Truman refused to allow the coup but Eisenhower did. How does that relate in any way to Eisenhower using the CIA to "smear" a foreign leader?

And by the way, why are you beating a dead horse? What does Guatemala have to do with the JFK case? Nothing as far as I can see.

The Cold War is over, John. The good guys (at least I consider the West "the good guys" won). The Cold War is no longer being played. You can second guess a "gambit" in the Cold War all you want (it's not just Monday morning hindsight, it's fifty year hindsight) but what the heck does it accomplish?

Let's go back and try to second guess some of the manuevers in the Second World War while we are at it. Makes as much sense in my opinion.

And by the way, why are you beating a dead horse? What does Guatemala have to do with the JFK case? Nothing as far as I can see.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Type(s) Registered: SERVICE MARK

Registered Name: PHELPS, DUNBAR, MARKS, CLAVERIE & SIMS

Applicant: PHELPS DUNBAR, 365 CANAL STREET, STE 2000, NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130-0000

Current Status: ACTIVE

Type of Business: GENERAL LEGAL SERVICES

Classes: 42 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00

First Used: 10/01/1955

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name: VIGILANCE INCORPORATED

Type Entity: Non-Profit Corporation or Co-op (Non-Louisiana)

Status: Not Active (Action by Secretary of State)

2006 Annual Report/Reinstatement form is required in order to reinstate Print Annual Report/Reinstatement Form For Filing

Mailing Address: 100 W 10TH ST, WILMINGTON, DE 19801

Domicile Address: 100 W 10TH ST, WILMINGTON, DE 19801

Principal Office: 100 W 10TH ST, WILMINGTON, DE 19801

Qualified: 03/16/1951

Registered Agent (Appointed 3/16/1951): CHARLES E. DUNBAR, JR., 1300 HIBERNIA BLDG, NEW ORLEANS, LA 70112

Registered Agent (Appointed 3/16/1951): SUMTER D. MARKS, JR., 1300 HIBERNIA BLDG, NEW ORLEANS, LA 70112

Registered Agent (Appointed 3/16/1951): LOUIS B. CLAVERIE, 1300 HIBERNIA BLDG, NEW ORLEANS, LA 70112

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name: FOR AMERICA

Type Entity: Non-Profit Corporation or Co-op (Non-Louisiana)

Status: Not Active (Action by Secretary of State)

2005 Annual Report/Reinstatement form is required in order to reinstate Print Annual Report/Reinstatement Form For Filing

Mailing Address: 208 S LASALLE ST, CHICAGO, IL 60604

Domicile Address: 208 S LASALLE ST, CHICAGO, IL 60604

Principal Office: 208 S LASALLE ST, CHICAGO, IL 60604

Principal Bus. Est. in Louisiana:

Qualified: 07/14/1954

Registered Agent (Appointed 7/14/1954): CHARLES E. DUNBAR, JR., 321 ST. CHARLES, NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130

Registered Agent (Appointed 7/14/1954): SUMTER D. MARKS, JR., 321 ST CHARLES, NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130

Registered Agent (Appointed 7/14/1954): LOUIS B. CLAVERIE, 321 ST. CHARLES, NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.jfk-online.com/jpsgatguat.html

That is how the FBI version of the meeting ends. According to a CIA document dated June 26, 1953, the following also occurred:

-

After leaving the FBI offices, BARRIOS and GATLIN met with a Mr. DUNBAR, who occasionally represents the United Fruit Co. in New Orleans. They asked for one million dollars from the United Fruit Co., in support of BARRIOS' intended revolutionary movement in Guatemala, but they were unsuccessful in obtaining any commitment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps you should open your eyes slightly wider Tim.

[John Simkin]

When his book “Secret History: The CIA’s Classified Account of Its Operations in Guatemala 1952-1954” was published in 1999, Nick Cullather, wrote an introduction describing his experiences working in the CIA archives.

Cullather was one of several young historians (he had just completed his PhD) who had been brought in as a result of President Clinton’s decision to open up the CIA files. This was in response to the fall of communism in Eastern Europe. The KGB files were being released and as it was pointed out at the time, “if the Communist enemy was going public, how could the United States refuse.” Cullather adds “Americans expected not only a ‘peace dividend’ after the iron curtain fell, but a truth dividend as well.” (page viii)

Clinton appointed R. James Woolsey as director of the CIA. He promised a “warts and all” disclosure of all historical material and made covert operations the first priority. (page xii) However, other senior figures in the CIA made sure that this did not happen. When Clinton issued a new executive order on declassification, the CIA requested exemption for 106 million pages of pre-1975 documents, almost two-thirds of the total. (page xiv)

George C. Herring, a member of the CIA’s Historical Review Panel, complained that the Clinton program of declassification had been turned into “a brilliant public relations snow job” and a “carefully nurtured myth” of openness. (page xiv)

Clinton’s attempt at declassifying documents was brought to an end by George Tenet. He told a Senate confirmation committee that he intended to “hold the reviews of these covert actions in abeyance for the time being”. He added: “I would turn our gaze from the past, it is dangerous, frankly to keep looking over our shoulders.”

When Cullather’s account was finally declassified, it was heavily redacted. It is interesting what the CIA removed. For example, on page 16 Cullather wrote: “Thomas G. Corcoran was the company’s (United Fruit) main conduit to the sources of power. Described by Fortune (magazine) as a “purveyor of concentrated influence,” Concoran had a network of well-placed friends in business and government.” The next section, four lines long, where Cullather names these “well-placed friends” has been completely removed.