John Simkin Posted February 27, 2006 Author Share Posted February 27, 2006 John, lest you forget we were in a Cold War with the Communists and the Communists made no secret of their attempting to subvert democratic governments throughout the world.Arbenz if not a Communist himself was at least friendly with the Communists. His election was made possible by the convenient violent death of his primary anti-Communist opponent. So the United States effected the removal of a man who came into office on the shed blood of his opponent, blood shed by men named by Arbenz. We won the cold war. What more can I say? As Nick Cullather points out in “Secret History: The CIA’s Classified Account of its Operations in Guatemala 1952-54”, CIA agents on the ground in Guatemala (1949-51) considered Arbenz to be “brilliant” and “cultured” (page 20). It was also believed that Arbenz was a “conservative” and an “opportunist” who could be manipulated to “steer a middle course” (page 17). They actually thought he would be an improvement on Arevalo. This is why Thomas Mann, head of the State Department’s office of Central America, rejected Tommy Corcoran’s calls for the CIA to overthrow Arbenz. It was of course the policy of the Truman administration to encourage social reform in “friendly” third world countries. It was believed that this would create long-term, pro-American allies. It is ridiculous to claim that Arbenz was under the control of the Communists. In the 1950 elections, Communists only won four seats in a 61-member congress. CIA reports show that the Communist Party had less than 200 active members. Nor did Arbenz appoint any communists to his Cabinet. He did share the Communist Party’s views on land reform. But then again, so did the Truman administration. When Arbenz published Decree 900 on 17th June 1952 the Truman administration did not complain. In fact, US aid officials considered it moderate, “constructive and democratic in its aims”. It was in fact similar to agrarian programs the United States was sponsoring in Japan and Formosa (page 22). The idea being that the best protection against communism was to redistribute land to the poor. After all, it was the desire by peasants for land that brought about the revolution in Russia in 1917 and was also a factor in the Chinese Revolution in 1949. As Nick Cullather points out: “The CIA also supported the objectives of the Guatemalan reform – the breakup of large estates into small freeholds – in some of its own programs. The Agency, worried that feudal agriculture would allow Communists in the Third World to ride to power on a wave of reform, had tried for some years to change traditional rural social structures that it considered vulnerable to subversion” (page 26). However, on the urging of Tommy Corcoran and the United Fruit Company, Eisenhower ordered a change of policy when he replaced Truman as president. On 9th December, 1953, Allen Dulles authorized $3 million for the PBSUCCESS project (page 44) According to Cullather, the State Department “assembled a team of diplomats to assist PBSUCCESS from Central American embassies. The group’s leader, John Peurifoy, took over as Ambassador in Guatemala City in October 1953 (pages 44-45). Kermit Roosevelt, who had organized the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadeq of Iran on 19th August, 1953 (TPAJAX) was approached to run PBSUCCESS. However, he was already disillusioned by the events that had followed the removal of Mossadeq. He warned his superiors at the CIA that it was “ever going to try something like this again, we must be absolutely sure that people and army want what we want.” (Kermit Roosevelt, Countercoup, 1979 - page 210) It is also necessary to take into account Arbenz’s rival in the election: Miguel Ydigoras Fuentes. The CIA was opposed to him becoming president because of his past. As a general in President Ubico’s army, “Ydigoras gained a reputation as a ruthless enforcer of the vagrancy laws, on at least one occasion ordering his troops to rape Indian women and imprison their children” (page 51 – information based on Ydigoras’s CIA file: 79-01025A, Box 81) The attack in the media on Arbenz was orchestrated by Operation Mockingbird. Not surprisingly, the first report came from Phil Graham’s Washington Post. It was based round the story of Arbenz’s importing Czech arms to Guatemala. What happened was that Eisenhower imposed an arms blockade on Arbenz. He knew that this was the beginning of a CIA plot to overthrow him. Arbenz also realized that the only way he could arm himself was now via countries that were not under the control of the United States. He was therefore forced to do a deal with a communist country. In January, 1954, Arbenz sent his agricultural minister, Alfonso Martinez, to Prague to negotiate a deal. The CIA followed Martinez to Prague and knew all about the arms deal with Czechoslovakia. The weapons sold to Arbenz were weapons captured from the German Army during the Second World War. The plan was to distribute them to worker’ militias (Arbenz correctly assumed that the CIA had penetrated the leadership of the armed forces). When the weapons arrived in Guatemala, the story was reported in the Washington Post. The paper gave details of the Alfhem shipment and added: “The threat of Communist imperialism is no longer academic, it has arrived” (page 79). This publicity meant that Arbenz had to change his strategy and give most of the weapons to the army instead of the worker’ militias (page 80). Operation Mockingbird also ensured that the CIA involvement in the overthrow of Arbenz was not reported in the American media. John Peurifoy arranged with Arthur Hays Sulzberger, the owner of the New York Times, to remove its correspondent Sydney Gruson, from Guatemala (he was the only American journalist that Peurifoy was unable to control. Peurifoy met with American reporters in Guatemala City to discuss their reports. At his suggestion they all agreed to drop words such as “invasion”. Peurifoy also met with the French and British consuls in Guatemala and they agreed to “have a word with their correspondents” about their reporting of the invasion (page 94). However, the CIA was unable to control foreign newspapers. Aneurin Bevan, the leader of the left-wing of the Labour Party and himself the target of CIA plots and smear campaigns, wrote a series of articles explaining CIA involvement in the removal of Arbenz. He also reported that the CIA was working on behalf of the United Fruit Company (page 93). On 18th June, 1954, the Guatemalan foreign minister Guillermo Toriello, petitioned the UN Security Council to intervene to stop the outside aggression of the United Fruit Company. On 20th June, the UN Security Council approved a French motion calling all nations to keep out of trying to overthrow the democratically elected Arbenz. However, America ignored this ruling and continued in its efforts to instate a military dictator in Guatemala. The Times (UK) and Le Monde (France) attacked the cynical hypocrisy behind America’s “modern forms of economic colonialism”. UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold charged that “the United States’ attitude was completely at variance with the UN Charter”. However, America’s allies went along with the CIA cover-up. As Winston Churchill, the British prime minister said at the time to one of his colleagues, why should he be bothered, “I’d never heard of this bloody place Guatemala” until now (page 111). After the military coup the CIA obtained over 150,000 documents from the offices of Arbenz’s government. The CIA later admitted they were unable to find evidence of the subject that “we are most interested in, namely the elements of Soviet support and control of Communism in Guatemala” (page 107 – 79-01228A Box 23). This was confirmed by the historian, Ronald M. Schneider, who also obtained access to these documents (Ronald M. Schneider, Communism in Guatemala, 1979). As soon as Castillo Armas took power he immediately revoked Arbenz’s reforms. He disfranchised illiterates (two thirds of the electorate), cancelled land reforms, outlawed all political parties, trade unions and peasant organizations. The new regime opened up its country to the “Mafia who joined with Guatemalan Army officers in opening gambling halls” (page 114). Left-wing activists were rounded up and arrested and some were executed. In fact, during his research, Cullather discovered a CIA document that revealed that CIA planned to assassinate Guatemalan officials and political activists after the successful coup. The document also provides information on the best ways to murder these people (it takes up 15 pages of the document and includes details of how to use firearms, explosives, other weapons and manual techniques to kill your victim). The names are blacked out so it is impossible to discover if the new military dictatorship followed this advice (page xv and Appendix C). What was the result of the overthrow of Arbenz? According to a UN report published 15 years after the imposition of a military dictator in Guatemala, three-quarters of the people were living “below starvation level”, three-quarters were illiterate, four-fifths lacked adequate drinking-water facilities or toilets and one fifth of the children died before they reached the age of five. (Sidney Lens, The Military-Industrial Complex, 1970, page 29). As Lyndon Johnson’s National Security Adviser wrote on 24th June, 1966 after a military controlled election in Guatemala: “the political knack for reaching practical working relationships with the military and other conservative elements is one which I hope will continue to prosper in this hemisphere”. In 1977 Jimmy Carter became the first American president to condemn Guatemala’s civil rights record. However, with the election of Ronald Reagan, American foreign policy returned to one of working with military dictatorships in Latin America. In 1981 Amnesty International reported that “tortures and murder are part of a deliberate and long-standing program of the Guatemalan Government”. The victims were “members of rural cooperatives, grassroots organizers, labor leaders, left-wing students, and armed guerrillas”. In his article, Culture of Fear, Piero Gleijeses, described Reagan’s relationship with the Guatemalan government. On 4th April, 1985, Rosario Godoy, the 24-year-old leader of Guatemala’s only human rights group, disappeared along with her two-year-old son and her younger brother. Their corpses were found in a ravine in the outskirts of Guatemala City. They had all been tortured. This included the baby whose fingernails had been pulled out. The Guatemalan government claimed that the three had died in a car accident. Elliott Abrahams, Reagan’s Under-Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, issued a statement claiming that “there is no evidence indicating other then the deaths were due to an accident” (America Watch, Guatemala: The Group for Mutual Support, 1985, pages 40-46). Thankfully, Congress resisted Reagan’s attempts to resume the military aid to Guatemala that had been cut off by Carter in 1977. It has been claimed that the real reason for the overthrow of Arbenz was to relight the Cold War. Stalin had died in February 1953. In May 1954 the Geneva Conference began in an attempt to settle the disputes in Indochina and Formosa (page 93). Many observers were optimistic about these developments. This hope came to an end with the engineered events in Guatemala. Backed by an obedient media, Eisenhower now had an excuse to prolong the Cold War (page 93). This he was able to do with a compliant American media still suffering the consequences of McCarthyism and the blacklisting of left-wing journalists. The events in Guatemala shaped the future of Latin America and ensured it became a focal point of the Cold War. As James Dunkerly has pointed out: “The Guatemala intervention shaped the attitudes and stratagems of an older generation of radicals, for whom this experience signaled the necessity of armed struggle and an end to illusions about peaceful, legal, and reformist methods.” (James Dunkerly, Power in the Isthmus: A Political History of Modern Central America, 1988, page 429) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 John, lest you forget we were in a Cold War with the Communists and the Communists made no secret of their attempting to subvert democratic governments throughout the world. Arbenz if not a Communist himself was at least friendly with the Communists. His election was made possible by the convenient violent death of his primary anti-Communist opponent. So the United States effected the removal of a man who came into office on the shed blood of his opponent, blood shed by men named by Arbenz. We won the cold war. What more can I say? As Nick Cullather points out in “Secret History: The CIA’s Classified Account of its Operations in Guatemala 1952-54”, CIA agents on the ground in Guatemala (1949-51) considered Arbenz to be “brilliant” and “cultured” (page 20). It was also believed that Arbenz was a “conservative” and an “opportunist” who could be manipulated to “steer a middle course” (page 17). They actually thought he would be an improvement on Arevalo. This is why Thomas Mann, head of the State Department’s office of Central America, rejected Tommy Corcoran’s calls for the CIA to overthrow Arbenz. It was of course the policy of the Truman administration to encourage social reform in “friendly” third world countries. It was believed that this would create long-term, pro-American allies. It is ridiculous to claim that Arbenz was under the control of the Communists. In the 1950 elections, Communists only won four seats in a 61-member congress. CIA reports show that the Communist Party had less than 200 active members. Nor did Arbenz appoint any communists to his Cabinet. He did share the Communist Party’s views on land reform. But then again, so did the Truman administration. When Arbenz published Decree 900 on 17th June 1952 the Truman administration did not complain. In fact, US aid officials considered it moderate, “constructive and democratic in its aims”. It was in fact similar to agrarian programs the United States was sponsoring in Japan and Formosa (page 22). The idea being that the best protection against communism was to redistribute land to the poor. After all, it was the desire by peasants for land that brought about the revolution in Russia in 1917 and was also a factor in the Chinese Revolution in 1949. As Nick Cullather points out: “The CIA also supported the objectives of the Guatemalan reform – the breakup of large estates into small freeholds – in some of its own programs. The Agency, worried that feudal agriculture would allow Communists in the Third World to ride to power on a wave of reform, had tried for some years to change traditional rural social structures that it considered vulnerable to subversion” (page 26). However, on the urging of Tommy Corcoran and the United Fruit Company, Eisenhower ordered a change of policy when he replaced Truman as president. On 9th December, 1953, Allen Dulles authorized $3 million for the PBSUCCESS project (page 44) According to Cullather, the State Department “assembled a team of diplomats to assist PBSUCCESS from Central American embassies. The group’s leader, John Peurifoy, took over as Ambassador in Guatemala City in October 1953 (pages 44-45). Kermit Roosevelt, who had organized the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadeq of Iran on 19th August, 1953 (TPAJAX) was approached to run PBSUCCESS. However, he was already disillusioned by the events that had followed the removal of Mossadeq. He warned his superiors at the CIA that it was “ever going to try something like this again, we must be absolutely sure that people and army want what we want.” (Kermit Roosevelt, Countercoup, 1979 - page 210) It is also necessary to take into account Arbenz’s rival in the election: Miguel Ydigoras Fuentes. The CIA was opposed to him becoming president because of his past. As a general in President Ubico’s army, “Ydigoras gained a reputation as a ruthless enforcer of the vagrancy laws, on at least one occasion ordering his troops to rape Indian women and imprison their children” (page 51 – information based on Ydigoras’s CIA file: 79-01025A, Box 81) The attack in the media on Arbenz was orchestrated by Operation Mockingbird. Not surprisingly, the first report came from Phil Graham’s Washington Post. It was based round the story of Arbenz’s importing Czech arms to Guatemala. What happened was that Eisenhower imposed an arms blockade on Arbenz. He knew that this was the beginning of a CIA plot to overthrow him. Arbenz also realized that the only way he could arm himself was now via countries that were not under the control of the United States. He was therefore forced to do a deal with a communist country. In January, 1954, Arbenz sent his agricultural minister, Alfonso Martinez, to Prague to negotiate a deal. The CIA followed Martinez to Prague and knew all about the arms deal with Czechoslovakia. The weapons sold to Arbenz were weapons captured from the German Army during the Second World War. The plan was to distribute them to worker’ militias (Arbenz correctly assumed that the CIA had penetrated the leadership of the armed forces). When the weapons arrived in Guatemala, the story was reported in the Washington Post. The paper gave details of the Alfhem shipment and added: “The threat of Communist imperialism is no longer academic, it has arrived” (page 79). This publicity meant that Arbenz had to change his strategy and give most of the weapons to the army instead of the worker’ militias (page 80). Operation Mockingbird also ensured that the CIA involvement in the overthrow of Arbenz was not reported in the American media. John Peurifoy arranged with Arthur Hays Sulzberger, the owner of the New York Times, to remove its correspondent Sydney Gruson, from Guatemala (he was the only American journalist that Peurifoy was unable to control. Peurifoy met with American reporters in Guatemala City to discuss their reports. At his suggestion they all agreed to drop words such as “invasion”. Peurifoy also met with the French and British consuls in Guatemala and they agreed to “have a word with their correspondents” about their reporting of the invasion (page 94). However, the CIA was unable to control foreign newspapers. Aneurin Bevan, the leader of the left-wing of the Labour Party and himself the target of CIA plots and smear campaigns, wrote a series of articles explaining CIA involvement in the removal of Arbenz. He also reported that the CIA was working on behalf of the United Fruit Company (page 93). On 18th June, 1954, the Guatemalan foreign minister Guillermo Toriello, petitioned the UN Security Council to intervene to stop the outside aggression of the United Fruit Company. On 20th June, the UN Security Council approved a French motion calling all nations to keep out of trying to overthrow the democratically elected Arbenz. However, America ignored this ruling and continued in its efforts to instate a military dictator in Guatemala. The Times (UK) and Le Monde (France) attacked the cynical hypocrisy behind America’s “modern forms of economic colonialism”. UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold charged that “the United States’ attitude was completely at variance with the UN Charter”. However, America’s allies went along with the CIA cover-up. As Winston Churchill, the British prime minister said at the time to one of his colleagues, why should he be bothered, “I’d never heard of this bloody place Guatemala” until now (page 111). After the military coup the CIA obtained over 150,000 documents from the offices of Arbenz’s government. The CIA later admitted they were unable to find evidence of the subject that “we are most interested in, namely the elements of Soviet support and control of Communism in Guatemala” (page 107 – 79-01228A Box 23). This was confirmed by the historian, Ronald M. Schneider, who also obtained access to these documents (Ronald M. Schneider, Communism in Guatemala, 1979). As soon as Castillo Armas took power he immediately revoked Arbenz’s reforms. He disfranchised illiterates (two thirds of the electorate), cancelled land reforms, outlawed all political parties, trade unions and peasant organizations. The new regime opened up its country to the “Mafia who joined with Guatemalan Army officers in opening gambling halls” (page 114). Left-wing activists were rounded up and arrested and some were executed. In fact, during his research, Cullather discovered a CIA document that revealed that CIA planned to assassinate Guatemalan officials and political activists after the successful coup. The document also provides information on the best ways to murder these people (it takes up 15 pages of the document and includes details of how to use firearms, explosives, other weapons and manual techniques to kill your victim). The names are blacked out so it is impossible to discover if the new military dictatorship followed this advice (page xv and Appendix C). What was the result of the overthrow of Arbenz? According to a UN report published 15 years after the imposition of a military dictator in Guatemala, three-quarters of the people were living “below starvation level”, three-quarters were illiterate, four-fifths lacked adequate drinking-water facilities or toilets and one fifth of the children died before they reached the age of five. (Sidney Lens, The Military-Industrial Complex, 1970, page 29). As Lyndon Johnson’s National Security Adviser wrote on 24th June, 1966 after a military controlled election in Guatemala: “the political knack for reaching practical working relationships with the military and other conservative elements is one which I hope will continue to prosper in this hemisphere”. In 1977 Jimmy Carter became the first American president to condemn Guatemala’s civil rights record. However, with the election of Ronald Reagan, American foreign policy returned to one of working with military dictatorships in Latin America. In 1981 Amnesty International reported that “tortures and murder are part of a deliberate and long-standing program of the Guatemalan Government”. The victims were “members of rural cooperatives, grassroots organizers, labor leaders, left-wing students, and armed guerrillas”. In his article, Culture of Fear, Piero Gleijeses, described Reagan’s relationship with the Guatemalan government. On 4th April, 1985, Rosario Godoy, the 24-year-old leader of Guatemala’s only human rights group, disappeared along with her two-year-old son and her younger brother. Their corpses were found in a ravine in the outskirts of Guatemala City. They had all been tortured. This included the baby whose fingernails had been pulled out. The Guatemalan government claimed that the three had died in a car accident. Elliott Abrahams, Reagan’s Under-Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, issued a statement claiming that “there is no evidence indicating other then the deaths were due to an accident” (America Watch, Guatemala: The Group for Mutual Support, 1985, pages 40-46). Thankfully, Congress resisted Reagan’s attempts to resume the military aid to Guatemala that had been cut off by Carter in 1977. It has been claimed that the real reason for the overthrow of Arbenz was to relight the Cold War. Stalin had died in February 1953. In May 1954 the Geneva Conference began in an attempt to settle the disputes in Indochina and Formosa (page 93). Many observers were optimistic about these developments. This hope came to an end with the engineered events in Guatemala. Backed by an obedient media, Eisenhower now had an excuse to prolong the Cold War (page 93). This he was able to do with a compliant American media still suffering the consequences of McCarthyism and the blacklisting of left-wing journalists. The events in Guatemala shaped the future of Latin America and ensured it became a focal point of the Cold War. As James Dunkerly has pointed out: “The Guatemala intervention shaped the attitudes and stratagems of an older generation of radicals, for whom this experience signaled the necessity of armed struggle and an end to illusions about peaceful, legal, and reformist methods.” (James Dunkerly, Power in the Isthmus: A Political History of Modern Central America, 1988, page 429) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- They asked for one million dollars from the United Fruit Co----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Although the US Government was of course fully involved in such, perhaps one should give appropriate credit to the capabilities of the "free enterprise" system to develop alternative options. Especially when one begins to speak in the "million dollars" realm. And although many americans would no doubt be somewhat upset were they to not have a bananna for their morning cereal. Loss of morning coffee could lead to complete civil insurrection, and I would therefore most certainly not diminish the capability of the coffee industry to develope their own contingency plans. So, a good cup of "coffee" as well as a "bananna" and "sugar" in one's morning cereal and/or coffee, could certainly bring together individuals with "common ground". Not to mention a few "million dollars" for contingency operations. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.newfarm.org/international/guatemala/coffee.shtml Coffee is the second most valuable globally traded commodity; only the petroleum trade does more business. Walter Adams, whose great-grandfather Don Bernardo Hannstein was one of some 5,000 German coffee pioneers in Guatemala in the 1800s, showed me his family’s 185 hectare coffee and macadamia nut farm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-hectare = 100 acres. 185 hectare X 100 acres = 185,000 acres. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last time that I looked, LHO did not work for anyone in the bananna business, and neither were the Bay of Pigs invaders trained on a bananna farm. Seems that it all had something to do with coffee, if recalled correctly. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 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. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John; In event you will "hold that thought", then you just may eventually dismiss your "CIA Did It" concepts and begin to understand Corporate America. http://reading.tulane.edu/2002/nelsonArticle.cfm Previous Loving Cup winners: Charles Weinberger, 1920-----See Casper Weinberger/FBI Citizens Committee's Samuel Zemurray, 1938-------See Banana's Charles E. Dunbar Jr., 1941;---See Phelps/Dunbar/Marks/Claverie/Sims William G. Zetzmann, 1942-----See Dr. Pepper & Waco, TX Dr. Alton Ochsner, 1945-------See INCA Darwin S. Fenner, 1965;-------See Tulane desegregation fight. Frank B. Williams, 1924*---See Marguerite Clark Williams/Airlines/Lindbergh/Pan Am/DeMohrenschildt/Oil Charles E. Fenner, 1948-------See Pierce/Fenner/Beane/Smith/Merrill Lynch/& Jefferson Davis Mrs. James Weaks Reily, 1949-See Reily Coffee Crawford H. Ellis, 1958.--See United Fruit & Pan American Insurance Edith Stern, 1964------See Sears & Roebuck**--See Board of Tulane/ WDSU Radio/Stuckey & LHO Edgar B. Stern, 1930---Sears & Roebuck & Thomas F. Cunningham, 1932--See Thomas Cunningham Award/New Orleans WTC (Clay Shaw-Scapegoat) http://wtcno.org/programs/2005/cunningham2-24.htm Past recipients of the Cunningham Award include: Capt. J.W. Clark Dr. Eamon M. Kelly Charles W. Robinson and Samuel G. Robinson Hon. Robert Livingston Father James Carter Dr. Doris Zemurray Stone ------------------------- Dr. Richard E. Greenleaf Harvey C. Koch G. Frank Purvis, Jr.-------------------------------- Dr. Alton Ochsner--------------------------------- Theodore Brent Rudolf S. Hecht Samuel Zemurray------------------------------Banana William G. Zetzmann--------------------------See Dr. Pepper & Waco, TX Hon. DeLesseps S. Morrison Hon. Hale Boggs J. Peter Grace Dr. Milton Eisenhower--------------------With William Pawley to free Bay of Pigs prisoners Juan Trippe-------------------------------See William Pawley & Airplanes Amb. Ellsworth Bunker Hon. Nelson Rockefeller-----------------See MONEY! Henry J. Kaiser William Larimer Mellon * http://nutrias.org/~nopl/info/branches/latter/lathist.htm Harry P. Williams, husband of Marguerite Clark Williams (George DeMohrenschildt), son of Frank B. Williams. It is also noted that Frank B. Williams had purchased the former home of Marks Isaacs in New Orleans. And of course, most would know that LHO had the ** http://www.sec.state.la.us/ARCHIVES/jewish/JHLONG.HTM ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It truly is not that difficult to determine how all of the players got into the game. It is merely called "Follow the Money"! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Annie Hahr Dobbs Annie Hahr Dobbs Pawley attended Randolph-Macon in Virginia and Sophie Newcomb in New Orleans. During WWI she attended the National Service School in Washington DC. She married William Douglas Pawley of Port-au-Prince, Haiti, July 25, 1919. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Charles-Dunne Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 (edited) What we are left with is that there is no documentation that the CIA killed anyone Only if we close our eyes very tightly and refuse to delve into the issue. See below. (what did it do, pass a "hit-list" to Armas?) Why, yes, that's pretty much what happened, contrary to your mocking tone. If you bother to read and comprehend what I'm appending below, you will see that CIA drew up two lists: the first is of those persons earmarked for murder; the second is a list of those scheduled for post-coup imprisonment. You will note that these lists were revisions by Armas of what CIA itself stipulates was "an original list prepared by Headquarters in 1952." More than a half century after the fact, CIA still finds it necessary to delete all the names of those for whom such "special" treatment was planned. For what purpose are those names redacted? Because if we check what happened to the people on these lists, we'll find that they all lived long, rich and productive lives, thus making CIA seem incompetent? Or because a goodly number of those people were killed or disappeared, and to name them would be to acknowledge CIA's role in their demise? [in which case, CIA would be legally liable under international law.] Which of these two scenarios do you think is more likely? You really don't know anything about this topic, do you? but it is clear that a Communist supporter or Arbenz killed his right-wing opponent If even CIA cannot find substantiation for this claim, on what basis do you make it? Found a dubious website and plucked something your bias requires you to embrace, did we? and soon afer Armas deposed Arbenz a card-carrying Communist may have killed Armas. And if you investigate that murder, you just might find some stunning parallels to a certain assassination in Dallas. Which is just one of the reasons that this matter is still relevant, your zeal to consign it to the "ancient history" file notwithstanding. 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. Dear boy, you grow lamer by the day. If you wish proof that you traffick in misinformation on this Forum, here's a classic example: you have asserted that there is no proof CIA murdered anyone in Guatemala [clearly wrong, based on CIA's own documentation below], and that Arbenz killed Arana, a wrong-headed contention for which you've yet to offer a shred of proof. A charitable person might ascribe your repeated episodes of spreading misinformation to mere ignorance or stupidity, but I'm growing decreasingly charitable where you are concerned. Edited February 28, 2006 by Robert Charles-Dunne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 What we are left with is that there is no documentation that the CIA killed anyone Only if we close our eyes very tightly and refuse to delve into the issue. See below. (what did it do, pass a "hit-list" to Armas?) Why, yes, that's pretty much what happened, contrary to your mocking tone. If you bother to read and comprehend what I'm appending below, you will see that CIA drew up two lists: the first is of those persons earmarked for murder; the second is a list of those scheduled for post-coup imprisonment. You will note that these lists were revisions by Armas of what CIA itself stipulates was "an original list prepared by Headquarters in 1952." More than a half century after the fact, CIA still finds it necessary to delete all the names of those for whom such "special" treatment was planned. For what purpose are those names redacted? Because if we check what happened to the people on these lists, we'll find that they all lived long, rich and productive lives, thus making CIA seem incompetent? Or because a goodly number of those people were killed or disappeared, and to name them would be to acknowledge CIA's role in their demise? [in which case, CIA would be legally liable under international law.] Which of these two scenarios do you think is more likely? You really don't know anything about this topic, do you? but it is clear that a Communist supporter or Arbenz killed his right-wing opponent If even CIA cannot find substantiation for this claim, on what basis do you make it? Found a dubious website and plucked something your bias requires you to embrace, did we? and soon afer Armas deposed Arbenz a card-carrying Communist may have killed Armas. And if you investigate that murder, you just might find some stunning parallels to a certain assassination in Dallas. Which is just one of the reasons that this matter is still relevant, your zeal to consign it to the "ancient history" file notwithstanding. 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. Dear boy, you grow lamer by the day. If you wish proof that you traffick in misinformation on this Forum, here's a classic example: you have asserted that there is no proof CIA murdered anyone in Guatemala [clearly wrong, based on CIA's own documentation below], and that Arbenz killed Arana, a wrong-headed contention for which you've yet to offer a shred of proof. A charitable person might ascribe your repeated episodes of spreading misinformation to mere ignorance or stupidity, but I'm growing decreasingly charitable where you are concerned. You left out one of the most damning details, Robert. The CIA officer who reviewed the hit list with Armas, and whose name is so odd that the CIA historian failed to redact it from the note attached to the list, had the name of RIP. My, what a coincidence. William "Rip" Robertson just so happened to be the head Paramilitary officer for the operation, and here someone with that same name is submitting and reviewing "hit lists" with a man who went on to kill a bunch of people. But none of the people on the list were killed, or the CIA would have admitted as much, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted March 5, 2006 Author Share Posted March 5, 2006 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. Robert has already explained one important connection between the overthrow of Arbenz by the CIA in 1954 and the assassination of JFK. The same people were indeed involved in PBSUCCESS and the CIA attempts to overthrow Castro. As one CIA insider pointed out, PBSUCCESS became the blueprint for future operations. For example, on 1st April, 1963, the attempt by Kennedy to create a all-party coalition government in Laos suffered a fatal blow when Quinim Pholsema, the left-wing Foreign Minister, was assassinated. As David Kaiser has pointed out: “In light of subsequent revelations about CIA assassination plots, this episode inevitably arouses some suspicion.” (1) It is no coincidence that in 1966 a group of CIA agents went to Laos to make sure that the country did not achieve neutral status. The officers involved: Ted Shackley, Thomas G. Clines, Carl E. Jenkins, David Morales, Raphael Quintero, Felix Rodriguez and Edwin Wilson. (2) During the 1960 election campaign Kennedy tried to portray Nixon and Eisenhower as being soft on communism. As John McCone pointed out: "Kennedy... won the election because he claimed that the Eisenhower administration had been weak on communism and weak in the treatment of Castro and so forth." (3) Once in power, Kennedy appeared to support the foreign policy established by Dwight Eisenhower. The historian, David Kaiser, argues that Eisenhower’s policies “called for a military response to Communist aggression almost anywhere that it might occur”. Kaiser provides evidence that this strategy was “adopted by the State and Defense Departments in 1954-1956 and approved secretly by President Eisenhower.” (4) This policy began with the overthrow by the CIA of President Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán in Guatemala in the summer of 1954. According to one historian: “The Agency had learned a lesson from the Guatemalan revolution in the early 1950s, when a nationalist government expropriated the land and the public service enterprises of U.S. monopolies to the benefit of the peasants and the population in general. This experience gave rise to a program of infiltrating agents into countries convulsed by communist ideas.” (5) As James Dunkerly has pointed out: “The Guatemala intervention shaped the attitudes and stratagems of an older generation of radicals, for whom this experience signaled the necessity of armed struggle and an end to illusions about peaceful, legal, and reformist methods.” (6) In the final months of his administration, Eisenhower was mainly concerned with trying to overthrow the government of Fidel Castro in Cuba. He was also worried about events in Laos and Vietnam. However, Kaiser convincingly argues that Kennedy subtly changed foreign policy after he gained office. “Ironically, while Eisenhower’s supposedly cautious approach in foreign policy had frequently been contrasted with his successors’ apparent aggressiveness, Kennedy actually spent much of his term resisting policies developed and approved under Eisenhower, both in Southeast Asia and elsewhere. He also had to deal with the legacy of the Eisenhower administration’s disastrous attempts to create a pro-Western rather than a neutral government in Laos – a policy he quickly reversed, thereby avoiding the need for American military intervention there.” (7) This policy was undermined by the CIA. For example, the assassination of Quinim Pholsema in Laos. The murder of Ngo Dinh Diem is also significant. This prepared the way for the establishment of a government in South Vietnam that was under the full control of the CIA. In fact, JFK was attempting to use the repressive government of Diem to justify the removal of all American forces from Vietnam. To fully understand the assassination of JFK one needs to understand his foreign policy and what happened after his death. That is, Johnson completely rejected JFK's foreign policy and returned to the one established by Dwight Eisenhower. Notes: 1. David Kaiser, American Tragedy: Kennedy, Johnson and the Origins of the Vietnam War, 2000 (page 198) 2. David Corn, Blond Ghost: Ted Shackley and the CIA's Crusades, 1994 (pages 125-170) 3. John McCone was interviewed by Harry Kreisler on 21st April, 1988. 4. David Kaiser, American Tragedy: Kennedy, Johnson and the Origins of the Vietnam War, 2000 (page 2) 5. Fabian Escalante, CIA Covert Operations 1959-62: The Cuba Project, 2004 (page 12) 6. James Dunkerly, Power in the Isthmus: A Political History of Modern Central America, 1988, (page 429) 7. David Kaiser, American Tragedy: Kennedy, Johnson and the Origins of the Vietnam War, 2000 (page 2) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 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. TIME MAGAZINE Aug. 2, 1976 Other delegates wondered why Reagan, a better campaigner than Ford, had not caught fire with voters. Reagan was particularly hurt among the uncommitted by all the polls—Gallup, Harris, Yankelovich—placing him far behind Ford in a race against Carter. Said Louisiana Delegate Charles Dunbar III, who has switched to Ford because of the polls: "I think the public has made the decision for the delegates." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 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. TIME MAGAZINE Aug. 2, 1976 Other delegates wondered why Reagan, a better campaigner than Ford, had not caught fire with voters. Reagan was particularly hurt among the uncommitted by all the polls—Gallup, Harris, Yankelovich—placing him far behind Ford in a race against Carter. Said Louisiana Delegate Charles Dunbar III, who has switched to Ford because of the polls: "I think the public has made the decision for the delegates." TIME MAGAZINE Jan. 23, 1933 One day last summer Samuel ("Sam") Zemurray of New Orleans strode belligerently into a room at No. 1 Federal Street, Boston, where the directors of potent, far-flung United Fruit Co. were holding a meeting. Down on the long table in front of his old enemy, President Victor Macomber Cutter, he flung a handful of proxies. Said he: "You've been ——ing up this business long enough. I'm going to straighten it out." The Bostonian directorate was profoundly and properly shocked. Nevertheless, before they adjourned they had created a new office— Managing Director in Charge of Operations—and elected Samuel Zemurray to fill it. By last week, when they met again, United Fruit's directors were quite accustomed to shocks. They were not surprised, therefore, when President Cutter tendered his resignation. They immediately elected him board chairman, an office which had not previously existed. To be president they chose their fellow director Francis Russell Hart, Boston banker (Old Colony Trust Co.), onetime U. S. consul in Colombia, historian, gourmet. As president Mr. Hart would not interfere with Sam Zemurray's direction of United Fruit; as board chairman Mr. Cutter could not. The Zemurray-Cutter feud is 20 years old. Victor Cutter was opening new tropical divisions for United Fruit. Samuel Zemurray, Polish-Jewish immigrant who out of his savings as a fruit jobber in New Orleans had formed Cuyamel Fruit & Steamship Co., was trying to wrest control of the Caribbean Sea from United. They clashed in Guatemala when each backed a different country in the dispute, not yet settled, over the Guatemalan-Honduras boundary line. They clashed in Honduras when United invaded the country Mr. Zemurray had made his own through a $200,000 revolution. Mr. Cutter, smooth-haired Dartmouth graduate, was replacing tropical tramps on his plantations with ambitious graduates of agricultural and engineering schools. Sam Zemurray did not care where his men came from and he preferred them tough. In 1930 Cuyamel sold out to United for 300,000 shares of stock, distributed share for share. Slightly more than half of these shares Mr. Zemurray owned: the rest he controlled (his wife is daughter of his original partner, Jacob Weinberger). Sam Zemurray became largest stockholder in United Fruit and a director. His cash resources he put into government securities and bided his time. When United Fruit bought Cuyamel its stock was selling for 105. Last June it reached its record low of 10¼. Mr. Zemurray, with some $12,000,000 profits from 20 years' operations at his finger tips, got busy. When he appeared in Boston in July he owned almost enough stock to dictate United Fruit's policies. For the rest he held proxies. Sam Zemurray's brief direction of United Fruit has been vigorous, aimed to bring United Fruit stock up above the 26 figure it sold for last week. In 1931 the company earned only $6,700,000 compared with its profits of $20,000,000 in 1928. In the first half of 1932 it earned only $1,500,000. Mr. Zemurray has not cut salaries; last year before he took charge they were cut 10% and another 15%. But he has cut personnel 25%, has sharply curtailed loans to independent planters from whom United Fruit buys bananas. He has revalued United Fruit properties at $50,000,000 less than the Bostonian reckoning, thereby enabling the company to save millions of dollars in depreciation charges and to show correspondingly higher earnings. Since tariffs have practically eliminated profits from Cuban sugar and Depression has shrunk the profits of the 98 steamships of the Great White Fleet, nearly all the company's revenue has come from bananas, more than half of which the company raises itself on its plantations in Honduras, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panama, Jamaica, Colombia. Last year's shipments were about 50 million bunches, ten million less than in 1931, which were five million below 1930. Throughout the plantations on the Caribbean Mr. Zemurray has replaced many United Fruit men with veterans of his Cuyamel. United Fruit's new President Hart is learned, studious, convivial. After leaving M. I. T. he tried farming in Jamaica, later managed the Cartagena-Magdalena Railway in Colombia (which United Fruit has just taken over from the government). In 1908 he became a director of Old Colony and United Fruit. He is famed for his ability to mix Jamaica's famed planters' punch (one part lime, two parts syrup, three parts rum), is a moving spirit in the Club of Odd Volumes, whose headquarters is a former stable on Beacon Hill. He has written three books on the Caribbean, owns many an odd volume, belongs to a dozen learned societies and most of Boston's swank clubs. He likes to sail and fish. He is the only member of the United Fruit directorate whose father was a member of the original Boston Fruit Co. which was formed in 1899. He was 65 last week. Far different from President Hart and the other Caribbean-ruling Bostonians is United Fruit's de facto head, Sam Zemurray. He is thin, bony, angular, with black domineering eyes and a hawk nose. Tropical-sun-tanned, he might be a Spaniard. He speaks English with a slight accent except when he is cursing, speaks Spanish with no accent at all. He is quiet in public, precisely dressed, has never been interviewed and likes to be left alone. His name appears neither in Who's Who nor in the New Orleans Social Register. His daughter Doris two years ago married Roger Thayer Stone of Boston, last summer furnished Mr. Zemurray with a grandson at 56. His son, Samuel Jr., last year played tackle on Tulane's football team, was its light-heavyweight boxer. Now he is at Harvard. Mr. Zemurray, when in Boston, lives at the Ritz. In Tangipahoa Parish 50 mi. north of New Orleans he has a vast country place, stocked with wild deer, pheasant and quail. Its artificial lakes are planted with duck potato to lure wildfowl. It also has a golf course on which its owner occasionally breaks 100. Mr. Zemurray endowed a Department of Middle American Research at Tulane for $1,000,000, gave it the famed Gates collection of Mayan relics. When his three chief revolutionists arrived in Biloxi, Miss., on the Zemurray yacht one cold December night in 1910 on their way to Honduras, Samuel Zemurray went below and cooked a dinner for Manuel Bonilla, next President of Honduras. He left his coat over the shoulders of shivering General Bonilla. Said he: ''Hell Manuel, I've shot the roll on you. I might as well shoot the coat too." He is now shooting his roll on United Fruit and few expect him to lose it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 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. TIME MAGAZINE Aug. 2, 1976 Other delegates wondered why Reagan, a better campaigner than Ford, had not caught fire with voters. Reagan was particularly hurt among the uncommitted by all the polls—Gallup, Harris, Yankelovich—placing him far behind Ford in a race against Carter. Said Louisiana Delegate Charles Dunbar III, who has switched to Ford because of the polls: "I think the public has made the decision for the delegates." TIME MAGAZINE Jan. 23, 1933 One day last summer Samuel ("Sam") Zemurray of New Orleans strode belligerently into a room at No. 1 Federal Street, Boston, where the directors of potent, far-flung United Fruit Co. were holding a meeting. Down on the long table in front of his old enemy, President Victor Macomber Cutter, he flung a handful of proxies. Said he: "You've been ——ing up this business long enough. I'm going to straighten it out." The Bostonian directorate was profoundly and properly shocked. Nevertheless, before they adjourned they had created a new office— Managing Director in Charge of Operations—and elected Samuel Zemurray to fill it. By last week, when they met again, United Fruit's directors were quite accustomed to shocks. They were not surprised, therefore, when President Cutter tendered his resignation. They immediately elected him board chairman, an office which had not previously existed. To be president they chose their fellow director Francis Russell Hart, Boston banker (Old Colony Trust Co.), onetime U. S. consul in Colombia, historian, gourmet. As president Mr. Hart would not interfere with Sam Zemurray's direction of United Fruit; as board chairman Mr. Cutter could not. The Zemurray-Cutter feud is 20 years old. Victor Cutter was opening new tropical divisions for United Fruit. Samuel Zemurray, Polish-Jewish immigrant who out of his savings as a fruit jobber in New Orleans had formed Cuyamel Fruit & Steamship Co., was trying to wrest control of the Caribbean Sea from United. They clashed in Guatemala when each backed a different country in the dispute, not yet settled, over the Guatemalan-Honduras boundary line. They clashed in Honduras when United invaded the country Mr. Zemurray had made his own through a $200,000 revolution. Mr. Cutter, smooth-haired Dartmouth graduate, was replacing tropical tramps on his plantations with ambitious graduates of agricultural and engineering schools. Sam Zemurray did not care where his men came from and he preferred them tough. In 1930 Cuyamel sold out to United for 300,000 shares of stock, distributed share for share. Slightly more than half of these shares Mr. Zemurray owned: the rest he controlled (his wife is daughter of his original partner, Jacob Weinberger). Sam Zemurray became largest stockholder in United Fruit and a director. His cash resources he put into government securities and bided his time. When United Fruit bought Cuyamel its stock was selling for 105. Last June it reached its record low of 10¼. Mr. Zemurray, with some $12,000,000 profits from 20 years' operations at his finger tips, got busy. When he appeared in Boston in July he owned almost enough stock to dictate United Fruit's policies. For the rest he held proxies. Sam Zemurray's brief direction of United Fruit has been vigorous, aimed to bring United Fruit stock up above the 26 figure it sold for last week. In 1931 the company earned only $6,700,000 compared with its profits of $20,000,000 in 1928. In the first half of 1932 it earned only $1,500,000. Mr. Zemurray has not cut salaries; last year before he took charge they were cut 10% and another 15%. But he has cut personnel 25%, has sharply curtailed loans to independent planters from whom United Fruit buys bananas. He has revalued United Fruit properties at $50,000,000 less than the Bostonian reckoning, thereby enabling the company to save millions of dollars in depreciation charges and to show correspondingly higher earnings. Since tariffs have practically eliminated profits from Cuban sugar and Depression has shrunk the profits of the 98 steamships of the Great White Fleet, nearly all the company's revenue has come from bananas, more than half of which the company raises itself on its plantations in Honduras, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panama, Jamaica, Colombia. Last year's shipments were about 50 million bunches, ten million less than in 1931, which were five million below 1930. Throughout the plantations on the Caribbean Mr. Zemurray has replaced many United Fruit men with veterans of his Cuyamel. United Fruit's new President Hart is learned, studious, convivial. After leaving M. I. T. he tried farming in Jamaica, later managed the Cartagena-Magdalena Railway in Colombia (which United Fruit has just taken over from the government). In 1908 he became a director of Old Colony and United Fruit. He is famed for his ability to mix Jamaica's famed planters' punch (one part lime, two parts syrup, three parts rum), is a moving spirit in the Club of Odd Volumes, whose headquarters is a former stable on Beacon Hill. He has written three books on the Caribbean, owns many an odd volume, belongs to a dozen learned societies and most of Boston's swank clubs. He likes to sail and fish. He is the only member of the United Fruit directorate whose father was a member of the original Boston Fruit Co. which was formed in 1899. He was 65 last week. Far different from President Hart and the other Caribbean-ruling Bostonians is United Fruit's de facto head, Sam Zemurray. He is thin, bony, angular, with black domineering eyes and a hawk nose. Tropical-sun-tanned, he might be a Spaniard. He speaks English with a slight accent except when he is cursing, speaks Spanish with no accent at all. He is quiet in public, precisely dressed, has never been interviewed and likes to be left alone. His name appears neither in Who's Who nor in the New Orleans Social Register. His daughter Doris two years ago married Roger Thayer Stone of Boston, last summer furnished Mr. Zemurray with a grandson at 56. His son, Samuel Jr., last year played tackle on Tulane's football team, was its light-heavyweight boxer. Now he is at Harvard. Mr. Zemurray, when in Boston, lives at the Ritz. In Tangipahoa Parish 50 mi. north of New Orleans he has a vast country place, stocked with wild deer, pheasant and quail. Its artificial lakes are planted with duck potato to lure wildfowl. It also has a golf course on which its owner occasionally breaks 100. Mr. Zemurray endowed a Department of Middle American Research at Tulane for $1,000,000, gave it the famed Gates collection of Mayan relics. When his three chief revolutionists arrived in Biloxi, Miss., on the Zemurray yacht one cold December night in 1910 on their way to Honduras, Samuel Zemurray went below and cooked a dinner for Manuel Bonilla, next President of Honduras. He left his coat over the shoulders of shivering General Bonilla. Said he: ''Hell Manuel, I've shot the roll on you. I might as well shoot the coat too." He is now shooting his roll on United Fruit and few expect him to lose it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME MAGAZINE Mar. 18, 1946 War had sorely bruised Central America's banana trade. In 1943 it shrank to less than a shriveled fifth of prewar normal. While the banana liners were diverted to more pressing runs, the golden fruit was left to rot where it grew. United Fruit, first lord of the banana empire, maintained its dividends mainly through revenue from ships and Cuban sugar estates. In Central America, United helped make up for U.S. losses of Manila hemp (and incidentally kept Central Americans employed) by cultivating needed abacá ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If recalled correctly, there was, at one time, a discussion related to Pawley/& Sugar, as well as Demohrenschildt/& hemp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 A "Rising Star"! U.S. Supreme Court STATE OF ILLINOIS v. STATE OF INDIANA , 340 U.S. 869 (1950) Supreme Court of the United States November 6, 1950 Messrs. Ivan A. Elliott, Attorney General, George F. Barrett, then Attorney General, Albert E. Hallett, Albert J. Meserow and William C. Wines and Mary V. Neff, Assistant Attorneys General, for State of Illinois. Messrs. J. Emmett McManamon, Attorney General, James A. Emmertt, then Attorney General, Cleon H. Foust, then Attorney General, Urban C. Stover, Robert Hollowell, Jr., Joseph W. Hutchinson and Maurice E. Tennant, Deputy Attorneys General, for State of Indiana. Messrs. Harry H. Stilley, Timothy P. Galvin and Edmond J. Leeney, for City of Hammond. Messrs. Loyd J. Cohen, Allen P. Twyman and Robert G. Estill, for City of East Chicago. Messrs. John E. Roszkowski, Samuel S. Dubin and Richard M. MacCracken, for City of Gary. Messrs. James S. McCarthy and Timothy P. Galvin, for City of Whiting. Messrs. R. M. Blough and R. C. Stevenson, for American Bridge Co., Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corp., National Tube Co. and Universal Atlas Cement Co. Mr. Richard P. Tinkham, for American Maize Products Co., Inc. Messrs. R. L. Hackbert, R. C. Stevenson and David A. Watts, for Bates Expanded Steel Corp., now known as the East Chicago Expanded Steel Co. Mr. Homer A. Holt, for Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corp. Mr. Lester F. Murphy, for Cities Service Oil Co. Mr. Timothy P. Galvin, for E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. Messrs. William G. Brantley and Carl H. Richmond, for Fruit Growers Express Co. Messrs. Paul M. Godehn and Donald M. Graham, for Inland Steel Co. Messrs. John P. Hart and Barnabas F. Sears, for Rogers Galvanizing Co. Messrs. Cyrus S. Gentry and Philip M. Payne, for Shell Oil Co., Inc. Mr. James W. Reid, for Sinclair Refining Co. [ State of Illinois v. State of Indiana 340 U.S. 869 (1950) ][869-Continued] Mr. J. F. Dammann, for Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., Inc. Messrs. Gordon E. Tappan, Buell F. Jones, Thomas E. Sunderland and Charles Henry Austin, for Standard Oil Co. Mr. Harold K. Norton, for The Texas Co. Mr. David A. Watts, for U. S. S. Lead Refinery, Inc. Messrs. J. C. Argetsinger and R. C. Stevenson, for Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. The Fifth Special Report of the Special Master is approved. The Amended Bill of Complaint is dismissed as to (1) American Maize-Products Company, pursuant to a joint motion of complainant State of Illinois, and defendants State of Indiana, City of Hammond, and American Maize-Products Company; (2) Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corporation, pursuant to a joint motion of complainant State of Illinois, and defendants State of Indiana, City of Gary, and Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corporation; (3) City of Whiting, pursuant to a joint motion of complainant State of Illinois, and defendants State of Indiana and City of Whiting; (4) Standard Oil Company, pursuant to a joint motion of complainant State of Illinois, and defendants State of Indiana, City of Whiting, and Standard Oil Company; (5) The Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company, pursuant to a joint motion of complainant State of Illinois, and defendants State of Indiana, City of East Chicago, and The Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company; (6) State of Indiana, pursuant to a joint motion of complainant State of Illinois, and defendants State of Indiana, City of East Chicago, City of Gary, and City of Hammond; (7) City of East Chicago, pursuant to a joint motion of complainant State of Illinois, and defendants State of Indiana, City Page 340 U.S. 869 , 870 of East Chicago, City of Gary, and City of Hammond; (8) City of Gary, pursuant to a joint motion of complainant State of Illinois, and defendants State of Indiana, City of East Chicago, City of Gary, and City of Hammond; (9) City of Hammond, pursuant to a joint motion of complainant State of Illinois, and defendants State of Indiana, City of East Chicago, City of Gary, and City of Hammond. The Fifth and Final Report of the Special Master dated October 18, 1950, is approved. The Court finds that the Amended Bill of Complaint has been dismissed as to all parties defendant who have heretofore stipulated herein to perform certain work as follows: Shell Oil Company, Incorporated, and The Texas Company dismissed by order of February 17, 1947 (330 U.S. 799, 67 S. Ct. 767); American Bridge Company, Carbide and Carbon Chemicals Corporation, E. I. duPont de Nemours and Company, Fruit Growers Express Company, and Universal Atlas Cement Company dismissed by order of November 17, 1947 (332 U.S. 822); Bates Expanded Steel Corporation, an Indiana corporation (as well as its predecessor, Bates Expanded Steel Corporation, a Delaware corporation, now known as East Chicago Expanded Steel Company), Rogers Galvanizing Company, and U. S. S. Lead Refinery, Inc., dismissed by order of October 25, 1948 ( 335 U.S. 850); Cities Service Oil Company, Cudahy Packing Company, Inland Steel Company, National Tube Company, Sinclair Refining Company, and Socony-Vacuum Oil Company dismissed by order of October 24, 1949 (338 U.S. 856); and American Maize- Products Company, Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corporation, City of Whiting, Standard Oil Company, and the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company dismissed hereinbefore by this order. The Court further finds that with the dismissal of the aforesaid defendants no acts remain to [340 U.S. 869 , 871] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/ike/iv/20211.htm 1. The Guatemalan Situation In Guatemala historic conditions provide substantial fuel to fire the revolution. Foreign ownership of the elements of Guatemala's economic life, together with the pattern of its international trade, gives the Guatemalans a vivid and unwelcome sense of dependence on foreigners. This is not too galling with respect to foreign ownership of coffee plantations, for the owners are scattered individuals of various nationalities who lack collective means of exercising control over the country's economic and social life. The case is different with the utilities, the vital transportation and communication facilities, and the banana empire of the United Fruit Company (which is a monopoly). U.S. ownership is overwhelmingly predominant here. Up to twenty years ago the United Fruit Company and the International Railways of Central America (now controlled by United Fruit) still practiced marked discrimination against native employees in favor of U.S. employees. Today the Fruit Company is, as it was becoming then, an agent of social betterment; but its past is not forgotten and what really counts is that, whether beneficent or maleficent in its practices, it remains the expression of Guatemala's economic colonialism. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is against this background that one must view the two events which, in this month of May, have aroused our alarm 1. The first was the initial conspicuous manifestation of social revolution in the hitherto stagnant Republic of Honduras, bordering on Guatemala, in the form of a strike that paralyzed the operations of the United Fruit Company and the Standard Fruit Company. That conditions in Guatemala influenced this development is virtually to be assumed. The plantations owned or serviced by the United Fruit Company on the Gulf of Honduras are scattered on both sides of the boundary between the two republics, which boundary would not be apparent to an airplane flying overhead. Until a few years ago, in fact, the location of the boundary was a matter of opinion, since it had not been demarcated and was in controversy. The local farmers were unsure of their own nationality, gratified the tax-collectors of both countries, and had resigned themselves to being policed alternately by patrols of the two respective armed forces (which had the salutary habit of fleeing from each other at sight). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pawley reported that his ad hoc committee, made up of representatives of CIA and Defense, would meet today to work up a paper/4/ outlining the steps we will take in the event the Arbenz government is overthrown. This paper would include the evacuation planning, recognition, possible economic aid to a successor government, etc. He asked that all members of the group give him any ideas they might have. Because of the similarity of this project with Woodward's assignment on "treatment of successor government",/5/ it was agreed that Woodward should work with the Pawley group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 A "Rising Star"!U.S. Supreme Court STATE OF ILLINOIS v. STATE OF INDIANA , 340 U.S. 869 (1950) Supreme Court of the United States November 6, 1950 Messrs. Ivan A. Elliott, Attorney General, George F. Barrett, then Attorney General, Albert E. Hallett, Albert J. Meserow and William C. Wines and Mary V. Neff, Assistant Attorneys General, for State of Illinois. Messrs. J. Emmett McManamon, Attorney General, James A. Emmertt, then Attorney General, Cleon H. Foust, then Attorney General, Urban C. Stover, Robert Hollowell, Jr., Joseph W. Hutchinson and Maurice E. Tennant, Deputy Attorneys General, for State of Indiana. Messrs. Harry H. Stilley, Timothy P. Galvin and Edmond J. Leeney, for City of Hammond. Messrs. Loyd J. Cohen, Allen P. Twyman and Robert G. Estill, for City of East Chicago. Messrs. John E. Roszkowski, Samuel S. Dubin and Richard M. MacCracken, for City of Gary. Messrs. James S. McCarthy and Timothy P. Galvin, for City of Whiting. Messrs. R. M. Blough and R. C. Stevenson, for American Bridge Co., Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corp., National Tube Co. and Universal Atlas Cement Co. Mr. Richard P. Tinkham, for American Maize Products Co., Inc. Messrs. R. L. Hackbert, R. C. Stevenson and David A. Watts, for Bates Expanded Steel Corp., now known as the East Chicago Expanded Steel Co. Mr. Homer A. Holt, for Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corp. Mr. Lester F. Murphy, for Cities Service Oil Co. Mr. Timothy P. Galvin, for E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. Messrs. William G. Brantley and Carl H. Richmond, for Fruit Growers Express Co. Messrs. Paul M. Godehn and Donald M. Graham, for Inland Steel Co. Messrs. John P. Hart and Barnabas F. Sears, for Rogers Galvanizing Co. Messrs. Cyrus S. Gentry and Philip M. Payne, for Shell Oil Co., Inc. Mr. James W. Reid, for Sinclair Refining Co. [ State of Illinois v. State of Indiana 340 U.S. 869 (1950) ][869-Continued] Mr. J. F. Dammann, for Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., Inc. Messrs. Gordon E. Tappan, Buell F. Jones, Thomas E. Sunderland and Charles Henry Austin, for Standard Oil Co. Mr. Harold K. Norton, for The Texas Co. Mr. David A. Watts, for U. S. S. Lead Refinery, Inc. Messrs. J. C. Argetsinger and R. C. Stevenson, for Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. The Fifth Special Report of the Special Master is approved. The Amended Bill of Complaint is dismissed as to (1) American Maize-Products Company, pursuant to a joint motion of complainant State of Illinois, and defendants State of Indiana, City of Hammond, and American Maize-Products Company; (2) Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corporation, pursuant to a joint motion of complainant State of Illinois, and defendants State of Indiana, City of Gary, and Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corporation; (3) City of Whiting, pursuant to a joint motion of complainant State of Illinois, and defendants State of Indiana and City of Whiting; (4) Standard Oil Company, pursuant to a joint motion of complainant State of Illinois, and defendants State of Indiana, City of Whiting, and Standard Oil Company; (5) The Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company, pursuant to a joint motion of complainant State of Illinois, and defendants State of Indiana, City of East Chicago, and The Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company; (6) State of Indiana, pursuant to a joint motion of complainant State of Illinois, and defendants State of Indiana, City of East Chicago, City of Gary, and City of Hammond; (7) City of East Chicago, pursuant to a joint motion of complainant State of Illinois, and defendants State of Indiana, City Page 340 U.S. 869 , 870 of East Chicago, City of Gary, and City of Hammond; (8) City of Gary, pursuant to a joint motion of complainant State of Illinois, and defendants State of Indiana, City of East Chicago, City of Gary, and City of Hammond; (9) City of Hammond, pursuant to a joint motion of complainant State of Illinois, and defendants State of Indiana, City of East Chicago, City of Gary, and City of Hammond. The Fifth and Final Report of the Special Master dated October 18, 1950, is approved. The Court finds that the Amended Bill of Complaint has been dismissed as to all parties defendant who have heretofore stipulated herein to perform certain work as follows: Shell Oil Company, Incorporated, and The Texas Company dismissed by order of February 17, 1947 (330 U.S. 799, 67 S. Ct. 767); American Bridge Company, Carbide and Carbon Chemicals Corporation, E. I. duPont de Nemours and Company, Fruit Growers Express Company, and Universal Atlas Cement Company dismissed by order of November 17, 1947 (332 U.S. 822); Bates Expanded Steel Corporation, an Indiana corporation (as well as its predecessor, Bates Expanded Steel Corporation, a Delaware corporation, now known as East Chicago Expanded Steel Company), Rogers Galvanizing Company, and U. S. S. Lead Refinery, Inc., dismissed by order of October 25, 1948 ( 335 U.S. 850); Cities Service Oil Company, Cudahy Packing Company, Inland Steel Company, National Tube Company, Sinclair Refining Company, and Socony-Vacuum Oil Company dismissed by order of October 24, 1949 (338 U.S. 856); and American Maize- Products Company, Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corporation, City of Whiting, Standard Oil Company, and the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company dismissed hereinbefore by this order. The Court further finds that with the dismissal of the aforesaid defendants no acts remain to [340 U.S. 869 , 871] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. J. F. Dammann, for Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., Inc. Messrs. Gordon E. Tappan, Buell F. Jones, Thomas E. Sunderland and Charles Henry Austin, for Standard Oil Co ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://136.142.158.105/LASA98/Bowman.pdf " On 7 September 1961, the president of UFCO, Thomas Sunderland, sent a note to Edwin Martin, Assistant Secretary of State:" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 A "Rising Star"! U.S. Supreme Court STATE OF ILLINOIS v. STATE OF INDIANA , 340 U.S. 869 (1950) Supreme Court of the United States November 6, 1950 Messrs. Ivan A. Elliott, Attorney General, George F. Barrett, then Attorney General, Albert E. Hallett, Albert J. Meserow and William C. Wines and Mary V. Neff, Assistant Attorneys General, for State of Illinois. Messrs. J. Emmett McManamon, Attorney General, James A. Emmertt, then Attorney General, Cleon H. Foust, then Attorney General, Urban C. Stover, Robert Hollowell, Jr., Joseph W. Hutchinson and Maurice E. Tennant, Deputy Attorneys General, for State of Indiana. Messrs. Harry H. Stilley, Timothy P. Galvin and Edmond J. Leeney, for City of Hammond. Messrs. Loyd J. Cohen, Allen P. Twyman and Robert G. Estill, for City of East Chicago. Messrs. John E. Roszkowski, Samuel S. Dubin and Richard M. MacCracken, for City of Gary. Messrs. James S. McCarthy and Timothy P. Galvin, for City of Whiting. Messrs. R. M. Blough and R. C. Stevenson, for American Bridge Co., Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corp., National Tube Co. and Universal Atlas Cement Co. Mr. Richard P. Tinkham, for American Maize Products Co., Inc. Messrs. R. L. Hackbert, R. C. Stevenson and David A. Watts, for Bates Expanded Steel Corp., now known as the East Chicago Expanded Steel Co. Mr. Homer A. Holt, for Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corp. Mr. Lester F. Murphy, for Cities Service Oil Co. Mr. Timothy P. Galvin, for E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. Messrs. William G. Brantley and Carl H. Richmond, for Fruit Growers Express Co. Messrs. Paul M. Godehn and Donald M. Graham, for Inland Steel Co. Messrs. John P. Hart and Barnabas F. Sears, for Rogers Galvanizing Co. Messrs. Cyrus S. Gentry and Philip M. Payne, for Shell Oil Co., Inc. Mr. James W. Reid, for Sinclair Refining Co. [ State of Illinois v. State of Indiana 340 U.S. 869 (1950) ][869-Continued] Mr. J. F. Dammann, for Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., Inc. Messrs. Gordon E. Tappan, Buell F. Jones, Thomas E. Sunderland and Charles Henry Austin, for Standard Oil Co. Mr. Harold K. Norton, for The Texas Co. Mr. David A. Watts, for U. S. S. Lead Refinery, Inc. Messrs. J. C. Argetsinger and R. C. Stevenson, for Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. The Fifth Special Report of the Special Master is approved. The Amended Bill of Complaint is dismissed as to (1) American Maize-Products Company, pursuant to a joint motion of complainant State of Illinois, and defendants State of Indiana, City of Hammond, and American Maize-Products Company; (2) Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corporation, pursuant to a joint motion of complainant State of Illinois, and defendants State of Indiana, City of Gary, and Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corporation; (3) City of Whiting, pursuant to a joint motion of complainant State of Illinois, and defendants State of Indiana and City of Whiting; (4) Standard Oil Company, pursuant to a joint motion of complainant State of Illinois, and defendants State of Indiana, City of Whiting, and Standard Oil Company; (5) The Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company, pursuant to a joint motion of complainant State of Illinois, and defendants State of Indiana, City of East Chicago, and The Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company; (6) State of Indiana, pursuant to a joint motion of complainant State of Illinois, and defendants State of Indiana, City of East Chicago, City of Gary, and City of Hammond; (7) City of East Chicago, pursuant to a joint motion of complainant State of Illinois, and defendants State of Indiana, City Page 340 U.S. 869 , 870 of East Chicago, City of Gary, and City of Hammond; (8) City of Gary, pursuant to a joint motion of complainant State of Illinois, and defendants State of Indiana, City of East Chicago, City of Gary, and City of Hammond; (9) City of Hammond, pursuant to a joint motion of complainant State of Illinois, and defendants State of Indiana, City of East Chicago, City of Gary, and City of Hammond. The Fifth and Final Report of the Special Master dated October 18, 1950, is approved. The Court finds that the Amended Bill of Complaint has been dismissed as to all parties defendant who have heretofore stipulated herein to perform certain work as follows: Shell Oil Company, Incorporated, and The Texas Company dismissed by order of February 17, 1947 (330 U.S. 799, 67 S. Ct. 767); American Bridge Company, Carbide and Carbon Chemicals Corporation, E. I. duPont de Nemours and Company, Fruit Growers Express Company, and Universal Atlas Cement Company dismissed by order of November 17, 1947 (332 U.S. 822); Bates Expanded Steel Corporation, an Indiana corporation (as well as its predecessor, Bates Expanded Steel Corporation, a Delaware corporation, now known as East Chicago Expanded Steel Company), Rogers Galvanizing Company, and U. S. S. Lead Refinery, Inc., dismissed by order of October 25, 1948 ( 335 U.S. 850); Cities Service Oil Company, Cudahy Packing Company, Inland Steel Company, National Tube Company, Sinclair Refining Company, and Socony-Vacuum Oil Company dismissed by order of October 24, 1949 (338 U.S. 856); and American Maize- Products Company, Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corporation, City of Whiting, Standard Oil Company, and the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company dismissed hereinbefore by this order. The Court further finds that with the dismissal of the aforesaid defendants no acts remain to [340 U.S. 869 , 871] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. J. F. Dammann, for Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., Inc. Messrs. Gordon E. Tappan, Buell F. Jones, Thomas E. Sunderland and Charles Henry Austin, for Standard Oil Co ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://136.142.158.105/LASA98/Bowman.pdf " On 7 September 1961, the president of UFCO, Thomas Sunderland, sent a note to Edwin Martin, Assistant Secretary of State:" TIME MAGAZINE Oct. 5, 1959 ¶ Thomas Elbert Sunderland, 52, vice president and general counsel of Standard Oil Co. (Ind.), was named president and chief executive officer of the trouble-torn United Fruit Co., succeeding Kenneth H. Redmond, 64, retiring after 42 years with the company. Sunderland, who admits he "knows nothing about bananas," is an expert in the antitrust problems that plague United Fruit; under a 1958 antitrust decree, United Fruit must sell off some of its properties, give up 35% of its import business. A Michigan-born lawyer, Sunderland saw World War II service in the Army Air Forces, became a Standard director and vice president in 1949. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 Tom: Why do you repeat the same articles about 5 times in post after post? Making what ever point you are attempting to make utterly incomprehensible? Please use the quote function. Thank you. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted July 10, 2006 Author Share Posted July 10, 2006 An interesting passage from David McKean's book, Peddling Influence (2004) As planning for the U.S. plot progressed, Corcoran and other top officials at United Fruit became anxious about identifying a future leader who would establish favorable relations between the government and the company. Secretary of State Dulles moved to add a"civilian" adviser to the State Department team to help expedite Operation Success. Dulles chose a friend of Corcoran's, William Pawley, a Miami-based millionaire who, along with Corcoran, Chennault, and Willauer, had helped set up the Flying Tigers in the early r94os and then helped several years later to transform it into the CIA's airline, Civil Air Transport. Besides his association with Corcoran, Pawley's most important qualification for the job was that he had a long history of association with right-wing Latin American dictators. CIA director Dulles had grown disillusioned with J. C. King and asked Colonel Albert Haney, the CIA station chief in Korea, to be the U.S. field commander for the operation. Haney enthusiastically accepted, although he was apparently unaware of the role that the United Fruit Company had played in his selection. Haney had been a colleague of King's, and though King was no longer directing the operation, he remained a member of the agency planning team. He suggested that Haney meet with Tom Corcoran to see about arming the insurgency force with the weapons that had been mothballed in a New York warehouse after the failed Operation Fortune. When the supremely confident Haney said he didn't need any help from a Washington lawyer, King rebuked him, "If you think you can run this operation without United Fruit, you're crazy!" The close working relationship between the CIA and United Fruit was perhaps best epitomized by Allen Dulles's encouragement to the company to help select an expedition commander for the planned invasion. After the CIA's first choice was vetoed by the State Department, United Fruit proposed Corcova Cerna, a Guatemalan lawyer and coffee grower. Cerna had long worked for the company as a paid legal adviser, and even though Corcoran referred to him as "a liberal," he believed that Cerna would not interfere with the company's land holdings and operations. After Cerna was hospitalized with throat cancer, a third candidate, Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas, emerged as the compromise choice. According to United Fruit's Thomas McCann, when the Central Intelligence Agency finally launched Operation Success in late June 1954, "United Fruit was involved at every level." From neighboring Honduras, Ambassador Willauer, Corcoran's former business partner, directed bombing raids on Guatemala City. McCann was told that the CIA even shipped down the weapons used in the uprising "in United Fruit boats." On June 27, 1954, Colonel Armas Ousted the Arbenz government and ordered the arrest of all communist leaders in Guatemala. While the coup was successful, a dark chapter was opened in American support for right wing military dictators in Central America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now