Oliver Stone Talks to Jacobin About JFK’s Killing

[Jon Banks]

All of this has been argued to death, but here are a couple links.

Oswald owned the rifle:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html

JFK's intentions regarding Vietnam:

https://americandiplomacy.web.unc.edu/2020/11/without-dallas-john-f-kennedy-and-the-vietnam-war/

Sorry but there's no final draft or interpretation of history.

The narrative on JFK and Vietnam has changed since the 90s due in part to Oliver Stone.

We can't possibly know what JFK would've done had he lived but we know he had plenty of opportunities to escalate in Vietnam as LBJ did (but chose not to).

[Tom Scully]

Jon is embracing the Oliver Stone/Jim Garrison history of the Cold War. That is, the US wanted to do this, the US did that, the US planned another thing. The MIC wanted this, the CIA that. That is, essentially, that this covert, all powerful "war state" hijacked American policy after WWII and created mythical threats to justify that power. Stone actually says that if Henry Wallace had been elected president in 1948 instead of Truman that no cold war would have followed. I would think one Josef Stalin would have had something to say about that.

Footnote: one of the top advisers to Henry Wallace during his campaign was one John Abt. Yes, the same John Abt that Oswald wanted as his lawyer.

All of that history ignores the actions of the Soviets, of China, of North Korea et cetera, during this conflict. The actions of Moscow or Beijing or Hanoi doesn't excuse whatever we did, doesn't justify all of the policies. I'm not saying that at all. But you can't look at what the US (and our allies who supported these efforts; how did the MIC get the UK and France and other western European nations to go with these policies?) did in a vacuum.

Garrison and Stone and DiEugenio put forward this vision of the Cold War to explain why JFK was killed. It was because JFK was going to dismantle the "war state", end the Cold War, pull out of Vietnam, normalize relations with Castro, et cetera. And it was for that that they had to kill him.

I'll repeat again: all of this conspiracy history is a sort of reverse engineering. Conspiracists think JFK couldn't have been killed by this pathetic Oswald with a cheap rifle; it had to be more. So who could have done it? And how could they pull it off? It had to be this secret military "deep state". Only they had the power and resources and motive to do so.

As to the Gulf of Tonkin: I think the whole discussion about the event - and it did happen; the North did attack US ships in the Gulf that first day; but NOT the second - is meaningless really. The North was intent on attacking the South and taking it over. For good or bad, the US was determined not to let that happen. So the conflict was bound to happen. Either initiated by that event or something else down the line.

You almost seemed reasonable. JFK did not create what he found himself confronted with, or appoint them, except the extremist hawks of the Ex-Comm...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyman_Lemnitzer
"...Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in September 1960. As Chairman, Lemnitzer was involved in the Bay of Pigs crisis and the early years of United States involvement in the Vietnam War. He was also required to testify before the United States Senate Foreign Affairs Committee about his knowledge of the activities of Major General Edwin Walker, who had been dismissed from the Army over alleged attempts to promote his political beliefs in the military.

As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, Lemnitzer approved the plans known as Operation Northwoods in 1962, a proposed plan to discredit the Castro regime and create support for military action against Cuba by staging false flag acts of terrorism and developing "a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington". Lemnitzer presented the plans to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962. It is unclear how McNamara reacted, but three days later President John F. Kennedy told the general that there was no chance that the US would take military action against Cuba. Within a few months, after the refusal to endorse Operation Northwoods, Lemnitzer was denied another term as JCS chairman.[3] ..."

https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/CMC50/DavidGWelchandJamesGBlightAnIntroductiontotheExCommTranscriptsInternationalSecurity.pdf
Page 6


Page 8

[Steve M. Galbraith]

I think that Oliver Stone’s belief in the Vietnam situation being the reason that JFK was assassinated is nonsense. I don’t believe it whatsoever. My point is simply that I believe that JFK would not have sent U.S. combat troops to Vietnam. The plan at the time of his death was to reduce the number of U.S. military advisers back to the level it was before he took office. I think JFK probably would have been willing to negotiate a settlement after the 1964 elections. Sadly, LBJ had a different viewpoint. He took the situation personally. And he was willing to send hundreds of thousands of soldiers to fight so that HE wouldn’t be the first U.S. President to loose a war.

The plan as I read it was to withdraw forces as the South was able - through our training, assistance, aid et cetera - to take on more of the battle. It wasn't simply to withdraw regardless of the situation on the ground. Two things were to happen simultaneously: we withdraw as they step up. So what would JFK do it the South wasn't able to accomplish that? That's what happened. That's what LBJ faced; and what JFK would have to face. That's why we had to take on more of the effort or leave. Nixon tried to reverse that but it was too late.

As to JFK and a settlement: What's the evidence that Hanoi wanted one? Or Moscow either? After 1964 the Soviets fundamentally changed their approach to SE Asia and, after Khrushchev's removal (he was reluctant to get involved because he believed it would help Mao), began providing massive military and economic support to the North.

JFK was able to settle - for a time - the Laotian crisis without sending in troops because Khrushchev agreed to one. The historian and conspiracy believer John Newman argues that JFK would have dealt with Vietnam like he did with Laos. That is, not send in ground troops. But that ignores the key fact that Soviet policy towards Vietnam was completely different after Khrushchev then it was when he was in charge.

As to LBJ: he uncritically listened to his advisers, the "Best and Brightest", who gave him bad advice and didn't like disagreement among his people. As you pointed out, JFK was much more willing to challenge his advisers, especially the Pentagon and liked hearing dissenting views; so while LBJ went along with their advice, JFK was probably going to reject it.

Anyway: again, what JFK wanted to do is not the same thing as what he was able to do. I don't think LBJ wanted to send in troops either. There are records of conversations he had with people where he said he didn't know what to do. We had to get out but how? What about the consequences?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

We can't possibly know what JFK would've done had he lived ...

That's the point. Stone and DiEugenio tell us that we do know. JFK would have pulled out and he was killed for it. Which is nonsense.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

That's the point. Stone and DiEugenio tell us that we do know. JFK would have pulled out and he was killed for it. Which is nonsense.

Thank you, Tracy. I don't know how many times I have to make the same observation.

There's no evidence that JFK - at the time of his death (hint: it was Oswald) - had decided to simply leave. He had just supported the removal of Diem and with that the idea that a new government would be better able to take on the war, e.g., the Buddhist crisis would end. The plan was to pull our troops out AS the South was able to take on the war by itself. It simply wasn't to leave. Not at that time.

As to Vietnam and the Cold War: I find it remarkable at this date, after all we've learned about the Soviets and Mao and Hanoi, that the left (and some on the far right) in America still argue the US was the chief or primary (or sole as Stone does) cause for that conflict. Nothing about the policies from Moscow, from Mao. This is the Oliver Stone/Howard Zinn description of the Cold War. It's nonsense, it's a lie, it's false and even now people still believe it.

They're free to express it. And I am free to say they're wrong and they're free to say I am. This is the US. Not the Soviet Union. Or China. Or Hanoi. Or Havana. Or North Korea.

[Jon Banks]

That's the point. Stone and DiEugenio tell us that we do know. JFK would have pulled out and he was killed for it. Which is nonsense.

I agree that it’s not very convincing that JFK’s foot-dragging over Vietnam got folks angry enough to want him killed.

OTOH, there was documented outrage over Kennedy’s Cuba policies beginning with the failed Bay of Pigs operation. There was also a lot of anger over RFK’s crusade against Organized Crime especially due to the fact that the Mob felt they helped Kennedy beat Nixon in 1960. So in terms of motive, I think the CIA-Mafia thing seems more plausible than the Vietnam angle.

[Jon Banks]

As to Vietnam and the Cold War: I find it remarkable at this date, after all we've learned about the Soviets and Mao and Hanoi, that the left (and some on the far right) in America still argue the US was the chief or primary (or sole as Stone does) cause for that conflict. Nothing about the policies from Moscow, from Mao. This is the Oliver Stone/Howard Zinn description of the Cold War. It's nonsense, it's a lie, it's false and even now people still believe it.

Steve, it's absurd that in 2021, you still believe that myth.

With the benefit of Hindsight we now can say that the threat of Soviet/China takeover of Vietnam was overstated while the strength of Vietnamese nationalism understated at the time. The Vietnamese were fighting an anti-colonial war of independence against the French and then a civil war and then they fought the Chinese.

Ho Chi Minh admired the US and the American Revolution. Things could've turned out radically different if Eisenhower didn't commit us to a futile attempt to try to reverse the tide of anti-Colonialism.

Here's why Eisenhower was largely to blame for our Vietnam folly:

Eisenhower had inherited Harry Truman's folly of supporting French colonialism as vital to containing communism in Vietnam. But that commitment ended in 1954, when Ho Chi Minh's forces shattered French power at Dien Bien Phu and peacemakers in Geneva outlined their blueprint for peace: an independent, self-ruled Vietnam. The "Geneva Accords" divided the country temporarily into northern and southern zones -- not separate nations -- to be reunited through general elections in 1956.

Ike could have had a clean break from past mistakes. But he blew it. After publicly endorsing the Accords, he proceeded to trash them, swayed by reports that Ho Chi Minh -- Vietnam's popular revolutionary hero but also a communist -- would easily win the 1956 elections.

Ike took a fatal turn, setting America on course for disaster. His administration forged the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), committing the United States to protect a South Vietnam that was not even supposed to exist. Ike boosted Ngo Dinh Diem into power, backed his refusal to hold the 1956 elections and then pumped massive aid into building a new nation around him.

Defending these actions with his doctrinaire anti-communism, Eisenhower reinforced the fatal illusions luring the nation toward calamity. Ho, fiercely nationalistic and distrustful of both Chinese and Russians, was falsely portrayed as their puppet in the communist conspiracy to conquer the rest of Asia. And while Ike was touting Diem's "statesmanship" as guardian of freedom against communist expansion, it was Diem's despotism in the South, not Ho's aggression from the North, that started the conflict.

https://buffalonews.com/news/want-to-place-blame-for-vietnam-start-with-eisenhower/article_1e6bfcab-2fe1-5482-b79b-cdde83261032.html


More on Eisenhower's influence over Vietnam policy even as an ex-President:

With the United States on the brink of a major intervention in Vietnam, the nation needed Ike’s sense of caution and restraint, and his recognition that the use of force can trap a country in foreign adventures. Unfortunately, Eisenhower’s good judgment vanished during the 1960s, as he urged officials into ever-greater escalation in Vietnam. As Andrew Johns detailed in his book on the Republican Party and the war, Vietnam’s Second Front, Eisenhower sought victory in Vietnam by almost any means.

In February 1965, Eisenhower spent two hours explaining to LBJ’s inner circle the vital importance of “denying Southeast Asia to the Communists,” and the need to massively expand the bombing of North Vietnam. But air power didn’t work, and by the summer of 1965, South Vietnam was crumbling in the face of a Communist insurgency. LBJ faced a critical decision about whether to send large numbers of American troops, and Ike urged the president to Americanize the war. “When you once appeal to force in an international situation involving military help for a nation, you have to go all out!” Eisenhower told Johnson. “We are not going to be run out of a free country that we helped establish.”
...
If Ike in winter had retreated from public life, and railed against the peaceniks from his farm in Gettysburg, it might have mattered less. But Eisenhower was still a highly influential player who reinforced LBJ’s hawkish views and made it more difficult to find an exit strategy from a tragic conflict...

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/ike-winter-soldier/360857/


Ike didn't have a relationship at all with Kennedy but he had LBJ's ear.