Oswald's Motive

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Here is DeMohrenschildt explaining his views on communism. These are hardly, to me, words of an hardcore anti-communist.

WC testimony:
Mr. JENNER. What is your attitude towards communism?
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Towards communism, I wouldn't like to live in a Communist regime, I am not a Communist, never have been one. But if somebody likes it, let them have it. And I get along very well with fellow workers who are Communists. For instance, in Yugoslavia, I got along very well with them. Of course, we didn't discuss politics very much out there. On the contrary, you have to stay away from that subject. But I consider the other person's point of view.
If somebody is a Communist, let them be a Communist. That is his business.
Mr. JENNER. Have you----
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I do not try to propagandize him, and I see some good characteristics in communism.
Mr. JENNER. There are some indications that you have expressed that view from time to time during your lifetime while you are in this country, that there are some good qualities in communism.
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes.
Mr. JENNER. Now, there we mean--or what do you mean? What is your concept of communism?
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I am looking at communism more or less more from the economic point of view. I think it is a system that can work and works, and possibly for a very poor man, and a very undeveloped nation it may be a solution.
Mr. JENNER. A temporary one?
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. A temporary one, yes---which eventually, and I believe in evolution, and I have seen through my life that communism in certain places has developed into a livable type of an economy, a way of life.

Again: "I think it is a system that can work and works, and possibly for a very poor man, and a very undeveloped nation it may be a solution."

That, again, isn't what I would call a hard anti-communist.

[Jon Banks]

Here is DeMohrenschildt explaining his views on communism. These are hardly, to me, words of an hardcore anti-communist.

WC testimony:
Mr. JENNER. What is your attitude towards communism?
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Towards communism, I wouldn't like to live in a Communist regime, I am not a Communist, never have been one. But if somebody likes it, let them have it. And I get along very well with fellow workers who are Communists. For instance, in Yugoslavia, I got along very well with them. Of course, we didn't discuss politics very much out there. On the contrary, you have to stay away from that subject. But I consider the other person's point of view.
If somebody is a Communist, let them be a Communist. That is his business.
Mr. JENNER. Have you----
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I do not try to propagandize him, and I see some good characteristics in communism.
Mr. JENNER. There are some indications that you have expressed that view from time to time during your lifetime while you are in this country, that there are some good qualities in communism.
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes.
Mr. JENNER. Now, there we mean--or what do you mean? What is your concept of communism?
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I am looking at communism more or less more from the economic point of view. I think it is a system that can work and works, and possibly for a very poor man, and a very undeveloped nation it may be a solution.
Mr. JENNER. A temporary one?
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. A temporary one, yes---which eventually, and I believe in evolution, and I have seen through my life that communism in certain places has developed into a livable type of an economy, a way of life.

Again: "I think it is a system that can work and works, and possibly for a very poor man, and a very undeveloped nation it may be a solution."

That, again, isn't what I would call a hard anti-communist.

Fair enough but DeMorenschildt was a "White Russian". They were the Russians who were sent into exile by the Bolshevik revolution. He may have had nuanced views on communism but he didn't like the Soviets and probably didn't like Castro either.

And we still can't point to a single person LHO associated with who identified as a marxist or communist. I know Oswald mostly lived in the South where people rarely overtly express pro-marxist views but if he was able to seek out and find Cuban exile activists, explain why he wasn't able to find other communists to associate with? Or why in his writings in 1963, he ridiculed American communists?

The non-conspiratorial answer aligns with Robert Oswald's view that Oswald was a contrarian and just expressed marxist views just for the sake of "being different".

The conspiratorial answer is that he created a persona as a marxist as part of some sort of intelligence operation (an operation that is not necessarily related to JFK's assassination).

With all that said, I do think he had genuine left-leaning political views but I don't believe he was a political fanatic or a devout marxist.

There's zero evidence that Oswald disliked JFK (personally or politically) and he had no known marxist associates...


"He made the point that he disliked capitalism because its foundation was the exploitation of the poor. He implied, but did not state directly, that he was disappointed in Russia because the full principles of Marxism were not lived up to and the gap between Marxist theory and the Russian practice disillusioned him with Russian communism. He said, ‘ Capitalism doesn’t work, communism doesn’t work. In the middle is socialism, and that doesn’t work either.’"


http://22november1963.org.uk/lee-oswald-speech-in-alabama

That doesn't sound like the words of a devoted marxist.

It's widely accepted across the political spectrum that neither pure capitalism nor pure socialism are good in practice. Mixed economies are what exists in most wealthy nations. That's a pretty reasonable view.

[Charles Collins]

This was his final protest to a world that had ignored him, sometimes mocked him, always failed to acknowledge his superiority.


Robert Oswald, page 214 of “Lee, a Portrait of Lee Harvey Oswald”


And I believe that a large part of his motive had to do with the last part (underlined by me) of Robert’s statement. Robert also indicates that a pattern was apparent to him regarding LHO’s behavior. I will post Robert’s exact words about that pattern when I locate them in the above referenced book.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

This was his final protest to a world that had ignored him, sometimes mocked him, always failed to acknowledge his superiority.


Robert Oswald, page 214 of “Lee, a Portrait of Lee Harvey Oswald”


And I believe that a large part of his motive had to do with the last part (underlined by me) of Robert’s statement. Robert also indicates that a pattern was apparent to him regarding LHO’s behavior. I will post Robert’s exact words about that pattern when I locate them in the above referenced book.

Michael Paine said something similar in his testimony. He said that Oswald was very bitter, very distrustful of people. But that Oswald placed himself as part of a larger class of people, that it wasn't just himself, that this mistreatment was "institutional", built into the capitalist system. Thus the embrace of the Marxist view of the world: oppressors and oppressed. So it was both personal and political and not either/or.

Mr. PAINE: [Oswald] was extremely bitter and couldn't believe there was much good will in people. There was mostly evil, conniving, or else stupidity--was the description--that was his opinion or would be his description of most people. That's my description, and the best description I can give of him--to call him other psychological names--names of paranoia or paranoid or something like that.
Mr. LIEBELER - What made you pick that particular name?
Mr. PAINE - Well, that kind of suspicion of people expecting them to be consciously perpetrating evil or ill toward him or toward the oppressed people-workers-is perhaps a trait of paranoia.
Mr. LIEBELER - Do you think that he exhibited this trait?
Mr. PAINE - Yes; he did, but it didn't seem to be uncontrollable. He didn't generally take it--I would say he was paranoid if he always took it personally, but he always seemed to transfer it to, or put himself in the class of people who were oppressed, so that's the distinction why I wouldn't call him sick or wouldn't have then called him sick---before the assassination.
Mr. LIEBELER - Because he seemed to describe this feeling of his in institutional terms?
Mr. PAINE - That's right.
Mr. LIEBELER - And in terms of the social structure and the impact the world had on classes and groups of people?
Mr. PAINE - He was in the exploited class.
Mr. LIEBELER - Yes; there was no doubt about that--I mean, as far as his own mind was concerned--that's what he thought?
Mr. PAINE - Yes.

[Bill Brown]

Context also matters.  Walker was targeted by Oswald from all the other public figures because of his high-profile anti-Communist views.  JFK was largely a target of opportunity because his motorcade went by Oswald's place of employment by chance.  I doubt Oswald would otherwise have ever targeted JFK absent the chance falling into his lap.  In other words, Walker was clearly targeted for his political views while JFK was targeted more by opportunity. 

So the specific motivations vary a bit but do come back to Oswald's leftist, anti-American political views.  He certainly was ahead of his time by a few decades in that respect.  In Walker's case, the assassination attempt was clearly a direct political act based on Walker's right-wing views.  Oswald selected and went to his target in that case.  In JFK's case, it was a symbolic act against the US based upon the opportunity that presented itself to Oswald.  The target came to Oswald.

Thanks Richard.  I agree with every bit of that.

[Martin Weidmann]

Opinions, speculations and assumptions.....

Aren't they fun 

And they allow you to come up with any kind of narrative you like... Now isn't that a bonus? 

[Bill Brown]

Bill: I too believe that politics - Cuba specifically - likely had something to do with his act, but it's impossible to untangle what was going through his mind, what motivated him. A mix of personal demons, politics, despair, anger? He was a political person; it's hard to think he suddenly became apolitical on November 22, 1963. About two weeks before the assassination he attended a ACLU meeting where the Bircher threat was discussed. That's not something a non-political person would do I would think.

We have this account from "Marina and Lee". Marina said that when he returned from Mexico City that she asked him what happened, why he wasn't able to get to Cuba. Here's the account (in part):

When she met Oswald "He kissed her and asked if she had missed him? Then he started right in. "Ah, they're such terrible bureaucrats that nothing came of it after all." He described shuttling from embassy to embassy, how each one told him he had to wait and wait, and see what the other did, and how the whole time he had been worried about running out of money. He was especially vociferous about the Cubans - "the same kind of bureaucrats as in Russia. No point going there". Marina was so delighted she could not believe her ears. Indeed, Lee's disenchantment with Castro and Cuba was complete. He never again talked about "Uncle Fidel" nor sang the song "Viva Fidel" as he used to do, nor used the alias "Hidell."

Remember as well the near fight he got into with the Cuban Consul Azcue with Azcue escorting him out with the admonition "the Revolution" doesn't need people like you. From the accounts of the people there, he was loudly complaining about his mistreatment. The letter he sent to the Soviet Embassy also describes this perceived mistreatment.

This account has him giving up on Cuba, viewing it as he did the Soviet Union; that is a betrayal of Marxism, a bureaucrat state. If true then killing JFK for attacking this failed state is hard to understand. On the other hand - there's always two or three of these in this case - I find it hard to believe he would completely abandon Cuba - and give up on Castro - simply because some bureaucrats in an Embassy treated him poorly. What did Castro have to do with that? Is the entire Revolution a failure because some Embassy staffers were incompetent? That makes no sense to me.

Thanks for the comments, Steve.  I understand your points and can't say they are invalid.  I agree with you that it is hard to believe that Oswald would completely abandon Cuba.

No way to know Oswald's motive for sure.  When it comes to a motive for Oswald, all we can do is speculate.  We just have to try to make our admitted speculation make as much sense as possible.