Kennedy vs the CIA

[Barry Pollard]

"Now here's my question regarding Newman and the above(I haven't read it), does he really believe they were just advisors(does anyone?), does he deal with the reality"

 


http://www.jfk-info.com/files.htm
...

Thanks Gary and just so it's clear I read carefully what you posted before and the above, it's the Newman book I haven't

[Barry Pollard]

Mitch,
one source for the Diems asking the US to leave was not so secret, a WP interview,
https://books.google.com/books?id=7Z2BCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT138&lpg=PT138&dq=washington+post+nhu+interview&source=bl&ots=lw-RuK_NN_&sig=UiDNpDbLf2jBpIUoFFdCY3tQuho&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=washington%20post%20nhu%20interview&f=false

Note that Rusk complained about the article, so you know it must have been really good.

[Mitch Todd]

Mitch,
one source for the Diems asking the US to leave was not so secret, a WP interview,
https://books.google.com/books?id=7Z2BCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT138&lpg=PT138&dq=washington+post+nhu+interview&source=bl&ots=lw-RuK_NN_&sig=UiDNpDbLf2jBpIUoFFdCY3tQuho&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=washington%20post%20nhu%20interview&f=false

Note that Rusk complained about the article, so you know it must have been really good.

That's the  May 12th Unna interview, is it not? It was Nhu's response to the early Western reactions to the Hue Vesak killings. Even then, he only said the US should withdraw half of the advisor force.

[Mitch Todd]

Outstanding answer. I do know bits of the history here but I could not tie it together. You are a real asset to the forum. I usually, do not believe in just gratuitous compliments but I've read some of your other answers as well. Very knowledgeable and insightful.

Wow. Thank you! I'm not used to getting compliments on discussion boards, which makes the surprise more welcome and the welcome more surprising.

[Barry Pollard]

Another one Mitch,
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v04/d47
CIA report on Nhu.

When unclassified point 1. might read;
""so and so" is suprised that this is news to the US since it was reported months ago that Nhu has been up to no good"...

[Barry Pollard]

IF STONES analysis of the International Control Commision's report which both Kennedy and Johnson used to invade South Vietnam.
Ignore the bold text at the top and elsewhere and it's easier to follow.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:u_hAXHDJEc4J:http://www.ifstone.org/weekly/IFStonesWeekly-1965mar08.pdf%2Bif+stone's+weekly+volume+xiii+no9&hl=en-GB&gbv=2&ct=clnk

Most foreign made weapons captured from the NFL were from the communist block, that amounts to about 2.5% of the total, where did the other 97.5% come from? The USA of course but just ignore the second part and you're okay.
Also ignore how the US itself violated the Geneva accords on numerous occasions and even stopped the ICC itself from fully checking their own stockpiles of arms and again, you're good to go.

This is what NSAM-111 is based on, a completely one sided view of that same report.
Ring any bells from the not too distant past?

In 1966 and before the commitee of the Vietnam Hearings, secetary Rusk says at least twice, "if they hadn't found the men and the weapons there would be no US troops in Vietnam", pretty simple right? So which men and weapons was he referring to?
Again, read the link above(and my instructions on how it flows), IF Stone demolished it. It's BS, the WMD of the sixties but still used to support both Kennedy and Johnson's attacks.

Over a 3year(1962-65) period, 97% of all weapons captured from the enemy were US made. How is it possible to turn figures like that against your foes? Simple, just don't print them anywhere. Instead have Rusk and his department issue an in depth look into everything that supports an intervention to protect this "peace loving" new republic.
He called it "A Threat to the Peace"  and it's a work of art, if you can deal with it calling South Vietnam a peaceful state you'll have no problem swallowing the lot.

[Mitch Todd]

Another one Mitch,
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v04/d47
CIA report on Nhu.

When unclassified point 1. might read;
""so and so" is surprised that this is news to the US since it was reported months ago that Nhu has been up to no good"...

Of the hundreds, if not thousands, of telegrams and other messages sent between the beginning of the Bhuddist crisis and the November coup, you've found two they you think indicate that Nhu intended to throw the US out and make peace with Hanoi. There's another cable that was sent to Saigon in response to the May cable, which ups the total to three. Compare those three to all the cables involving the various forms of hand-wringing over the GVN's handling of the Bhuddist crisis over the same period.

BTW, if you take doc 47 at face value, it doesn't help you. If the US didn't know that the French ambassador was acting as an in-between for Nhu and Hanoi at the beginning of September, then they didn't know in mid-to-late August when the decision to back a coup was being firmed up. It couldn't have had any influence on the US decision in that case.

One telex further down the line:

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v04/d48

This is an account of what Nhu told an assemblage of ARVN generals on Aug 30, essentially spelling the end of the August coup plot.
In the message, one of the things Nhu tells the generals is, "I know without American aid we cannot exist. USG is only country willing support our country without any strings attached."