JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Jerry Freeman on June 27, 2018, 05:25:06 AM
-
Oct 2, 1963
Stated in the article..."Kennedy will have to make a judgment if...the functioning of the CIA is to be preserved"
The CIA made it for him it seems.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/resxj98vq6wljb3/Krock_CIA.jpeg?dl=0)
-
Some researchers have said that the high source that told Krock those things was JFK himself.
The only sources mentioned in the article are in Saigon. Any researcher who thinks it was JFK is a fool.
BTW, the article is really about ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge's efforts to get rid of Saigon CIA station chief John Richardson. Lodge saw Richardson as an obstacle to removing Diem from power via coup d'etat. Lodge wound up publicly outing Richardson, forcing the CIA to remove him.
This is an Esquire article by Richardson's son, with Jr's take on the kerfluffle:
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a1653/father-spy-0399/
Here is Richardson's obituary in the NYT, with some reminisence from Daniel Sheehan.
https://www.nytimes.com/1998/06/14/us/john-h-richardson-84-cia-station-chief-in-saigon-in-early-60s.html
"'And then Henry Cabot Lodge took over' as United States Ambassador in Saigon, Mr. Sheehan said, 'and he deliberately forced Richardson to leave as part of his campaign to bring down the regime -- not because Richardson had performed badly as station chief, but because Richardson was a kind of symbol of American support for Nhu'
-
Sources clearly mentioned are both Saigon and Washington, the latter often with presidential approval.
Article is about the administration's internal differences with the CIA.
The Lodge item just one example of info leaked to the press on the conflict.
From the esquire piece and relating to Robinson's questioning of Nazis;
"I have sworn on the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man".
That's a hard out for me.
How many of JFK's 16,000 men in Vietnam were CIA? One researcher says most of them, pure black ops warfare and most actions neither recorded or reported, this is after BOP.
As time went on JFK wanted to replace or control them with Pentagon/Army people, true?
Diem was taken out not for the tens of thousands he killed, nor the thousands he imprisoned, not even for the Budhist situation or his lol, stance on "democratic rights" but rather, because he and his brother were again and consistantly asking the US to leave, so they could begin talks with the north and that, could not be tolerated but everything before that was. Diem would rather deal with the north than have all those foreign troops running around, wasn't "his country" anymore and they couldn't stand it, he wanted out and they got it. Democracy was never a real option, far too unreliable and peace with the north unthinkable.
-
How many of JFK's 16,000 men in Vietnam were CIA? One researcher says most of them, ?
Not a good sign if only one researcher said that. Researchers claim all kinds of things. IF that researcher had any proof at all of what he claimed it would be common knowledge and you would not have to talk about one researcher.
Who is that researcher?
-
Not a good sign if only one researcher said that. Researchers claim all kinds of things. IF that researcher had any proof at all of what he claimed it would be common knowledge and you would not have to talk about one researcher.
Who is that researcher?
Hey Brian.
I'm almost positive it was Greg Burnham in one of his talks on JFK's withdrawal from Vietnam, he doesn't go into it, just says it, perhaps you've seen it, it's on Youtube and IIRC not too far from the beginning.
Anyway, they don't all have to be CIA but the idea is, it was in their hands, they're calling many of the shots on the ground, more or less.
Also, proof of what what went on during JFK's Vietnam war, is pretty thin on the ground is it not?
All I've read and heard from CT's over the years is about the withdrawal, that, they know and talk about.
Here's, I think, a really good summary of the Vietman war from the start, what you want to take note of though, if you have the time, is what happens when JFK enters the arena, the speaker go into such a defence of JFK it's embarrassing. Even when encouraged by the interviewer to talk about what was done over there during JFK's reign, he cannot do it.
Here's another one from a modern Dutch/American expert on the Vietnam war, he starts his lecture on the war with the Johnson administration!! So perhaps I've been looking in the wrong places... any tips?
Not recommended watching btw, body laungage is annoying as hell.
Apologies Jerry if you feel this is slightly OT.
-
Sources clearly mentioned are both Saigon and Washington, the latter often with presidential approval.
The only one clearly mentioned is Starnes acting as Lodge's mouthpiece. The rest are balled up into a nebulous sentence that really doesn't get farther than "reporters with excellent reputations for reliability;" Krock simply presumes who their sources are. Also, Krock didn't say that the President approved of the leakage, only that it had been tolerated and he implied that at some point JFK would clamp down.
Article is about the administration's internal differences with the CIA.
The Lodge item just one example of info leaked to the press on the conflict.
You're reading your own prejudices into the text. It's not the administration vs the CIA, it's unnamed people within the other departments. In fact, it's almost certainly members of the Harriman/Hillman/Forrestal clique within the State Department. For the most part, the CIA opposed removing Diem. The Pentagon generally felt the same way, though, IIRC not as strongly. So did Lodge's predecessor at the Saigon embassy, Fred Nolting. It's not that they thought Diem was the nicest guy, but they didn't see anyone else in SVN that could replace him effectively. As Nolting told Karnow, the choice wasn't between Diem and someone else, it was Diem and chaos. The administration wound up choosing chaos.
From the esquire piece and relating to Robinson's questioning of Nazis;
"I have sworn on the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man".
That's a hard out for me.
How many of JFK's 16,000 men in Vietnam were CIA? One researcher says most of them, pure black ops warfare and most actions neither recorded or reported, this is after BOP.
As time went on JFK wanted to replace or control them with Pentagon/Army people, true?
Well, I stopped at "one researcher says." I have a shortlist of whom that might be, and none of them impress me as effective historians.
Diem was taken out not for the tens of thousands he killed, nor the thousands he imprisoned, not even for the Budhist situation or his lol, stance on "democratic rights" but rather, because he and his brother were again and consistantly asking the US to leave, so they could begin talks with the north and that, could not be tolerated but everything before that was. Diem would rather deal with the north than have all those foreign troops running around, wasn't "his country" anymore and they couldn't stand it, he wanted out and they got it. Democracy was never a real option, far too unreliable and peace with the north unthinkable.
"[Diem] and his brother were again and consistantly asking the US to leave."----sorry, but you're going to have to source that one. I think the Ngo brothers tried to scare the US that once, but no one took it seriously. If Averell Harriman had little use for Diem, Ho Chi Minh had even less. And without US support, Diem wouldn't be able to stand for long against a North Vietnam that was increasingly well supported both Moscow.
And, as I've already noted, Diem wasn't the nicest guy, but neither were his opponents nor his would-be replacements. Value judgments are useless unless you understand the relative value of the possible alternatives.
-
Two things. Firstly, it is not foolish to think that JFK was the source if one considers what the researchers wrote -- JFK and Krock were friends. Perhaps it was casual, but JFK would choose someone who he had a relationship of some kind with to get this message out.
Secondly, the issue wasn't just at the embassy level. Numerous sources have said that Lodge himself was not following the orders of the White House. This is no surprise when one considers his longtime issues with the Kennedy family.
The Diems needed to be replaced, not murdered, because they were keeping the vast majority of the American financial support and doing nothing to prepare the South Vietnamese for self-defense. JFK wanted out in term of defense.
If JFK were feeding this stuff to Krock, you have a problem. Krock's article is actually fairly sympathetic to the CIAs plight; Krock wouldn't keep pointing out that the CIA couldn't respond to the leakers if he wanted to dump on The Company. He'd have just piled on the accusations already in print.
I have no idea where you got the idea that Lodge was "not following the orders of the White House." He most emphatically was following the instructions given to him in Cable 243. That cable is a story unto itself, and is worth looking up. Essentially, the push to remove Diem came from one group within State. One led by Avarell Harriman, JFK's "Ambassdor at Large." There was an end run around the cabinet involved, JFK was mad for a bit, but he and the other bigwigs in the administration still went with it in the end.
I also have no idea where you get that Lodge and the Kennedys had "issues." Couldn't have been much of an issue, because JFK is the guy who appointed Lodge to the Saigon post in the first place.
As for your accusations against the Ngos, (it's Ngo Dinh Diem and Ngo Dinh Nhu; traditionally, Vietnamese names are surname first), they did a good enough job of keeping the SVN government together. That was in itself an accomplishment; after Diem was removed, the SVN government almost collapsed, convulsing into a series of coups and counter-coups. And 1962 had gone extremely well in the war against the VC. '63 wasn't really all that bad on the battlefield, either, no matter what some will tell you. And, no, they weren't super-shiny statesmen with 2.4 kids and a white picket fence in front of their strategic hamlet. Neither were any of the other guys who wanted to run Saigon, either from the North of the South. Politics ain't the realm of chiorboys.
-
I will go with what RFK said in 1964 and 1965. People can have opinions on whether JFK was getting out but nobody knows. Anyone who claims to now should not be taken seriously. JFK still did not have to face the decision to fight or lose. LBJ did have to face that.
JFK was being told the commies would be finished by the end of 1965 so of course he was telling people he was going to pull out then and that is exactly when he said he was going to get out.
One question which to me settles the whole thing. If JFK was planning on pulling out and losing Vietnam why was he going around telling the American people and the world what a disaster it would be for the US if Vietnam was lost to the commies?
It was for political reasons, Brian. There was a Presidential election coming up and he was playing to the crowd.... appearing to act tough.
-
It was for political reasons, Brian. There was a Presidential election coming up and he was playing to the crowd.... appearing to act tough.
That is your theory but that really makes no sense. It would be political suicide to tell the world what a disaster it would be to lose Vietnam and then pull out and lose Vietnam. There was no need for him to make those claims.
He was firm believer in the domino theory and it was not going to be easy for him to pull out and lose Vietnam.
-
He was firm believer in the domino theory and it was not going to be easy for him to pull out and lose Vietnam.
That is your theory. He changed whilst he was in the White House. He was going to bring Castro back into the fold, until the powers that be decided he had to go.
They wanted their war and by the assassination they got it.
-
That is your theory. He changed whilst he was in the White House. He was going to bring Castro back into the fold, until the powers that be decided he had to go.
They wanted their war and by the assassination they got it.
No doubt there was huge change after the Cuban missile crisis American University, Norman Cousins, it's all there There is even the rumor that Mary Pichot Meyers turned him and RFK to LSD during this period
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/19/mary-pinchot-meyer-jfk-mistress-assassinated_n_1434191.html
-
That is your theory. He changed whilst he was in the White House. He was going to bring Castro back into the fold, until the powers that be decided he had to go.
They wanted their war and by the assassination they got it.
It is not my theory that he believed in the domino theory. He said so point blank for all to hear. He changed so much that in his undelivered Trademart speech he said flat out that a Commies breakthrough in Vietnam it might force the US to use troops in there. But let me guess just tough talk.
You guys always do this.
-
http://www.jfk-info.com/files.htm
THE KENNEDY-JOHNSON TRANSITION:
THE CASE FOR POLICY REVERSAL
by DR. JOHN M. NEWMAN.
~snip~
Combat Troops: Just Another Notch or a Fork in the Road?
"What was American policy in Vietnam in the early 1960s? From early in his administration,
President Kennedy accepted that the primary American objective was to prevent the communist
domination of South Vietnam. There was never any argument over the ends of American Vietnam policy
under Kennedy, but there was an argument over the means to be employed to achieve those ends. More
specifically, President Kennedy's policy was to assist the South Vietnamese to prevent the communist
domination of their country. The prohibition against engaging in another American land war in
Asia was a fundamental policy of the Kennedy Administration, and one which President Johnson actually
endorsed in 1964.
To deny that the decision to send in ground combat units did not reverse this long-standing feature
of American Vietnam policy simply ignores the most basic facts. A popular proposition used by observers
who dispute that the use of combat troops reversed US policy is the "gradual slide" argument, which holds
that, on a so-called "policy continuum", ground combat units simply represent the next rung on the ladder
of escalation. In other words, when the marines waded ashore it was as if the mercury in the
thermometer went from 72 to 73 degrees. Under Kennedy the temperature increased so
many degrees and under Johnson it increased so many degrees and, since both were in the same
direction, Johnson simply continued the policy.
Such arguments blur the crucial distinction between a policy of advising the South Vietnamese army
how to fight the war and a policy using the American army to fight the war. From any perspective, not the
least of which was the Viet Cong's, the difference between the South Vietnamese army and the American
army was not subtle, and neither was the difference between the Special Forces, on the one hand, and the
Marines or 82D Airborne Division, on the other. These differences are fundamental, and to construe a
large increase in advisors as something only slightly less or a little different than brigades and divisions of
ground forces is just nonsense.
Presidents Kennedy and Johnson could have further deepened American commitments and ratcheted
up American participation in the war effort without crossing the Rubicon of conventional forces in Vietnam.
Sending in the American army was nothing less than taking a different turn at the main fork in the
road to Vietnam. There are those who argue that the Kennedy Administration never faced this fork in
the road, and that the dire situation faced by Johnson only developed after Kennedy's unfortunate demise.
This argument is misinformed, as the record of Kennedy's first year in office makes unequivocally
clear."
1961: NSAM-111 and the Limits to American Involvement
"What does the record of the Kennedy Administration's first year reveal about Vietnam policy?
What was the situation? What was the President told and how were the policy choices framed? What
policy did Kennedy choose?
The political and military situation in Vietnam was already critical and deteriorating further by the
time Kennedy was inaugurated in January 1961. For the first three months the worsening situation in
Vietnam was overshadowed by the crisis in Laos, but over the summer and fall of 1961 Vietnam became
the focus of American attention in Indochina. As the military situation became increasingly critical, calls
within the Administration for the use of American combat forces in Vietnam prompted a major debate over
Vietnam policy in October-November 1961, a debate Kennedy finally resolved with one of his most
important decisions on Vietnam: National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM)-111, promulgated on
November 22, 1961.
The President sent his top experts to Vietnam for a look while the concerned departments and
intelligence agencies in Washington studied the situation anew. All of this activity produced a veritable
slew of proposals about what to do, and although there were differences between many of them, most all
advocated sending American combat troops to Vietnam. The argument that Kennedy was never
confronted with the situation that Johnson was, that Kennedy did not face the sort of difficult choices that
Johnson later did, is an argument which ignores the heart of the Kennedy record on this matter.
Kennedy was told in no uncertain terms that the military situation in Vietnam was critical and that
the fate of South Vietnam hung in the balance. Moreover, Kennedy's advisors framed the issue this way:
that the loss of South Vietnam to the communists would affect vital US interests regionally and globally,
and that the only way to prevent such an outcome was to send in American ground forces.4 The
President was told that nothing short of several American combat divisions could save South Vietnam. It
was in that dire context and against those forceful arguments that Kennedy said no to American combat
forces in Vietnam. The record on this permits no argument and no wiggle room. Kennedy was
irreconcilably opposed to an American ground war in Vietnam.
Instead of combat troops, Kennedy agreed to a substantial increase in American advisors. This
decision was implemented under the provisions of NSAM-111. Those observers who cite this decision as
evidence that Kennedy pushed a reluctant military into Vietnam obviously haven't a clue about the context
in which this decision was made. When the situation, the recommendations and Kennedy's decision are
looked at as a whole, they boil down to this: even when Kennedy was told the only workable solution
was conventional American forces, he would only agree to assisting the South Vietnamese army fight their
war."
~snip~
-
...
"[Diem] and his brother were again and consistantly asking the US to leave."----sorry, but you're going to have to source that one. I think the Ngo brothers tried to scare the US that once, but no one took it seriously. If Averell Harriman had little use for Diem, Ho Chi Minh had even less. And without US support, Diem wouldn't be able to stand for long against a North Vietnam that was increasingly well supported both Moscow.
Hi Mitch,
you'll have to wait for that source I'm afraid(not a great note taker here) but it's from the records, probably the PP, if I come across who referenced it I'll post it.
If I had to guess, it's a report from someone in the field that someone else, perhaps Harriman himself, showed to JFK, (repeated and consistant calls for the US to leave and talk of negotating with the north).
Just a general opinion on other matters brought up...
There's two domino theories, the other is pure economics and works just as well.
The withdrawal, okay, I take away my left hand but build up my right with steroids, then wear a glove with studs on it and keep bashing you in the face but look, I've withdrawn my left... concentrate on that.
We were leaving them the planes, the choppers, the bombs, the guns, the ammo, the techs and all in the hands of a government run by people fully commited to winning which we will implement before we "leave"(in 1965).
"Ciao, missing you already".
Bring the boys back home and no one cares what goes on over there without them.
Macnamara, who would ever claim this guy was a dummy?
But here's what happens, all these years he thought he was doing the right thing, protecting democracy in a far off land, what a guy!
Around 1995 he's invited to talk with his former enemies, turns up, has the talk and almost gets into a fist fight after they claim, they never were communists and had been fighting the Chinese for thousands of years. Tick Tock, tick tock, plonk! After a while the penny finally drops. He was wrong, they were fighting for independance.
Now here's the rub, when he get's back home the first thing he does is say the complete opposite to what he's just learnt. He's as thick as they come.
Don't ask me for sources but watch "The Fog of War" and the films, speeches and interviews about his 1990s talks with the north, all online.
It's actually worse than that, how could someone in his position not know what this was all about, the man who commisioned the PP, how could he still not know in the 1990s?
They looked into who was influencing the north long before, they found nothing.
-
...
Instead of combat troops, Kennedy agreed to a substantial increase in American advisors. This
decision was implemented under the provisions of NSAM-111. Those observers who cite this decision as
evidence that Kennedy pushed a reluctant military into Vietnam obviously haven't a clue about the context
in which this decision was made. When the situation, the recommendations and Kennedy's decision are
looked at as a whole, they boil down to this: even when Kennedy was told the only workable solution
was conventional American forces, he would only agree to assisting the South Vietnamese army fight their
war."
~snip~
Quick sketch of an average fighter for the southern army; he's forced into service, refusal isn't an option, everyone of his "enemies" is potentially a family member who had to flee because of political beliefs, or a cousin, a friend or a neighbor, so every time he's not being watched he's shooting over their heads and if by chance his commander gets shot, they stop shooting and invite the other side across for a chat and some tea. Good luck winning that "war".
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 or not and does he go into the report that NSAM-111 originated from? I'll have to refresh my memory to why but the report/study in the second question has it's own controversy.
Biased, trumped up, one sided, something along those lines.
-
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 (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?
Want to know why the Vietnam domino theory has it's roots in Japan's economy(the super domino)?
Type Japan into the small box in the following link and hit "search inside", then click on each hit in turn and read the text.
Dulles and the CIA were searching for an area to help secure Japan's economic future, since it's trade with China would no longer be an option.
https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/A_Preponderance_of_Power.html?id=pIIeG_yn72wC&redir_esc=y (https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/A_Preponderance_of_Power.html?id=pIIeG_yn72wC&redir_esc=y)
April 1954, Eisenhower's press conference, scroll down to the Q. from Robert Richard's and read the full A.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=10202 (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=10202)
-
One would think that destroying the country would hurt its economic viability There is also the question if the US was really out to win it
-
All of SE Asia was considered.
Letting Vietnam decide for itself who it would trade with was worse than bombing it to bits. The former sets a bad example to others who may follow it's lead, the latter teaches a valuble lesson on who they shouldn't mess with and like Cuba they've never been allowed to recover, no way, thus continuing the lesson for future generations.
The rotten apple theory.
Was the US out to win it? Well I think Kennedy was, right till the end. In his last press conference, he said as much and I have no trouble believing him.
New government, new situation "and we hope [as if he didn't know] an increased effort in the war..."
Never tried to understand Johnson or Nixon and doubt I ever will.
Reporter sees "Coup" but says "Shoe" :)
@7:40
-
You used "DiEugenio" and "facts" on the same line. Those two words aren't even on the same planet.
Anyway, Cable 243 was sent on August 24, 1963. The coup would not occur until the first of November. Even then, the August cable referred to a coup plot that had unraveled by the end of August. There was plenty of opportunity to walk away from Cable 243 after September 1st. The administration chose to continue down the road to November 1.
And yes, JFK was mad at Hilsman, Harriman, and Forrestal, but not so much that any of them were canned (as you've noted) or even demoted. On the other hand, at a meeting of administration grandees on 31 August after the first coup fizzled, Paul Kattemberg became the first administration official to opine that the best course would be "to get out honorably." Kattenberg's reward was to be summarily exiled from any further advisory role by Rusk and McNamara.
Cable 243 essentially advised Lodge to tell Diem that the US wanted Nhu out. If Diem would not remove his brother from any position of power, then Lodge was then to signal to the ARVN generals that the US would be OK with Diem's replacement via coup. Lodge read the tea leaves, realized that Diem would never cash out his own brother, and skipped the first bit. From what I recall, he consulted with Harkins and Richardson on the matter and they backed his judgement as to the strength of Diem's relationship with Nhu. In fact, I can't think of anyone who figured that the US would have been able to get Diem to turn out his brother, so you can't really fault Lodge for going straight to Plan B.
As for whether or not JFK would have committed troops, that's beyond the scope of this particular topic.
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.
-
DiEugenio has been agitating for months to have DVP served with a permanent ban from that 'other place'. DVP is more than able to stand up for himself so a tag team approach is in play to bully him into submission and eventual banishment. It is plain to see as now there's a mod on board who is sympathetic to their cause.
This forum (The JFK Assassination Forum) is a model democracy in comparison. I wonder if it's because no one here is continually spruiking their latest book. Whatever the reason well done to Duncan.
'Their latest book'
???
Are you sure any CTer here could even write a coherent paragraph, let alone a book?
-
Quick sketch of an average fighter for the southern army; he's forced into service, refusal isn't an option, everyone of his "enemies" is potentially a family member who had to flee because of political beliefs, or a cousin, a friend or a neighbor, so every time he's not being watched he's shooting over their heads and if by chance his commander gets shot, they stop shooting and invite the other side across for a chat and some tea. Good luck winning that "war".
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 or not and does he go into the report that NSAM-111 originated from? I'll have to refresh my memory to why but the report/study in the second question has it's own controversy.
Biased, trumped up, one sided, something along those lines.
"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
THE KENNEDY-JOHNSON TRANSITION:
THE CASE FOR POLICY REVERSAL
by DR. JOHN M. NEWMAN.
~snip~
"Such arguments blur the crucial distinction between a policy of advising the South Vietnamese army how
to fight the war and a policy using the American army to fight the war. From any perspective, not the
least of which was the Viet Cong's, the difference between the South Vietnamese army and the American
army was not subtle, and neither was the difference between the Special Forces, on the one hand, and the
Marines or 82D Airborne Division, on the other. These differences are fundamental, and to construe a
large increase in advisors as something only slightly less or a little different than brigades and divisions of
ground forces is just nonsense."
~snip~
-
"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 :)
-
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 (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,
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 (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.
-
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.
-
Another one Mitch,
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v04/d47 (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"...
-
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 (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.
-
Another one Mitch,
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v04/d47 (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."
-
I have no clue where you get any of your information. Lodge lost the 1952 Senatorial election to JFK. Do you suppose he was happy about that? Numerous books have pointed out that Lodge was disregarding JFK's wishes.
This is not a surprise since they went counter to what the power structure wanted. Lodge was aligning himself with the side he expected to be around longer.
You also don't seem to have a clue where you get your own information. "Numerous books??" Which ones are those? Who wrote them? Can you not tell us? And this from a guy who is always complaining about other people don't back up their arguments with specific cites...
There's a great deal of information out there as to what was going on at the time. Pollard and I have been exchanging cites from the State Department FRUS correspondence archive. There are always the Pentagon Papers. Wikipedia can fill gaps quickly. And there are a lot of great books about Vietnam (in whole or in part), both well-known (The Best and the Brightest and A Bright Shining Lie) and obscure but illuminating (the aforementioned biography of John Richardson by his son for instance). Google can send you in a lot of interesting directions you might not ever have thought of.
But you have your unnamable "numerous books," and the eternal nebulosity of their obscured opinion.
Again, John Kennedy himself appointed Lodge to the crucial Saigon ambassadorship at a critical moment. Do you really think JFK was stupid enough to post someone he couldn't trust to such a position?
-
I have read many books on JFK's presidency. I don't need to list them all. Anyone can research this themselves and see that Lodge was not following the orders that the WH was issuing in the months leading up to Diem's murder. The murder of the Diems is proof of this as the WH never approved this action.
I'm not asking you to list them all. Just one or two. After all, you are the king of demanding that others provide support for their contentions. It's simple courtesy to do the same when asked.
Waste all the words that you want, but the truth is the truth.
Over the years, I've noticed that there's a strong inverse correlation between how readily someone uses the word "truth" and their ability to recognize same.
Appointing someone as ambassador is a political thing. It doesn't mean that you like them.
Not merely political, but critical in this case. And it's not about liking someone, it's about trusting them. I ask again --you didn't actually answer the question last time-- do you really think JFK was stupid enough to post someone he couldn't trust to such a position?
Well, do you?
-
How about just one book? One little book?