29-08-2016, 11:17 PM
OMG, Cliff, you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel are you not?
Like I did not know about the thing with Drain?
I read Talbot's book twice and reviewed it. You somehow think this is significant? Dulles did not want to talk about his huge gamble which just took the lives of about a hundred Cuban exiles, and there was no sign JFK was going to commit American forces. So it was all for naught. And now it looked like he was going to be exposed. What do you expect him to be, a chatterbox about his private agenda which was now going to cost his career? And those of two other officers?
As per your other posting, you obviously know little or nothing about Corson. Others of us do. But I am not going to get into a back and forth on this.
As per Richardson, Debra Conway did a very good presentation on his removal many years ago at Lancer. This included an interview with his son. I am sure you consulted with her, and Richardson's son, right?
According to her research, it was Lodge who had Richardson removed. Because now he could work directly with Conein, who agreed with him that Diem had to go. Richardson did not buy into that.
This whole story has been told in detail by John Newman in his masterly JFK and Vietnam, see Chapter 18. There is no doubt that there was a cabal in the State Department that wanted to get rid of Diem, especially after the Battle of Ap Bac, which Hilsman was in country for. Newman describes the plotters and their actions. The cabal consisted of Hilsman, Lodge, Conein, Harriman, Forrestal, and probably Trueheart, the exiting ambassador's deputy. The best account of it from the Saigon side is Jim Douglass' JFK and the Unspeakable, see pages 191-210. Neither man agrees with you on the primacy of Harriman, certainly not in the terms you describe him, as controlling Vietnam policy.
In the latter case, Douglass seems to give the most weight to Lodge. And if pressed on the issue, I would probably agree with that. And I would base it on the evidence adduced by both of those writers. Plus the fact that Lodge disobeyed the instructions in the Saturday Night Special cable, which he did not write. This indicates that he felt above his co plotters. .
Anyway, I think that is about it on this subject for me. Contesting these sinking tugboats is getting like Paul vs Ernie over at Spartacus. As I said at the start, there is no getting around people who have their pet theories. Since they are immune to evidence which impugns that theory. As an historian, I am not allowed to do that sort of thing. I have to go by the totality of the evidence, and cull that totality from the best sources.
So, bye bye.
Like I did not know about the thing with Drain?
I read Talbot's book twice and reviewed it. You somehow think this is significant? Dulles did not want to talk about his huge gamble which just took the lives of about a hundred Cuban exiles, and there was no sign JFK was going to commit American forces. So it was all for naught. And now it looked like he was going to be exposed. What do you expect him to be, a chatterbox about his private agenda which was now going to cost his career? And those of two other officers?
As per your other posting, you obviously know little or nothing about Corson. Others of us do. But I am not going to get into a back and forth on this.
As per Richardson, Debra Conway did a very good presentation on his removal many years ago at Lancer. This included an interview with his son. I am sure you consulted with her, and Richardson's son, right?
According to her research, it was Lodge who had Richardson removed. Because now he could work directly with Conein, who agreed with him that Diem had to go. Richardson did not buy into that.
This whole story has been told in detail by John Newman in his masterly JFK and Vietnam, see Chapter 18. There is no doubt that there was a cabal in the State Department that wanted to get rid of Diem, especially after the Battle of Ap Bac, which Hilsman was in country for. Newman describes the plotters and their actions. The cabal consisted of Hilsman, Lodge, Conein, Harriman, Forrestal, and probably Trueheart, the exiting ambassador's deputy. The best account of it from the Saigon side is Jim Douglass' JFK and the Unspeakable, see pages 191-210. Neither man agrees with you on the primacy of Harriman, certainly not in the terms you describe him, as controlling Vietnam policy.
In the latter case, Douglass seems to give the most weight to Lodge. And if pressed on the issue, I would probably agree with that. And I would base it on the evidence adduced by both of those writers. Plus the fact that Lodge disobeyed the instructions in the Saturday Night Special cable, which he did not write. This indicates that he felt above his co plotters. .
Anyway, I think that is about it on this subject for me. Contesting these sinking tugboats is getting like Paul vs Ernie over at Spartacus. As I said at the start, there is no getting around people who have their pet theories. Since they are immune to evidence which impugns that theory. As an historian, I am not allowed to do that sort of thing. I have to go by the totality of the evidence, and cull that totality from the best sources.
So, bye bye.