Noam chomsky, john foster dulles and conrad adenauer vs jfk and khrushchev: Whose side are us """""l

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

NOAM CHOMSKY, JOHN FOSTER DULLES AND CONRAD ADENAUER VS JFK AND KHRUSHCHEV: WHOSE SIDE ARE US """""LEFT"""""""""""""" PUBLICATIONS REALLY ON? 1960: "And in fact by the end of the Eisenhower period, US nuclear weapons were effectively in the hands of the NATO allies. The U.S. custody arrangements were essentially nominal. This was the result of a deliberate policy. As Eisenhower himself said, the United States was 'wiling to give, to all intents and purposes, control of the weapons. We retain titular possession only'(26)
This policy of nuclear sharing was in fact one of the key elements in the history of this period. A nuclearization of the alliance meant in particular a nuclearization of West Germany, and that question lay at the heart of the great Berlin crisis of 1958-62." Trachtenberg, p. 152.

AND JFK'S REVERSAL OF THIS POLICY PAVED THE WAY FOR THE EVOLVING DETENTE IN THE COLD WAR THAT WAS ENDED BY THE ASSASSINATION THAT CHOMSKY SAYS "WHO CARES" ABOUT! VVVVVVVVV

1963:"If they wanted America to provide for their (France and Germany's) security they would have to follow America's political lead. They would have to cooperate in other words, with the policy Kennedy was now pursuing vis-a-vis Russia." (p. 155) Which was what.

JFK telling Germany, France and NATO no you cannot have Nukes with de facto first strike nuclear capacity INDEPENDENT OF THE WHITE HOUSE. (Not very coincidentally, IMO, the stand-off between JFK and Paul Nitze-- with the latter arguing in favor of NATO latitude in responding to "attacks" on Western Europe independent of the White House-- was the harshest moment of the Excom meetings as brilliantly described in Avoiding the Final Failure, historian Sheldon Sterns book on the Cuban Missile Crisis Tapes. Ironically Noam Chomsky seems to have read both of Stern's most recent books. It is VERY instructive to see what he chooses to quote and what he leaves unmentioned.

Cherry-picking isn't the word. Try tactical nukes.

Who cares? It matters because the clear denial of a German nuclear capacity was THE PREREQUISITE to the lightning pace of change that was happening in the fall of 1963, Change which threatened the US War Economy's to profit from Vietnam, Cuba-Latin America and the Cold War itself. Lil' stuff like that. We now return you to your 8 billionth article pretending that the Congress was not already bought and paid for BEFORE Citizens United…

Without Germany being flatly denied nukes-- a 180 degree turn from the Eisenhower-Dulles-CIA policy, there would have been no detente scare for the MICC to worry about in the fall of 1963.

But what IS THE ONLY THING our gatekeepers tell us about this period. "JFK went to Berlin, and sounded Cold War boilerplate. " Your damn right he did. He had to somehow reassure the MICC and Nato and Adenauer that the US was still serious about protecting Western Europe even in the fact of the most radical change any president had forced on NATO since its inception. Never mind that it was leading to detente and possibly the end of the Cold War. "GO BACK TO READING YOUR MAGAZINES … GOOD "LEFTISTS" NOTHING TO SEE HERE"

Once leftists read history not magazines. http://www.amazon.com/Cold-War-After-Int...063&sr=1-2

[Magda Hassan]

This is really important Nathaniel. Huge actually. Thanks for posting.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

JFK VS CIA ON WEST GERMAN NUKES: THE OPENING OF A DETENTE THAT THE CIA HAD TO SHOOT TO DEATH IN DALLAS….
"If they chose cooperation, moreover, it would have to be on American term. The Americans had made it clear, even in 1962, that they intended to lead Europe, but the tow major events of January 1963, the De Gaulle veto and the Franco-German treaty,led to an even more assertive American policy.(98) The time had come for the United States to play hardball with the Europeans. 'We have been very generous to Europe," the president told the NSC on January 22, the very day the Franco-German treaty was signed, "and it is now time for us to look out for ourselves, knowing full well that the Europeans will not do anything for us simply because we have in the past helped them."(99) Top American officials mad it clear that they intended to take the lead and that Europe and especially Germany, would have to follow. In particular, if SOviet policy softened to the pint where there was a real chance of a general settlement, the United States would not be held back by the allies. [This directly countered the policy of Dulleses. Three of 'em--N.H.]

The new tough line led to a major American intervention in internal German politics. Key political figures in Germany were urged to oppose Adenauer's foreign policy…..The SPD also asked the Americans for advice about the line they would take on the treaty. ….And Adenauer was removed from office-- in effect (as he himself said) dismissed by his own party. The Key decisions were made by the CDU in April, and Erhard replaced him as chancellor six months later" -- Trachtenberg, A Constructed Peace: The Making of The European Settlement 1945-63, Princeton University Press, 1999.

The Dulles supported Adenauer's policy of "nuclear sharing" within NATO forces in Europe, where the CIA had strong influence {see the conflict between JFK and Paul Nitze over whether NATO can react immediately to a Soviet "provocation" (or perceived provocation) during the Cuban Missile Crisis in Sheldon Stern's book Averting The Final Failure: the Cuban Missile Crisis White House Tapes) Stanford Nuclear Age series, 2003} On Dulles supporting West German control of nukes see Trachtenberg, The Cold War and After,p. 152, Princeton University Press, 2012.

Again, without this 180 degree change on West German nukes, there was no test ban treaty with USSR and no evolving detente in 1963.

Then the CIA preserved the permanent War State. In Nuclear policy, not merely Vietnam, Cuba, Laos, Brazil, Indonesia and Congo. LETS JUST CONTINUE IGNORING POLITICAL ASSASSINATIONS WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE HISTORY BEHIND THEM. IT'S REALLY WORKING SO GREAT!! For some.