Former president Truman called for abolition of CIA

Truman's complaint

Truman’s complaint

“For some time I have been disturbed by the way the CIA has been diverted from its original assignment,” wrote former president Harry Truman in the Washington Post on December 22, 1963. It was exactly one month after the assassination of President Kennedy.

“It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government. This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas,” Truman wrote.

Truman never linked JFK’s death to the clandestine service, but the timing and venue of his piece was suggestive. Already Soviet bloc news outlets were speculating Kennedy’s murder—and the murder of the only suspect while in police custody—pointed to U.S. government involvement in the assassination.

Truman addressed the allegations obliquely.

“This quiet intelligence arm of the President has been so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue—and subject for cold war enemy propaganda,” Truman wrote.

Truman said he knew the first two directors of the CIA and called them “men of the highest character, patriotism and integrity.” He added he could only assume the same about “all those who continue in charge.”

But he had stiff words for the agency’s leaders. He said the CIA’s “operational duties” should “be terminated.”

In short, JFK’s assassination prompted Truman to call for the CIA’s abolition.

Why Truman Spoke Out

There can be little doubt that the circumstances of Kennedy’s murder prompted Truman’s radical proposal. The former president, living in Missouri, began writing his Post article nine days after Kennedy was killed, according to an excellent 2009 piece by former CIA officer Ray McGovern (who says he was relying on JFK researcher Ray Marcus).

In handwritten notes found at the Truman Library, the former president noted, among other things, that the CIA had worked as he intended only “when I had control.”

Four months later, former CIA director Allen Dulles paid Truman a visit. Dulles tried to get Truman to retract what he had written in the Post.

“No dice, said Truman,” according to McGovern/Marcus.

But four days later, in a formal memo for Lawrence Houston, the CIA’s general counsel, Dulles fabricated a retraction. He claimed that Truman told him the Washington Post article was “all wrong,” and that Truman “seemed quite astounded at it.”

Truman denied it. In a June 10, 1964, letter to Look magazine, Truman restated his critique of covert action, emphasizing that he never intended the CIA to get involved in “strange activities.”

As the country grieved JFK’s death and suspicions of conspiracy mounted, many current and former U.S. officials publicly rallied around the official story that Oswald had killed JFK alone and unaided. But privately many people familiar with the workings of the CIA had their doubts. Truman’s article was one of the earliest expression of those doubts. Others would follow.

See also:

“Top 6 Washington insiders who suspected a JFK plot,” (JFK Facts, Oct. 2, 2013).



  1. Tom says:

    Front page banner for todays’ Washington Post:

    One has to wonder if the budget for this is not coming from the publicly allotted budget of $9 Billion, that is if the budget is a “black” budget, then where exactly is the funding coming from?

    Is this an example of what P.D.Scott is talking about?

  2. Preston Newe says:

    President Truman obviously didn’t know Allen Dulles as well as he thought: Operation MKUltra (illegal human experiments, some with administration of LSD)& Operation Mockingbird (media compromised by intelligence to deceive the public)are just a couple of Dulles’ Gestapo like assaults against US citizens that began in the early 1950’s & continued after president Kennedy fired him in 1962. It appears Truman was aware the Agency went rogue in the Eisenhower administration. Truman was quite perceptive to who brought President Kennedy down. Unfortunately for history & the present, no congress has heeded Truman’s warning and exterminated the dragon.

    • Preston Newe says:

      Correction: Allen Dulles was fired in 1961, not 1962. Allen Dulles and his staff (including Deputy Director for Plans Richard M. Bissell, Jr. and Deputy Director Charles Cabell) were forced to resign in September 1961 following the failed Bay Of Pigs operation.

      Today, with what is publicly known about Allen Dulles some may wonder why President Kennedy didn’t direct his brother to bring multiple charges against Allen Dulles & have him prosecuted in Federal Court. As with the withheld JFK records, not all Allen Dulles records are available to the public.

      • John Galt says:

        Who was the brother-in-law of the mayor of Dallas at that time?

        • len sive says:

          The fired deputy diector of the CIA and the mayor of Dallas were brothers. It was no accident that Dallas was chosen as the place to kill JFK. But Dulles and HIS brother were equally involved–and involved in a host of illegal activities.

  3. Jonathan says:

    Truman made a big mistake signing the bill that created the CIA. He created a monster. The CIA never has been very good at intelligence gathering. Its main role has been to fund, support, and even run secret wars, including a war within a war in Viet Nam.

    This country could have done very well without the CIA. The FBI and military intelligence could have provided all the intel this country needed; and not gotten this country into messes abroad.

  4. Thomas says:

    For anyone with common sense and both eyes open the timing of Truman’s editorial speaks volumes.

  5. Nathaniel Heidenheimer says:

    Great article. This is the kind of article we need. Showing SCOPE and ever widening implications for press, implications for checks and balances etc.

  6. TLR says:

    Truman and every President since has been a puppet or a victim of the National Security State, which is much larger than just the CIA. It reminds me of the period in the Roman Empire when one emperor after another was being installed and then deposed or killed by the Legions.

  7. Mitch says:

    This Truman editorial is one of the most interesting things I’ve read in the para assassination literature in the last few years. I hope that they research about the Dulles/Truman meeting is accurate. Dulles just keeps popping up in this long story.

  8. Robert Harper says:

    The awful day in Dallas was book-ended by two editorials. Arthur Krock’s essay in the NY Times warning that if a “coup were to occur” in the United States, it would be “from the CIA” and not the military. It was written a month before. Truman’s a month after.

  9. John Kirsch says:

    This is from John le Carre’s introduction to a Pocket Books edition of “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.”
    As Jeff wrote when he posted this on July 25, 2013, Le Carre “… is writing about the damage done by double agents such as Kim Philby and George Blake, both KGB agents who were buried deep inside the British Secret Intelligence Service after World War II.”

    This is what le Carre wrote: “Such an abject state of affairs was certainly reached by SIS in the high days of Blake and Philby, just as it was inflicted on the CIA by the paranoid influence of (James) Angleton himself, who, in the aftermath of discovering that he had been eating out of the hand of the KGB’s most successful double agent, spent the rest of his life trying to prove that the Agency, like the SIS, was being controlled by Moscow; and that its occasional successes were consequently no more than sweeteners tossed to it by the fiendish manipulators of the KGB. Angleton was wrong, but his effect on the CIA was as disastrous as if he had been right. Both services would have done much less damage to their countries, moral and financial, if they had simply been disbanded.”

  10. John Kirsch says:

    This is from “John F. Kennedy’s Vision of Peace” by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. published 11/20/2013 in Rolling Stone. Maybe Kennedy really was trying to stop the war machine and the war machine stopped him instead.

    “The Joint Chiefs, already in open revolt against JFK for failing to unleash the dogs of war in Cuba and Laos, were unanimous in urging a massive influx of ground troops and were incensed with talk of withdrawal. The mood in Langley was even uglier. Journalist Richard Starnes, filing from Vietnam, gave a stark assessment in The Washington Daily News of the CIA’s unrestrained thirst for power in Vietnam. Starnes quoted high-level U.S. officials horrified by the CIA’s role in escalating the conflict. They described an insubordinate, out-of-control agency, which one top official called a “malignancy.” He doubted that “even the White House could control it any longer.” Another warned, “If the United States ever experiences a [coup], it will come from the CIA and not from the Pentagon.” Added another, “[Members of the CIA] represent tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone.”

    • Dr.TCH says:

      Nice contribution, John!!

      Note that many recent books on the CIA are mostly junk. E.g.,…

      1. Legacy of Ashes
      2. The Company

    • The most likely source for Richard Starnes, the one talking about a CIA coup of the US government, would probably have been Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, whose brother John Davis Lodge was a mentor to a very young Roger Stone.

      Lodge was wanting to overthrow Diem but the military and CIA had been resisting this idea for a while.

      • Paul Turner says:

        Henry Cabot Lodge who lost two elections to JFK, right? (well, the latter was Nixon’s loss, of course, but he had Lodge as his Veep choice).

  11. […] • Just a month after Kennedy’s death, writing in the Washington Post, former president Harry Truman expressed dismay that the CIA he’d created had become a shadow government—that, going far beyond gathering and synthesizing intelligence, it had been making policy and doing “special operations,” many involving assassinations of heads of state. Without mentioning the JFK assassination explicitly, Truman declared that the CIA was “in urgent need of correction” ( […]

  12. Kennedy63 says:

    If I understand the Dulles Brother’s role in the Guatemala Coup, it was the United Fruit Company that approached the government (US State Dept: John F Dulles), which in turn contacted CIA (Allen Dulles) which in turn led to the coup. Seems the businesses most affected, or the politicians connected to those affected businesses, always sounded the communist alarm bells. These emerging liberation/nationalist movements were purposely overthrown by CIA under the guise of communist inspired or supported.
    Could it be that businesses here made complaints and floated informal solutions, concerning Kennedy, in the right quarters? After CIA staged the Guatemala coup, nothing since about staging coups has been written down (except Cuba). However, the framework was set with the first successful CIA foreign coup. Both legitimate and illegitimate businessmen learned they could “depend” on the CIA to handle such matters…and for much much more.

  13. Jamezon Bentham says:

    No doubt CIA involved in JFK assassination, however in this case who gained the most lbj; President Richard Nixon said, “Johnson & I wanted to become President, but I will not kill for it.”
    French government investigated it and found lbj, KGB investigated it & found lbj, Jacky said,it is lbj. So lbj with the support of CIA committed this crime; and FBI, Pantagone & Dulless police help to cover it up.

    lbj himself said ” It is the meloncholic law of human socities sometime to choose a great evil in order to ward off a greater evil.”

    • Paul Turner says:

      Jim Tague devoted a chapter to the KGB report-it’s there in its entirety. (LBJ And The Kennedy Killing-James Tague).

  14. John Galt says:

    The OSS helped let the commu ist Chinese murder Captain John Birch, the interpreter of Gen. Chenault in China. Capt. Birch saved Jimmy Doolittle & his boys when they crashed land, the Flying Tigers!

  15. Key point about that Truman column which was aimed squarely at the CIA. 1) It ran only in the morning edition of the Washington Post. It intentionally stepped on CIA toes and they used their influence to have it *removed* from the afternoon edition of Wash Post.

    2) Truman’s column was *not syndicated* nationwide. Which means there were hundreds of papers that could have run it, but did not. Truman’s column on the CIA reached a very limited audience of Washington insiders.

    Someone like me would Truman was in a backhanded way accusing the CIA of murdering JFK. Truman started writing his CIA column immediately after the JFK assassination but it took a full month to get it printed.

    Here is an Education Forum post on a similar topic:

    • Photon says:

      What afternoon edition of the Post?
      There was no afternoon edition of the Post. The afternoon paper in D.C. at the time was the Washinton Star.
      You just made it up-not realizing that some of us read both papers.What does that say about the rest of your claims?

      • I stand corrected. I do not think the Wash Post ever had an afternoon edition. I do not think Harry Truman’s 12-22-63 Wash Post column on the CIA was syndicated nationwide, but I could be wrong on that.

        And, btw, when most former presidents speak on an important topic, their columns usually are sent out nationwide.

      • Paul Turner says:

        Photon, actually it was the Evening Star. So you got it wrong. Fact-check time, fella.

      • Antonio D'Antonio says:

        From on December 22, 2013:

        But Truman’s warning fell mostly on deaf ears, at least within Establishment circles. The Washington Post published the op-ed in its early edition on Dec. 22, 1963, but immediately excised it from later editions. Other media ignored it. The long hand of the CIA?

        From Historical Glances Facebook Page:

        On December 22, 1963, the former President and creator of the CIA penned a bombshell of an editorial printed in the morning edition of the Washington Post. One month to the day after the assassination of President Kennedy, former President Truman openly lamented the creation of the CIA…..
        …..Incredibly, the Washington Post pulled the piece in it’s afternoon edition and no other media platform printed the article.

    • Sure Mr Morrow, I agree the war criminal Truman was accusing the CIA of killing Kennedy. And I agree that Ray McGovern makes very good points in his article that back that up. But these are both limited perspectives. Not necessarily to say intentional ‘Limited Hangouts’ but to that effect at any rate.

      Dulles was not a power unto himself, the CIA is not a power unto itself, although it is connected to the Money Power – the financial elite, it is not simply symbiotic. The relationship is hierarchical and the Money Power is on top, the “Wall Street Lawyers” (Dulles) work for them, and if they dare do anything without approval their heads will roll.

      There was a larger consensus behind the Kennedy assassination. It was a systemic wide one, and it was okay’d from the very top of the foodchain… In my most humble opinion.

      • J.D. says:

        How exactly can you be so sure who “works” for whom? In my view, there is considerable evidence that the CIA often functions as, essentially, a rogue force with little to no effective oversight. Insisting that the CIA must be doing the bidding of the “financial elites” because we know that financial elites run America strikes me as begging the question (that is, using a conclusion as part of your premise).

        Describing President Truman as a “war criminal” is deeply misguided, in my opinion.

        • “Insisting that the CIA must be doing the bidding of the “financial elites” because we know that financial elites run America strikes me as begging the question (that is, using a conclusion as part of your premise).”~J.D.

          Yes J.D. I know exactly what ‘begging the question’ means. But I am basing my larger premise, not simply on the study of the history of OSS and CIA, but a larger panoramic view of the architecture of political power that has a continuum several centuries long.

          See the works of Antony Sutton, and Carroll Quigley.

        • “Describing President Truman as a “war criminal” is deeply misguided, in my opinion.”~J.D.

          Dropping atomic bombs on two civilian Japanese cities served no military purpose whatsoever. Besides the fact that the Japanese were already suing for peace, and the US knew it; the criminal act of incinerating thousands of human beings is surely a great war crime regardless of “expediency”.
          Then we add in the true reason for the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: PR, a show of muscle to the Soviet Union, which was already in line as the “new enemy”.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            May 10, 2015 at 9:40 pm

            Dropping atomic bombs on two civilian Japanese cities served no military purpose whatsoever.

            bc. Not true. It, alone with the Russian invasion of Manchukuo, served to shock the Emperor into ordering an end to the war. If that isn’t a military purpose I don’t know what is.

            Besides the fact that the Japanese were already suing for peace, and the US knew it;

            bc. Who were they suing, Sweden? The best you have here is the talks between Japan and the Soviets as Japan wanted better conditions for surrender than the unconditional surrender demanded.

            bc. And then we have the failed coup d’état in Japan that if successful would have changed the face of the war. For a bit anyway.

            the criminal act of incinerating thousands of human beings is surely a great war crime regardless of “expediency”.

            bc. Oh not really Willy. It is just one more of a long list of atrocities caused by all countries involved. No more a crime than LeMay fire bombing of Tokyo or of the Japanese POW camps.

            bc. Can you explain to me Willy why we have a group of people that believes war is like some nice refined Country Club game of tennis? It isn’t, it never has been and I doubt it ever will be. It is ugly, you live like an animal in the field, it damn well stinks. The only way to not have these “war crimes” is to not have the war in the first place.

          • “The only way to not have these “war crimes” is to not have the war in the first place.” ~Bill Clarke

            Yea, that’s what Kennedy came to realize.

            I do not single out Truman as a war criminal, there were war criminals on all sides. Yes LeMay firebombing Tokyo, easily falls into the war crimes category. Dresden as well.

            So they dropped the A bombs and then didn’t charge the Japanese Emperor anyway… No, you read the deeper history of this, it was not a military necessity, the Japanese were trying to surrender.

            In his memoirs Admiral William D. Leahy, the President’s Chief of Staff–and the top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff–minced few words:

            [T]he use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . .

            [I]n being the first to use it, we . . . adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children. (See p. 3, Introduction)
            Privately, on June 18, 1945–almost a month before the Emperor’s July intervention to seek an end to the war and seven weeks before the atomic bomb was used–Leahy recorded in his diary:

            It is my opinion at the present time that a surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provisions for America’s defense against future trans-Pacific aggression. (See p. 324, Chapter 26)

            Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet stated in a public address given at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945:

            The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. (See p. 329, Chapter 26) . . . [Nimitz also stated: “The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. . . .”]
            In a private 1946 letter to Walter Michels of the Association of Philadelphia Scientists, Nimitz observed that “the decision to employ the atomic bomb on Japanese cities was made on a level higher than that of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.” (See pp. 330-331, Chapter 26)

            Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946:

            The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before. (See p. 331, Chapter 26)

            Time-Life editor Henry R. Luce later recalled that during a May-June 1945 tour of the Pacific theater:

            . . . I spent a morning at Cavite in the Philippines with Admiral Frank Wagner in front of huge maps. Admiral Wagner was in charge of air search-and-patrol of all the East Asian seas and coasts. He showed me that in all those millions of square miles there was literally not a single target worth the powder to blow it up; there were only junks and mostly small ones at that.

            Read much more at:

          • American Military Leaders Urged President Truman not to Drop the Atomic Bomb

            The Joint Chiefs of Staff never formally studied the decision and never made an official recommendation to the President.

            Brief informal discussions may have occurred, but no record even of these exists. There is no record whatsoever of the usual extensive staff work and evaluation of alternative options by the Joint Chiefs, nor did the Chiefs ever claim to be involved. (See p. 322, Chapter 26)

            In official internal military interviews, diaries and other private as well as public materials, literally every top U.S. military leader involved subsequently stated that the use of the bomb was not dictated by military necessity.

        • Bill Clarke says:

          The CIA works for the president. If this fails it is up to the president to make it right. The way to make it right is to start firing people.

          • JSA says:

            In theory, and sometimes in practice, CIA does indeed work for the president. But just as in Vietnam, military units sometimes had fraggings, sometimes CIA doesn’t do what the president wants to do. Eisenhower found this out when his order for no more U2 surveillance flights over the USSR in the Spring of 1960 (leading up to his planned summit talks there in June) was disobeyed in May of that year. Ike was hopping mad over that. That was one of the spurs that got him to write his 1961 farewell address warning of the dangerous build up of the “military industrial complex” which is not elected, but stays in power as elected officials come and go.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            May 11, 2015 at 7:59 am

            In theory, and sometimes in practice, CIA does indeed work for the president. But just as in Vietnam, military units sometimes had fraggings,

            bc. These dope heads worked on their own. They had no boss as to fragging so I don’t believe they apply here. But I’ll tell you a war story that makes the point. A LTC battalion CO that allowed his men to go soft on guard duty. The fire base was over run that night. General Abrams didn’t stop with the battalion. He fired the Brigade Commanding Officer (a very good man) and then he fired the 2 star general commanding the Americal Division. When you fire 2 star generals and colonels on the generals list it gets their attention.

            sometimes CIA doesn’t do what the president wants to do.

            bc. True and that is when heads need to roll. You can’t run a group without discipline.

            Eisenhower found this out when his order for no more U2 surveillance flights over the USSR in the Spring of 1960 (leading up to his planned summit talks there in June) was disobeyed in May of that year. Ike was hopping mad over that.

            bc. And rightly so. But I thought they talked Ike into approving one more flight which proved to be one sot down and blew all hopes of the summit. But my memory isn’t that sharp in my old age.

          • J.D. says:

            “The CIA works for the president” is true enough on paper. On the other hand, presidents are only there for 4-8 years, and those agencies — and their chiefs — are there indefinitely. Officials can be fired (as Kennedy fired Dulles, Bissell, and Cabell), but that doesn’t necessarily change the company culture. In theory, J. Edgar Hoover worked for the president; in reality, no president dared to fire Hoover.

            The nature of the national-security establishment is also so large, complex, and secretive that it’s questionable whether any one individual is capable of effectively managing it (if this was not true in 1963, it certainly is in 2015).

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            J.D., excellent observations imho. I don’t think Dulles in particular lost much influence with his “former” employee’s.
            Most of them didn’t like JFK in the first place, his firing only added to their hatred and loyalty.

    • JSA says:

      Excellent points, Robert. I also think Truman was taking a backhanded swipe at CIA, because he may have suspected some foul play on their part. The fact that CIA (or the paper itself which had ties to intelligence) shut down the piece so quickly, and that Allen Dulles himself tried to dissuade Truman from publishing it, speaks VOLUMES. Just as CIA today continues to stonewall the release of all JFK assassination-related documents. And I would add one more interesting tidbit: Kay Graham (through her former husband Phil and through his brother in Florida) had close ties to LBJ. I’m sure nobody at the Washington Post wanted to “piss in the punchbowl” that was the new Lyndon Johnson White House. It would have been embarrassing to say the least, dangerous to say the worst.

      • JSA: 9 days later on 12-31-63 LBJ told Madeleine Brown at the Driskill Hotel in Austin, TX that Texas Oil men and US intelligence were behind the JFK assassination.

        Lyndon Johnson was quite an avid reader of the papers as well as watching all three national networks on 3 different TVs at the same.

        I bet LBJ was quite concerned about Harry Truman’s piece on the CIA in the Wash Post.

    • lysias says:

      I know I’ve read in the past that Truman’s column only appeared in the first edition of the Washington Post that day. This quote from CIA veteran Ray McGovern suggests that at the time there were several editions of the paper every day, starting with the early edition:

      In my article of Dec. 22, I referred to Harry Truman’s op-ed of exactly 46 years before, titled “Limit CIA Role to Intelligence,” in which the former President expressed dismay at what the Central Intelligence Agency had become just 16 years after he and Congress created it.

      The Washington Post published the op-ed on Dec. 22, 1963, in its early edition, but immediately excised it from later editions. Other media ignored it. The long hand of the CIA?

  16. David Regan says:

    NSAM 55 — JFK’s Attempt to Get CIA out of Clandestine Operations. It gave control of paramilitary operations to the Joint Chiefs.

  17. J.D. says:

    Truman voiced similar sentiments to writer Merle Miller, who recounted them in his book Plain Speaking (1974). Miller asked about the creation of the CIA, and Truman responded:

    “I think it was a mistake. And if I’d known what was going to happen, I would never have done it. … [Eisenhower] never paid any attention to it, and it got out of hand. Why, they’ve got an organization over there in Virginia now that is practically the equal of the Pentagon in many ways. And I think I’ve told you, one Pentagon is one Pentagon too many. Now, as nearly as I can make out, those fellows in the CIA don’t just report on wars and the like, they go out and make their own and there is nobody to keep track of what they are up to. They spend billions of dollars on stirring up trouble so they will have something to report on. … They don’t have to account to anybody. That’s a very dangerous thing in a democratic society and it’s got to be put a stop to. The people have got a right to know what those birds are up to.”

  18. Roy W Kornbluth says:

    Simply GREAT article by Ray McGovern. What’s scariest is Dulles “just happening” to be around Truman’s hometown in MO 4/17/64, and “conveniently” asking “to stop in while I’m in ‘town’.” Man, a lot of bad things happen around the middle of April.
    AD trying to put the old soft soap on old Harry. Even laid all kinds of phony stories about a Truman retraction, “Aw, that was just that curmudgeon Harry being Harry.”
    It took HT almost 2 months to get a letter-to-the-editor in a major publication, LOOK, that Dulles was full of beans. But still, HT can’t come out and say the CIA is a terrorist, fascist law unto itself. He has to couch it in the euphemism, “strange activities.” Reminiscent of the Founding Fathers afraid to use the word SLAVERY. Had to say, “our peculiar institution” and other sweep-it-under-the-rug crap.

  19. Ramon F Herrera says:

    As we all know, during the 50th. anniversary, a lot of books were released. One of them was authored by the W.C. staff, anxious to clear their reputations. The most unbelievable item that I read was their attempt to put Mr. Dulles as some sort of senile, bumbling, harmless gentleman. They mentioned some sort of mistake (he tried to drink the other person’s coffee, or took a pen or some silliness of that nature). In fact, this one and a second piece of “evidence” were mentioned. Their implication: “How dare people claim that he was some sort of conniving monster!” “He was like our benign grandfather!”.

    What a lame, ridiculous attempt by the book authors!! For crying out loud! That person happened to be the head of the most duplicitous (they do that sort of thing for a living, in the House of Mirrors) agency on the planet. Furthermore, the fact that he visited Truman *years* after having resigned clearly indicates that he was still holding power in some sort of capacity. Much like David Atlee Phillips who founded an Association of Retired Spooks.

    Sigh… “Mr. Allen Magoo” my rear bottom…

  20. Maynard says:

    Allen Dulles and his brother, John Foster (who was secretary of state under Eisenhower) probably did more during the early Cold War to set the United States on its current course than anyone else. They were evil. Notice the Allen served on the Warren Commission. How convenient. Read The actor: The true story of John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State, 1953-1959 by Alan Stang.

  21. Request for errata from Mr Clarke:

    In this thread above, I said this:
    Dropping atomic bombs on two civilian Japanese cities served no military purpose whatsoever.

    It was answered thus:
    “Not true. It, alone with the Russian invasion of Manchukuo, served to shock the Emperor into ordering an end to the war. If that isn’t a military purpose I don’t know what is.”~Bill Clarke – May 11, 2015 at 8:48 pm

    I replied with documented evidence that In official internal military interviews, diaries and other private as well as public materials, literally every top U.S. military leader involved subsequently stated that the use of the bomb was not dictated by military necessity.

    This was linked to this page, which links to even further evidence that there was no military purpose to drop those bombs:

    I request Mr Clarke’s acknowledgement of this because too often here these issues are revisited as if these assertions have never been definitively settled by the real historical record.

    • Bill Clarke says:

      Willy Whitten
      May 12, 2015 at 11:25 am

      Roger that Willy, I here fore acknowledge that you have indeed posted an impressive set of senior military leaders that said the bombings were not necessary or had no military purpose.

      Were they necessary? Of course not. I agree here.

      Did they have a military purpose? Judging from the way the Joint Chiefs seem to have been left out of this decision loop I’d say the bombing came more from Truman than from the military. This in it’s self would indicate a lack of military purpose I think.

      However, I don’t think you can argue that the bombings didn’t speed up the end of the war. And more important this canceled our plans of invading Japan, which would have been probably a bigger tragedy than the bombs. “A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson’s staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.[2]”

      Now when something speeds up the end of a war and drops a bloody invasion plan I don’t see how this can be called “not military”. It served this military purpose even if it wasn’t the original intent.

      Eye to eye Willy, I wish they hadn’t dropped those bombs. Had I been a American soldier waiting to invade Japan I’d want them to drop every thing they had. So we have different views.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more