Posted on 12/07/2009 7:25:33 AM PST by oblomov
On its price, small runs in printing - its a volume thing. Check local library for a copy.
Wilford, while researching his MA thesis (about 8MB pdf file available from ProQuest and University Microfilm), met and exchanged some materials with Stinnett. [N.B., there are two (2) Stinnett's - hardcover and paperback, and they have differencess.]
Wilford, extending his MA work was awarded his PhD.
Wow. What a collection of anti-Bushbots, Lefties and nutters. Your source sets the tone for this discussion, don't you think?
“Johnson’s first act was to escalate Vietnam. You don’t know much about this stuff do you? It amuses me when people criticize others on subjects in which they know next to nothing about.”
It always amuses me that people think everyone else is stupider and more ignorant than them because they do not share their outlandish views and have not read the same fringe books as them. Especially when we can agree that there’s absolutely no hard evidence for me to have read, only speculation based on Johnson’s possible motivation. For all you’ve told me about his motives, I could have gleaned the same information from a high school history textbook.
First of all, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, after which Johnson firmly escalated the war, wasn’t until August 1964. He took office on November 22, 1963. Hardly his “first act”. He had both Kennedy’s civil rights legacy to consider and, more importantly, his own Great Society-type “progressive” welfare-state programs to get started.
I’ve heard his aides and other people around him say that upon assuming office Vietnam was merely a blip on the screen. But let’s assume it was his top priority. Still, it wasn’t everything. You falsely present him as some sort of monomaniac.
Secondly, even if we assume LBJ always had escalation as a goal in his mind, was it really important enough that he’d be willing to murder the president to achieve it? Is murdering the president such a casual thing? I see no evidence that Vietnam was all that important to him. Any more than I see evidence that invading Iraq was important enough to George Bush for him to attack the twin towers and the pentagon.
Third, there’s the little fact that Johnson wasn’t exactly stepping over Jimmy Carter. Kennedy was no pacifist. And during his tenure he never did anything but escalate America’s involvement in Vietnam. The infamous NSAM 263, which is like the holy grail for Johnson/Military-Industrial-Complex conspiracy theorists (most of whom are liberals, and would like nothing more than to be able to blame the war on anybody but their side), was a withdrawal plan. That much is true. It called for 1,000 troops to be immediately removed, with an eventual final withdrawal by the end of 1965.
However, it was formulated at a time when the conflict was at a low ebb. BEFORE Diem was assassinated in Nov. of ‘63 (that is, before there was an indication that the South Vietnamese government was in serious trouble). There is no evidence that Kennedy wouldn’t have done exactly what Johnson went on to do, had he faced the same conditions Johnson faced.
Kennedy wasn’t hot on the war in Vietnam. In a perfect world, withdrawal was his preference. But how do you explain Obama signing on to a surge in Afghanistan and doing nothing to withdraw from Iraq? Presidents’ private preferences are not their public policies.
Please note, and this is important, NSAM 273, which rescinded 263, was drafted while Kennedy was still president! Johnson enacted 273 shortly after Kennedy’s death, which makes it seem like he reversed Kennedy’s policy. But no, I repeat NO, inference can be drawn from this fact. We’ll never, ever know what Kennedy would have done.
Certainly, there’s not enough evidence of Kennedy’s pacifism to demonstrate that Johnson had a clear motive to kill him, Vietnam-wise. Furthermore, where is all this evidence that Johnson was a all-or-nothing hawk on the issue? This picture of Kennedy as desperately wanting to get out and Johnson desperately wanting to get in is a myth. A false dilemma.
Finally, LBJ had most to gain from Kennedy’s death, so of course he’s a suspect. That old “cui bono” thing. But motive is not an element of crime. The fact that he benefitted is not proof of his complicity. Neither are the uncorroborated claims of supposed accomplices.
A lot of revisionists want us to think that World Wars One and Two were all about something other than German aggression. I'd say that's a bit like trying to claim that the Napoleonic wars were all about something other than Napoleon. In both cases, they just weren't.
And there were plenty of people at the end of the First World War -- not just US General Pershing -- who clearly understood that what the Germans were asking for was not "peace," but simply a breather for them to regroup, rearm and get ready for the next round.
Imho, the most important figure in this time -- the one name which best ties both wars together -- was German General Eric Ludendorff.
We first see him as a young general staff officer from 1905 through 1913, under first, Count Alfred von Schlieffen and then General Helmuth von Moltke the Younger.
Many historians say the "von Schlieffen plan" should more accurately be called the "von Moltke plan," which in practice means it was largely the detailed work of Eric Ludendorff.
In August 1914, von Moltke the Younger was THE key figure in pushing Kaiser Willy into declaring war on his young cousin, Tsar Nicky.
Point is, Ludendorff's planning helped launch the Great War, and in the end, Ludendorff called the shots in 1918, when Germany finally cried "uncle."
But Ludendorff was not in the least ready to abandon German imperial ambitions, and we see him again in 1923, in Munich, doing what? Do you know? ;-)
That's right, Ludendorff marched side by side with his then close ally, that firey young rabble rouser -- Adolf Hitler -- in the Munich putsch. When bullets were fired at them, Hitler fell or was pushed down. Ludendorff remained standing.
So there was an absolute continuity in German imperial ambitions from pre-WWI planning all the way through the Third Reich. This had little to do with Nazism, and everything to do with German militarism. The Nazis simply tapped into ambitions which were already there.
My point is: there were people outside Germany who well understood that German imperial militarism would eventually find it's leadership role, and then the war would resume where it left off.
So my argument is: Versailles didn't really matter, runaway inflation didn't matter, the great depression didn't really matter and even the Nazis didn't matter. The Germans were going to do what they were going to do, almost regardless of other circumstances. It was only really a question of when, and how.
In short, Hitler was simply an actor who best played the role imagined for him by the German body politic -- or at least by that military leadership which even in November 1918 wanted to call off the armistice, and go back to war.
And what is the proof of my theory? It's this: even in the 1920's, while Hitler was still a nobody, and the Weimar Republic was struggling along on loans from America, the German military was building, testing and exercising tank warfare, in secret, in Russia. It was also beginning to build larger warships than allowed by various treaties.
I say again, this had nothing to do with Hitler. Hitler simply put himself in front of the movement, and claimed to be its leader. What he did was dramatic, and it worked.
from #260 jamaksin: "Your bottom line is not my bottom line..."
jamaksin: "And, to add, Wilson "did not win friends" in Britain when he did not act to have a declaration war against Germany in 1915. More on that path perhaps when the remaining Admiralty files on the SS LUSITANIA are released?"
I wonder if you have lost sight of the whole point of the Lusitania sinking? Please remember the following:
"Her cargo had included an estimated 4,200,000 rounds of rifle cartridges, 1,250 empty shell cases, and 18 cases of non-explosive fuses[9], all of which were listed in her manifest, but the cartridges were not officially classed as ammunition by the Cunard Line."
"The German public was shocked by the news of the sinking, and only a minority believed that it was a proper action. When it was revealed that passengers had been warned not to travel on the ship, this information removed any doubt that the Lusitania had been singled out for attack, and caused a loss of confidence in the German government."The sinking was severely criticized by Germany's allies, Austria and Hungary, and met with disapproval in Turkey,[38] while in the German press, the sinking was deplored by Vorwärts, the daily newspaper of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, and also by Captain Persius, an outspoken naval critic who wrote for the Berliner Tageblatt."
"The German restriction order of 9 September 1915 stated that attacks were only allowed on ships that were definitely British, while neutral ships were to be treated under the Prize Law rules, and no attacks on passenger liners were to be permitted at all."The war situation demanded that there could be no possibility of orders being misinterpreted, and on 18 September Henning von Holtzendorff, the new head of the German Admiralty, issued a secret order: all U-boats operating in the English Channel and off the west coast of the United Kingdom were recalled, and the U-boat war would continue only in the North sea, where it would be conducted under the Prize Law rules."
Point is: all this kept the US out of the war for two more years -- until Admiral von Holtzendorff convinced the Kaiser to reverse policy and resume unrestricted submarine warfare, in 1917.
This immediately brought the US into the First World War, which caused Germany to lose the war.
Again, the point is: regardless of what cargo Lusitania carried, her sinking resulted in keeping the US OUT of the war for another two years!
Wilson only asked for a declaration of war on Germany in 1917, AFTER Germany broke the promises made to Wilson at the time of the Lusitania sinking, in 1915.
It is those parallels - denials, "lost" files, ... from an earlier historical event, that were eventually "forced" out of the US government.
Simple. No fuss. No muss.
Oh, did I ever write that the sinking of the SS LUSTANIA was the cause of the US entering World War I? (If so, please cite that by specific message number within this thread.)
Did you just make that up as a preconceived notion perhaps, or did you miss my point(s)?
You're right, I missed your point. Sorry about that. Have a great day! ;-)
I can’t believe you just said Vietnam wasn’t important to Johnson. That one statement makes your whole post crap. The CIA wanted Vietnam and Johnson went down with it over the micromanaging of it by Johnson himself.
Johnson had other motivations for accommodating those who wanted Kennedy out. He was probably going to face charges and lose the VP over the Texas Ag allotment scandal in which Henry Marshall was found dead of five rifle shots (that were found to be self-inflicted by that great Texas Democratic political machine).
If you really looked at this stuff you would know that. You’re more interested in throwing rocks from an ignoramus’ point of view. A spoon-fed know-nothing rock thrower.
Tell me one thing: Chicago-mob hit man Jim Braden was arrested in the Dal-Tex building the day of the assassination. What was he doing in there? (This oughta be good)
“I can’t believe you just said Vietnam wasn’t important to Johnson”
In never said that. I only said that upon entering office, if I can believe his close associates (who, admittedly, might be whitewashing), it wasn’t priority one. And certainly, even if his plan was to escalate all along, I see no evidence that he cared enough about it to murder a sitting president.
What did you do, cut and paste something you didn't even read? Here's your quote: "I’ve heard his aides and other people around him say that upon assuming office Vietnam was merely a blip on the screen."
Again, what about Jim Braden...what was he doing in the Dal-Tex building? (The Dal-Tex building was the one behind and to the right of the Texas School Book Depository looking back from Elm Street...a perfect angle for the bullet that hit the curb under the triple-underpass)
Do you deny that Johnson could've faced charges over the Texas Ag allotment scandal?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.