In October 1993, the Center for the Study of Intelligence published a 100-page paper by pro-Nosenko / anti-Angleton former CIA officer Cleveland Cram titled “Of Moles and Mole Hunters: A Review of Counterintelligence Literature, 1977-92”.
Hey Thomas. I’ll certainly investigate this angle further. But one question that comes to my mind is this…why would the KGB want JFK dead, as he was in fact a liberal President who wanted to improve relations with the Soviet Union? By removing him, wouldn’t that only put in place someone who was more hostile to them?
I don't know if the KGB encouraged or provided logistical support to Oswald, or if he pulled it off all by him widdle self-described Marxist, psychologically disturbed self. That being said, this is what KGB true defector Pyotr Deriabin (1954) wrote a few days after the assassination, as relayed by author Mark Riebling in his 1994 free-to-read book (just google "riebling," "wedge" and "archive" simultaneously), "Wedge: The Secret War Between the FBI and the CIA":
But what would the Soviets possibly gain from Kennedy’s death that would be worth the risk of U.S. retaliation? From a pragmatic Western perspective, there seemed little profit indeed, but [James] Angleton thought about the problem with more subtlety. First of all, the nuclear age precluded any massive U.S. retaliation — as Johnson’s craven cover-ups of all possible communist connections were already demonstrating. Second, if the Soviets had truly penetrated the Soviet Division at CIA, as Angleton believed [note: as probable KGB "mole" Bruce Solie in the Office of Security led him to believe], the KGB might even have hoped to steer U.S. investigation of the crime. As for the Soviet motive: Out was Kennedy, a charismatic leader who could “sell” a socially conscious anticommunism in the Third World and even to Western liberals. In was Johnson, who would only “heighten the contradictions” between East and West and therefore hasten (by Leninist dialectical reasoning) the ultimate collapse of late capitalism.
Angleton also took seriously the observations marshaled in a November 27 memo by defector Deriabin, who cited the Kennedy administration’s opposition to long-term credits to the Soviets, which he said were vital to survival of the USSR. Johnson, by contrast, came from an agricultural state and had always supported grain sales to Russia. Moreover, Western pressure on the USSR “would automatically ease up” if the KGB murdered the president. As evidence, Deriabin noted a “conciliatory telegram” by a frightened and disoriented Lyndon Johnson to Khrushchev. A more amenable America would “strengthen Khrushchev’s hand” at a time when the Soviet leader was under intensifying internal pressures because of mismanagement of the 1963 harvest and disputes with China. Kennedy’s death, as Deriabin put it, thus “effectively diverts the Soviets’ attention from their internal problems. It directly affects Khrushchev’s longevity.” Finally, Deriabin ventured that “the death of President Kennedy, whether a planned operation or not, will serve the most obvious purpose of providing proof of the power and omniscience of the KGB.” Much later, Angleton would obliquely compare the Soviets’ probable motivation to a famous scene in Mario Puzo’s novel "The Godfather," in which a Mafia chieftain puts a horse’s head into the bed of a stubborn film producer, in order to demonstrate “pure power.”
-- Tom
PS IIRC, I wrote a long reply to you on a tangential subject a few weeks ago. Have you had an opportunity to read it yet?
Hi Thomas. Thanks for the answer. The Soviet angle certainly is worth more investigation, particularly their influence within the CIA. Do you believe Oswald had confederates? It’s very clear that there was at least a second shooter from the front.
"It's very clear that there was at least a second shooter from the front."
LOL!
Good one!
-- Tom
PS Here are some facts and some questions for you to ponder:
JFK's head (and only JFK's head) went forward about 2.25 inches between Z-312 and Z-313.
Do you think his head was hit by two bullets? If so, why wasn't it more severely damaged?
Where do you think the "shot from the front" came from, anyway? The south end of the triple underpass? The storm drain on the north side of Elm Street? The Picket Fence on top of the Grassy Knoll?
The "Black Dog Man" area behind the retaining wall?
Why did JFK's upper torso go "back and to the left" relatively slowly compared to the speed of the bullet?
If JFK was shot from the Picket Fence / Grassy Knoll area, why wasn't Jackie and/or the side of the limo behind Jackie hit, as well?
Hey Thomas. I’ll certainly investigate this angle further. But one question that comes to my mind is this…why would the KGB want JFK dead, as he was in fact a liberal President who wanted to improve relations with the Soviet Union? By removing him, wouldn’t that only put in place someone who was more hostile to them?
Dear Michael,
I don't know if the KGB encouraged or provided logistical support to Oswald, or if he pulled it off all by him widdle self-described Marxist, psychologically disturbed self. That being said, this is what KGB true defector Pyotr Deriabin (1954) wrote a few days after the assassination, as relayed by author Mark Riebling in his 1994 free-to-read book (just google "riebling," "wedge" and "archive" simultaneously), "Wedge: The Secret War Between the FBI and the CIA":
But what would the Soviets possibly gain from Kennedy’s death that would be worth the risk of U.S. retaliation? From a pragmatic Western perspective, there seemed little profit indeed, but [James] Angleton thought about the problem with more subtlety. First of all, the nuclear age precluded any massive U.S. retaliation — as Johnson’s craven cover-ups of all possible communist connections were already demonstrating. Second, if the Soviets had truly penetrated the Soviet Division at CIA, as Angleton believed [note: as probable KGB "mole" Bruce Solie in the Office of Security led him to believe], the KGB might even have hoped to steer U.S. investigation of the crime. As for the Soviet motive: Out was Kennedy, a charismatic leader who could “sell” a socially conscious anticommunism in the Third World and even to Western liberals. In was Johnson, who would only “heighten the contradictions” between East and West and therefore hasten (by Leninist dialectical reasoning) the ultimate collapse of late capitalism.
Angleton also took seriously the observations marshaled in a November 27 memo by defector Deriabin, who cited the Kennedy administration’s opposition to long-term credits to the Soviets, which he said were vital to survival of the USSR. Johnson, by contrast, came from an agricultural state and had always supported grain sales to Russia. Moreover, Western pressure on the USSR “would automatically ease up” if the KGB murdered the president. As evidence, Deriabin noted a “conciliatory telegram” by a frightened and disoriented Lyndon Johnson to Khrushchev. A more amenable America would “strengthen Khrushchev’s hand” at a time when the Soviet leader was under intensifying internal pressures because of mismanagement of the 1963 harvest and disputes with China. Kennedy’s death, as Deriabin put it, thus “effectively diverts the Soviets’ attention from their internal problems. It directly affects Khrushchev’s longevity.” Finally, Deriabin ventured that “the death of President Kennedy, whether a planned operation or not, will serve the most obvious purpose of providing proof of the power and omniscience of the KGB.” Much later, Angleton would obliquely compare the Soviets’ probable motivation to a famous scene in Mario Puzo’s novel "The Godfather," in which a Mafia chieftain puts a horse’s head into the bed of a stubborn film producer, in order to demonstrate “pure power.”
-- Tom
PS IIRC, I wrote a long reply to you on a tangential subject a few weeks ago. Have you had an opportunity to read it yet?
Hi Thomas. Thanks for the answer. The Soviet angle certainly is worth more investigation, particularly their influence within the CIA. Do you believe Oswald had confederates? It’s very clear that there was at least a second shooter from the front.
Dear Michael,
"It's very clear that there was at least a second shooter from the front."
LOL!
Good one!
-- Tom
PS Here are some facts and some questions for you to ponder:
JFK's head (and only JFK's head) went forward about 2.25 inches between Z-312 and Z-313.
Do you think his head was hit by two bullets? If so, why wasn't it more severely damaged?
Where do you think the "shot from the front" came from, anyway? The south end of the triple underpass? The storm drain on the north side of Elm Street? The Picket Fence on top of the Grassy Knoll?
The "Black Dog Man" area behind the retaining wall?
Why did JFK's upper torso go "back and to the left" relatively slowly compared to the speed of the bullet?
If JFK was shot from the Picket Fence / Grassy Knoll area, why wasn't Jackie and/or the side of the limo behind Jackie hit, as well?
Hmm?
(I could go on and on.)