What Could N.K. Have Gained That Would Be Worth Risk Of U.S. Retaliation?

[Thomas Graves]

Nikita Khrushchev knew that in killing Kennedy there was little risk of nuclear retaliation from the U.S.

Why?

Because he knew that U.S. leaders believed in the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction -- "If we nuke the USSR, we will be nuked in return."

-- Tommy 

[Thomas Graves]

From chapter 10 of one of my favorite books, Wedge: The Secret War Between the FBI and CIA by Mark Riebling:

But what would the Soviets possibly gain from the death of Kennedy that would be worth the risk of U.S. retaliation?  From a pragmatic Western perspective, there seemed little profit indeed, but (Chief of CIA Counterintelligence 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, 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. (emphasis mine) Angleton also took seriously the observations marshaled in a November 27 memo by defector Pytor Deryabin, who cited the Kennedy administration's opposition to long-term credits to the Soviets, which he said were vital to the 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, Deryabin noted a "conciliatory telegram" by a frightened and disorientated 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 Deryabin put it, thus "effectively diverts the Soviets' attention from their internal problems. It directly affects Khrushchev's longevity."  Finally, Deryabin ventured that "the death of 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 in the bed of a stubborn film producer, in order to demonstrate "pure power." Although Angleton's critics would later excoriate him for entertaining what seemed paranoid theories, it was his job as Counterintelligence chief to consider every possibility.  "In my conversations with Jim, he never excluded that maybe we were missing something on Soviet involvement," (FBI-liason-to-CIA Sam) Papich recalled.  "He and I had a lot of discussions on that.  As far as we knew, Oswald acted alone.  But Jim felt we couldn't be sure until we had the full story on Oswald's possible links to the KGB.  That meant getting the full story on his stay in Russia." It also meant a fight with the FBI over whether that story could be believed, once it was obtained from a new Soviet defector -- a man who said he could resolve, fully and finally, all questions about whether Oswald had been acting as a KGB agent when he killed President Kennedy -- a defector by the name of YURI NOSENKO.  (emphasis mine)
.......

* The assassination may have been KGB-planned operation that was called off too late by Khrushchev. See Ion Pacepa's book, Programmed to Kill: Lee Harvey Oswald, the Soviet KGB, and the Kennedy Assassination.

Which, come to think of it kinda ties in with Richard Russell's TMWKTM, doesn't it?  I mean, was Henry Hecksher ... gasp ... a "mole"?

How about omnipresent Bill Bright?

George Kisevalter?


PS  Y

Another way the killing of JFK ended up benefiting the powers-that-be in Russia provided fertile ground for oodles and gobs of Tinfoil Hat Conspiracy Theories which "dumbed us down" and made us paranoid and distrustful of our own institutions, which in turn paved the way for Putin's hackers and Saint Petersburg trolls to install (with a little help from Julian Assange and Roger Stone, et al.) a Russian Mafia-compromised, throw-away, "useful idiot" as our president -- in order to tear our country apart.

In other words, it enabled the biggest and most successful "active measures counterintelligence operation" the modern world has ever seen. (Other than the Kennedy  assassination itself, that is.)

[Thomas Graves]

Funny.

Twenty people are looking at my Circumstantial Evidence thread (even though I haven't posted any of that evidence there, yet -- LOL), while only eight people are reading this thread.

Go figure,

-- Tommy 

[Joe Elliott]

What Could Nikita Have Gained That Would Be Worth Risk Of U.S. Retaliation?

First of all, Khrushchev knew that there was little risk of nuclear retaliation from the U.S. because he knew that U.S. leaders believed in the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction -- "If we nuke the USSR, we will probably be nuked by it, in return."

I mean, I mean, I mean ... presidents ARE replaceable, after all, right?

What could Khrushchev gain?
What could Khrushchev lose?
Cuba.
Khrushchev is under the same restraints as the U. S. leaders. Mutual Assured Destruction.
Besides, satellite states are replaceable, right?

[Denis Pointing]

What Could Nikita Have Gained That Would Be Worth Risk Of U.S. Retaliation?What could Khrushchev gain?
What could Khrushchev lose?
Cuba.
Khrushchev is under the same restraints as the U. S. leaders. Mutual Assured Destruction.
Besides, satellite states are replaceable, right?

Hi Joe, when Thomas talks of "retaliation" I don't think he's referring to the Cuban missile crisis, I think he means retaliation if it was discovered they had assassinated Kennedy. If this is what Thomas means then I can't agree. Thomas isn't taking into consideration how much Presidents are influenced by the electorate. It would be political suicide for a President not to take military retaliation and that would certainly have meant nuclear war.

[Thomas Graves]

Hi Joe, when Thomas talks of "retaliation" I don't think he's referring to the Cuban missile crisis, I think he means retaliation if it was discovered they hifad assassinated Kennedy. If this is what Thomas means then I can't agree. Thomas isn't taking into consideration how much Presidents are influenced by the electorate. It would be political suicide for a President not to take military retaliation and that would certainly have meant nuclear war.

D

Denis,

Immediately after the assassination, CIA leadership took action to prevent evidence of Cuban involvement from coming to the surface. For example, Richard Helm's deputy, Thomas Karamessines, fearing Cuban complicity in the assassination, frantically implored  the Mexican police to "go easy" on Sylvia Duran so that she might not reveal any dark Cuban secrets along those lines. 

Perhaps sensing American reluctance to start WW III over the death of a president, Duran's partial description of The-Man-Who-Was-Not-At-The-Cuban-Consulate was actually based on the #2 KGB man in Mexico City, "Third Secretary" Nikolai Leonov, the Ruskie who had introduced Communism to Raul Castro and Che Guevara around 1956. Duran and her colleague, consul Eusebio Azcue, fleshed out the description of "Oswald" in a Leonov-like way for the HSCA in 1978.

Right after the assassination, Duran told the Mexican  police that her Oswald  was "short" (she was only 5' 3.5", herself) and that he had "blond hair".  Leonov was 5' 7" and had blond hair.

-- Tommy 

[Thomas Graves]

Here's an excerpt from chapter 10 of Mark Riebling's 1994 book, "Wedge: The Secret War Between The FBI And CIA" --

But what would the Soviets possibly gain from the death of Kennedy that would be worth the risk of U.S. retaliation?  From a pragmatic Western perspective, there seemed little profit indeed, but (Chief of CIA Counterintelligence 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, 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. (emphasis mine)

Angleton also took seriously the observations marshaled in a November 27 memo by defector Pytor Deryabin, who cited the Kennedy administration's opposition to long-term credits to the Soviets, which he said were vital to the 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, Deryabin noted a "conciliatory telegram" by a frightened and disorientated 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 Deryabin put it, thus "effectively diverts the Soviets' attention from their internal problems. It directly affects Khrushchev's longevity."  Finally, Deryabin ventured that "the death of 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 in the bed of a stubborn film producer, in order to demonstrate "pure power".

Although Angleton's critics would later excoriate him for entertaining what seemed paranoid theories, it was his job as Counterintelligence chief to consider every possibility.  "In my conversations with Jim, he never excluded that maybe we were missing something on Soviet involvement," (FBI-liason-to-CIA Sam) Papich recalled.  "He and I had a lot of discussions on that.  As far as we knew, Oswald acted alone.  But Jim felt we couldn't be sure until we had the full story on Oswald's possible links to the KGB.  That meant getting the full story on his stay in Russia."

It also meant a fight with the FBI over whether that story could be believed, once it was obtained from a new Soviet defector -- a man who said he could resolve, fully and finally, all questions about whether Oswald had been acting as a KGB agent when he killed President Kennedy -- a defector by the name of YURI NOSENKO.  (emphasis mine)

...

(*) The assassination may have been KGB-planned operation that was called off too late by Khrushchev. See Ion Pacepa's book, Programmed to Kill: Lee Harvey Oswald, the Soviet KGB, and the Kennedy Assassination.

Which, come to think of it kinda ties in with Richard Russell's TMWKTM, doesn't it?  I mean, was Henry Hecksher ... or Bill Bright ... gasp ... a "mole"?


-- Tommy 

PS  Yet another way the killing of JFK benefited the "Soviets" (in the long run) -- It sowed the seeds which, with copious KGB "fake news" input over the years, gave rise to oodles and gobs of Tinfoil Hat Conspiracy Theories (e.g., "The Evil, Evil, Evil CIA Killed Kennedy!"), which ... "dumbed us down" and made us paranoid and distrustful of our own governmental institutions, etc, etc, etc, which in turn paved the way for Putin's hackers and Saint Petersburg trolls to install (with a little help from Julian Assange and Roger Stone) a Russian Mafia-compromised, throw-away, "useful idiot" as our president -- not to follow Putin's orders, but to tear our country apart with his natural divisiveness and disregard for the rule of law.

In other words, it enabled the biggest and most successful "active measures counterintelligence operation" the modern world has ever seen. (Other than the Kennedy  assassination itself, that is.)

Bumped

[Thomas Graves]

Hi Joe, when Thomas talks of "retaliation" I don't think he's referring to the Cuban missile crisis, I think he means retaliation if it was discovered they had assassinated Kennedy. If this is what Thomas means then I can't agree. Thomas isn't taking into consideration how much Presidents are influenced by the electorate. It would be political suicide for a President not to take military retaliation and that would certainly have meant nuclear war.

Denis,

Yes, by all means that's what I meant.

(Was I really that unclear?   LOL)

-- Tommy 

PS. In "the calculus," what's worse for a president, "political suicide," or "certain nuclear war"?

What would John Fitzgerald Kennedy have done if he had somehow been Eisenhower's VP,  Eisenhower had been assassinated, and there was strong evidence that the Kremlin had been behind it?

Launch an overt military operation against the USSR to keep the electorate happy?