Hoover’s effort to “convince the public that Oswald” was lone assassin…

[Richard Smith]

Who said anything about nukes?  I said that if the public were led to believe the Russians or Cubans were behind the assassination of the US President that there would be WWIII.


At the height of the cold war and only a year after the Cuba crisis? Yeah right... the risk of a nuclear exchange was and would be far to great. Besides, the whole thing was and still is preposterous. Even if Russia or Cuba was behind the assassination, what was the US going to do, that could spark of WWIII? Invade Cuba and/or Russia with conventional weapons? If you really believe that could be done, you are truly delusional.

That might have involved nuclear weapons or it might not.  The point is a lot of people would have died needlessly as the result of the act of one loon.

Sure, just like is happening now in Ukraine and guess who is threatening with nuclear weapons....

To suggest that the assassination of the US President by a Communist government during the Cold War would not have resulted in a large scale military response is ridiculous even from you.


BS the risk alone of the thing going nuclear would be enough to think again. Just like is happening now with Nato in the Ukraine. They are helping as much as they can, but stop short at direct involvement (with air cover) so as not to provoke the Russians into an escalation. It wouldn't have been any different in 1963.

It's all well and good to talk about a "large scale miltary response", but where exactly would that have to take place, if not by invasion of Cuba and/or Russia?

The whole thing is a croc anyway. When Katzenback wrote his memo they had no solid evidence of any kind for the involvement of Cuba or Russia. They decided that Oswald was a lone nut long before they really knew who was behind the assassination. The WWIII excuse was just that; an excuse to focus the public's reaction on the lone nut!

The US was on the verge on vaporizing Cuba over the mere presence of some Russian missiles, but you take issue with military retaliation for the assassination of the President?  What could be a greater act of war than murdering the head of state?  WWI started over an assassination.  The legitimate concern was that the public would be convinced of the involvement of Russia or Cuba based on Oswald's nutty background due to the efforts of crazy conspiracy theorists and pressure the government into retaliation.  A very legitimate concern. 

[Martin Weidmann]

The US was on the verge on vaporizing Cuba over the mere presence of some Russian missiles, but you take issue with military retaliation for the assassination of the President?  What could be a greater act of war than murdering the head of state?  WWI started over an assassination.  The legitimate concern was that the public would be convinced of the involvement of Russia or Cuba based on Oswald's nutty background due to the efforts of crazy conspiracy theorists and pressure the government into retaliation.  A very legitimate concern.

The US was on the verge on vaporizing Cuba over the mere presence of some Russian missiles.

Really? Kennedy wasn't bluffing? Are you sure about that?

but you take issue with military retaliation for the assassination of the President?

BS... All I asked you was where and how that "military retaliation" was to take place and you seem clueless.

What could be a greater act of war than murdering the head of state?  WWI started over an assassination.

You better start reading some history books, because the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was merely the excuse they needed to start a war that was long overdue. The tension in Europe was already building up since the 1870 German/French war, which resulted in the formation of Germany as we know it today. The Austrians didn't like what was happening and the Balkan was full of tension.

The legitimate concern was that the public would be convinced of the involvement of Russia or Cuba based on Oswald's nutty background.

BS. Oswald was who he was. He had been the Russia and was pro-Cuba (according to the official story), so that leap could easily have been made, but it wasn't. At least not by the general public or the media.

due to the efforts of crazy conspiracy theorists and pressure the government into retaliation.  A very legitimate concern.

There were no "crazy conspiracy theorists" when Katzenbach wrote his memo, nor was there any pressure on the government. All there was were US Goverment officials who instantly decided that Oswald was a lone nut and that's all they wanted to know. The WWIII thing was never anything more than an excuse.

[Richard Smith]

The US was on the verge on vaporizing Cuba over the mere presence of some Russian missiles.

Really? Kennedy wasn't bluffing? Are you sure about that?

but you take issue with military retaliation for the assassination of the President?

BS... All I asked you was where and how that "military retaliation" was to take place and you seem clueless.

You want me to specify where and how the "military retaliation" would have taken place?  LOL.  The point is that there was a real risk of military retaliation if the public were convinced of the involvement of Russia and Cuba in the assassination of JFK.  The evidence proved that Oswald was the assassin.  Thus, the memo is suggesting that is important that the public be convinced of Oswald's guilt for this important reason (i.e. it was true and eliminates the risk of war based on false pretenses). 

[Martin Weidmann]

You want me to specify where and how the "military retaliation" would have taken place?  LOL.  The point is that there was a real risk of military retaliation if the public were convinced of the involvement of Russia and Cuba in the assassination of JFK.  The evidence proved that Oswald was the assassin.  Thus, the memo is suggesting that is important that the public be convinced of Oswald's guilt for this important reason (i.e. it was true and eliminates the risk of war based on false pretenses).

The point is that there was a real risk of military retaliation if the public were convinced of the involvement of Russia and Cuba in the assassination of JFK.

No there was no such real risk. The only country to start such a war in this scenario would be the United States and there is zero possibility that the Government would start a highly risky war simply because the public were convinced of anything. Cooler heads, who understood what the consequences of such a war would be, would have prevailed.


The evidence proved that Oswald was the assassin.  Thus, the memo is suggesting that is important that the public be convinced of Oswald's guilt for this important reason (i.e. it was true and eliminates the risk of war based on false pretenses).

More BS. Katzenbach wrote his memo a day after Hoover had decided that Oswald was the lone nut. At that time some evidence had been gathered but Hoover admitted it was no way enough to convict Oswald of anything. So, why does the public need to be convinced that Oswald was the lone gunman even before the investigation had produced credible results? It wasn't because of a possible WWIII. That was just the excuse they used to put the focus on Oswald als the lone nut, in the same way that the murder of Franz Ferdinand was used as the excuse to start a war which was already inevitable.

The notion that the public can succesfully demand that their Government starts a war is idiotic!

[Richard Smith]

The point is that there was a real risk of military retaliation if the public were convinced of the involvement of Russia and Cuba in the assassination of JFK.

No there was no such real risk. The only country to start such a war in this scenario would be the United States and there is zero possibility that the Government would start a highly risky war simply because the public were convinced of anything. Cooler heads, who understood what the consequences of such a war would be, would have prevailed.

Speculate much?  Coming from you this is rich.  I like the part where you state that the "only country to start such a war...would be the United States."  As though someone suggested a different country would start a war if the President of the United States was murdered by the Russians.  HA HA HA.  That would be like saying only the US would start a war with Japan after Pearl Harbort to suggest somehow that no war would have been declared for that event. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Speculate much? Coming from you this is rich.  I like the part where you state that the "only country to start such a war...would be the United States."  As though someone suggested a different country would start a war if the President of the United States was murdered by the Russians.  HA HA HA.  That would be like saying only the US would start a war with Japan after Pearl Harbort to suggest somehow that no war would have been declared for that event.

Speculate much?

It's no more speculation as claiming there would be WWIII. It seems I have more confidence in the common sense of the Goverment and am less of a warmonger than you.

The bombing of Pearl Harbor was an obvious act of war by a known agressor. To equate that to the assassination of the President, when there is no known agressor is pathetic.

[Richard Smith]

Speculate much?

It's no more speculation as claiming there would be WWIII. It seems I have more confidence in the common sense of the Goverment and am less of a warmonger than you.

The bombing of Pearl Harbor was an obvious act of war by a known agressor. To equate that to the assassination of the President, when there is no known agressor is pathetic.

I said there would be a "risk" of WWIII.  You interjected all manner of nonsense including speculation about nuclear war.  That risk was premised upon the public being convinced of the involvement of Russian or Cuban involvement rather than any actual involvement.  And you have more confidence in the common sense of the government than I do!!!!  The same guy who questions the evidence against Oswald as the product of a frame up that potentially involves the FBI, CIA, and other government agencies and rejects the conclusions of the "official" investigation.  I have truly heard it all now.   Breathtaking hypocrisy. 

[Walt Cakebread]

The point is that there was a real risk of military retaliation if the public were convinced of the involvement of Russia and Cuba in the assassination of JFK.

No there was no such real risk. The only country to start such a war in this scenario would be the United States and there is zero possibility that the Government would start a highly risky war simply because the public were convinced of anything. Cooler heads, who understood what the consequences of such a war would be, would have prevailed.


The evidence proved that Oswald was the assassin.  Thus, the memo is suggesting that is important that the public be convinced of Oswald's guilt for this important reason (i.e. it was true and eliminates the risk of war based on false pretenses).

More BS. Katzenbach wrote his memo a day after Hoover had decided that Oswald was the lone nut. At that time some evidence had been gathered but Hoover admitted it was no way enough to convict Oswald of anything. So, why does the public need to be convinced that Oswald was the lone gunman even before the investigation had produced credible results? It wasn't because of a possible WWIII. That was just the excuse they used to put the focus on Oswald als the lone nut, in the same way that the murder of Franz Ferdinand was used as the excuse to start a war which was already inevitable.

The notion that the public can succesfully demand that their Government starts a war is idiotic!

More BS. Katzenbach wrote his memo a day after Hoover had decided that Oswald was the lone nut.

Actually one of Hoover's agents, James Hosty, had pinned the blame on Lee Oswald just minutes after Lee was arrested at the Texas theater.  Hostry told DPD detective Jack Reville that Oswald was the guilty culprit who had shot JD Tippit.  Hosty made this statement to Reville at about 2:50.    Hoover had been monitoring the events in Dallas through his agents, and apparently knew Lee Oswald's name when he was dragged from the Texas theater.  ( That's correct, I said that Hoover knew Lee Oswald's name at the time he was taken from the Texas Theater.  There were three of Hoover's agents at the Texas theater at the time that Lee was arrested)   

Lee was arrested at about 1:50 pm, and he arrived at DPD headquarters at about 2:15.   In his book "ASSIGNMENT: OSWALD" Hosty said that at 2:15pm he was asked to get the "Oswald file" and  take to SAC Gordon Shanklin. Shanklin was talking on the phone to Hoover's assistant, Alan Belmont, at FBI headquarters in Washington DC when Hosty entered Shanklin's office.   At that time Shanklin told Hosty that Washington wanted him (Hosty) to get his butt over to the DPD and sit in on the interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald who had just been arrested.

QUESTION:.....  How did Hoover know the name of the man who had been dragged from the Texas Theater about 20 minutes earlier???