They taught me how to kill, and I liked it.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Oswald entertained a delusional fantasy that he could become someone of importance in the Soviet Union.  He likely blamed American society for his invisible presence.   He held out hope that things would be different in the USSR.  When that didn't work out, he became embittered and disillusioned.

I'm not sure he had that great man fantasy when he was in the Soviet Union? Didn't that arise when he came back? E.g., he writes his "Historic Diary"? But if so why no violent backlash/behavior as he failed to become famous? Marina said he hit her a few times with an open hand; but that's the extent of it. The evidence is that he adapted to his life, he had friends, a decent job supplemented by the Soviet "Red Cross", a wife, a child, a life.

McMillan again makes this point, one I think is true:  "Marina observed that by the time she and Oswald had dealt with the red tape required to leave Russia and emigrate to the United States, the steam had gone out of Oswald’s desire to go home. He had a baby daughter now, he felt settled, and he was afraid the US government might prosecute him for his one-time offer to give radar secrets to the Russians. It was not, as Peter Savodnik says, that Oswald felt himself a failure. It was bureaucratic momentum and his fear of losing face that made him go through with his return to America."

I don't think he wanted to leave the USSR because he didn't become famous. I think he just got bored, perhaps homesick, and wanted to return. Then when he realized what he was giving up, what he potentially faced, it was too late to turn back again.

I see a violent angry man in the US that wasn't there in the USSR.

BTW, with the movie out it's interesting that McMillan wrote an interesting biography on Oppenheimer. Very pro-Oppenheimer and very critical of his opponents. She says he was a victim of McCarthyism and the arms race could have been, if not avoided at least mitigated, if he and his views weren't rejected out of Cold War fear. I think that's a stretch but it's a good read.
 

[Charles Collins]

I'm not sure he had that great man fantasy when he was in the Soviet Union? Didn't that arise when he came back? E.g., he writes his "Historic Diary"? But if so why no violent backlash/behavior as he failed to become famous? Marina said he hit her a few times with an open hand; but that's the extent of it. The evidence is that he adapted to his life, he had friends, a decent job supplemented by the Soviet "Red Cross", a wife, a child, a life.

McMillan again makes this point, one I think is true:  "Marina observed that by the time she and Oswald had dealt with the red tape required to leave Russia and emigrate to the United States, the steam had gone out of Oswald’s desire to go home. He had a baby daughter now, he felt settled, and he was afraid the US government might prosecute him for his one-time offer to give radar secrets to the Russians. It was not, as Peter Savodnik says, that Oswald felt himself a failure. It was bureaucratic momentum and his fear of losing face that made him go through with his return to America."

I don't think he wanted to leave the USSR because he didn't become famous. I think he just got bored, perhaps homesick, and wanted to return. Then when he realized what he was giving up, what he potentially faced, it was too late to turn back again.

I see a violent angry man in the US that wasn't there in the USSR.

BTW, with the movie out it's interesting that McMillan wrote an interesting biography on Oppenheimer. Very pro-Oppenheimer and very critical of his opponents. She says he was a victim of McCarthyism and the arms race could have been, if not avoided at least mitigated, if he and his views weren't rejected out of Cold War fear. I think that's a stretch but it's a good read.

Thanks for the heads up about McMillan’s book “The Ruin of J. Robert Oppenheimer: and the Birth of the Modern Arms Race.” We saw the movie “Oppenheimer” yesterday and enjoyed it a lot. The movie is based on another book “American Prometheus,” by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherman. I wish I had read it before seeing the movie because there is a lot to the story that I was unaware of. And it is a very fascinating story that I consider to be world-changing. The Kindle version of McMillan’s book only costs about $3.00. So, I think I will read it first.

BTW, (spoiler alert for those who might want to see the movie) JFK’s name appears near the end of the movie as one of three Senators who abstained in the vote to confirm Lewis Strauss as Commerce Secretary to President Eisenhower. This caused his confirmation to fail. There are also some interesting things to read about Strauss in this Wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Strauss

[Charles Collins]

I'm not sure he had that great man fantasy when he was in the Soviet Union? Didn't that arise when he came back? E.g., he writes his "Historic Diary"? But if so why no violent backlash/behavior as he failed to become famous? Marina said he hit her a few times with an open hand; but that's the extent of it. The evidence is that he adapted to his life, he had friends, a decent job supplemented by the Soviet "Red Cross", a wife, a child, a life.

McMillan again makes this point, one I think is true:  "Marina observed that by the time she and Oswald had dealt with the red tape required to leave Russia and emigrate to the United States, the steam had gone out of Oswald’s desire to go home. He had a baby daughter now, he felt settled, and he was afraid the US government might prosecute him for his one-time offer to give radar secrets to the Russians. It was not, as Peter Savodnik says, that Oswald felt himself a failure. It was bureaucratic momentum and his fear of losing face that made him go through with his return to America."

I don't think he wanted to leave the USSR because he didn't become famous. I think he just got bored, perhaps homesick, and wanted to return. Then when he realized what he was giving up, what he potentially faced, it was too late to turn back again.

I see a violent angry man in the US that wasn't there in the USSR.

BTW, with the movie out it's interesting that McMillan wrote an interesting biography on Oppenheimer. Very pro-Oppenheimer and very critical of his opponents. She says he was a victim of McCarthyism and the arms race could have been, if not avoided at least mitigated, if he and his views weren't rejected out of Cold War fear. I think that's a stretch but it's a good read.

Steve, I see a man that, from the time of his punishment in the brig of the USMC, was determined to strike back. His determination to go to Russia appears to have developed soon after he got out of the brig. And, at that time, defecting to Russia was one of the most outrageous statements against the US that he could have made. When he didn’t become infamous enough (to suit him) for that action, he decided to return to the US. And Cuba was in the news (as a foe of the US) constantly at that time, so taking the side of Cuba was another statement of protest against the US. Taking a shot at Walker was an attempt to defend his hero Castro. And the opportunity for the JFK assassination just seems to have fallen into his lap. JFK’s stance against Cuba only made it a more enticing opportunity. And JD Tippit died a hero trying to stop LHO.

[Richard Smith]

The contrarian makes no effort to rebut the response or contribute to the discussion, however. 

There is nothing to rebut. Your opinion isn't evidence and as such completely worthless, so stop presenting it as "fact".

Meanwhile these same contrarian kooks entertain every baseless conspiracy narrative to explain away the mountain of evidence against Oswald.

Wrong again. I have in fact dismissed most of the conspiracy narratives as they are the same as your LN theory; scant on physical evidence and loaded with speculation and jumping to conclusions not supported by the facts.


Simple question for you; when you tell us what Oswald was thinking sixty + years ago, do you do so based on factual evidence or are your merely making stuff up?

Steve posed a question regarding why Oswald returned to the US embittered.  Any response to that question MUST contain some conjecture because only Oswald could know the answer with certainty.  Can you understand that simple point?  I posed a possible explanation.  Instead of addressing that explanation if you disagree with it, you derail the discussion taking it down the contrarian rabbit hole.  If you have nothing to say of substance on the topic, why interject your contrarian nonsense into every thread?  You are the single worst poster on this forum since Caprio was tossed.  At least he sometimes had thoughts on topics under discussion. 

[Richard Smith]

I'm not sure he had that great man fantasy when he was in the Soviet Union? Didn't that arise when he came back? E.g., he writes his "Historic Diary"? But if so why no violent backlash/behavior as he failed to become famous? Marina said he hit her a few times with an open hand; but that's the extent of it. The evidence is that he adapted to his life, he had friends, a decent job supplemented by the Soviet "Red Cross", a wife, a child, a life.

McMillan again makes this point, one I think is true:  "Marina observed that by the time she and Oswald had dealt with the red tape required to leave Russia and emigrate to the United States, the steam had gone out of Oswald’s desire to go home. He had a baby daughter now, he felt settled, and he was afraid the US government might prosecute him for his one-time offer to give radar secrets to the Russians. It was not, as Peter Savodnik says, that Oswald felt himself a failure. It was bureaucratic momentum and his fear of losing face that made him go through with his return to America."

I don't think he wanted to leave the USSR because he didn't become famous. I think he just got bored, perhaps homesick, and wanted to return. Then when he realized what he was giving up, what he potentially faced, it was too late to turn back again.

I see a violent angry man in the US that wasn't there in the USSR.

BTW, with the movie out it's interesting that McMillan wrote an interesting biography on Oppenheimer. Very pro-Oppenheimer and very critical of his opponents. She says he was a victim of McCarthyism and the arms race could have been, if not avoided at least mitigated, if he and his views weren't rejected out of Cold War fear. I think that's a stretch but it's a good read.

Oswald was one of those guys who blamed others for his unhappiness and failures.  He was a lifelong malcontent at school and home.  I think he was always an angry guy.  The USSR held out a possible alternative life for him.  When that didn't work out, I think he became more embittered.  Returning to the US to work in a series of mundane, low wage jobs would have been a trigger for his repressed anger.  So he took matters into his own hands.  It's hard to say why some angry nuts commit violent acts and many others never do.  For every nut who commits a violent act, there are hundreds or thousands of people who have many of the same warning signs.  Some people snap and act on those impulses and others do not. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Steve posed a question regarding why Oswald returned to the US embittered.  Any response to that question MUST contain some conjecture because only Oswald could know the answer with certainty.  Can you understand that simple point?  I posed a possible explanation.  Instead of addressing that explanation if you disagree with it, you derail the discussion taking it down the contrarian rabbit hole.  If you have nothing to say of substance on the topic, why interject your contrarian nonsense into every thread?  You are the single worst poster on this forum since Caprio was tossed.  At least he sometimes had thoughts on topics under discussion.

I posed a possible explanation.

You just forgot to tell us it was merely a "possible explanation", right?

Instead of addressing that explanation if you disagree with it,

There was nothing to address. You gave an opinion and, as you always do, presented it a fact. I have no interest whatsoever in discussing your opinions.

Get off your high horse...

[Richard Smith]

I posed a possible explanation.

You just forgot to tell us it was merely a "possible explanation", right?

Instead of addressing that explanation if you disagree with it,

There was nothing to address. You gave an opinion and, as you always do, presented it a fact. I have no interest whatsoever in discussing your opinions.

Get off your high horse...

Down the contrarian rabbit hole we go again.  How many times can you interject yourself into a discussion without making any substantive points.  I have tried to explain to you that the question posed required an answer based on conjecture.  No one is suggesting that it MUST be the absolute truth because only Oswald would know that for sure.   Why try to derail a conversation based on your contrarian idiocy when it comes to any possible negative connotation regarding Oswald?  If you think there is no merit to discussing his state of mind, why not just avoid this thread?   Is there nothing else to do in "Europe}?

[Martin Weidmann]

Down the contrarian rabbit hole we go again.  How many times can you interject yourself into a discussion without making any substantive points.  I have tried to explain to you that the question posed required an answer based on conjecture.  No one is suggesting that it MUST be the absolute truth because only Oswald would know that for sure.   Why try to derail a conversation based on your contrarian idiocy when it comes to any possible negative connotation regarding Oswald?  If you think there is no merit to discussing his state of mind, why not just avoid this thread?   Is there nothing else to do in "Europe}?

Why try to derail a conversation

I don't do that. I just don't let you get away with spreading your usual BS.