“Something to think about”

[Charles Collins]

I am reading an interesting book: “Oswald and the CIA” by John Newman. Here is a snip from pages 116-118:

Time and place:

November 16, 1959

Moscow, Russia


Snip:

Room 319, the Metropole

  “So I went back to the hotel, mail in hand, and I asked the lady at the end of the hall on the second floor if there was an Oswald there,” Priscilla recalls. “Yes, he is in Room 233,” the lady answered. “And I went to his room and knocked on his door, and there he was.” It was about five-twenty P.M. Priscilla describes what happened next this way:

  So the door opens and Oswald came out, and he stood in the door, not letting me in his room but talking to me. I said, “My name is Priscilla Johnson and I work for the North American News Alliance. I am a reporter here and I live in your hotel, and I wonder if I could talk with you. He said “Yes,” and I said, ”Well, when can I come and see you?” He said, ”Nine tonight. I’ll come to your room.“30 Oswald showed up on time. He talked with Priscilla until one or two in the morning.

  In December 1963 Priscilla wrote her recollections of the interview. Oswald began, she recalled, by saying he had dissolved his American citizenship, “as much as they would let me at that time,” and he then complained that “they refused to allow me to take the oath at that time.”31 Priscilla says she next put a question to him about “the official Soviet attitude,” and he responded that the Russians had “confirmed” that he would not have to leave the country. Oswald then added, “They have said they are investigating the possibilities of my continuing my education at a Soviet institute.” This 1963 description of the way the interview opened matches almost precisely her 1959 notes written during the interview with Oswald.32

  Oswald explained that since the embassy had “released”33 the story of his defection, he was granting this interview “to give my side of the story—I would like to give people in the United States something to think about. “He continued. “Once having been assured by the Russians that I would not have to return to the United States, come what may, I assumed it would be safe for me to give my side of the story” [the underline was in Priscilla’s contemporaneous notes and may have been Oswald’s emphasis].34 Again, Priscilla’s 1963 account matched her 1959 notes, but what did Oswald mean by “safe”?



Please not that there is not an underline (that the author refers to) in my Kindle version of the book. But, based on the point that Newman is making, I would assume his reference involves the “would be safe” comment. I am the one who underlined the “something to think about” comment. It would be easy to speculate what LHO might have meant by that remark. Newman is concerned with whatever secrets LHO might have had (and was willing to give the Soviets) regarding his radar experiences in the USMC, including the U2 spy plane. I don’t believe that LHO could have even imagined the JFK assassination in 1959. But he did (eventually) achieve his goal of “giving people of the United States something to think about.” We are still thinking about it almost 60-years later…

[Alan Ford]

 

The only thing Mr. Oswald gives us to think about, 60 years on, is how on earth a man drinking Coca Cola on the fourth step of the Depository entrance managed to assassinate Pres. Kennedy

[Richard Smith]

I am reading an interesting book: “Oswald and the CIA” by John Newman. Here is a snip from pages 116-118:

Time and place:

November 16, 1959

Moscow, Russia


Snip:

Room 319, the Metropole

  “So I went back to the hotel, mail in hand, and I asked the lady at the end of the hall on the second floor if there was an Oswald there,” Priscilla recalls. “Yes, he is in Room 233,” the lady answered. “And I went to his room and knocked on his door, and there he was.” It was about five-twenty P.M. Priscilla describes what happened next this way:

  So the door opens and Oswald came out, and he stood in the door, not letting me in his room but talking to me. I said, “My name is Priscilla Johnson and I work for the North American News Alliance. I am a reporter here and I live in your hotel, and I wonder if I could talk with you. He said “Yes,” and I said, ”Well, when can I come and see you?” He said, ”Nine tonight. I’ll come to your room.“30 Oswald showed up on time. He talked with Priscilla until one or two in the morning.

  In December 1963 Priscilla wrote her recollections of the interview. Oswald began, she recalled, by saying he had dissolved his American citizenship, “as much as they would let me at that time,” and he then complained that “they refused to allow me to take the oath at that time.”31 Priscilla says she next put a question to him about “the official Soviet attitude,” and he responded that the Russians had “confirmed” that he would not have to leave the country. Oswald then added, “They have said they are investigating the possibilities of my continuing my education at a Soviet institute.” This 1963 description of the way the interview opened matches almost precisely her 1959 notes written during the interview with Oswald.32

  Oswald explained that since the embassy had “released”33 the story of his defection, he was granting this interview “to give my side of the story—I would like to give people in the United States something to think about. “He continued. “Once having been assured by the Russians that I would not have to return to the United States, come what may, I assumed it would be safe for me to give my side of the story” [the underline was in Priscilla’s contemporaneous notes and may have been Oswald’s emphasis].34 Again, Priscilla’s 1963 account matched her 1959 notes, but what did Oswald mean by “safe”?



Please not that there is not an underline (that the author refers to) in my Kindle version of the book. But, based on the point that Newman is making, I would assume his reference involves the “would be safe” comment. I am the one who underlined the “something to think about” comment. It would be easy to speculate what LHO might have meant by that remark. Newman is concerned with whatever secrets LHO might have had (and was willing to give the Soviets) regarding his radar experiences in the USMC, including the U2 spy plane. I don’t believe that LHO could have even imagined the JFK assassination in 1959. But he did (eventually) achieve his goal of “giving people of the United States something to think about.” We are still thinking about it almost 60-years later…

Oswald was a narcissist who desired attention.  He aligned himself with an outlier political group (Commies) because that brought notoriety to himself.  He was otherwise a nobody in American society.  Perhaps he was even a true believer in some of the Marxist ideology.  He no doubt had contempt for mainstream American society in which he was a powerless and invisible person.  So an opportunity to lecture Americans on the ills of their society was right up his psychological alley.  He was smarter and knew better than the average American citizen who he viewed as sheep.  He was going to educuate them. 

[Charles Collins]

Oswald was a narcissist who desired attention.  He aligned himself with an outlier political group (Commies) because that brought notoriety to himself.  He was otherwise a nobody in American society.  Perhaps he was even a true believer in some of the Marxist ideology.  He no doubt had contempt for mainstream American society in which he was a powerless and invisible person.  So an opportunity to lecture Americans on the ills of their society was right up his psychological alley.  He was smarter and knew better than the average American citizen who he viewed as sheep.  He was going to educuate them.

It is interesting to compare his willingness to divulge “US secrets” to the Soviets with the reported reason he became interested in communism ideology in the first place (the plight of the Rosenbergs). They were convicted of espionage and LHO apparently had a lot of sympathy for them. Perhaps he wanted to identify with the Rosenbergs and the “something to think about” had to do with his idea that they suffered an injustice?

[Richard Smith]

It is interesting to compare his willingness to divulge “US secrets” to the Soviets with the reported reason he became interested in communism ideology in the first place (the plight of the Rosenbergs). They were convicted of espionage and LHO apparently had a lot of sympathy for them. Perhaps he wanted to identify with the Rosenbergs and the “something to think about” had to do with his idea that they suffered an injustice?

Oswald was an angry malcontent who blamed society for his situation.  He could play the anti-hero as a means to gain attention and exercise his contempt for society.  I doubt he gave a whit about the Rosenbergs or anyone other than himself.  He considered himself a victim.  He wanted attention and to stick it to mainstream American society.  And he accomplished both. 

[Jerry Organ]

Oswald was an angry malcontent who blamed society for his situation.  He could play the anti-hero as a means to gain attention and exercise his contempt for society.  I doubt he gave a whit about the Rosenbergs or anyone other than himself.  He considered himself a victim.  He wanted attention and to stick it to mainstream American society.  And he accomplished both.

You're describing modern-day Republicans. 

[Steve M. Galbraith]

It is interesting to compare his willingness to divulge “US secrets” to the Soviets with the reported reason he became interested in communism ideology in the first place (the plight of the Rosenbergs). They were convicted of espionage and LHO apparently had a lot of sympathy for them. Perhaps he wanted to identify with the Rosenbergs and the “something to think about” had to do with his idea that they suffered an injustice?

One of the odd instances of history surprising us is that the main/chief author of the Warren Commission Report, Norman Redlich, was a vocal defender of the Rosenbergs at that time and protested their death penalties (he was a life long opponent of capital punishment). Redlich was a critic of HUAC, McCarthy (he represented clients called before the committee; remember that JFK and RFK were on that committee as well), argued Hiss was innocent, and was not "fond" of Hoover. He was a man of the political left (imagine a young Oswald and Redlich marching down Broadway Avenue together protesting on behalf of the Rosenbergs?).

So we have Rosenbergs+Oswald+Redlich+JFK+RFK in a strange historical danse macabre.

Re Oswald's "something to think about" statement: I think the Oswald of 1959 was a far different person, less cynical and angry, than the 1963 version. By November of '63 he was lost, without hope, trapped in a dead end job in a country he hated. He wanted to tell the American people in 1959 how awful the US was, how much it had hurt him and his family. Four years later I don't think he really cared much about the American people, he thought they were sheep and fools and were incapable of understanding what he knew about America. In a way, it's remarkable similar to the conspiracy view of the US: that the American people don't know how the government has lied to them all of these decades. Very cynical view of the US.

As to Oswald in the USSR: We have the latter learned fact that the Soviets/KGB never really questioned Oswald as to what he knew. Not in a serious, deep way. He sort of fell through the security cracks. When Yuri Nosenko defected and told the CIA this they didn't believe him; to them, that wasn't how the KGB acted with defectors. This led to the belief that Nosenko was a fake defector which meant Oswald *did* have a deeper relationship with the KGB. This in turn led to Angleton turning the Counter Intelligence division upside down over the issue and ultimately contributed, in part, to his firing.

The key point in this is that IF Oswald was indeed a CIA agent or asset then Angleton would have known from him (Oswald) that Nosenko was correct. So all of the internal strife caused by Nosenko's defection and Angleton's over reaction would have been avoided. But that's only if Oswald was indeed a CIA asset (which for me is absurd).

BTW, the Johnson news article on Oswald can be read here:  https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1137#relPageId=306

Her notes on the interview (hard to read) are here: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1137#relPageId=297

[Charles Collins]

One of the odd instances of history surprising us is that the main/chief author of the Warren Commission Report, Norman Redlich, was a vocal defender of the Rosenbergs at that time and protested their death penalties (he was a life long opponent of capital punishment). Redlich was a critic of HUAC, McCarthy (he represented clients called before the committee; remember that JFK and RFK were on that committee as well), argued Hiss was innocent, and was not "fond" of Hoover. He was a man of the political left (imagine a young Oswald and Redlich marching down Broadway Avenue together protesting on behalf of the Rosenbergs?).

So we have Rosenbergs+Oswald+Redlich+JFK+RFK in a strange historical danse macabre.

Re Oswald's "something to think about" statement: I think the Oswald of 1959 was a far different person, less cynical and angry, than the 1963 version. By November of '63 he was lost, without hope, trapped in a dead end job in a country he hated. He wanted to tell the American people in 1959 how awful the US was, how much it had hurt him and his family. Four years later I don't think he really cared much about the American people, he thought they were sheep and fools and were incapable of understanding what he knew about America. In a way, it's remarkable similar to the conspiracy view of the US: that the American people don't know how the government has lied to them all of these decades. Very cynical view of the US.

As to Oswald in the USSR: We have the latter learned fact that the Soviets/KGB never really questioned Oswald as to what he knew. Not in a serious, deep way. He sort of fell through the security cracks. When Yuri Nosenko defected and told the CIA this they didn't believe him; to them, that wasn't how the KGB acted with defectors. This led to the belief that Nosenko was a fake defector which meant Oswald *did* have a deeper relationship with the KGB. This in turn led to Angleton turning the Counter Intelligence division upside down over the issue and ultimately contributed, in part, to his firing.

The key point in this is that IF Oswald was indeed a CIA agent or asset then Angleton would have known from him (Oswald) that Nosenko was correct. So all of the internal strife caused by Nosenko's defection and Angleton's over reaction would have been avoided. But that's only if Oswald was indeed a CIA asset (which for me is absurd).

BTW, the Johnson news article on Oswald can be read here:  https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1137#relPageId=306

Her notes on the interview (hard to read) are here: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1137#relPageId=297

 

Very informative, thanks!