#: 495588 S7/JFK Debate  [POLITICS]
    29-Feb-96  09:09:36
Sb: Prouty Book Critique 2
Fm: D.T. FUHRMANN 71301,527
To: ALL

Critique of Prouty continued......(#2):

On page 12 Prouty declares:

 "Most historical publications and media sources would have us believe it was
this memorable occasion [Churchill's Fulton, Missouri speech in March 1945]
that marked the end of wartime alliance with the USSR and the beginning of the
Cold War.  But, as we have seen, this was not so. The Grand Strategy decision
to create a new bipolar world had already been made in 1944-45 [footnote in
source text], and the partners in this new global power structure were to be
the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Japan, three of the
WWII victors and two of the vanquished."

Mr. Prouty seems to be a member of the school which argues that Russia did
nothing of concern in final months of WWII or in the months following, that
the Cold War was entirely the fault of aggressive and evil Western powers. It
is that footnote which interests me, however.  For it would suggest Mr. Prouty
is going to offer some references for this remarkable and controversial
historical analysis.  So we turn to the footnote, and find (in total):

"The case of Gen. Reinhard Gehlen will be discussed below.  Gehlen, head of
Hitler's Eastern European Intelligence Division, surrendered to American Army
officers before the fall of Nazi power and later was made a general in the US
Army for intelligence purposes by an act of Congress."

So much for any references to the historic decision to launch the Cold War.
Instead what we get is a reference to a well-known recruitment of a former
German intelligence specialist on the Soviet Union....without any sources or
references for that either.  It is clearly NOT Mr. Prouty's intent to help the
reader find and examine any of the history offered in greater depth and
detail. One wonders why.

Prouty cites Leonard Lewin's book "Report from Iron Mountain," and although he
refers to the book as a novel, Prouty treats it as if it were true. No problem
with it being a novel.  So was "Seven Days in May," which posits a military
coup to seize the United States government.  If the "novel" "Report From Iron
Mountain" is an adequate source of argument, then so perhaps is "Seven Days in
May."  Prouty will use "Report from Iron Mountain" elsewhere to buttress or
support his arguments, occasionally terming the book a novel, but consistently
presenting it as if it were a real governmental or quasi-governmental study.
This is scholarship?  You make the call.

On page 16 Prouty refers to the Yalta Conference, though only in passing.  He
refers to an exchange between Churchill and Roosevelt (offering it to support
the contention that Churchill "never forgot, and never forgave" FDR for a
reputed put-down in Teheran.  Prouty reports it thus:

"Churchill never forgot, and never forgave, Roosevelt for this exchange.
During the Yalta Conference in early February 1945, the subject of
"trusteeships" for various British, French, and Dutch colonies came up again.
When the heads of state (Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt) met during that
session, Churchill was reported to have "exploded," declaring "I absolutely
disagree.  I will not have one scrap of British territory flung into that
arena...as long as every bit of land over which the British flag flies is to
be brought back into the dock, I shall object as long as I live." (Prouty, p
16)

Although Prouty mentions the source of the quote (Gibbons, "The United States
Government and the Vietnam War," USGPO, 1984), he again neglects to provide
the page number (it's on page 12 if anyone is interested). And when we look,
we find the following:

"At Yalta the US proposed adding a trusteeship system to the UN framework
proposed at Dumbarton Oaks. The [British] Foreign Minister agreed that this
should be considered, and they proposed further consultations prior to the San
Francisco Conference.  But when the heads of state met, Churchill was reported
to have "exploded," declaring I absolutely disagree.  I will not have one
scrap of British territory flung into that arena...as long as every bit of
land over which the British flag flies is to be brought back into the dock, I
shall object as long as I live."

"When it was explained that no reference to the British Empire was intended,
Churchill appeared to be reassured, but it was clear that the British would
only agree to a trusteeship system which did not directly affect colonial
territory."

The text further notes that "after further discussions, agreement was
reached."  Prouty does not, of course, bother to report any of this.

Then, on page 17, we find one of my favorite Proutyisms.  He reports a
personal discussion he had with a harbor master in Okinawa (unidentified,
un-named) in late summer or early fall of 1945 (date not clearly indicated)
who reputedly tells our hero that the shipments of arms and munitions leaving
the harbor are on the way to Korea and Indochina. This begs the question of
whether or not this harbor master ever really existed anywhere but in Prouty's
imagination (this story becomes important later because he offers it up
several times as definitive evidence that the USG intentionally armed the Viet
Minh in order to create a war in which the US could become involved twenty
years later. Even if the harbor master existed, what evidence is there to
believe that his assertions were accurate? Maybe he was passing along some of
the scuttlebutt and rumor that is the life-blood of a war zone? Perhaps there
were in fact shipments of material to Tonkin in late 1945....but going to the
Nationalist Chinese occupation forces there, a group to whom we were still
supplying vast quantities of war material.

There is nothing in the documentary record to support the allegations of deep
and substantive OSS involvement with Ho Chi Minh.  There is nothing in the
memoirs of any of those who were actually present in Indochina at that time to
support the assertion that the US, through the OSS or any other organization,
was supplying the Viet Minh....not even in the memoirs and reports of French
and British officials, some of whom were HIGHLY critical of US political
meddling. There is nothing to indicate that the Viet Minh EVER received much
in the way of military support or assistance from external sources (until late
1949, when the Chinese Communist reached the Vietnamese border and began
providing the Viet Minh with equipment captured from the US supplied KIT
forces); the Viet Minh operated with a variety of arms captured from the
Japanese and the French.  In fact, they were not particularly well-armed at
all in the 1940s.  In none of the histories of the French War (again several
of which are extremely critical of the largely inadvertent POLITICAL role
played by the OSS and later the USG) there is no mention of US arms for the
Viet Minh.  Is it possible that France would say nothing about such massive
assistance going to their opponent, the Viet Minh?  And that shiploads of arms
could be delivered to the Viet Minh, under the noses of French officials, yet
no record, no hint, no evidence of such deliveries has ever come to
light....other than Mr. Prouty's assertions?

In fact, I have never run across ANYTHING in the historical and documentary
record which would provide even a hint of substantiation to this particular
chestnut.  But Prouty not only makes the unequivocal assertion, he later uses
his own testimony as supporting evidence that these things did indeed happen.
Good scholarship?  You make the call.

to be continued in part 3......