#: 505884 S7/JFK Debate [POLITICS] 19-Mar-96 15:15:07 Sb: Prouty Critique # 13 Fm: D.T. FUHRMANN 71301,527 To: ALL DISCLAIMER: The following critique and discussion is entirely my opinion, based on my own research and study, of Mr. Prouty's book "JFK." It should only be taken as one individual's review of a commonly referenced source on the JFK assassination and events in Vietnam during a crucial period. I strongly recommend that people take the time to go examine the other sources which, I believe, provide a very different perspective and analysis than this book.....and then make up their own minds. I am always interested in discussions of historical material and accuracy, but hope that anyone seeking to take issue with specific points raised in these critiques will bring something substantive in the way of references and sources to the table. Mr. Prouty himself makes enough unsubstantiated assertions and allegations.....getting closer to the reality (or unreality) of them requires something more than just an opinion. And on that note...... Chapter Four (pages 42-50) of L. Fletcher Prouty's "JFK" is fairly short. It does not cover much in the way of new ground, mostly repeating and re-emphasizing some of his earlier assertions and allegations. As in previous chapters the use of footnotes and references is minimal at best, and usually provides only an opportunity for a further aside' to the reader, not specific information as to the source of information or claims. In starting out here, let me note that I do not disagree with EVERYTHING Mr. Prouty says in every sentence. But I do disagree with his overall analysis on the causes of events, or the degree to which some "high cabal" is in control of events. And I continue to question the accuracy of his version of history. At best it is incomplete, at worst completely contradicted by any other historical sources or references I have been able to find. The third paragraph of the chapter states the following: "Behind the scenes, American and Soviet intelligence services had plotted the next chapter in the book of war. They had already begun to shape an "Iron Curtain" over the borders of Eastern Europe to widen the split in the wartime alliance between the Soviets and the Western powers. It had already been decided by those clandestine services that a new bipolar world would be created, divided on the issue of communism."" The first sentence clearly implies collusion, a conspiracy to manipulate and direct events. But no evidence or specific suggestion of who, when, or where. There is another reference to Buckminster Fuller, who in fact says nothing about these decisions, and never even mentions the Cold War and the emerging US-Soviet confrontation. Fuller does not hint at the existence of any "high cabal," and in fact clearly suggests that there are numerous, competing "elites" whose interests and activities are often in conflict. Fuller certainly does not imply a consistent source of guidance and unity of purpose to his "power elite." Prouty does, and cites Fuller as a supporting reference. Although no one would argue that Europe was NOT divided by an "Iron Curtain," there is no evidence presented here to show that this was t opinion, not a demonstrable historical fact.....unless, of course, Mr. Prouty has been privy to the inner workings of the high cabal? What was the alternative to developing the a-bomb? Well, the Germans were certainly working toward a similar weapon, as were the Japanese. How about if Stalin's scientists had build the first atomic bombs? Would the worl cabal" and the OSS/CIA have any power, only they control and direct events. No other actors in the international environment matter. With upon the members of the power elite....War, their most essential and valuable tool---the device which had made it possible for them to control society and to maintain the existence of nations and national sovereignty---had been taken from them by their own scientists." (Page 43) Well, that's not really accurate (forgetting for a moment the question I had about some documentation for the assertion about that "horrifying realization" crashing down on the members of the power elite). Nuclear weapons only made all-out, total war between the major nuclear powers exceedingly dangerous. Mr. Prouty contends this was a totally new situation, for which a totally new kind of conflict had to be "invented" by the "high cabal." But in fact, total war is largely a 20th century phenomenon (the American Civil War being an early precursor of this sort of warfare). Most conflict throughout history has been less than total....i.e., it has been limited in extend and consequence. The wars of Europe may have brought down the occasional royal family and weaker states may have come and gone, but for most of modern history wars have been quite limited, and rarely have the states which fought them sought total defeat of opponents. So nothing much really changed after WWII in terms of warfare....except that the two nuclear superpowers were constrained in their ability to directly challenge and confront one another. But limited warfare was nothing new to history. If anything, it has been the norm. [There is a vast and interesting literature on this subject for anyone who is interested. Let me know and I'll be glad to provide a list of reading suggestions.] [BTW, did anyone notice Mr. Prouty's implicit criticism of nation states and the concept of national sovereignty as a device of the evil "power elite." Hard to imagine this guy being a right-wing, neo-Nazi, militia sympathizer. This sort of stuff is anathema to such folks. But I digress.....] continued in #14.......