RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Klippenstein writes: "David Talbot, the founder of Salon, has written a new book, 'The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government.' The book exhumes a number of the US government's historical skeletons: its rejection of Jewish refugees during WWII, its cooperation with key Nazi figures, its complicity in a variety of coups, to name just a few."

Allen and John Foster Dulles in 1948. (photo: Bettmann/Corbis)
Allen and John Foster Dulles in 1948. (photo: Bettmann/Corbis)

David Talbot on How the First CIA Director Collaborated With Nazis

By Ken Klippenstein, Reader Supported News

20 October 15


avid Talbot, the founder of Salon, has written a new book, “The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government.” The book exhumes a number of the US government’s historical skeletons: its rejection of Jewish refugees during WWII, its cooperation with key Nazi figures, its complicity in a variety of coups, to name just a few.

Ken Klippenstein: What role did Dulles play in securing amnesty for Nazi war criminals?

David Talbot: The Dulles brothers – both of them, Allen [the first civilian CIA director] and Foster – did business with Nazi business interests before the war. In fact, Sullivan & Cromwell [the law firm owned by Dulles brothers] became quite wealthy by getting involved in the Germans’ war reparations business and the rebuilding of Germany economically after World War I. Some of the major companies that later became notorious during World War II – like IG Farben [German chemical industry conglomerate], which produced Zyklon B, the gas that was used in the death chambers of Nazi Germany, and the Krupp steel firm, which was a huge war manufacturer for Germany – were clients of the Dulles brothers’ law firm. So they tended to see the world in a similar way as these wealthy German business interests that later aligned themselves with Hitler.

The Dulles brothers were very slow to recognize Hitler as a threat. They thought that in some ways he was good for Germany: that he was helping rebuild Germany, that he was disciplining the workforce. He was of course very anti-left. This all fit into the Dulles brothers’ ideological framework.

Foster was particularly slow to realize that Hitler was a sinister threat. In fact, his law firm had to force him to finally sever relations and shut down the firm’s satellite office in Germany, where its lawyers had to sign every letter “Heil Hitler” at the end. Foster Dulles was involved in the America First campaign with Charles Lindbergh to keep America out of the war. It was very late when they finally got on the bandwagon and said, “Yes, Hitler needs to be stopped.”

During the war, Allen goes off to Switzerland – this strange sort of neutral haven in the middle of war-torn Europe that’s encircled by the Nazis – and he manages to get across the border quite easily because of his connections. Once he’s there, instead of pursuing the war against the Third Reich, he spends most of his time trying to cut deals with the Nazi forces. What he’s particularly interested in is trying to cut a separate peace deal with Nazi forces in Italy. He finally succeeds in doing that (Operation Sunrise was the [name of that] secret operation) and it was a disaster in many ways: first of all because it violated President Roosevelt’s firm policy of unconditional surrender, which he and Winston Churchill hammered out at the Casa Blanca conference in 1943.

Ken Klippenstein: Why was Dulles never prosecuted for directly violating Roosevelt’s directive?

David Talbot: Because he was a very canny spy – he kept that largely hidden from Washington. He was so remote off there in Switzerland by himself – he was surrounded by German forces – [so] he was kind of his own boss there. He had very little supervision from Washington. So he was able to do this stuff behind the Roosevelt administration’s back.

Ken Klippenstein: You point out in the book that Switzerland was a place where they were keeping money that they were stealing from the Jews and even from their slave labor. Was that the origin of the Swiss banking system?

David Talbot: Not the origin but it certainly became a corollary to the Nazi banking system. In fact, one of the key banks there [in Switzerland], the Bank of International Settlements, became in effect the Nazi’s main foreign exchange bank. They would deposit these assets that they looted – from the countries they invaded, from Jewish families (in some cases ripping the gold out of Jews’ teeth) – and they would deposit it and basically would launder this money in Swiss banks. It was the money they then used to buy key materials they needed from around the world: Iron, Tungsten, beef, whatever Germany needed to keep the war machine going.

The Swiss banks had a very despicable role in the German war effort. They claimed to be neutral but, in fact, they were a great asset for the Third Reich.

Ken Klippenstein: It’s hard to exaggerate how not neutral Switzerland was.

David Talbot: Yeah and that’s one reason why Dulles thrived there during the war. He had a great time. He went around, he never tried to hide his identity. It was announced in the newspapers that he was President Roosevelt’s special representative in Switzerland when he arrived. He made no effort – unlike most spies – keep a low profile. He was happy to have the Nazis know where he lived, and they came and did business with him. On the one hand, you had these heroic Germans, as I write about, slipping across the border – at great peril to their own lives – in order to tell Dulles (who they thought of as the legitimate representative of the United States) the horror stories about the Final Solution as it was first taking shape.

In one case a German industrialist had seen Auschwitz being built and had heard what they were going to be using it for. He slipped across the border with this eyewitness account and Dulles basically did nothing with this to make this an urgent priority of the Roosevelt administration. He was not concerned about the Jews’ fate. He was more concerned about his clients, his German clients: making sure their assets would be carefully hidden and that Germany would emerge from the war defeated but a strong bulwark against the Soviet Union, whom he always regarded as the true enemy.

Ken Klippenstein: These people [who brought Dulles documentary evidence of the Final Solution] could have been executed for doing so, correct?

David Talbot: Absolutely. They were coming across the border from Germany as I say with great risk to their own lives. The US public and the US political representatives needed this kind of hard evidence of the horrors that Hitler’s regime was committing because, in the beginning, before the US was involved in the war, there was a great debate about whether the US should even go to war. Later the question became, do we bomb the trains taking these Jewish prisoners to these camps? Do you bomb the camps themselves?

The country needed this hard evidence to make the decision about what to do, and it was withheld from the Roosevelt White House in large part, for a long time, because of the intransigence and the indifference of people like Dulles … and from the State Department, which was frankly an enclave of anti-Semitic old boy WASPs. They too had the same kind of cold indifference to the plight of the Jews that Dulles had.

Ken Klippenstein: You don’t quite come out and say it explicitly in the book, but would you call Dulles an anti-Semite?

David Talbot: Yeah, I think he’s what you’d call a gentlemanly anti-Semite. That was sort of a reflexive attitude within his world. Most of the people in his banking and legal and national security world were WASPs who thought of Jews as outsiders. Certainly there wasn’t a lot of empathy for the Jewish people.

You see that in some of the reports when these Nazis meet with Dulles in Switzerland – including one who’s this kind of decadent prince who was an emissary of no less than Heinrich Himmler, who’s head of the SS under Hitler and the creator of the Final Solution and who operated the concentration camps. Himmler starts to realize the war is going south and he needs to save his own neck, and so he starts sending representatives out to meet with Dulles to see if they can cut a side deal that would keep him in power in some way while throwing Hitler under the bus.

[Dulles] was very dismissive of the Jewish issue. When [Dulles] is talking with these Germans, he says, ‘all this talk from FDR about unconditional surrender, that’s just political talk, we don’t need to really pay attention to that.’ He was a very cold and calculating man. Even the way he dealt with his family.

Ken Klippenstein: Right. There’s a passage in the book where his wife and his mistress are commiserating over the fact that he’s a “shark,” as they called him.

David Talbot: Right. His wife and his mistress ironically became friends, commiserating about this man who dominates their lives. The nickname that they both came up with for him was “the shark,” because he was this sort of cold and relentless guy. He was full of surface charm: he could be very charming at parties. Arthur Schlesinger, the historian who served in Kennedy’s White House and knew him well, called it a faux bonhomie – a sort of fake charm and friendliness.

Ken Klippenstein: Would you call Dulles a psychopath?

David Talbot: My colleague who helped me research the book, Karen Croft, who actually studied psychology at Stanford, she immediately began to see him in those terms and I think I came around to that point of view. He certainly would send people to their deaths without a second thought. His own power and his own ambition were the most important things to him. He tells his mistress Mary Bancroft once, much to her horror, while they’re in her bedroom, how he loved to see the little mice’s necks get snapped when he set these traps for them. By little mice he meant the people who he was at odds with in his spy games.

So yeah, I do think there’s definitely a psychopathic element to Allen Dulles. When I was researching this book and seeing how cold and calculating and ruthless he could be, the image that kept coming to mind was the Lannister family in “Game of Thrones.”

Ken Klippenstein: The patriarch in particular – the similarities are striking!

David Talbot: Yeah, yeah. It’s all about power. Everything else, even [Dulles’s] own family, was a very distant concern, if at all. His family was important to him in terms of its power: so his relationship with his brother was important, much more than with his sister Eleanor, who did go into politics and diplomacy as well. But certainly his relationship with his brother Foster, because they formed this sort of dynamic brotherly bond. Not much affection between them, but they were this power duo, so that was very important to Allen.

Ken Klippenstein: It was fascinating to me how even Carl Jung [the famed Swiss psychotherapist], who worked with Allen Dulles’s wife, commented on the darkness of Allen’s character.

David Talbot: Yeah, I mean here was a guy, Carl Jung, who actually had seen Hitler up close at an event, as well as Mussolini, the sort of major symbols of evil of the 20th century, and he kind of understood them. Hitler, the way he described him, was a much more monstrous and chilling character than Mussolini, who at least had some human aspects. But with Dulles, the great Carl Jung, who was the second pillar of psychology after Freud – even Jung is kind of confounded by Dulles, trying to figure him out. He saw him up close in Switzerland because not only was Dulles’s mistress seeing Jung as a patient, but then his wife also saw Jung as a patient. I think Jung, fascinated by powerful men and the archetypes they represented, did try to figure out Dulles, but he told his mistress at one point, “He’s a very tough nut to crack, be careful.”

Ken Klippenstein: You mentioned Operation Sunrise before, could you elaborate on that?

David Talbot: Dulles was very intent on bringing the war to a conclusion in a way that left the German power structure at least partially intact. He knew that Hitler had to go – there was no doubt about that – but he was quite content to allow much of the Nazi power structure to remain intact because he didn’t want the German left, the union movement, the communist party and so on to reassert itself. He wanted Germany to be a strong bulwark against the Soviet Union in the Cold War that he knew was inevitable; in fact, he helped make it inevitable with Operation Sunrise.

One of Joseph Stalin’s greatest fears was that he would be sold out by his allies – by Churchill and Roosevelt – and be stabbed in the back. To this day, I don’t think most Americans understand that the Soviet Union took most of the brunt of World War II – 20 million Russians dead.

Ken Klippenstein: Dulles is already planning how to crush Russia before all the bodies are even in the ground!

David Talbot: Exactly. His negotiations with these German military figures included one Karl Wolff, who had been the right hand man to Himmler, and should’ve stood trial at Nuremberg for his war crimes. Karl Wolff was savvy, and he and his aides realized that to save their necks, they would have to cut a deal with Dulles. The deal that they finally cut, where they have the Germans surrender to the Americans, really came just a few days before the general surrender in Europe. It didn’t really mean much from a geopolitical or military standpoint. In fact, the only lives it really saved were the lives of these Nazis who might’ve otherwise hung at Nuremberg.

And yet, after the war, Dulles went to great lengths saying this was supposedly a great coup of his, to engineer this early surrender – even though, as I just said, it came just five days before the general surrender of Europe. He cooperated and collaborated with the establishment of these so-called “ratlines” that allowed the Germans to escape down through the Alps into Italy and then overseas to Latin America or even, in some cases, to the United States.

In the worst case of this kind of evading justice, Dulles helped install one of Hitler’s former spymasters, Reinhard Gehlen, as the top spy official in West Germany after the war.

Ken Klippenstein: And it’s not just Wolff – there’s a whole cast of Nazi figures for whom Dulles works to ensure their safety.

David Talbot: One of the most intriguing stories for me was how these cat and mouse games [were played by] Dulles and his right-hand man James Angleton, who became a legendary CIA official (he was the head of counterintelligence for Dulles during much of the Cold War).

After the war, in post-war Rome, it’s this nest of intrigue and there are some heroic intelligence people working for the US army intelligence. I interviewed one of them – he was a young guy at the time, I think only 19 – and just as quickly as his military intelligence unit could track down these war criminals, round them up and put them in jail in Rome or somewhere else in Italy, Dulles and Angleton’s people would let them out the back door. In fact, Angleton set up this posh apartment for them in a luxury district in Rome where he stashed these war criminals and hid them, including Eugen Dollmann, who was gay and able to survive the war, even though he was gay, going to orgies, and yet he became the key link, the interpreter, between the Italian allies and the German allies during the war, Hitler’s personal interpreter whenever Hitler visited Italy or when Mussolini came to Germany.

In fact, [Dollmann] escorted Hitler’s mistress, Eva Braun … he escorted Eva Braun on shopping expeditions around Rome whenever they came there. So he was this key figure, he was part of this Operation Sunrise intrigue, and because of that he also escaped – he was only briefly imprisoned and then he escaped legal judgment. He was just one of the many colorful Nazis who escaped down these ratlines.

Ken Klippenstein: Dulles oversaw a number of coup attempts, including the French president Charles de Gaulle. Could you describe them?

David Talbot: I don’t think we even know the full extent to which Dulles either tried to or successfully subverted governments – in some cases friendly governments, supposedly – during the Cold War when he was running intelligence. The case that you mention, that I think is one of the most mind-blowing and is something that, I think, very few if any Americans know about is his effort to overthrow a friendly government in Paris, an ally, the government of war hero Charles de Gaulle.

Charles de Gaulle was a conservative, he was a military man, he was not some flaming left-winger. And yet because he was a proud nationalist, he was flirting with leaving NATO at that point, he was trying to bring peace to the colonial war in Algeria, and the CIA and the hardliners in Washington were afraid that this would play into Communist hands, maybe the Soviet Union would get a foothold in Northern Africa with its oil and so on. So they thought that de Gaulle had to go.

There were some right-wing generals in Algeria who fought the colonial war there, which was a vicious, bloody, colonial war, and they thought that de Gaulle was going to sell them out, so they formed a right-wing (far right) military organization called the Secret Army. They intrigued against de Gaulle, they tried to kill him many times, and one of the most dramatic moments in French history in the 20th century is when the French generals mutiny in Algeria and declare that they’re going to overthrow de Gaulle’s government, and there’s a sense that paratroopers are going to start descending on Paris as these guys attack de Gaulle’s government.

In the middle of this crisis, which happened right on the heels of the Bay of Pigs crisis in Cuba and Kennedy is just reeling trying to deal with that huge crisis, he suddenly finds out that de Gaulle is not only besieged in Paris but that de Gaulle is blaming the CIA and Kennedy’s own government for supporting this coup. So that has not been really fully – it’s sort of disappeared, this whole amazing story. It was the second CIA-related crisis that Kennedy had faced in that same month in April 1961.

Finally de Gaulle goes on TV in a very dramatic moment, he rallies the French people. He says, ‘Help me, French men, French women, help me.’ And they go into the streets, they block the runways with their vehicles so the rebellious air force units can’t land their planes there. They demonstrate by the hundreds of thousands in the streets and it becomes clear from this huge popular show of support for de Gaulle’s government that the coup is doomed, and it’s finally defeated.

But this was a hair-raising moment, it was a huge crisis of relations between France and the United States, and in the middle of it, JFK basically assures de Gaulle that he’s not supporting this coup, but he has to admit that he’s not in full control of his own government. The French ambassador in Washington has to communicate this back to Paris that Kennedy is not in control of the CIA; the CIA is a mysterious organization. It’s not under his control.

So that, to me, is one of the most telling and most chilling moments in the book, because the book of course is all about this epic battle between the forces of democracy and the forces of the national security state. And here you have it nakedly demonstrated, who’s really in control.

Ken Klippenstein: I found it interesting that Dulles was actually a Wall Street lawyer before being OSS [Office of Strategic Services, predecessor of the CIA] and later CIA chief. He marshaled those connections frequently during his time as spy chief.

David Talbot: [In the book] I do talk about the Dulles brothers, their law firm, as a center of resistance to the New Deal, when FDR pushes through these banking reforms aimed at getting some controls on a Wall Street that had just pushed the US economy over the cliff with the stock market crash.

Ken Klippenstein: At one point after the New Deal regulatory measures pass, [Dulles] is telling his business clients, ‘just ignore it.’

David Talbot: Yeah, so they’re discussing the Securities Exchange Commission, a New Deal reform to regulate Wall Street, things like the Glass-Steagall Act, which Clinton unfortunately threw overboard with disastrous results. So these wealthy clients of Dulles’s law firm are debating these reforms that they’re furious about, and Foster just tells them, ‘don’t worry, just ignore them and we’ll ride this out.’

So that was the feeling, that reform presidents come and go, that presidents like FDR and JFK can be ignored or subverted or manipulated somehow. People like the Dulles brothers felt that democracy was too important to be left in the hands of the people or their elected representatives. They strongly felt that the intelligent people, as Allen Dulles once explained while he running for Congress – with disastrous results, he had no feel for the electoral game – he said that it should be left it in the hands of intelligent people, and by that he meant of course people like himself and his brother. They had a very elitist view and they felt that if things weren’t going their way in the democratic arena, they could always pull strings and get what they wanted.

Ken Klippenstein: I was fascinated by the part of the book about Allen Dulles’s relationship with the Rockefellers, one of the most influential families in the U.S. at the time.

David Talbot: That’s an important part of the book, because I don’t want to communicate the feeling that the Dulles brothers were somehow these rogue devils, that they were doing these evil things on their own. They were part of a network of power, and in some ways they served that power more than they ran it. They were lawyers, they were used to having clients who were more wealthy and powerful than they were in some ways, but they were the executors of that class and they took care of business when a consensus was formed within that class, within that “power-elite” circle, as C. Wright Mills wrote in his famous book in the 1950s, who analyzed this power group and how it functioned.

So these were the men who controlled the most powerful corporations and controlled the key national security institutions like the CIA and the Pentagon. And they all intermingled, they often intermarried, they belonged to the same social clubs, they exchanged jobs, they were a very cohesive group that developed a cohesive view of what America should be and what America’s role in the world should be and how to confront any threat to American power. They would work out these policies in groups like the Council on Foreign Relations, which the Dulles brothers were both very powerful in, this policy-discussing club in New York City.

So yeah, the Rockefellers were key allies of theirs. They were a younger generation – David Rockefeller and Nelson were the two key members of that generation, the grandsons of John D. Rockefeller who had created his oil fortune. Nelson of course was a well-known political figure, became governor of New York. He was kind of the front-man for the Rockefeller power. David Rockefeller was the banker who ran Chase Manhattan Bank and was the spokesman of international finance, he was sort of more behind the scenes.

The Dulles brothers used their [the Rockefellers’] money for some shadowy CIA operations that they couldn’t openly fund. The Rockefellers would sign checks for them. They had the same views. They had interests around the world, particularly in places like Latin America, oil interests. When people like Fidel Castro took over Cuba and was nationalizing the oil industry there, they felt that it was a direct threat to the Rockefeller interests – because it was. Whenever America’s corporate interests were threatened, they would turn to men like Allen Dulles; he was the enforcer. They knew that if they couldn’t handle it through the CIA by killing leaders or overthrowing governments then the next step was the military. But they preferred to do it through the CIA because it was more cost-effective and not as disruptive. Allen Dulles was all too willing to be their enforcer, whether it was in Iran or Guatemala or the Congo.

Ken Klippenstein: Could you talk about the coups in Iran, Guatemala and Congo, which Dulles’s CIA backed?

David Talbot: To this day we still feel the ripples of that fateful coup that the CIA engineered back in the 50s against a very popular, elected leader, Mosaddegh. Mosaddegh came up through Iranian politics, which was a minefield. He became a figure of national resistance against the British empire, which basically owned Iran and owned all the oil there via a company that later became British Petroleum [BP today].

Because Mosaddegh was nationalizing the oil, that was the final straw. The CIA helped engineer this fateful coup and brought the Shah [Iranian dictator] back from exile and crushed any defense. The Shah oversaw and ruled Iran until 1979, when the Ayatollah came in, and relations with the United States have been poisoned ever since.

Same thing in Guatemala – a coup there against a guy who was really kind of a Kennedy of Guatemala, a progressive reformer named Jacabo Arbenz. This set the stage for decades of tragedy and bloodshed in Guatemala. Guatemala was turned into a killing ground. Tens of thousands of Guatemalans later died as a result of the military dictatorship.

Congo was in very bad shape because Patrice Lumumba was one of the great hopes of post-colonial Africa, was this great charismatic nationalist leader. Belgium had ruled the Congo with such a vicious hand that it was notorious; Joseph Conrad based his book on it [“Heart of Darkness”]. Lumumba comes along as that colonial regime is finally cracking; he’s the hope of the future. Once again the CIA sees him as a threat because there’s huge mining interests in the Congo, which is very mineral rich. We weren’t about to allow any other interest to move in there.

So he [Lumumba] was demonized as a communist – which he wasn’t, he was a neutralist, he wanted to create his own people’s destiny in the Congo. He was overthrown by a CIA-supported coup and later put under house arrest, and then when he tried to break out, he was arrested finally tracked down and horribly tortured and murdered. Later during the Church Committee hearings on this, the CIA said, ‘oh, it wasn’t us who killed him, we weren’t very good at assassinating people, we tried but failed.’ They tried to come off as the gang that couldn’t shoot straight. Actually they were being too modest because the people who actually beat Lumumba to death when he was captured were on the CIA payroll. More blood on Dulles’s hands.

Interestingly, another thing that the book reveals is that a number of the people who were involved in the killing machine who were assembled to kill overseas I think were brought home to Dallas in November 1963 and were involved in the assassination of President Kennedy. Dulles had created a very lethal apparatus within the CIA and he felt nothing by 1963 – no compunction against bringing these same lethal forces home.

Ken Klippenstein: What was Dulles’s role in the Warren commission?

David Talbot: I make that case that he was involved in the assassination itself. The guy that [Dulles] hired to reach out to the mafia and develop a plot to kill Castro, William Harvey (essentially the head of the Castro assassination unit), fell afoul of the Kennedys, so the CIA had to save his career by sending him off to Rome to run the CIA station in Rome. Even though he’s supposed to be in Rome, his deputy, a guy named Mark Wyatt – I interviewed Wyatt’s grown children for the first time and Wyatt saw Harvey on a plane going to Dallas early in November 1963, just before the assassination. He asked him what he was doing there and Harvey answered very vaguely, “I’m here just to look around.”

A week later [Harvey] became a major figure of suspicion by Congress during the House Select Committee on Assassinations’ investigation in the 1970s. So to have William Harvey identified as going to Dallas early in November before the assassination is very, I think, suspicious.

There’s a number of other circumstantial pieces of evidence I put together that tie Dulles to this crime in various ways. He certainly, indisputably, was a key figure in the cover-up because he was so dominant a character on the Warren Commission that some people think it ought to be called the Dulles Commission. He was huddled with his old CIA colleagues after CIA sessions and discussed what strategies to take, how he should handle witnesses – their whole mission was to deflect attention and focus way from the CIA. There are a number of pieces of evidence coming out that linked Lee Harvey Oswald to the CIA and that suggested he had been playing some kind of intelligence role, if not in the assassination, certainly when he went abroad as a so-called defector for the Soviet Union.

Richard Schweiker, the senator from Pennsylvania who was on the Church Committee, later said, “When you look at Lee Harvey Oswald, the fingerprints of US intelligence are all over him.” The Warren Commission began to get a little bit curious about that and it was Dulles’s job to say, ‘no, no, no, don’t look in that direction, look over here, he was a lone assassin, he was a misfit,’ etc.

Ken Klippenstein: Was there a single president who felt as though Dulles was loyal to him and liked Dulles?

David Talbot: No. Every single president he served, at least from a high position in intelligence, was suspicious of him, didn’t trust him.

Ken Klippenstein is an American journalist who can be reached on twitter @kenklippenstein or via email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+39 # Texas Aggie 2015-10-20 13:35
Not much has changed, has it? Only the names and the targets. The morals and attitudes stay the same.
+24 # harleysch 2015-10-20 16:19
Texas Aggis -- Two interesting proofs (among many possible proofs) of your point:

1.) Whistleblowers reporting that Credit Suisse has been laundering money to ISIS and other terror groups, for the purchase of weapons; and has been involved in massive laundering of drug money, much of which ends up funding arms trafficking.

2.) The State Department today, through Obama's Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Victoria Nuland, has worked with bone fide Nazis in Ukraine, and helped bring them into the Poroschenko government, while the mainstream U.S. media has either denied this, or pooh-poohed it as insignificant. These present-day Nazis trace their origins to the Ukrainian Nazis who joined the Ukrainian SS, to kill Jews, Russians, Poles, Rumanians, and other ethnic minorities, in collaboration with Hitler.
+20 # Anarchist 23 2015-10-20 20:49
And Vickie's husband is named of the signers of PNAC, which famously said that to institute their revolutionary change they needed a 'new Pearl Harbor' and 9 months later: 9/11!
+1 # Dongi 2015-10-23 18:00
At the Babi Yar masscre in 1942 where 33,000 Jews were killed by machine guns some of the gunners were Ukrainians. They were total failures as human beings. To think that their successors are working with the Poroschenko government is a moral outrage. Why are we supporting this bum? And, why isn't Nuland sent packing?
0 # MidwestTom 2015-11-09 18:47
There is a book that I have mentioned several times "Tragedy and Hope" by Professor Quigley, a political history Professor at Georgetown. The book starts before WWI and explains WHY HISTORY HAPPENED the way it did. Very good reading.
+10 # ritawalpoleague 2015-10-21 11:16
Bingo, Texas Aggie. Reading this, and your reply, brought to my mind what a retired C.I.A. agent told me, so sadly but truthfully, a little over a decade ago.

Seems that when he was an active C.I.A. agent, he was often ordered to find and bring a kid or kids to 'biggies', to use for sexual purposes. His sadness and shame overcame him, as he confessed his deep sorrow and contrition over having done what he'd been ordered to do.

Cannot help but wonder if this so egregious crime, slong with other Dulles deeds, still goes on today, what with various govt. agencies now doing whatever the 'biggies' (a.k.a. the 1%ers) want them to do, i.e. spy on us in every way imaginable, all under the guise of control of terrorists.

Yep, Texas Aggie, "The morals and attitudes stay the same." I've named it a successful coup de 'etat, and is one of the many reasons I support Bernie Sanders and his need for a political revolution. Best to try a political revolution, before having to endure (which I'm sure will come about) a bloody revolution. It's time we.....

+3 # Radscal 2015-10-21 19:35
You may know about the Jeffrey Epstein case. He was a Wall Street bankster, convicted for running a child prostitution racket. Close ties to the Clintons. In fact, Bill was a frequent visitor to Epstein's private island.
+2 # Dongi 2015-10-22 04:39
Rita, what you write about is very scary indeed. I too support Sanders and will give him money and I believe in a political revolution and a bloody revolution. You can feel the forces of a social revolution continuing to build. God help us all.
0 # MidwestTom 2015-11-09 18:44
In Chicago it is general knowledge that Rahm Emanuel and Obama were more than just friends. But who cares, anything is legal today.
+27 # suzyskier 2015-10-20 14:11
Yes indeed not much has changed. As far as the right wing in this country is concerned they seem just as bad as the old Nazis. Given the time and opportunity to implement some of their insanity you could hardly tell the difference. I would really worry about which way this country would be headed if they get the power they so desperately want. I feel they are really dangerous. I am worried that they will get the power if we don't wake up. Too many are already brain dead watchers of Fox. It would be great to get Fox kicked oft the air, but I'm only dreaming.
-52 # WaaDoo 2015-10-20 15:43
Suzy ! What kind of language is that to use about your fellow Americans. Those on the Right could say even worse things about this present US federal administration. POTUS leads the charge against the US constitution.
"Right wing" - dangerous?, "kick Fox off the air? - Dear Lady, that's a removal of free speech.

You forget your first rule of principle in Civics 101 - "avoid glittering generalities". Not all on the Left are Communists, and not all on the right are as bad as the Nazis. In fact, those on the Left who support Planned Parenthood's sale of baby parts are supporting actions that are worse than what the Nazis did.
+23 # reiverpacific 2015-10-20 16:53
Quoting WaaDoo:
Suzy ! What kind of language is that to use about your fellow Americans. Those on the Right could say even worse things about this present US federal administration. POTUS leads the charge against the US constitution.
"Right wing" - dangerous?, "kick Fox off the air? - Dear Lady, that's a removal of free speech.

You forget your first rule of principle in Civics 101 - "avoid glittering generalities". Not all on the Left are Communists, and not all on the right are as bad as the Nazis. In fact, those on the Left who support Planned Parenthood's sale of baby parts are supporting actions that are worse than what the Nazis did.

Now THAT'S a "glittering generality" if ever I heard one -and a big, greasy, diarrhea-shite of a lie into the bargain!
If you are going to choose a subject for a reposte, at least make it a verifiable truth, not a lie put out by those who would remove the rights of a women to do as they chose with their own body.
BTW, if you think "Fox" is free speech, you 're living in some nightmare Land of OZ (and I don't mean Australia).
The foregoing quoted -and your own yatterings from the padded isolation cell- are just two examples of the fact that those who wrap themselves in the flag and babble on about "freedom" are the first who'd take it away from those who don't fall in with their narrow, blinkered reasoning.
+10 # Krackonis 2015-10-21 04:58
WaaDoo, since you are so convinced by edited video I bet you believe it was Bin Laden on the tapes saying he "did it because he hated our freedoms". lol

Have you even heard of the word propaganda? Or do you just eat it?
+6 # Karlus58 2015-10-21 15:23
And of course, that would be denying needed research in finding cures for deadly and debilitating diseases affecting the human population. That of course, would be wicked science and contrary to the Right's thinking process.
+9 # Cassandra2012 2015-10-20 17:47
Neo-fascists like the KKKoch daddy.
+21 # elizabethblock 2015-10-20 15:11
No wonder the French don't trust the USA. And here I thought it was just the contempt of a country which is suave about its colonialism for a country that is clumsy.
+6 # WaaDoo 2015-10-20 15:38
Excellent and accurate article. Anyone pursuing further, I urge you to read the book, American Betrayal by Diana West. Available from Amazon.
+15 # reiverpacific 2015-10-20 17:01
The Dulles Brothers a.k.a., "United Fruit's (Now United Brands better known as 'Chiquita') enforcers and nation-wreckers".
BTW, Chiquita themselves have more recently been sued by the relatives of many disappeared in Colombia for arming right-wing militias and death squads. I've seen them at work in S. and Central America up close and urge you boycott their products. Their bananas are soaked with the blood of hundreds of thousands and Guatemala's nightmare decades since Allan Dulles' fascist CIA overthrew populist president Jacobo Arbenz's "Dangerous Communist" government in 1954 (Read "I am Rigoberto Manchu" for an indigenous people's account from the front); and the US of Armaments has followed their example around the world regularly and blatantly ever since.
I'm just glad that most of S. America has evolved into a progressive almost coalition of nations following Venezuela's example under the late, courageous and defiant Hugo Chavez, emerging from the US's gigantic jackboot and making good for themselves, the US now being the "isolated" America.
+7 # Dongi 2015-10-20 18:34
I agree with you completely. Man but many of these countries have suffered from the United States of Criminals with Guatemala recently having forced out some real psychopaths. The US stands alone as well it should. Canada now has a liberal adminisration and will probably side against us. Finally.
+6 # Krackonis 2015-10-21 05:00
Yes we just got rid of our "Neo-Con".
+5 # Radscal 2015-10-21 19:43
I saw comedian Paula Poundstone's performance before President Clinton and company that was televised at the time.

At one point, she sat at the edge of the stage and riffed on the people seated with the President. When she found out the guy who got to sit right next to Clinton was the head of Chiquita Banana, she was floored that he got the most prestigious seat.

Within a couple weeks, Clinton signed an order against Costa Rica, which had recently started selling bananas directly to Europe, cutting out the Chiquita middle man.

Within a few months, Paula was arrested for drunkenness, and her children taken from her.
+13 # Dongi 2015-10-20 17:12
When it comes to moral turpitude, Allan Dulles is at the head of the class. Psychopath, criminal, planner of evil, sinister, vicious, reprobate, violator of all things good. With leaders like this, and the organizations that they founded, America is on the road to hell. Whether we can reverse the path the path they put us on depends the future of the Republic.
-24 # johnmortl 2015-10-20 17:52
Here we have a conspiracy theory built on and exploiting the emotive aspects of another conspiracy theory. I suppose it's what we have to expect having inculcated a couple of generations on Hollywood fantasy action films along with an endless diet of every aspect, short of compelling evidence, of the greatest hoax of the twentieth century.
+12 # reiverpacific 2015-10-20 18:52
Quoting johnmortl:
Here we have a conspiracy theory built on and exploiting the emotive aspects of another conspiracy theory. I suppose it's what we have to expect having inculcated a couple of generations on Hollywood fantasy action films along with an endless diet of every aspect, short of compelling evidence, of the greatest hoax of the twentieth century.

What fuckin' planet or time-warp are you in?
I've seen this stuff up front and personal and not just out of books.
Get out into the world a bit more Bubba -and take the stick out- it does wonders for the vision!
-17 # johnmortl 2015-10-20 20:58
While you are out there in you little world have you seen any bridges that you might be interested in buying?
+6 # reiverpacific 2015-10-21 10:54
Quoting johnmortl:
While you are out there in you little world have you seen any bridges that you might be interested in buying?

That's even more irrelevant that y'r first post.
My "little world" has encompassed living, working and traveling a good part of the one we all share, LEARNING from and being enriched by it (and I don't mean financially).
What cave are YOU peering out of, Bubba?
-7 # johnmortl 2015-10-21 13:47
It seems that you are unaware of the fact that your fearless leader Benjamin the Yahoo has thrown a spanner into the underlying conspiracy theory which the above conspiracy theory is built upon. He has stated categorically in a public speech that Hitler wanted to deport the jews out of Europe and that it was the 1940's leader of the Palestinians, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who wanted to exterminate the jews. How are you going to deal with this clash of two myths?
+7 # Radscal 2015-10-21 19:51
Netanyahu has now officially become a Holocaust Denier. I do love irony!

However, it is true that the Zionists signed the Transfer Agreement with the Nazis in 1933 that allowed 100,000 German Jews to be illegally moved to Palestine (along with many millions of dollars) in trade for them convincing the world's Jews and others to stop their boycott of Nazi Germany.

These German Jews became the terrorists that blew up the British headquarters in the Palestine Hotel and murdered Palestinians to drive others from their homelands.

Ending the boycott helped finance the rise of Nazi Germany, and Israel would probably have never been created without those German terrorists.

Israeli historian and proud Zionist, Edwin Black wrote a terrific book about that called "The Transfer Agreement,"that I heartily recommend.
0 # johnmortl 2015-10-22 07:55
Nice to see someone with their feet firmly on the ground. The only point I will make is that the boycott was never rescinded. The Zionist movement of that period did not have the following or influence in the broad Jewish community that it has presently. Here are a couple of other books on subject that may be of interest by Lenni Brenner: 'Zionism in the Age of Dictators' and '51 Documents: Zionist collaboration with the Nazis'.
+3 # Radscal 2015-10-22 12:47
I'll try to check them out. Interestingly, I see that some Nazi sympathizers actually claim the Jewish international boycott was the reason Hitler took action against the Jews.

The tangled web of alliances and conflicts, many of which have been largely disappeared from history hint at a much deeper and more directed movement.
0 # johnmortl 2015-10-23 11:59
Before the war the Nazi policy was to encourage Jews to emigrate. At that time they were only incarcerating those they deemed anti social or enemies off the state, Jews and non Jews alike. Under the first category were criminals, unemployable alcoholics and layabouts who lived of the state and homosexuals. Incidentally, homosexuals were not released when the camps were liberated. The Allies made them serve their full Nazi imposed sentence.The second category were what were considered enemies of the state such as agitators, saboteurs, spies and Communists. When the war started the Jews were now considered a security risk in large part because Samuel Untermyer of the American Jewish Congress and other prominent Jewish leader's declaration of war against Germany. The Nazis now started a forced emigration policy, first to ghettos and labor camps (as we did with many Germans, Italians and Japanese) in Poland and the Czechoslovakia while they worked on a plan to send them to Madagascar in cooperation with the Vichy government who's colony it was. When this proved to be impractical and large parts of the USSR were available they started shipping them there. The plan was implemented haphazardly because of their critical manpower shortage. The Allies had a 12 to 1 advantage. There were 150,000 Jews and partial Jews serving in the armed forces including top Generals. At war's end there were many Jews still living and working freely in Germany, with their own Jewish Hospital in Berlin.
+3 # reiverpacific 2015-10-22 10:34
Quoting johnmortl:
It seems that you are unaware of the fact that your fearless leader Benjamin the Yahoo has thrown a spanner into the underlying conspiracy theory which the above conspiracy theory is built upon. He has stated categorically in a public speech that Hitler wanted to deport the jews out of Europe and that it was the 1940's leader of the Palestinians, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who wanted to exterminate the jews. How are you going to deal with this clash of two myths?

With the same sense of ironic reality that I view almost all socio-political ; with great care.
And BTW, he's NOT MY Nutty-Yahoo; he's now proving that he's as deranged and desperate as Hitler was in his last few months.
+16 # jpmarat 2015-10-20 18:06
His #1 goal was to keep Fascism alive, under U.S. elite direction. Even Ike was willing to make a deal with the fascist devils. JFK not only intended to fire AD, but disband the CIA in favor of military intelligence or some other alternative. He waited too long, for his own good and ours. I can see why Obama and some others are cowed. The Dulles brothers are 2 of the greatest villains in history. Their main driver wasn't fear of USSR per se; it was the broader fear of lack of CONTROL by capitalists. PIG$.
+7 # Krackonis 2015-10-21 05:01
JFK II "The Bush Connection" directly links the murder of JFK to the Bush's Nixon, the CIA and Allen Dulles. You can find it on youtube.
+12 # Anonymot 2015-10-20 18:18
I'm just a little surprised that the pro-Nazis efforts of Prescott Bush didn't come up. Maybe it does in the book.
+7 # Vardoz 2015-10-20 18:44
They killed Kennedy JFK and Robert. Period end of story. It was an assignation.
+2 # PABLO DIABLO 2015-10-20 19:28
This is only the beginning of a very long story. Starts with French Heroin and moves right up through Mexico today.
+4 # angelfish 2015-10-20 20:33
It's the same old ReTHUGlican Party it ALWAYS was. Somehow, I don't think Ike was in on ANY of it...? The Cabals on the sidelines call the shots while the Rich get Richer and the Poor have children. SS/DD.
0 # jerrycam 2015-10-20 21:06
I'm curious if Talbot talked about CIA sending Moe Berg to Paris around the time of attempted Coup of de Gaulle or poisoning of Stalin by Boris Pash Jewish Dr. connection.
+4 # chapdrum 2015-10-21 13:52
What is the ultimate point of this book? Due respect to Mr. Talbot, but to cite but one example (Glennon's book on double government), but this is just another illustration of how little democracy exists in the U.S. The country was hijacked long ago by the Dulles-Bush, etc. syndicate types. We know this, and there is no one or no institution that is going to change it.
+4 # Radscal 2015-10-21 19:58
I wonder what the purpose is, too. It's good for more USians to become aware of the fascist successes in the perpetuity of the Nazis, but there are some shadings here that make me wonder what is Talbot's deep state purpose.

I notice that often, when people become aware of just how deep and effective this fascism runs, they give up all hope of overcoming it. As if this Empire will be different from all others by being the only one that never falls.
+3 # dbrize 2015-10-21 21:02
Quoting Radscal:
I wonder what the purpose is, too. It's good for more USians to become aware of the fascist successes in the perpetuity of the Nazis, but there are some shadings here that make me wonder what is Talbot's deep state purpose.

I notice that often, when people become aware of just how deep and effective this fascism runs, they give up all hope of overcoming it. As if this Empire will be different from all others by being the only one that never falls.

It is likely that this Empire like others, will fall from its own excesses. A military machine set up currently to police the world, an impossible task requiring the preposterous notion that we possess the manpower (even with a draft) to do it even short term, producing nothing to enhance the economy, just the opposite, turning productive assets into non-productive.

An increasing resentment bordering on hatred among the satraps and willful intransigence from allies, eventually leading to being able to trust no one.

At home, as the population wearies of economic guns over butter, increasingly regulated police state mechanisms leading to civil liberties abominations and constitutional end runs...

Everything is in place...the time is near...let us hope it ends with a whimper rather than a bang.
+3 # Radscal 2015-10-21 23:23
Of course this Empire, too will fall. It shocks me that so many people seem to just toss their arms in the air and surrender.

So again, why did Talbot write this book which makes clear that the Nazis have been influential in the US government before, during and since WW II?
+1 # dbrize 2015-10-22 10:14
Quoting Radscal:
Of course this Empire, too will fall. It shocks me that so many people seem to just toss their arms in the air and surrender.

So again, why did Talbot write this book which makes clear that the Nazis have been influential in the US government before, during and since WW II?

Let's ask the author. From a talk he gave at at Duquesne:

"I hope that my forthcoming book, which will be titled "The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, JFK and the Epic Battle for America's Soul" will at long last give Mr. Dulles his due. As I say in my title of my remarks this morning, I believe Allen Dulles truly was the "Chairman of the Board of the Kennedy Assassination."
0 # irvingwood 2015-10-23 17:43
The US was never a democracy. The Founding Fathers envisioned a mercantile-led government controlled by a business elite (See Chomsky on the Federalist Papers). The freedoms we assert were thought too good and dangerous for the general population. We would call it a plutocracy, or oligarchy, which it has always been and still is. There never was a golden age of American democracy. The role of government was to protect the wealthy from the masses, and this was and is quite explicitly stated at the outset.
+1 # irvingwood 2015-10-23 17:37
Mea Culpa. I worked for the shipping arm of the United Fruit Company as a Navigating Officer on one of their Honduran-flag banana-boats in the 70's. White ships with CHIQUITA on the sides. Hauled bananas up both coasts from Central America. Very conservative company. Very set in their ways. Hard to get a sandwich at night. Tight-fisted.
Interesting ports, though. Found out afterwards who I'd been working for. Now all the docks are closed and UF is no more in some CA countries. Something to do with a blight that hit the bananas. May they rot in hell!

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.