There are so many great attributes of this richly detailed book that any criticism of it seems like something only a graduate-level "nitpicker" could even attempt to do. One of the best is the very title of the book: Clearly Allen Dulles was a personification of the "Devil" himself; that his game was played on a global chessboard with thousands of pawns at his disposal certainly cannot be denied, thus the book's title is very fitting. And certainly one of those pawns was Lee Harvey Oswald, whose moves were closely monitored by none other than one of Dulles' top king's men, James Jesus Angleton. Which brings us to an axiom that is understood by anyone who has ever played a game of chess: It is virtually impossible for any pawn to ever successfully kill the king.
I've never been a graduate level anything, at least in the world of academia, but I have earned something of a reputation as a "nitpicker" nonetheless. And as much as I believe that Talbot is a great author, and that both his latest book as well as his previous book Brothers are proof of that, I do have a few comments to make regarding a single sentence that appears on page 504: "But Johnson was certainly not the mastermind" [of the JFK assassination].
[UPDATE 11/23/2015] There was one other issue that I did not catch on my first, "fast" read of the book that needs to be added: The death of James Forrestal, which Mr. Talbot quickly writes off as a "suicide" as though that is an undisputed fact. Such is simply not the case and the most compelling, thoroughly researched and documented treatise on the subject was written by G. David Martin, PhD., a six-part series which can be found at this link: http://www.dcdave.com/article4/021110.html. (I have summarized the facts he presented in my own book "LBJ Colossus" as noted below).
That "not a mastermind" sentence comes toward the end of Chapter 18, "The Big Event" — twenty-five pages devoted entirely to Dulles' putative role in the JFK assassination. The single-most referenced source that Talbot used in that chapter was from one of the bishops — to continue the chess metaphor — E. Howard Hunt, who worked for Dulles (and Angleton, Helms, Wisner, et. al.), who finally "confessed" to his son, Saint John Hunt, that he was . . . ahem, a "benchwarmer" in that particular caper. But, thanks to an article in Rolling Stone (April 2, 2007), the whole world should know by now that Mr. Hunt actually drew a chart that had "LBJ" in the top-most position of the cabal which developed the plan for the "Big Event" and subsequently executed it — and John F. Kennedy, in the process.
In fact, nearly every point that Mr. Talbot made within that chapter reinforced Johnson's purported role, particularly this passage on page 503:
While the Miami ["JM/WAVE," the CIA station there] conspirators made it clear that Bill Harvey was playing a central role in "the big event," they assured Hunt that the chain of command went much higher than Harvey. Vice President Johnson himself had signed off on the plot, [David Sanchez] Morales insisted."
It was on this point (and practically only this point) that Talbot demurred from Hunt's statements, saying "This is where Hunt began to obfuscate. There is no evidence that Lyndon Johnson and Bill Harvey [the man designated to plan "The Big Event] were ever in close contact. . . .It is simply not credible that a man in Johnson's position would have discussed something so extraordinarily sensitive as the removal of a president with a man who occupied Harvey's place in the national security system." Then he allowed that, well, yes, Lyndon B. Johnson was a very close confidant of Allen W. Dulles, a man who had the "stature and clout to assure a man like LBJ that the plot had the high level support it needed to be successful." In my opinion, Talbot has reversed those roles: It was Dulles who needed the reassurance that LBJ was on board for the project to go forward.
There were several reasons that "no evidence" existed that Lyndon Johnson had ever had close contact with Bill Harvey. First, Johnson had, since his college days back in San Marcos, practiced every tenet of secrecy protocol ever invented, chief among them was rule number 1: "Never commit anything to writing" when it came to the most unethical, immoral or criminal actions that one might employ to accomplish his objectives. In fact, on the most brutally deadly acts, he did not even like to use the telephone, unless he could be certain that it wasn't tapped. Which is why he often required "face to face" meetings to reach certain "understandings." And that would undoubtedly explain an item that Talbot noted on page 493 of his latest book: " . . .in the summer of 1963, Johnson hosted Dulles at his ranch in the Texas Hill Country . . ." which, he also noted, ". . . did not appear in his [Dulles'] calendar." Talbot never reflected on just "why" such a notation was not made in Dulles' calendar. Nor did he further note that Dulles returned to LBJ's ranch just three weeks before the assassination, as contemporaneously reported in the Fort Worth Press.
But the larger point, as Talbot went on to acknowledge, was that the question was moot, regardless. Because Johnson was indeed so close to Dulles that the need for him to ever meet personally with Bill Harvey was never at issue, thus this point was, actually, a non sequitur. Not to be pedantic, but the point was pointless — other than being put into the narrative as a means to undermine the issue of Johnson's possible role as the "mastermind" of JFK's assassination.
While author Talbot never attempted to advance the notion that Dulles — or anyone else — was the "mastermind," he did assert (unconvincingly) that Dulles was higher up the totem pole amongst Washington officialdom:
"Howard Hunt was fully aware of the seating arrangements at the Washington power table. He knew, in fact, that Dulles outranked Johnson in this rarefied circle."
Talbot did acknowledge that LBJ might have been either a "passive accessory" or "even an active accomplice" in the "crime of the century." So if it was the latter, then he and I might not be that far apart in our respective arguments. That's because, as I've stated at least a thousand times before, in order to qualify for the term "mastermind" (i.e. the dictionary definition) one need not have personally designed and overseen every aspect of the planning and execution of this kind of operation, any more than a CEO of a major enterprise would have to personally know every detail of every management position throughout the organization: It's called "delegation," as one learns in Business Management 101. There has been more misrepresentation, disinformation, obfuscation and general confusion about that term than any other that I have ever witnessed, even after having spent three decades in a corporate environment where resolving the confusion between different departments, and the people who populated them, seemed like a daily ritual. When I first used that term, in a discussion with Noel Twyman, the author of one of the best books of the genre, Bloody Treason, I was warned of the possible repercussions of doing so because of that very phenomenon. But I thought it fit the subject well and elected to use it despite the pitfalls. Mea culpa.
To support my own view of Johnson's supremacy regarding "the seating arrangements at the Washington power table" I offer the following comments, excerpted from my own book, "LBJ: From Mastermind to The Colossus:"
"It took someone with extreme powers of persuasion, who had built a lifetime record of experience pulling people together to accomplish his schemes—the criminal ones like stolen elections, flagrant abuse of campaign fund handling, murders of people who got in his way, as well as the more conventional politicking skills—to have pulled together and led the powerful men already alluded to throughout this book to agree to the plan to kill Kennedy. Such a person had to be driven by passion, and there was no one in Washington who even came close to him in that qualification—certainly not the rather introverted, cerebral, pipe-smoking, tweed-jacketed Princeton alumnus who had previously presided over the CIA, nor the equally deluded and aged head of SOG (his term for “Seat of Government,” being his own government-issued heavy-duty desk chair) J. Edgar Hoover—who also had tentacles throughout the federal bureaucracy but not nearly equal to the powers that Johnson had amassed.
"The catalyst behind the assassination had to have been a singular “driving force” who had to have connections to all the key people in multiple agencies of the federal government as well as to local officials in Dallas, Texas (the previous schemes in Chicago and Miami were most likely merely test runs to assure that all contingencies had been anticipated and that the men involved had been properly prepared for the real event). The “key man” had to have the ability to push all the right buttons and get those people—some unwittingly, with only a limited scope of knowledge of the overall plan—to take actions on his command. He was acting as a forceful CEO of an enterprise that would primarily benefit himself, but sold to the others as being necessary for accomplishing their own interests, whether that be a more aggressive foreign policy, especially toward Vietnam, an end to the “peace process” with the USSR that Kennedy had implemented, a stop to the threat he had introduced to the power of the Federal Reserve, or simply a change to the apparent slippage toward socialism that many feared. Only a very powerful force, a “colossus” as described by none other than Bill Moyers, could have possibly been the driving force that was the essential ingredient, the “critical mass.”
"The enterprise, like all major undertakings of humanity, required a powerful catalyst to give it momentum, direction, and the subsequent promise of protection that all the players would expect, a promise that only LBJ could make effectively. That catalyst would have to reach into not only all the federal agencies, especially the military and intelligence organizations, but just as certainly into the state and local authorities in order to simultaneously ignite the fuses within each; it would take a unified “driving force” to do that, and Lyndon Johnson was uniquely capable of providing that kind of reach into every such entity. That element could have only come from a very powerful and dedicated single person, a very forceful person, one who could bring all the elements together. Some may prefer other terms, such as a “CEO,” a “Key Man,” a “Linchpin,” or even the term I’ve used, a “Mastermind,” but that person, regardless of the label one prefers, could only have been a man consumed by power and obsessed for decades about becoming president.
"The accumulated evidence [as presented in earlier chapters of this book and its predecessor, LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination], demonstrates beyond doubt that Lyndon Johnson really was smart enough to have “masterminded” the plot to kill JFK (a point that many incorrectly believe excludes him from being a worthy candidate for this title). No other candidate for that role comes close to the manic Johnson, pushing and pulling the other key people to stay on task, including the trial runs (“beta tests” as they might be called today) planned for Chicago and Miami in the weeks before the Texas trip.
"For those who insist it was the introverted Allen Dulles — someone without personal connections to such other key people as James Rowley in the Secret Service, or even J. Edgar Hoover, with whom he had battled for turf that he considered his own — a man who in 1963 only had sway with others through an established linear hierarchy, within which he could receive input and issue orders, an obvious question arises: How could he do that when he had been fired two years earlier from his position of power and authority over many others? The premise would necessarily require the existence of an entirely separate organization, an enterprise dedicated to a presidential assassination. If that were the case, does it not follow that the authority residing within such a structure designed to carry out the mission of this “invisible government” had to be conferred upon him when he was chosen for the position by some very powerful men? Are we to infer, in that scenario, that Allen Dulles issued his deadly orders as the enigmatic, albeit secret, CEO, through an amorphous group of anonymous men at the helm of this invisible government? It may be instructive, as to who reported to whom, to note that Allen Dulles visited Dallas and Fort Worth and the LBJ Ranch just three weeks before the assassination. This was reported in the Fort Worth Press a few days before JFK’s trip to Texas. Johnson had spent the better part of four weeks at the ranch before JFK’s Texas trip as he made plans, focused primarily on the Dallas motorcade. For Dulles to go there to consult with him speaks volumes about who was the CEO and who was merely a high-level facilitator.
"In 1963, Lyndon B. Johnson was the most powerful man in the United States, in some ways even more so than John F. Kennedy, owing to the “back channel” alliances he had developed within the Pentagon and CIA. If indeed the “invisible government” were behind the assassination of the president, Lyndon B. Johnson would be at the head of the line for being the CEO of that invisible government. His direct connections to the military and intelligence organizations and law enforcement agencies of the federal government and the state of Texas were unimpeded by the many clashes that John F. Kennedy had experienced with those same chieftains. This kind of power was best illustrated by Johnson’s close connections through J. Edgar Hoover, Clint Murchison, H. L. Hunt, Irving Davidson, Fred Black, and Bobby Baker to Mafiosi throughout the country such as Carlos Marcello and Sam Giancana, et al., and through Angleton, Bill Harvey, Johnny Rosselli, and David Morales on down to the numerous Cuban exiles.
"These were all men whom Lyndon Johnson had developed for many years, decades even, insinuating himself as closely and personally as he could, using methods (or Johnson “Treatments”) customized for his selected prey. That kind of power was unique to Lyndon Johnson, no one else in Washington had worked so hard to accrue it and practice it and hone its edges with every iteration: He alone possessed that kind of power in 1963. The record of his astounding success stands, even now, half a century later, and thus becomes the biggest proof of his pivotal role: The claim of the title “Mastermind” is proven, ironically, by the even grander title “Colossus,” which best represents his real legacy of having achieved the highest office in the land, his resolve established when he was merely a child and later a high school bully. His lifetime of corruption and criminal behavior attest to the fact that his character traits were consistent over his entire lifetime."
I want to reiterate that I thought Mr. Talbot did an outstanding job of describing just how devilish Allen Dulles was. My original quibble was with that one sentence. Although I initially gave Mr. Talbot's book a "4.5" rating, which rounded back up to a "5" I have since adjusted it downwards and must revise the rating to a "4" due to the combined deduction for both of these areas of substantive disagreement. The matter of James Forrestal's death, as noted above in the "update" has been very controversial for too long to be ignored as something trivial, as to not affect the rating, and it is with some regret that I decided to make this change, for a work that is otherwise quite well done.
Phillip F. Nelson is the author of LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination (Skyhorse Publishing Co., 2011; 2013) and LBJ: From Mastermind to The Colossus (Skyhorse Publishing Co. 2014)
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club? Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Flip to back Flip to front
Follow the Author
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.
| Price | New from | Used from |
|
Audible Audiobook, Unabridged
"Please retry" |
$0.00
| Free with your Audible trial | |
|
Audio CD, Audiobook, CD, Unabridged
"Please retry" | $42.89 | $39.84 |
Great on Kindle
Great Experience. Great Value.
Putting our best book forward
Each Great on Kindle book offers a great reading experience, at a better value than print to keep your wallet happy.
Explore your book, then jump right back to where you left off with Page Flip.
View high quality images that let you zoom in to take a closer look.
Enjoy features only possible in digital – start reading right away, carry your library with you, adjust the font, create shareable notes and highlights, and more.
Discover additional details about the events, people, and places in your book, with Wikipedia integration.
Get the free Kindle app: 
Enjoy a great reading experience when you buy the Kindle edition of this book.
Learn more about Great on Kindle, available in select categories.
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now.
Frequently bought together
- +
- +
Total price:
To see our price, add these items to your cart.
Choose items to buy together.
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
Popular Highlights in this book
Dulles undermined or betrayed every president he served in high office.Highlighted by 516 Kindle readers- Dulles was more in step with many Nazi leaders than he was with President Roosevelt.Highlighted by 479 Kindle readers
- Dulles would turn his Georgetown home into the center of an anti-Kennedy government in exile.Highlighted by 383 Kindle readers
About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
Extremely good book. Informative for those who know nothing as ...
Reviewed in the United States on November 30, 2015
Extremely good book. Informative for those who know nothing as well as for those who know a lot. Very well-written. Don't let Allen Dulles be right about YOU. He said about the Warren Commission Report... don't worry. Nobody in this country reads anything. (or words to that effect) smug bastard who deserves to be read about!
Reviewed in the United States on November 30, 2015
Images in this review
Top reviews from other countries
Natatores
It completely trashes any notion there might still be that the Americans have ever been the good guys who ride to the rescue of democracy when ...
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on June 14, 2017Luc REYNAERT
A satanic quest for absolute power
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on October 25, 2018
