How to lie about History – The secondary source two-step

This technique is used by bad historians to assert facts and opinions that have been disproved or off-the-wall.  Primary and reliable secondary sources, (even when listed in the bibliography) are ignored. Instead a fact/assertion is based on an unreliable or obscure secondary source.

Example:

Thomas Ricks “The Generals” states “MacArthur tried to keep Marshall down in the 1930s”.  What is Thomas Ricks’ source? An interview with Omar Bradley in the late 1950s!  Why would Omar Bradley know anything about it? Well…Meanwhile his Bibliography lists Clayton James’ definitive ‘MacArthur’ biography, Pogue’s George Marshall interview transcripts, and his definitive George Marshall Biography.  All these sources (based on interviews and source documents) state that MacArthur did NOT try to “keep Marshall down.  Both books point out:

·         MacArthur was not vindictive and didn’t try to keep anyone “down” while Chief-of-Staff or as SWPA Theater Commander

·         MacArthur and Marshall were not ‘rivals’ before 1930 – they barely knew each other

·         MacArthur didn’t help Marshall “jump the line” – but then he didn’t help anyone “jump the line”

·         The Seniority System was based on Congressional and Presidential action – MacArthur disliked it and presented a new promotion system to Congress in December 1934

·         FDR and the Secretary of War were the key players in deciding who to promote to General in the 1930s

·         MacArthur stated in writing that “Marshall was the best of the Infantry Colonels”

·         In 1935, MacArthur recommended Marshall be promoted to General.

·         MacArthur wanted to promote Marshall to “Chief of Infantry” a two-star general position.

·         Marshall’s transfer to Chicago in 1933 was not a “career killer” but an important and sensitive post. Marshall didn’t want to go because he hated living in big cities and liked the South.

Yet Ricks ignores this and uses an unreliable secondary source to bash MacArthur.  It’s the secondary source two-step.

How to Lie about History - The Captain Fred MacDonald Story

In Bradley's "Imperial Cruise" we  get this quote about Captain Fred MacDonald (U.S.V) and his conduct during the Philippine American war (1899-1902):

"Captain Fred MacDonald ordered every native in the Hamlet of LaNong killed, save a beautiful mestizo woman, whom the officers repeatedly raped, prior to giving her over to the enlisted men. "

The source for this?  A secondary history called "Benevolent Assimilation" (1982).   And what is that book's source?

Answer - The 1902 Senate Hearing on American atrocities in the Philippines.  During that hearing  a certain Corporal Richard  T. O'Brien charged that MacDonald (his company commander) and the officers gang-raped the woman.

Seems pretty solid, except that O'Brian admitted under oath that:

• he never saw MacDonald rape anyone
• his charge was based on hearsay i.e. what the woman's husband supposedly told him
• the woman's husband only told him - and no other soldier in the company
• No one overhead the husband statement to O'brien that his wife had been raped
• he never mentioned the rape in any of this letters home
• he never reported the rape to MacDonald's superiors.

The army records were then produced showing that O'Brien was:

• a troublemaker and had a grudge against MacDonald
• was never in LaNong but stationed as a supply clerk 25 miles away
• had made other charges (that the company never took prisoners) proven to be false by army records
• not supported by anyone else in the company.

And finally,  after the Senate Hearings, O'Brien stood trial for perjury.

In other words there is no convincing evidence that Captain Fred MacDonald raped anyone. But that doesn't stop the looney left historians from printing it as fact.  As Mark Twain said:  " A Lie can travel half-way around the world before the truth gets its boots on"

Rise of the USA's Great white Fleet - 1896-1909

US Navy Battleships			Royal Navy Battleships
Year	Commissioned	Total Available	Commissioned	Total Available
1896	2	3	3	14
1897	1	4	3	17
1898	0	4	3	20
1899	0	4	1	21
1900	3	7	3	24
1901	2	9	2	26
1902	1	10	5	31
1903	1	11	5	36
1904	1	12	6	42
1905	0	12	5	47
1906	6	18	2 (1 DN)	49
1907	4	22	1	50
1908	3	25	4 (2 DN)	54
1909	0	25	4 DN	58

Brooks Simpson now writing Left-wing gibberish

From a recent post:

"Especially since the fellow in the picture is descended from a man who owed his congressional seat to white supremacist terrorism. Nice way to respect the Confederate battle flag …"

Y'know when the association part of your "Guilt by association" is this vague and weak you should give it up. I love how this is written:

1) "descended from" = Is it son, grandson, great-grandson, great-great grandson? Who knows
2) "owed" = pretty vague and expansive and almost un-provable one way or the other
3) "white supremacist" = another insult label that can mean anything.
4) "terrorism" = another vague insult label.

Philippine American War 1899-1902 - US Losses by year

Time Period	US Army Killed and Died of Wounds
February 1899- June 1899	349
July 1899 – June 1900	282
July 1900 –June 1901	239
July 1901 – June 1902	134
Total KIA and DOW	1,004
Total Died of Disease	2,572
Total Died Other Causes	589
Total Deaths	4,165

Source: US Department of War Reports 1899-1902, Statistical Abstract of USA (1953) Page 284

How to Succeed in History without really Trying

Do you wish to follow in the footsteps of such notables as Howard Zinn, James Bradley or even Gore Vidal?  Do you want to push your left-wing views and be published?

Based on reading these three "historians" let me offer some advice:

1.  Don't care about dates or numbers.  I mean what are you, a Historian or a bean counter?  What difference does it make if 3,000,000 Filipinos are killed as opposed to 300,000 or that 15 Filipino POW's were killed by the US army instead of 1,500.  Or that 1.8 million not 18 million  visited the 1904 Philippine exhibit at the World's Fair? Leave the zeros to the mathematicians and dates to the Scholar-squirrels.

2. Use Labels to guide your readers -  At every opportunity attach "bad labels" to people/things you don't like and "good labels" to people/things you do.  It doesn't matter that these labels are historically irrelevant or reduce complex attitudes/beliefs to a bumper sticker.  It makes everything simpler for everyone.  Suggested bad labels: "racist", "Sexist" "bigot" "Imperialist" "Aryan" "White Christian" "Haloe" "Bourgeois"  - Suggested good Labels - "People of Color" "freedom-fighters"  "Democracy" "President (not dictator)" "revolt (not massacre)"

3.  Remember that Non-whites are always better.   If  you compare whites and non-whites  always state the non-whites are better. Note: this rule also applies to Christianity and other religions.

4. Set those Racists Straight.   Readers love to feel superior to dead folks of the past.  So, always couple any historical quote expressing the superiority of  Western civilization/Christianity with a sneering condemnation.  For example, if Teddy Roosevelt states the USA was more than advanced than the Philippines in 1900,  knock that racist down.  Don't worry, he can't fight back - he's dead.

5.  White Imperialism is always wrong even when it appears to make things better for the subject people.  Note: to show this may take some creative apples-to-oranges comparisons.

6.  Omit any historical facts that might question Rules 3 to 5.  If your non-Whites were even more racist, xenophobic, sexist, greedy, or violent than the comparable Whites do not under circumstances mention it.   Consult "Imperial Cruise" for examples.

7.  Exaggerate any American atrocity or misdeed. Omit any foreign atrocity or mis-deed.  Plus any American atrocity or misdeed should be stated as proven fact, despite evidence to the contrary.

8.  Use  recent secondary sources not original primary documents.  This saves time and ensures the book will have the correct political viewpoint.

9.  Don't source most of your facts.  This makes it easier to support to your opinions and is also a lot less work.  Besides only "scholar-squirrels" care.

10. Use one-sentence quotes from obscure letters, diaries,  and unpublished manuscripts.  This seems to contradict  "Rule 8" but really doesn't.  Almost all these quotes will be embedded in secondary sources. However, it will appear to the uneducated or hasty reader you did a lot of research.   You can also support your viewpoint by plucking quotes from obscure online sources confident that no will plow through hundreds of pages trying to find one sentence quotes.

11. Use historical Newspaper and Magazine Articles.   Like the today's media, you can always trust them to print the objective truth.  Plus, is any skeptical 'scholar-squirrel' really going to look up Page 16, of the August 14, 1899 Manila Advertiser?

USA 1914 - Not a World Power

July 1914:

Dreadnoughts (Battleships/Battle Cruisers) by Country:
Great Britain - 38
Germany -24
Japan -10
USA -10
France -4

Standing Army by Country:
Russia - 1,320,000
Germany -880,000
France - 736,000
Great Britain - 250,000
Japan 250,000
USA - 100,000

General J.M. Bell and the Killing of 600,000 Filipinos in 1901

From the May 1st, 1901 New York Times Interview:

"One-sixth of the natives of Luzon have either been killed or have died of Dengue fever in the last two years" was the remarkable statement of Brig. General Bell, who arrived in Washington to-day direct from the Philippines, where he was in command of four departments of Southern Luzon.

'The loss of life by killing alone has been very great," continued the General, "but I think not one man has been slain except where his death served a legitimate purpose of war.  It has been necessary to adopt what in other countries would be considered harsh measures, of the Filipino is tricky and crafty and has to be fought in his own way."

"One of my sentinels was beheaded within 150 yards of my HQ.  His executioner was a Bolo-man, who came into camp disguised as a fruit vendor.  He had his Bolo hidden in the fruit basket and with one blow cut off the sentinel's head."

The problems with General Bell's statement are:

(1) J.M. Bell wasn't on Luzon for two years.  He arrived in October 1899 and left in March 1901, and returned to the US in the Summer of 1900 for several months on sick leave.
(2) J.M. Bell was a Brig General stationed in southern Luzon.  There's no evidence he visited the rest of Luzon, or knew anything about Luzon except what went on in HIS department.
(3) J.M. Bell had no way of knowing the total population in Luzon in April 1899 or April 1901.
(4) The Census records disclose no drop in Luzon's native population from April 1899-April 1901.
(5) There was no epidemic of "Dengue Fever" in the US Army or among the Luzon Filipinos in 1899-1901.
(6)  Bell was 63 when he gave the interview and retired in October 1901.  There's no evidence he ever testified before Congress to support his "remarkable statement" or was ever questioned further on it, by anyone.
(7) Given that Bell was in charge of 1/6 the natives on Luzon, my suspicion is that the reporter simply mis-quoted him.

Hiroshima - Should we have dropped the Bomb?

Chronicles says No. Amazing that this is still being discussed and people still bringing up myths that have been debunked years ago.

1) In August 1945, the Japanese were NOT on verge of surrendering. They were looking for a way to end the war but key player, The Army C-in-C, whose consent was required, would only consider a modified surrender.  This would entail Japan withdrawing the troops from foreign soil,  no occupation of Japan, any Japanese war criminals being tried by the Japanese. Its unclear whether they considered Korea, Formosa, or Okinawa "Foreign Soil".

2) Even after the Emperor intervened, the A-bombs, and the USSR declaration of war, the Army still attempted to kidnap the Emperor and continue the war.  This attempted coup only failed because (1) quick thinking by the Emperor's aide (2) Luck (3) the Loyalty of a key low level Japanese officer (4) the unwillingness of the Army C-in-C to explicitly support it.  Still it was damn close thing.

3)  The planned invasion of  Kyushu Island would have cost at least 30,000 American lives, not mention 400,000 Japanese soldiers and and equal number of civilians.

4) The USSBS states Japan probably would've surrendered by November 1945 even without an invasion, due to blockade and conventional air attacks. Maybe, and this may have been less costly than an invasion in AMERICAN lives, but it would've been much more costlier in Japanese and other lives. Why?

(a) there was a large land war going on between the USSR and Japan in Manchuria and Korea.  In three weeks in August the Japanese had lost almost 100,000 army dead and the Soviets 10,000 - had the fighting continued through September this death toll would've at least doubled. Tens of thousands of Japanese civilians were also killed in the fighting.
(b) Large numbers of Japanese soldiers were "withering on vine" in the Philippines, New Guinea and the pacific islands.  Tens of thousands would have starved to death if the war had gone on another 3 months.
(c) Large numbers of Allied POWs and Dutch internees were also starving to death.
(d) Millions of Chinese and Japanese were still fighting in China. Tens of thousand of soldiers and civilians were dying ever month from disease, starvation, and battle.
(e) Indochina, Indonesia and Malaysia were still under Japanese occupation and civilians were dying of starvation.
(f)  In September 1945, the British had planned to invade Malaysia, the Australians Java, and the Soviets Hokkaido - result tens of thousands of deaths.

5) Even without an invasion, hundreds of Americans were dying at Sea and in Air battles over Japan.  During the last six weeks of the war, we lost 300 men a week in B-29 air raids, Kamikaze and Submarine attacks. We were also still mopping up over 100,000 Japanese troops in the Philippines.
6) A Japanese famine was narrowly avoided in the Spring and Summer 1946, had Japan delayed its surrender till November 1945, the famine would've been much worse and hundreds of thousands would've died.
7) The USN while opposing an invasion, wanted to seize ports in China and also several small islands in the Ryukyu's and Cheju.

So, the A-Bomb hastened the surrender and ultimately saved lives.

History as Party Pamphlet

 It is peculiarly necessary that the history of such a nation should be written, if not with some generosity, at least with some candor, that a serious effort should be made to present in their true proportions both the lights and the shades of the picture, to trace effects to their causes, to make due allowance for circumstances and for antecedents. When this is not done, or at least attempted, history, may easily sink to the level of the worst type of party pamphlet.

By selecting simply such facts as are useful for the purpose of blackening a national character; by omitting all palliating circumstances; by suppressing large classes of facts of a more creditable description, which might serve to lighten the picture; by keeping carefully out of sight the existence of corresponding evils in other countries; by painting crimes that were peculiar to the wildest districts and the most lawless class as if they were common to the whole country and to all classes; by employing the artifices of a dramatic writer to heighten, in long, detailed, and elaborate pictures, the effect of the crimes committed on one side, while those committed on the other are either wholly suppressed or are dismissed in a few vague, general, and colorless phrases; by associating even the best acts and characters on one side with a running comment of invidious insinuation, while the doubtful or criminal acts on the other side are manipulated with the dexterity of a practiced advocate;—by these methods, and by such as these, it is possible, even without the introduction of positive misstatement, to carry the art of historical misrepresentation to a high degree of perfection. - William Lecky "History of Ireland in the 18th Century".

National Review - Howard Zinn Not a Good Historian

Almost two week after the Mitch Daniels first came under fire for dissing Howard Zinn, the girly-men at NR belatedly come to his defense, in a strong (for them) attack on Zinn's " A People's History of the United States":

"The book is full of errors and deliberate distortions, as Handlin noted in The American Scholar, and these are not limited to minor issues. Zinn misrepresents everything from slavery in the Chesapeake colonies to American involvement in Cuba to the Tet offensive. He reports as fact the story of Polly Baker, a woman persecuted for having an illegitimate child, when the story is in truth a work of fiction, penned by Benjamin Franklin. Zinn himself described A People’s History as “a biased account,” that bias being in favor of socialism, a political tendency that Zinn favored and thought would be popular but for the fact that “the Soviet Union gave it a bad name.” Mao Zedong and Fidel Castro didn’t help much, either, though Zinn had kind words for their revolutions. Zinn denied being a member of the Communist party, though he was identified as such by several other members and served as an officer in a CPUSA front group. Presented with evidence (including a confession) that Soviet spies Zinn had defended were in fact guilty as charged, his response was: “To me, it didn’t matter whether they were guilty or not.” Later in life, he trafficked in 9/11 conspiracy theories."

Of course, NR quotes liberal Historians Handlin and Schlesinger  as confirmation that Zinn was no good, since NR usually looks to liberals to determine what is acceptable. Weirdly, the piece is signed by "The Editors"; probably since no one at NR had the guts to sign his name to it.

And I look forward to usual Goldberg/Lowery backtracking.

The Statue of Liberty's True Meaning

The statue is of a robed female figure representing Libertas, the Roman goddess of freedom, who bears a torch and a tabula ansata (a tablet evoking the law) upon which is inscribed the date of the American Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776. A broken chain lies at her feet.

Strom Thurmond's America - Book review

This is a well written, interesting biography on a South Carolinian Senator who had a long distinguished career. A self-described "Health Nut" Thurmond lived to be over 100, and served 48 years in the US senate (1954-2003) and 4 years as SC Governor (1948-1953). Crespino writes from a fair but liberal perspective and gets it right mostly. The books has three major flaws (1) he spends far too much time on Thurmond's post 1972 career (1/4 of the book) which is well known to anyone over the age of 40. (2) the author didn't know Thurmond personally and there's no evidence he interviewed members of Thurmond's family or staff (3) too much of the book is based is based on newspaper clippings and secondary sources. For example, I wanted the author source for "J.Edgar Hoover was aiding Southerners in their fight against Civil rights" and "waging a covert war against MLK" and all I get is a reference to a book called "America in the King Years" and a clipping from the April 1964 New York Times.

I was also disappointed in the vague, superficial coverage of Thurmond's fight against the civil rights bills of 1957 and 1964. What was Thurmond's role in both these struggles? Why did he put so much effort into what he knew was a losing cause? What did he think of the bills in later years - did he regret opposing them? Crespino never provides many details. Further, he states that Thurmond's attacks and predictions regarding the 1964 proved incorrect, but the imposition of affirmative action and school busing seems to indicate just the opposite.

Finally, Crespino never adequately addresses the role of Southern White Democrats in the 1960s and 1970s. Of the 21 Southern Democrat Senators who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights bill only Thurmond became a Republican. Why? What made Thurmond different from George Wallace (who died a Democrat), former KKK member Byrd who became Democrat Senate Majority Leader, or even his fellow SC Senator Fritz Hollings (responsible for Flying the Confederate Flay over that SC State Capital)? Why was Thurmond able to win election as a Republican senator when SC voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976, and gave Nixon only 38% of the vote in 1968? He never provides the context; preferring to focus narrowly on Republican party. The movement of old-line Democrats like Thurmond to the Republican party during the 1960-1980 time period is never given a broader focus.

Howard Zinn - Communist Ideologue

"Objectivity is impossible and it is also undesirable. That is, if it were possible it would be undesirable, because if you have any kind of a social aim, if you think history should serve society in some way; should serve the progress of the human race; should serve justice in some way, then it requires that you should make your selection on the basis of what you think will advance causes of humanity.” - Howard Zinn

 “I wanted my writing of history and my teaching of history to be a part of social struggle. I wanted to be a part of history and not just a recorder and teacher of history. So that kind of attitude towards history, history itself as a political act, has always informed my writing and my teaching.” -Howard Zinn

Zinn was a communist, (read his FBI File) so his viewpoint is not surprising.  It is surprising that some historians take him seriously. 

The Twenty Worst Figures US History

01) Alexander Hamilton
02) Calhoun
03) Jefferson Davis
04) Benedict Arnold
05) The Rosenbergs
06) George Soros
07) Ayn Rand
08) Harry Hopkins
09) Earl Warren
10) Ted Kennedy
11) John Paul Stevens
12) LBJ
13) Harry Dexter White
14) Charles Sumner
15) Woodrow Wilson
16) Lillian Hellman
17) Howard Zinn
18) Jon Dewey
19) The Sulzberger Family
20) Felix Frankfurter

Populists Vs. Elitists - U.S. Presidents, since 1932.

Just for the record:

Harvard & Yale Graduates:
FDR
Ford
JFK
Bush I
Bush II
Clinton
Obama

DC Insiders
LBJ (Left Texas at 23 for DC and stayed there until President 32 years later)
Nixon ( Went to DC at 29 stayed in DC/NYC until he became President 26 years later)
Ike ( DC/NYC 1928-1935, 1942, 1946-1951. Europe 1942-1945, 1951, 1929)

PopulistsReagan
Carter
Truman

Ted Kennedy - Friend of the KGB

TEXT OF KGB LETTER ON SENATOR TED KENNEDY
_________________________________________
Special Importance
Committee on State Security of the USSR
14.05. 1983 No. 1029 Ch/OV
Moscow

Regarding Senator Kennedy’s request to the General Secretary of the Communist Party Comrade Y.V. Andropov

Comrade Y.V. Andropov

On 9-10 May of this year, Senator Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant J. Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Center Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.

Senator Kennedy, like other rational people, is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations. Events are developing such that this relationship coupled with the general state of global affairs will make the situation even more dangerous. The main reason for this is Reagan’s belligerence, and his firm commitment to deploy new American middle range nuclear weapons within Western Europe.

According to Kennedy, the current threat is due to the President’s refusal to engage any modification on his politics.

The only real threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations. These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign. The movement advocating a freeze on nuclear arsenals of both countries continues to gain strength in the United States. The movement is also willing to accept preparations, particularly from Kennedy, for its continued growth. In political and influential circles of the country, including within Congress, the resistence to growing military expenditures is gaining strength.

However, according to Kennedy, the opposition to Reagan is still very weak. Reagan’s adversaries are divided and the presentations they make are not fully effective. Meanwhile, Reagan has the capabilities to effectively counter any propaganda. In order to neutralize criticism that the talks between the USA and the USSR are non-constructive, Reagan will grandiose, but subjectively propagandistic. At the same time, Soviet officials who speak about disarmament will be quoted out of context, silenced or groundlessly and whimsically discounted. Although arguments and statements by officials of the USSR do appear in the press, it is important to note the majority of Americans do not read serious newspapers or periodicals.

Kennedy believes that, given the current state of affairs, and in the interest of peace, it would be prudent and timely to undertake the following steps to counter the militaristic politics of Reagan and his campaign to psychologically burden the American people. In this regard, he offers the following proposals to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Y.V. Andropov:

1. Kennedy asks Y.V. Andropov to consider inviting the senator to Moscow for a personal meeting in July of this year. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA. He would also like to inform you that he has planned a trip through Western Europe, where he anticipates meeting England’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and French President Mitterand in which he will exchange similar ideas regarding the same issues.
If his proposals would be accepted in principle, Kennedy would send his representative to Moscow to resolve questions regarding organizing such a visit.

Kennedy thinks the benefits of a meeting with Y.V.Andropov will be enhanced if he could also invite one of the well known Republican senators, for example, Mark Hatfield. Such a meeting will have a strong impact on American and political circles in the USA (In March of 1982, Hatfield and Kennedy proposed a project to freeze the nuclear arsenals of the USA and USSR and pblished a book on the theme as well.)

2. Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year, televised interviews with Y.V. Andropov in the USA. A direct appeal by the General Secretary to the American people will, without a doubt, attact a great deal of attention and interest in the country. The senator is convinced this would receive the maximum resonance in so far as television is the most effective method of mass media and information.

If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interview. Specifically, the president of the board of directors of ABC, Elton Raul and television columnists Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters could visit Moscow. The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.

Furthermore, with the same purpose in mind, a series of televised interviews in the USA with lower level Soviet officials, particularly from the military would be organized. They would also have an opportunity to appeal directly to the American people about the peaceful intentions of the USSR, with their own arguments about maintaining a true balance of power between the USSR and the USA in military term. This issue is quickly being distorted by Reagan’s administration.

Kennedy asked to convey that this appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is his effort to contribute a strong proposal that would root out the threat of nuclear war, and to improve Soviet-American relations, so that they define the safety of the world. Kennedy is very impressed with the activities of Y.V. Andropov and other Soviet leaders, who expressed their commitment to heal international affairs, and improve mutal understandings between peoples.

The senator underscored that he eagerly awaits a reply to his appeal, the answer to which may be delivered through Tunney.

Having conveyed Kennedy’s appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Tunney also explained that Senator Kennedy has in the last few years actively made appearances to reduce the threat of war. Because he formally refused to partake in the election campaign of 1984, his speeches would be taken without prejudice as they are not tied to any campaign promises. Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. At that time, he will be 56 and his personal problems, which could hinder his standing, will be resolved (Kennedy has just completed a divorce and plans to remarry in the near future). Taken together, Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president. This would explain why he is convinced that none of the candidates today have a real chance at defeating Reagan.

We await instructions.

President of the committee
V. Chebrikov