PDF Summary:The Devil's Chessboard, by David Talbot

For decades, the powerful Dulles brothers—Allen, an intelligence operative, and John Foster, a lawyer and diplomat—exerted immense influence over America's foreign policy and intelligence activities. In The Devil's Chessboard, David Talbot reveals how Allen Dulles maintained connections with key Nazi figures before and during World War II, later recruiting those individuals into America's covert Cold War operations.

The book chronicles how Dulles leveraged his Wall Street connections to shape the Nuremberg trials, protect industrialists and Nazi collaborators, and expand the CIA's secret programs like mind control experiments and assassination plots. Talbot examines Dulles's central role in covering up JFK's assassination and the agency's larger fight to control America's national security state.

(continued)...

Throughout the entire Cold War, Dulles was instrumental in directing secret operations and influencing the direction of foreign policy decisions.

Dulles, along with the CIA, undertook operations designed to undermine the administration of President John F. Kennedy.

Talbot explains that Allen Dulles and the faction of Cold War hardliners within the CIA never reconciled themselves to Kennedy’s presidency and his efforts to de-escalate tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union. While serving at the CIA, Dulles grew accustomed to wielding considerable sway within the Eisenhower administration. Allen Dulles, together with his sibling John Foster, who served as Eisenhower's official Secretary of State, established a clandestine network of power in Washington, D.C., that often bypassed directives from the president. JFK soon realized that his initial hesitation to thoroughly reform the established Cold War hierarchy was an error, particularly when it came to interactions with figures like Dulles. During Kennedy's time in office, there was initial conflict with Dulles, leading to considerable disagreements regarding the course of America's foreign affairs.

Dulles showed a conscious indifference to the concerns Kennedy had about the growing power and unchecked operations of the CIA during the initial phase of his presidency.

Talbot depicts Dulles as he attempts to maintain his relationship with Kennedy amidst the shift to a Democratic administration, presenting his expertise to the novice president regarding the global threat posed by Communism and the agency's efforts to counteract it. Kennedy's growing exasperation with Dulles stemmed from his perception that the agency's briefings were both insufficient and misleading. Kennedy harbored deep concerns regarding the CIA's burgeoning influence during Eisenhower's tenure and was wary of Dulles's cunning tactics. Upon assuming the presidency, JFK sought advice from a member of his transition team to identify a trustworthy individual within the CIA. Kennedy referred to Richard Bissell, who was responsible for overseeing the CIA's clandestine activities.

The actions of Dulles further exacerbated the already existing tensions between the CIA and the Kennedy administration, instead of mitigating the president's worries. For instance, Dulles directed his team to secure sensitive documents from the president and his staff to guarantee that these papers would not be retained within the White House's archival records. The head of intelligence chose not to undergo formal questioning by the presidential staff and assumed personal control over the briefings provided to Kennedy, which were perceived by the President as superficial and patronizing.

After President Kennedy decided to reduce the scale of the CIA-led Bay of Pigs invasion and subsequently relieved Dulles of his duties, Dulles endeavored to tarnish Kennedy's standing and diminish his influence on the press.

Talbot depicts the growing rift as adherents within the CIA, who were loyal to Dulles, manipulated press narratives to erroneously blame Kennedy for the Bay of Pigs debacle, claiming he rejected the intelligence agency's last-minute request for air attacks on Castro's forces, thus deflecting blame for the botched operation from the intelligence community.

Dulles' significant influence on the media greatly influenced how they depicted the Bay of Pigs incident. The CIA's leadership had established significant ties with media titans, such as Henry Luce, the chief of the Time-Life empire, and Arthur Hays Sulzberger, the head of The New York Times, both of whom had previously been part of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Dulles hindered Kennedy's attempts to foster better relations with the Italian Socialists by leveraging his influence and monetary channels to bolster the position of the ruling Christian Democrats within the Agency.

Talbot depicts how Dulles' CIA faction escalated their efforts to undermine President Kennedy's government after the debacle in Cuba. The agency, intent on proving that Kennedy's leadership lacked the necessary global political acumen and was worryingly lacking in determination for managing global matters, began undermining the president's diplomatic efforts, consequently diminishing his reputation among allies and adversaries globally.

The CIA was engulfed in tension and strife when it became known that Kennedy blamed Dulles for the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Admiral Arleigh Burke harbored deep resentment and declared, "I will never forgive those Kennedys," having previously been an advocate for the invasion in alignment with Dulles. Burke, a seasoned veteran of both World Wars and the Korean conflict, celebrated for his bravery while leading a destroyer squadron in the Pacific, was always seen as unwavering in his dedication to his country. Admiral Burke privately considered President Kennedy an insufficient leader due to his reluctance to fully support military actions in Cuba and regions like Laos.

Before the assassination, Dulles was critical of Kennedy's foreign policy, ridiculing his aspiration for worldwide respect, and believed that it was crucial for the United States to demand respect by projecting power.

In 1963, as JFK scaled back the CIA's Cold War operations, Talbot reveals how Dulles's evaluations of the president and his policies grew bolder. Dulles informed a fellow CIA member that Kennedy's determination had waned after the calamitous Bay of Pigs operation. Dulles conveyed to a peer his doubts regarding John F. Kennedy's comprehension of the operations he was engaged with. He had not yet developed the traits of an autocrat. In October 1963, while Kennedy was engaging in nuclear disarmament talks with Khrushchev and implementing strategies to neutralize covert operations targeting the Cuban leadership, Dulles brazenly belittled the president's efforts to improve the international standing of the United States, sarcastically suggesting that such actions were better suited for beauty queens.

In the midst of World War II, Dulles embarked on secret discussions with representatives from Germany.

Dulles engaged in secret negotiations that defied President Roosevelt's directives with officials from the Nazi regime and subsequently tried to hide his noncompliance.

In 1942, when Dulles was preparing to take charge of intelligence activities in Bern, Switzerland amidst the worldwide turmoil, President Roosevelt, aware of Dulles's history of Republican dissent and his significant economic connections to Nazi Germany before the conflict, opted to monitor him vigilantly. Dulles had been a board member of an international bank which, as per a 1939 article in Time magazine, had backed the Rome-Berlin Axis. The United Kingdom, through a turn of unforeseen events, had established a substantial network for intelligence operations across the United States, operating discreetly under the guise of the British Security Coordination. By the end of the conflict, the British Security Coordination had grown to include around three thousand staff members, centrally located within Rockefeller Center, in close proximity to the Office of Strategic Services, which was led by Dulles. William Stephenson, leading British intelligence within the British Security Coordination, meticulously monitored the activities of the Dulles faction.

Dulles was of the belief that strengthening the "moderate" factions and industrial base of the Third Reich after the war would serve as a strategic method to enhance the Western alliance's position in opposition to the Soviet Union, an approach he implemented with efficiency while leading the CIA.

Dulles perceived the Second World War not merely as an ideological conflict but as a strategic maneuver to achieve dominance. While the American populace strongly supported the fight against Nazi ideology, and as U.S. troops were heavily engaged in a pivotal struggle against Hitler's army, Dulles consistently safeguarded the business magnates' interests, including those of global corporations that had previously gained from his legal acumen during his tenure on Wall Street.

Dulles did not regard every Nazi as intrinsically malevolent. Author Talbot highlights Dulles' perspective, which distinguished sharply between the crass anti-Semitic leaders of the Nazi regime and the refined segments of German society, such as the aristocracy, economic experts, and proficient professionals, whom he considered could be rehabilitated post-conflict. Rather than purging these men – particularly those with close ties to Sullivan and Cromwell and his personal network of Wall Street friends and patrons – he felt it was imperative not only to protect them but to incorporate them into new positions of authority in postwar Germany, in order to build a strong bulwark there against the Soviet Union. This realpolitik approach was deeply disquieting to many liberal and left-wing critics – some of whom accused Dulles of treason – but it was enthusiastically embraced by many in the Republican Party establishment and national security establishment who shared his intense anti-Soviet convictions.

Allen Dulles was a proponent of intensifying the CIA's Cold War strategies and improving its intelligence-gathering methods.

Dulles argues that it is crucial to counter Soviet strategies such as "Executive Action," a covert term for assassination, to preserve American supremacy throughout the Cold War.

Talbot depicts the former CIA chief as an individual from a bygone era, often spending his days playing golf at the Burning Tree Country Club or enjoying the company, drinks, and cultural outings at the Palm Beach estate of his friend Charlie Wrightsman, courtesy of a rich oil tycoon's largesse. Dulles continued his clandestine operations with relentless enthusiasm, turning his focus to what he saw as the emerging naivety and susceptibility of Kennedy's presidency.

After being ousted from the CIA, Dulles endeavored to vindicate his firm positions during the Cold War through authoring various materials. In 1963, he published a memoir that provided a detailed examination of his intelligence career, which he named "The Craft of Intelligence." Dulles's sway grew markedly as the triumph of his publication offered a coveted platform for his contemporaries in business and defense circles to solidify their Cold War beliefs.

Dulles launched a clandestine CIA operation known as MKULTRA, which employed torture and other severe techniques under the guise of countering "brainwashing."

Talbot portrays Dulles as someone who was willing to use psychological strategies on the citizens he was supposed to safeguard. The spymaster embraced the concept of "brain warfare," which he identified in a 1953 speech to Princeton alumni in Hot Springs, Virginia, as the menacing new strategy of the Soviet Union in the global power struggle, and utilized it to capitalize on the media's heightened attention to "brainwashing" as a means to rationalize the progressively severe methods used by the intelligence and security apparatus of the United States.

Dulles had knowledge that Western nations had long been investigating techniques for mind manipulation, with origins in the experimental psychological warfare division of British intelligence during World War I, which had an impact on the OSS and subsequently the CIA. When he took charge of the U.S. intelligence agency in 1953, he began a comprehensive mind control project called MKULTRA.

Dulles was of the opinion that the push for self-governance was influenced by Communist ideologies rather than genuine desires of people to break free from colonial dominance and achieve self-rule.

The rise of anti-colonial movements after World War II posed a challenge to the enduring dominance of Western empires, which had traditionally facilitated the subjugation of people and the extraction of natural wealth across continents like Africa and Asia, as well as regions under the sway of European countries and the United States. To Dulles, these national liberation movements were not simply a threat to Western economic interests but to global security – “a wave of Red Terror,” as he put it, that was part of the Soviet Union’s relentless quest for world “hegemony,” Dulles’s ominous term for Moscow’s global supremacy.

Talbot illustrates that this viewpoint was prevalent among the upper tiers of authority in the US and Europe, with its clear manifestation in media platforms like Time and Life, owned by Henry Luce. For individuals who viewed the unfolding of international affairs as a harbinger of an impending disastrous clash, the only way to thwart the dominance of the countries aligned with Moscow on a global scale was by adopting a proactive stance that included challenging "international Communism," possibly by means that flouted global standards, subverting or toppling democratically chosen administrations if they seemed too aligned with Soviet tendencies, and removing key figures inclined to support the Kremlin.

The CIA acted to protect the interests of American corporations abroad.

The administration of Eisenhower, in conjunction with Dulles and their business associates, considered it imperative to overthrow Mossadegh, the elected leader of Iran, because his decision to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company threatened Western oil interests and challenged British imperial dominance.

In the summer of 1953, as Mossadegh consolidated his power in Iran, President Eisenhower and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles considered whether to continue the policy of the Truman administration in supporting the Iranian leader. Prominent figures in American industry, such as the Rockefellers, viewed Mossadegh as a menace to their economic interests and as someone who could fall under Soviet influence, prompting them to back forceful actions against him. Initially, Eisenhower had ambivalent sentiments about the proposal from the Dulles brothers to overthrow Mossadegh. He considered Iran's leader to be a firm nationalist instead of a supporter of Communism. The forecast suggested that by ousting Mossadegh, the United States might unintentionally benefit the Soviets because of the ensuing political instability in Iran. Eisenhower was inclined to suggest a monetary aid package valued at one hundred million dollars for Mossadegh instead of endorsing an overthrow.

Dulles believed it was crucial to depose Arbenz, the leader chosen through democratic means in Guatemala, because his initiatives to redistribute land to impoverished agricultural workers threatened the supremacy of large international businesses, notably the powerful United Fruit Company.

In 1952, after recently coming into power in Guatemala, President Jacobo Arbenz managed to secure the passage of a significant land reform act by the nation's legislators, aimed at redistributing agricultural land predominantly held by a minority to improve the livelihoods of the vast majority of rural workers. Arbenz's initiatives included the reallocation of land from the vast holdings of the United Fruit Company, a major agricultural player in the Caribbean, while guaranteeing fair compensation to the multinational firm.

The Eisenhower and Dulles leadership significantly supported the efforts of United Fruit to overthrow Arbenz. Before John F. Kennedy assumed the presidency, a number of influential individuals in Washington had already labeled Arbenz, a distinguished and eloquent military leader who gained recognition following the 1944 revolution that liberated Guatemala from an oppressive regime, as a radical threat.

Other Perspectives

• Dulles's actions during the Cold War may have been driven by a genuine belief in the threat posed by the Soviet Union and the need for a strong intelligence community to counter it.
• The clandestine network established by Dulles could be seen as a necessary measure to ensure continuity and stability in U.S. foreign policy during a time of great uncertainty and threat.
• The disagreements between Kennedy and Dulles could be interpreted as a healthy tension between different branches of government, each with its own perspective on national security.
• Dulles's efforts to maintain influence after being relieved of his duties could be viewed as an attempt to continue serving his country based on his understanding of international threats.
• The secret negotiations with Nazi officials might have been part of a broader strategy to end the war more quickly and save lives, despite being against President Roosevelt's directives.
• The rehabilitation of certain Nazis post-war could be argued as a pragmatic approach to counter the Soviet threat during the early stages of the Cold War.
• The MKULTRA program, while ethically questionable, might have been seen at the time as a necessary response to the perceived threat of Soviet mind control techniques.
• The view of anti-colonial movements as influenced by Communist ideologies was not unique to Dulles and reflected a common Cold War perspective that prioritized global security concerns.
• The overthrow of Mossadegh and Arbenz can be debated as part of a broader U.S. policy to prevent the spread of communism, rather than solely for protecting corporate interests.

Following JFK's assassination, Dulles's subsequent actions to obscure the facts and the broader dangers presented by the national security system.

The CIA's orchestration of events was designed to pin the assassination on Oswald.

Oswald's mysterious ties to U.S. intelligence and his strange actions while defecting to Moscow were part of a strategy to mislead Soviet agents and to solidify his cover as a disenchanted American during the final stage of the conspiracy against JFK.

Talbot emphasizes the thorough scrutiny that various parties, such as investigators, journalists, and historians, have applied to Oswald's past in search of indications that he was connected to foreign intelligence agencies or criminal groups. The compelling evidence of Oswald's ties to a spy agency is shown through the consistent and detailed monitoring of his activities by several U.S. organizations, including the CIA, FBI, Army Intelligence, and the Office of Naval Intelligence.

The actions of the CIA to associate Oswald with the assassination included arranging employment for him at a Texas textbook warehouse and confirming his visits to key locations that bolstered his reputation as a committed communist.

Talbot underscores the notion that Oswald was selected for this pivotal and transformative role due to his perceived expendability. He was not merely a vulnerable individual; for instance, the situation differed from when CIA assassins contemplated employing a female with mental health challenges to eliminate Castro, leveraging her isolated delusions to cast doubt on her credibility. The agency's operatives eventually dismissed the strategy, foreseeing that their Cuban partners would be hesitant to involve a woman in the killing of their opponent.

During a fiery debate at UCLA in 1965 with student David Lifton, Dulles dismissed the idea of any government or CIA role in Kennedy's assassination, steadfastly holding to his skepticism despite Lifton showing him images that suggested a conspiracy. The seasoned intelligence operative, who had dedicated his life to masking the stark realities of his trade, displayed an exceptionally theatrical demonstration of disdain.

The CIA directed its efforts to discredit any proof or witness statements that contradicted the assertion by the Warren Commission that Oswald was the sole gunman.

Talbot implies that the CIA carefully orchestrated events to ensure Oswald would be blamed for the pivotal incident in Dallas, a man whose complex existence ultimately embodied the scapegoat role he professed to be when detained by law enforcement. Oswald's situation was eerily similar to the unfortunate individuals who were manipulated by the CIA for their assassination schemes, such as those considered disposable and referred to as "little mice" whose existences were shattered in the initial phases when Dulles's Operation Splinter Factor was active, along with the agency's contemplation of using a mentally unstable woman in a scheme to assassinate Castro. A young man who was estranged and without a paternal role model, Oswald, who had lofty aspirations, became an easy mark for those scouting for recruits for covert operations.

The effective concealment by the Warren Commission of the plot to assassinate Kennedy.

Dulles aimed to join the Warren Commission to guide the investigation and safeguard sensitive information regarding covert activities that could have endangered America's security.

In the wake of JFK's assassination, a transient sense of vulnerability concerning the stability of the presidency emerged in Washington, while conspiracy theories began to circulate both domestically and abroad. Influential circles moved quickly to quell the disturbances that emerged in Dallas.

Dulles recognized that the investigation into Kennedy's death could jeopardize his reputation and the CIA's continuity if it uncovered the secret operations that led up to the president's death, including a tumultuous series of events starting with the Bay of Pigs and spreading to covert operations in Laos, Vietnam, and beyond. Upon the commencement of the investigation by President Johnson, the intelligence chief quickly took steps to strengthen his control over the inquiry. Dulles conveyed to his colleagues his ambition to personally oversee inquiries related to the Central Intelligence Agency.

Dulles and McCloy directed the Warren Commission's inquiries exclusively to Oswald, ensuring that any paths hinting at CIA participation remained unexamined.

Talbot illustrates the intense lobbying undertaken to ensure President Johnson appointed Dulles to the Warren Commission. Numerous influential figures from the political and media circles suggested that Johnson form a committee of respected national figures rather than allowing the probe to be controlled by local Dallas police or state authorities in Texas. John McCloy, who took over the reins at the CIA, was a staunch supporter of Dulles being named to the commission.

Dulles and McCloy both held similar perspectives on the Cold War and their professional paths intersected within the upper echelons of the American financial community. McCloy received reassurance from Dulles that, in the event Eisenhower did not appoint him as the head of the CIA, he could assume leadership of the Ford Foundation, a substantial tax-exempt organization, which Dulles had previously utilized to fund covert CIA operations, such as the National Committee for a Free Europe.

Dulles played a pivotal role in directing the Warren Report's findings, which identified Oswald as the lone assassin, while secretly working with intelligence agencies to confine the investigation's breadth.

Talbot depicts Dulles as skillfully steering the investigation to avoid a thorough scrutiny of the agency's deeds, all the while ensuring the protection of his associates within other susceptible areas. For instance, by agreeing to Johnson's choice of distinguished members for the committee and opting not to head it himself, Dulles made certain that his trusted associate John McCloy would secure a position on the commission. McCloy's expertise in international banking and finance might be advantageous for the commission if they decide to delve into the financial ties associated with Kennedy's assassination.

Dulles consistently undermined those who doubted the findings of the Warren Commission, suggesting that their inquiries were tainted by Soviet influence, and he utilized the CIA's vast media connections to portray these earnest investigators as baseless and unreasonable in their skepticism.

Under Dulles' direction, the CIA devoted itself fully to maintaining the credibility of the Warren Report, which conclusively cleared U.S. intelligence agencies, especially Dulles, of any involvement in Kennedy's assassination. The spymaster kept up friendly correspondence with commission staff attorneys such as former assistant U.S. attorney Arlen Specter, who played a lead role as legal architect of the lone gunman theory. He leveraged his broad connections in the press, including past associates Henry and Clare Booth Luce, to guarantee that the viewpoints of the intelligence community were reflected in news reporting.

The Dulles siblings waged an unyielding offensive against their opponents, including proponents of the New Deal like Jerry Voorhis and Alger Hiss, using tactics that displayed a blatant disregard for constitutional protections and a skillful execution of political strategy.

Talbot illuminates the attack on Jerry Voorhis as a critical juncture in American history, signifying the transition to an era where influential individuals from the business world and spy agencies, such as the Dulles siblings, utilized Cold War zeal to accomplish their goals. Voorhis, who had a reputation for defending civil liberties and resisting the Communist Party's influence prior to the war, was surprisingly labeled as a Communist by his opponents.

The relentless commitment of the Dulles family to suppress any challenges to America's global supremacy and its business ambitions resulted in clashes with entities such as Iran's Tudeh Party backed by the Soviets, Guatemala's progressive administration under Arbenz, and the administration in Congo headed by Patrice Lumumba, as well as with internal progressives like California's Representative Jerry Voorhis and the New Deal's Alger Hiss, signifying a defining aspect of their era as clandestine shapers of U.S. influence. A callous indifference to democratic values ultimately led to disastrous outcomes.

Other Perspectives

• The CIA's involvement in JFK's assassination is not conclusively proven and remains a subject of speculation and conspiracy theories.
• Oswald's ties to U.S. intelligence have been debated, and some argue that his actions could be interpreted as those of a lone, disenchanted individual rather than as part of a larger conspiracy.
• The monitoring of Oswald by U.S. organizations could be standard procedure for someone who defected to the Soviet Union during the Cold War, rather than evidence of a conspiracy.
• Employment at the Texas textbook warehouse and visits to key locations could be coincidental and not necessarily arranged by the CIA.
• The selection of Oswald due to perceived expendability is an interpretation that cannot be substantiated without concrete evidence of intent from the CIA.
• Dulles's denial of government or CIA involvement in JFK's assassination could be truthful, and without definitive evidence, it remains one possible truth.
• The Warren Commission's findings have been supported by numerous subsequent investigations, which also concluded that Oswald acted alone.
• Dulles's involvement in the Warren Commission could be seen as bringing valuable intelligence experience to the investigation, rather than an attempt to manipulate the outcome.
• The focus on Oswald by the Warren Commission could be due to the weight of evidence against him rather than an intentional diversion from other suspects.
• The Warren Report's identification of Oswald as the lone assassin is consistent with the findings of other independent investigations and expert analyses.
• Criticism of the Warren Commission's findings may not necessarily be influenced by Soviet propaganda, but could stem from genuine skepticism and the pursuit of truth.
• The Dulles siblings' tactics against opponents could be interpreted as part of the broader anti-communist sentiment prevalent during the Cold War era, rather than a personal vendetta.
• The suppression of challenges to U.S. global supremacy by the Dulles family could be viewed as a defense of American interests during a time of heightened global tension.