"incontrovertible evidence"? Where have you been all these years? Under US law, after 2 or 3 decades, classified documents are made public and CIA involvement in Nkrumah's overthrow was laid bare, including suitcases of hard ... read full comment
"incontrovertible evidence"? Where have you been all these years? Under US law, after 2 or 3 decades, classified documents are made public and CIA involvement in Nkrumah's overthrow was laid bare, including suitcases of hard currency paid to the treacherous conspirators. Please check you facts before you write or you'll misinform people. In fact, those documents revealed that the CIA had wanted the traitors to shoot Nkrumah in cold blood as he disembarked from the plane on his return from Hanoi, but, even those traitors felt it wouldn't go down well with Ghanaians. CIA involvement in the overthrow of Nkrumah is not a myth, but, confirmed fact from the documents released.
Kwame 8 years ago
Publish the so called CIA documents. Nothing but propaganda. Give everybody the link to the so allied documents. Read K.AGbedemah's letter to Nkrumah as far back as 1961 working him about the looming economist disaster. ( he ... read full comment
Publish the so called CIA documents. Nothing but propaganda. Give everybody the link to the so allied documents. Read K.AGbedemah's letter to Nkrumah as far back as 1961 working him about the looming economist disaster. ( he letter is published today on ghanaweb)
SAINT 8 years ago
CIA INVOLVEMENT WAS OVERWHELMING. ACCORDING TO CIA THE COUP WAS THE MOST EXPENSIVE THE CIA HAD STAGED AT THAT TIME COSTING AROUND 23 MILLION DOLLARS. AFRIFA, ANKRAH, KOTOKA ETC WERE GIVEN 1.4 MILLION DOLLARS EACH.
LET US S ... read full comment
CIA INVOLVEMENT WAS OVERWHELMING. ACCORDING TO CIA THE COUP WAS THE MOST EXPENSIVE THE CIA HAD STAGED AT THAT TIME COSTING AROUND 23 MILLION DOLLARS. AFRIFA, ANKRAH, KOTOKA ETC WERE GIVEN 1.4 MILLION DOLLARS EACH.
LET US STOP CRYING OVER SPILT MILK. THERE IS NO WAY WE CAN CHANGE IT EVEN THOUGH IT IS VERY PAINFUL TO SEE GHANA FALLEN FROM GRACE TO GRASS . THE YOUTH ARE SUFFERING TODAY PARTLY BECAUSE OF THE 1966 COUP.
Kwame 8 years ago
In 1966 the Negro had less right than a dog in the U.S. That was a legal document passed by both Congress and Senate in the U.S. Though both Congress and Senate can not change the obnoxious system of racial segregation the CI ... read full comment
In 1966 the Negro had less right than a dog in the U.S. That was a legal document passed by both Congress and Senate in the U.S. Though both Congress and Senate can not change the obnoxious system of racial segregation the CIA did not call for its forceful overthrow.
In 1966 all the countries in west Africa and in Africa in general have one party states, there was also one party states in Southern European countries which were then fascist regimes. Technically up to date there is no multiparty system in the U.S. So the argument that because there was no other party in Ghana on 24/6/1966 should be the reason for its overthrow falls flat on the face.
Kenedy 8 years ago
I will not give you high marks for this article because it fell far short of your usual objective standard.
Are you seriously saying that you don't know of the involvement of the CIA which had been documented with the rele ... read full comment
I will not give you high marks for this article because it fell far short of your usual objective standard.
Are you seriously saying that you don't know of the involvement of the CIA which had been documented with the release of cia classifieds and the BBC documentary which is all over the place.
Maybe,this time,you are carrying diplomacy a bit too far just to obscure the blatant involvement of Danquah, Busia and the rest in their quest for power.
Ebo Letrik 8 years ago
So Vietnam WARNED Nkrumah about his risky visit.
President Johnson Papers:
254. Memorandum of Conversation1
Washington, August 6, 1965, 4:45–5 p.m.
PRESENT
The President, Foreign Minister Quaison-Sackey, the ... read full comment
So Vietnam WARNED Nkrumah about his risky visit.
President Johnson Papers:
254. Memorandum of Conversation1
Washington, August 6, 1965, 4:45–5 p.m.
PRESENT
The President, Foreign Minister Quaison-Sackey, the Ambassador of Ghana, Mr. Bill Moyers, Mr. McGeorge Bundy
1. The President greeted the Foreign Minister warmly, and took him and the Ambassador into his small office. He opened the conversation by a friendly reference to the Ambassador’s recent trip to Lake Jackson in Texas.
The Ambassador reported that he had enjoyed the trip very much and that he looked forward to an opportunity to show this same work on desalinization to the Minister of his Government mainly concerned with these matters.
The President told the Foreign Minister that the Ambassador was going to be regarded as a citizen of Texas, and then turned to the Foreign Minister attentively and expectantly.
2. The Foreign Minister said that he brought the President the very warm greetings of President Nkrumah, and a letter.2 He handed the letter to the President.
The President joked about the large number of red seals on the letter, produced a pocketknife, opened it carefully, and read it aloud.
3. As soon as he had finished reading the letter, the President gave the Foreign Minister a categorical assurance that no U.S. military operations would interfere with any visit to Hanoi by President Nkrumah.
The President said (1) we are not bombing Hanoi, (2) we have not intensified our bombing of North Vietnam, (3) the President will be in no danger, and (4) who is he kidding? (probably referring to Ho, not Nkrumah).
The President continued that a peaceful settlement would never be blocked because of any action of the United States. If the aggression ceases, our resistance ceases.
Nobody wanted peace more than the United States, and if the efforts of Ghana could get the aggressors to stop, we would stop resistance to the aggression. The President repeated that no one needed to be worried about getting hurt in Hanoi—there was no danger in a visit to Hanoi in search of peace.
4. The President told the Ghanaians that they knew what he thought—that he thought all nations should be happy together—that the world should look forward to a time of peace and progress. The President noted that this had been a great day for progress in the United States, with the signing of the voting rights bill, and his guests enthusiastically agreed, saying that they had seen the ceremony on television and been greatly moved by it.
5. The Foreign Minister said that the reason for the letter was the report of the Ghanaian mission to Hanoi which had experienced some difficulties. It had been given military escort from Peking to Hanoi in a flight which gave rise to some concern. It had heard the sounds of guns on many occasions in Hanoi, and it had advised President Nkrumah not to go to Hanoi at this time. But President Nkrumah wanted very much to go, and he therefore asked whether bombings could not cease for three or four days. Then perhaps he could work for a cessation of all hostilities during peace talks. President Nkrumah felt that he must do all he could for a cease-fire, and this was the explanation for what the Foreign Minister had come to call “the fever-heat diplomacy” of his sudden visit to Washington.
6. The President replied that he was happy to see the Foreign Minister and repeated that the Foreign Minister should return to his President and say (1) that we have not bombed Hanoi and that he need not be frightened, and (2) that if he can get the aggression stopped, there will be peace overnight.
7. The President repeated again that no one wanted peace more than the United States, but he said that no one would be allowed to gobble up little countries. We would stay there and ensure the right of self-determination. We would not run out of there. But the President said once again that President Nkrumah need not be concerned by the bombs that had never fallen on Hanoi.
8. The Foreign Minister raised very gently the question whether the President would wish to receive President Nkrumah either before or after his visit to Hanoi. The President said he thought we should wait until after President Nkrumah got back from Hanoi, and then we would see. So far, visitors in Hanoi had produced no hope from the other side. This matter was left entirely open, but it was made quite plain by omission that the President did not expect to see President Nkrumah before his visit to Hanoi.
9. The President, in closing, made it very clear that he himself thought the North Vietnamese suggestion that President Nkrumah would be in danger was a fraud, and the friendly chuckles of his guests made it appear that they personally did not disagree. It was agreed that the meeting would not be discussed in detail, but that the Press Secretary would give a brief summary of the contents of President Nkrumah’s message and of the oral reply which the President had given. The President would send a written reply promptly,3 and it was tentatively agreed that the two letters would be released after the Foreign Minister had carried the reply back and delivered it to President Nkrumah.
10. With exchanges of further best wishes and expressions of regard and satisfaction, the meeting ended. The two visitors had clearly been both impressed and pleased by their reception.
McG.B.4
1 Source: Johnson Library, National Security File, Country File, Ghana, Vol. II, Cables, 3/64–2/66. Confidential. Drafted by McGeorge Bundy on August 11.
2 The text of Nkrumah’s message to Johnson was sent in telegram 72 to Accra, August 7. (Ibid., Nkrumah Correspondence, 1/64–2/66) A copy is also in Department of State, Central Files, POL 27 VIET S.
3 Johnson’s brief reply to Nkrumah was telegraphed to Accra and released to the press on August 7. (Ibid.)
G. K. Berko 8 years ago
While Nkrumah's overthrow might have served some useful purpose to Ghanaians, especially, given that his further entrenchment in Power with the One-Party State rule made it difficult to change him democratically, many more qu ... read full comment
While Nkrumah's overthrow might have served some useful purpose to Ghanaians, especially, given that his further entrenchment in Power with the One-Party State rule made it difficult to change him democratically, many more questions could be asked to show the change was probably not desirable or justly demanded.
Dr. Kennedy conveniently left out the incessant attempts by the UP Opposition to get rid of Dr. Nkrumah by all means possible, including Bomb throwing and other various assassination attempts, long before the man became dictatorial.
It would be most disingenuous to ignore the likelihood that the violent Opposition tactics to prematurely dethrone Nkrumah might have contributed to his efforts at tightening his grip on Power, leading to the dictatorial measures he adopted.
And even if Ghanaians so badly wanted Nkrumah out, it was still treasonous for the CIA to be employed to do the dirty work of the Opposition for them.
The fact must be honestly and emphatically presented to all that Nkrumah's dictatorship was the least of America's concerns. America, and therefore CIA, didn't care much about Ghanaians enjoying any full and pure Democracy. If that was the case, the USA would not have supported the equally dictatorial regimes of Houphouet Boigny of the Ivory Coast and Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore among many others.
Dr. Nkrumah posed more threat to the Western imperialism externally than some would have thought, under the Cold-War environment, and the uncertainty of the state of European control of their Colonies in Africa and elsewhere.
So, I would rather wish Dr. Kennedy were more forthright and no so skimpy with the facts on the justification for Nkrumah's overthrow, and the CIA involvement in it which has been fully established by the release of declassified reports from the CIA itself.
I, however, commend Dr. Kennedy for showing maturity in recognizing that Nkrumah was a mere fallible, mortal leader who only tried to do the best for his Country, just as some of us may as well claim for Danquah and Busia and Dombo, and that we would be better of as a Nation to learn from his mistakes rather than keep vilifying him without acknowledging his good deeds.
It is about time our intellectuals lived up to their Academic prowess to bring honest objectivity to assessing the roles of all our past Political leaders, and not dwell in cloudy personal sentimentalism.
Long Live Ghana!!!
Sankofa 8 years ago
You fool!
The contradictions in your article reveal your disingenuous attempt to justify the unjustifiable.
The CIA have revealed that they were behind the coup. The only reason was that Nkrumah, by working for African ... read full comment
You fool!
The contradictions in your article reveal your disingenuous attempt to justify the unjustifiable.
The CIA have revealed that they were behind the coup. The only reason was that Nkrumah, by working for African unity and by going on the peace trip to try to end the Vietnam War, was a threat to their vested interests.
They succeeded in removing him through their Ghanaian lackeys.
The PDA was necessary to protect our country against men of violence who sought to destroy us. The one-party state was to foster national unity and provide the space for all talent to come on board in national development. Seeing the NPP-NDC nonsense we have today,with its attendant waste of opposition talent, it was a wise move.
Ghana had been developing rapidly under Nkrumah. We started going backwards after 24 February 1966. We are yet to recover the vision, forward-thinking, intellectual power and political will that led to the building of Akosombo dam, education and health for all, industrialisation and self-reliance which characterised Ghana under Nkrumah.
"incontrovertible evidence"? Where have you been all these years? Under US law, after 2 or 3 decades, classified documents are made public and CIA involvement in Nkrumah's overthrow was laid bare, including suitcases of hard ...
read full comment
Publish the so called CIA documents. Nothing but propaganda. Give everybody the link to the so allied documents. Read K.AGbedemah's letter to Nkrumah as far back as 1961 working him about the looming economist disaster. ( he ...
read full comment
CIA INVOLVEMENT WAS OVERWHELMING. ACCORDING TO CIA THE COUP WAS THE MOST EXPENSIVE THE CIA HAD STAGED AT THAT TIME COSTING AROUND 23 MILLION DOLLARS. AFRIFA, ANKRAH, KOTOKA ETC WERE GIVEN 1.4 MILLION DOLLARS EACH.
LET US S ...
read full comment
In 1966 the Negro had less right than a dog in the U.S. That was a legal document passed by both Congress and Senate in the U.S. Though both Congress and Senate can not change the obnoxious system of racial segregation the CI ...
read full comment
I will not give you high marks for this article because it fell far short of your usual objective standard.
Are you seriously saying that you don't know of the involvement of the CIA which had been documented with the rele ...
read full comment
So Vietnam WARNED Nkrumah about his risky visit.
President Johnson Papers:
254. Memorandum of Conversation1
Washington, August 6, 1965, 4:45–5 p.m.
PRESENT
The President, Foreign Minister Quaison-Sackey, the ...
read full comment
While Nkrumah's overthrow might have served some useful purpose to Ghanaians, especially, given that his further entrenchment in Power with the One-Party State rule made it difficult to change him democratically, many more qu ...
read full comment
You fool!
The contradictions in your article reveal your disingenuous attempt to justify the unjustifiable.
The CIA have revealed that they were behind the coup. The only reason was that Nkrumah, by working for African ...
read full comment