The Oswald Puzzle: The Pieces That Won’t Fit - Part 2
By Johnny Cairns
U.S. Military Policies on Communist Affiliation: A Zero-Tolerance Stance
“I am a Marxist and have been studying Marxist principles for well over 15 months”. Letter to Socialist Party of America, October 3rd, 1956; (Greg Parker, Lee Harvey Oswald's Cold War; p.250)
Larry Hancock recently said to me that “as an individual (Oswald) was an American citizen and free to espouse any beliefs that were legal and did not espouse violence." (Dave Boylan. Private Correspondence with Johnny Cairns.) This argument is fundamentally incompatible with the rigid security measures, legal precedents, and ideological purges of Cold War America.
Yes, as a private citizen, Oswald would have had the constitutional right to hold Marxist beliefs. However, as we've already explored, such beliefs were not merely frowned upon but actively treated as subversive and dangerous. Even vague associations with leftist ideology were enough to end careers, prompt surveillance, and trigger legal repercussions.
But more importantly, Oswald was not a private citizen—he was an active-duty U.S. Marine, bound by the strict regulations of a military institution that explicitly prohibited Communist affiliation. His open, repeated expressions of Soviet allegiance, his reverence for Marxism, and his vocal disdain for American capitalism weren’t just ideological posturing—they were direct challenges to the national security apparatus of the United States. And yet, the Marine Corps did nothing.
Oswald’s status as an active US Marine placed him under an even stricter loyalty standard than a civilian. Upon enlistment, he swore an oath:
"I, Lee Harvey Oswald, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same."
Oswald also signed the Loyalty Certificate for Personnel of the Armed Forces. The number one provision of this certificate read: The Department of Defense has the authority to establish procedures implementing the national policy relating to loyalty of persons entering on duty with the Armed Forces. This has been determined by proper authority to include restrictions as to certain standards of conduct and membership in, or sympathetic association with, certain organizations.” (Parker, p.263)
II
Let us add, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 134; Marines found possessing, distributing, or promoting Communist literature could face disciplinary action, dishonourable discharge, or court-martial. Disloyalty statements, such as Oswald’s repeated praise of the Soviet Union and his accusatory references to fellow Marines as “You Americans, American imperialism” and “exploitation” were grounds for immediate scrutiny. (Epstein, p.82) https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title10/html/USCODE-2011-title10-subtitleA-partII-chap31-sec502.htm
And how about this: The Communist Control Act of 1954 (CCA) made membership in or association with the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) illegal, classifying it as a subversive organization working to overthrow the U.S. government. The CPUSA’s official publications, The Daily Worker and The People’s Daily World—which Oswald openly subscribed to and read while stationed at Santa Ana, California—were directly linked to this illegal organization. Under Cold War-era policies, merely consuming Communist literature was considered a national security threat. 50 USC CHAPTER 23, SUBCHAPTER IV: COMMUNIST CONTROL
Beyond the CCA, federal policies actively sought to root out any Communist influence within government and military institutions:
The Attorney General’s List of Subversive Organisations; (AGLOSO) catalogued groups deemed Communist-affiliated, and association with these groups led to termination, blacklisting, and potential prosecution. Prelude to McCarthyism: The Making of a Blacklist | National Archives
Executive Order 9835 (1947); established by President Harry S. Truman, mandated the Federal Employee Loyalty Program, mandating investigations into federal employees and military personnel suspected of disloyalty. https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/presidential-inquiries/trumans-loyalty-program
Executive Order 10450 (1953); President Dwight D. Eisenhower further expanded these investigations, stating that even sympathies toward subversive organisations could be grounds for dismissal. https://www.dni.gov/files/NCSC/documents/Regulations/EO_10450.pdf
House Un-American Activates Committee; (HUAC) hearings paraded suspected Communists before Congress, demanding loyalty oaths and public confessions. Government employees lost their jobs for past associations, and yet an active-duty U.S. Marine, stationed at a military base, openly consuming Communist literature, escaped scrutiny? If loyalty investigations were aggressively enforced across all levels of American society, how did Oswald’s Marxism on a military base not trigger an immediate inquiry? House Un-American Activities Committee - Wikipedia
Yet the historical record simply does not support the idea that such behaviour was tolerated in the U.S. military. Other servicemen—guilty of far less—were swiftly discharged, disgraced, or investigated under Cold War security measures.
Radulovich, Abramowitz, Peress: The Harsh Reality of the Red Scare
The Cold War's loyalty purges were merciless, cutting through government, academia, and the military with ruthless efficiency.
One of the most infamous cases was that of Milo Radulovich, a U.S. Air Force reservist who was discharged. But not for his own political beliefs. But because his father, a Serbian immigrant, subscribed to a Serbian-language newspaper that the U.S. government deemed to have Communist affiliations. His sister, too, was suspected of leftist sympathies.
Radulovich himself had never engaged in subversive activity, but mere association with "questionable" individuals was enough to end his military career. He became yet another casualty of Cold War hysteria, a victim of an era that demanded absolute ideological purity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Radulovich
“Simply getting Russian magazines, books, or progressive news magazines, etc. was perfectly legal."
– Larry Hancock, via Dave Boylan (Private Correspondence with Johnny Cairns)
Oswald did not simply "get" Russian or progressive news magazines—he subscribed to publications directly linked to the Communist Party USA. His subscription history alone would have been enough to trigger an investigation, security clearance review, or outright discharge under Cold War loyalty policies. His fellow Marines confirmed that Oswald did not hide his Communist affiliations.
Paul Edward Murphy provided an affidavit stating:
"Oswald had a subscription to a newspaper printed in English which I believe was titled either The Worker or The Socialist Worker. Members of the unit saw copies of this paper as they passed through the mailroom; when the paper was identified as being directed to Oswald, few were surprised."
Erwin Donald Lewis, another Marine, corroborated this:
"It was a matter of common knowledge among squadron members that Oswald could read, write and speak Russian. I knew from personal observation that he read the 'Daily Worker.' I heard he had a subscription to that publication." (WC Vol VIII; p. 323.)
The People's Daily World, another Communist newspaper Oswald subscribed to, gained infamy shortly after World War II when several of its editors were convicted under the Smith Act for conspiring to overthrow the U.S. government! (Summers; p.147)
While Radulovich was expelled over his father’s newspaper, Oswald was actively subscribing to CPUSA newspapers while serving in the military. And not only was he not investigated, but he was also allowed to continue service without disruption. The inconsistency is staggering.
Howard Abramowitz & Irving Peress: Expelled Without Evidence of Subversion
Radulovich was far from alone. In 1954, Howard Abramowitz, a decorated Korean War veteran, was forcibly discharged from the Enlisted Reserve. But not for active Communist ties, but simply for past membership in leftist organizations. Even honorable military service was not enough to protect him from the Red Scare. Howard D. Abramowitz - Wikipedia
Captain Irving Peress, a U.S. Army dentist, was expelled from the military after refusing to answer questions about his political affiliations. He had not been caught in any subversive activities, nor had he been accused of actively promoting Communist ideology. Yet his silence alone was enough for Senator Joseph McCarthy to brand him a "Fifth Amendment Communist," leading to his immediate discharge. Irving Peress - Wikipedia
III
The military was not the only institution where ideological purity was ruthlessly enforced. The Red Scare cast its shadow over every facet of American society, reaching deep into government offices, university halls, and even the glamour of Hollywood. Professors, civil servants, and filmmakers alike were compelled to renounce any association—real or perceived—with leftist ideology or risk professional and personal ruin.
Academics and scientists saw their careers disintegrate for nothing more than distant affiliations with suspected radicals, while schoolteachers were blacklisted for the simple act of refusing to sign loyalty oaths. In this climate of paranoia, there was no room for nuance, no distinction between passive interest and active subversion. Mere suspicion was a death sentence for livelihoods—proof was optional.
And then there was Lee Harvey Oswald—a man who openly and unapologetically declared his allegiance to Marxism. A man who spoke Russian in the barracks, studied Communist texts, and loudly praised the Soviet system while serving in the military at the height of the Cold War. A man who, by every precedent of the era, should have been immediately arrested, blacklisted, or imprisoned.
And yet, he faced nothing. No investigation. No dishonourable discharge. Why was he tolerated? The answer is inescapable.
U2 Realties?
“Nothing Lee Oswald knew or could have provided had to do with the loss of the U2 aircraft...” (The Oswald Puzzle; p.50) To put it mildly, this is contested by the testimony of Francis Gary Powers and works such as Oswald & The CIA, Spy Saga, Destiny Betrayed, etc.
The Motherland Awaits
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!" Walter Scott.
Lee Harvey Oswald’s hardship discharge from the U.S. Marine Corps remains one of the most striking anomalies in his so-called "legend." Discharges of this nature typically took months. Yet, for Oswald, the process unfolded with astonishing speed; as if the bureaucracy had stepped aside to expedite his path to the Soviet Union.
Nelson Delgado recalled the rapidity of the process: Oswald's discharge “must have been a fast processing, because I wasn't gone over 15 days and when I came back, he was already gone." (WC Vol. VII; p.255)
Even those familiar with standard military procedures were perplexed by the urgency of Oswald’s departure. Delgado continued: "I knew he was putting in for a hardship discharge... but, like I say, it usually took so long to get a hardship discharge." (WC Vol. VII; p.257)
Colonel B. J. Kozak, a military officer with direct knowledge of dependency discharges, provided an even more specific timeframe: "It normally took between 3 to 6 months for a hardship discharge to be approved." (DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed; p.136). Yet, for Oswald, all standard protocols were seemingly cast aside. He submitted his request on August 17, 1959—and by August 28, just eleven days later, the Dependency Discharge Board had already approved it.(WCR; p.688)
Why did the system move mountains to ensure that Oswald could leave his post without delay? Why was “Oswaldovich” granted a swift exit from a fiercely anti-Communist institution at the height of the Cold War?
Serious Questions arise about Oswald’s pilgrimage to the USSR
Lee Harvey Oswald’s journey to the Soviet Union is riddled with contradictions, logistical anomalies, and inexplicable conveniences. It is a tale of a man who, by all accounts, was of limited means. Yet, he managed a journey that required substantial finances, elite accommodations, and a series of improbably smooth bureaucratic processes—each step raising more questions than answers.
Oswald has long been characterized as frugal, a man of limited financial resources. As The Oswald Puzzle states, “Oswald had limited funds and was frugal by nature.” (The Oswald Puzzle; p.68)
Yet how do the authors reconcile this claim with the fact that, upon his arrival in Helsinki, Oswald did not seek out a modest or budget-friendly hotel but instead took residence in two of the most opulent establishments the city had to offer?
His first stop was the Hotel Torni, a five-star hotel renowned for hosting VIPs, including former U.S. President Herbert Hoover. The late Ian Griggs, a highly respected researcher and founder of Dealey Plaza UK, who visited the hotel, described it as the Finnish equivalent of the Savoy in London. (Destiny Betrayed;p.138.)
Oswald then moved to the Klaus Kurki Hotel, another prestigious institution, located on Bulevardi, one of Helsinki’s most exclusive streets. According to Griggs, if the Torni was Helsinki’s premier luxury hotel, the Klaus Kurki was not very far behind. (Ibid; p.138.)
So, how do we square this with the image of a cash-strapped, penny-pinching Oswald? Why did a supposedly frugal ex-Marine, who had only just embarked on an arduous defection journey, opt for deluxe accommodations that would have strained his already limited funds?
IV
Then, there is the larger financial mystery: How did Oswald fund this trip at all? At the time of his departure from the United States, Oswald’s bank account contained a mere $203.00, yet the cost of his journey to the Soviet Union amounted to at least $1,500. (Melanson p.13) Nelson Delgado was also baffled: “I couldn’t understand where he got the money to go… it costs at least $800 to $1,000 to travel across Europe, plus the red tape you have to go through.” (WC Vol.VIII; p.257.)
This raises the obvious question: Where did Oswald obtain the additional funds? Travel expenses aside, what about his day-to-day living costs? How did he afford food, toiletries, laundry, clothing, and grooming essentials over a period of over a month? How did he pay for Soviet “tourist vouchers” which cost a total of 300 dollars. (WCR, p. 690) Every journey requires sustenance—so how did Oswald survive on what was, by all accounts, an insufficient sum?
Even more suspicious is the manner in which Oswald was granted a visa for the Soviet Union.
The Oswald Puzzle claims, “It is true that Oswald’s tourist visa for Russia was granted relatively quickly in Helsinki, but that was not particularly exceptional for that location.” (The Oswald Puzzle; p.68) Yet this claim obscures a crucial detail: Oswald’s visa was processed in record time, in just 24 hours, at the Soviet consulate in Helsinki—an embassy known for expedited handling of special cases. Normally, a tourist visa took at least a week to process. (Destiny Betrayed; p.139.) In fact, the only Soviet embassy in Europe where a visa could be issued in such a short span of time was the one in Helsinki. (Ibid.)
Who arranged for this remarkable convenience?
The answer may lie in a man named Mr. Golub, an official at the Soviet consulate in Helsinki, who handled Oswald’s visa. Mr. Golub had direct ties to the American Embassy in Helsinki, where U.S. officials reportedly sent select individuals to him for “priority processing.” (Ibid, p.138.) So, was Oswald simply the recipient of a string of coincidental bureaucratic miracles? Or was someone ensuring his seamless transition into the Soviet Union?
Upon his arrival in Moscow, Oswald wasted no time in making his intentions known. “I was warned you would try to talk me out of defecting,” Oswald declared at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow in 1959. ( John Newman, Oswald & the CIA; p.5). This statement alone raises an obvious question: Who warned Oswald that U.S. officials would attempt to dissuade him from defecting? Who had prepared him for this moment?
V
Yet the most damning aspect of Oswald’s embassy visit was not his declaration of intent. It was the information he freely offered to American officials. According to The Oswald Puzzle, “Even though he did not state that such information was classified—if he had, he might well have been detained by security on the spot.” (p.72).
This claim is demonstrably dubious. Because, by multiple accounts, Oswald did state that he had classified information and was prepared to share it with Soviet officials.
According to CIA records, Oswald openly declared that he had been a radar operator in the Marine Corps. Also, he had voluntarily informed unnamed Soviet officials that, as a Soviet citizen, he would make known to them the information he possessed concerning the Marine Corps and his specialty. He even intimated that he might know something of special interest. (Newman, p.6). John McVickar, an official at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, later recalled that Oswald explicitly stated his intent to turn over “classified things” to Soviet authorities. (Ibid)
Rimma Shirakova, an Intourist guide who met Oswald upon his arrival in Moscow, agreed with this. She recalled that Oswald told her outright that he was in possession of classified information about U.S. airplanes. (Destiny Betrayed;p.140)
Oswald’s open declaration at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow that he intended to provide classified military information to the Soviet Union constituted serious violations of U.S. law, military regulations, and his sworn oaths.
Espionage Act of 1917 (18 U.S.C. § 793-798) Violation: Wilfully conveying or attempting to convey classified national defense information to a foreign government. Espionage Act of 1917 - Wikipedia
Penalty: Up to life imprisonment, or the death penalty in cases of extreme national security risk.
Treason Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article III, Section 3) Violation:Levying war against the U.S. or “giving aid and comfort” to an enemy nation. Penalty: Death or imprisonment. U.S. Constitution | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 94 (Mutiny and Sedition) –Encouraging or aiding an enemy. 10 USC 894: Art. 94. Mutiny or sedition
Article 104 (Aiding the Enemy) – Attempting to supply intelligence to a foreign power. 904. Article 104. Aiding the Enemy - UCMJ - Uniform Code of Military Justice - Military Law
Article 134 (General Article) – Conduct unbecoming a Marine. Penalty: Dishonorable discharge, court-martial, life imprisonment, or death. What is Article 134 of the UCMJ? - UCMJ - Uniform Code of Military Justice - Military Law
Communist Control Act of 1954 Violation: Affiliation with or providing assistance to a Communist government or organization. Penalty: Denaturalization, deportation, or imprisonment.
Oath of Enlistment – United States Marine Corps Violation: Oswald swore to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Penalty: Immediate dishonorable discharge and legal action under military law.
What Should Have Happened at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow?
Immediate Detainment:
Any U.S. citizen, let alone a Marine veteran with a security clearance, admitting to plans of turning over classified information should have been immediately detained by security personnel.
Interrogation by Military & Intelligence Agencies: On the spot, Oswald should have been subjected to intense questioning by CIA and military intelligence officers to determine: What classified information he had already revealed. If he was acting alone or under foreign influence. And his true intentions and affiliations.
Revocation of U.S. Passport & Citizenship Review: Oswald's passport should have been confiscated immediately. The State Department should have initiated proceedings to revoke his U.S. citizenship under laws barring Americans from aiding enemy nations.
Legal Charges & Potential Arrest: Oswald’s admission that he was offering classified material to the Soviets should have resulted in formal espionage or treason charges. The FBI and CIA should have been notified immediately to launch an investigation.
Monitoring & Surveillance: At the very least, Oswald should have been flagged as a national security threat, placed under continuous surveillance, and denied re-entry into the U.S. until a full security review was conducted.
And yet, despite these laws, despite his explicit statements, Oswald walked out of the U.S. Embassy a free man.
Had any other American—especially an active-duty Marine—made such declarations during the height of the Cold War, their fate would have been sealed in an instant. But Oswald? Oswald was allowed to continue on his Soviet adventure.
The question is: why?
