What do you think?
Rate this book
Silent Coup
This is the true story of betrayal at the nation's highest level. Unfolding with the suspenseful pace of a le Carre spy thriller, it reveals the personal motives and secret political goals that combined to cause the Watergate break-in and destroy Richard Nixon. Investigator Len Colodny and journalist Robert Gettlin relentlessly pursued the people who brought down the president. Their revelations shocked the world and forever changed our understanding of politics, of journalism, and of Washington behind closed doors. Dismantling decades of lies, SILENT COUP tells the truth. http://www.watergate.com/SilentCoup/S...
520 pages, Kindle Edition
First published June 1, 2016
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews
December 27, 2019
A fascinating book that changed my understanding of Watergate, its instigation, its aftermath, and the journalism that produced All the President's Men, The Final Days, and one of my favorite movies.
Obsessively researched and written like a legal brief (hence 4 stars instead of 5: it's a challenge to read with attention), this revisionist history is both compelling and persuasive. Also fascinating is its publishing history, an important part of the story that is detailed in two afterwords to the 2016 edition (the edition you should read). Because it upended popular icons, the book was not well received on its 1991 first publication. But time and distance have a way of pulling back the curtains of concealing myth. Colodny and Gettlin's version of this tragic-comic episode of American history is an important corrective to what we've been taught to accept as "true."
Silent Coup: The Removal of a President is for readers who already know the orthodox history of Watergate--its plot and its players--and can measure what they've been taught against this different view.
Obsessively researched and written like a legal brief (hence 4 stars instead of 5: it's a challenge to read with attention), this revisionist history is both compelling and persuasive. Also fascinating is its publishing history, an important part of the story that is detailed in two afterwords to the 2016 edition (the edition you should read). Because it upended popular icons, the book was not well received on its 1991 first publication. But time and distance have a way of pulling back the curtains of concealing myth. Colodny and Gettlin's version of this tragic-comic episode of American history is an important corrective to what we've been taught to accept as "true."
Silent Coup: The Removal of a President is for readers who already know the orthodox history of Watergate--its plot and its players--and can measure what they've been taught against this different view.
January 26, 2014
It is surprising that anyone even remembers this book from 1991, which passed off the authors' fringe-conspiracy theory on Watergate as mainstream history. The authors endeavored to deflect any blame for Watergate away from Nixon or his top aides, and instead argued that White House counsel John Dean was the "mastermind" behind the 1972 break-in due to Dean's own paranoia about possibly being implicated in some prostitution scandal brewing at the Democratic National HQ. As the kids say, "lol wut?"
Totally unsubstantiated at the time of its publication and totally debunked today, this book is a total waste of time and resources.
Totally unsubstantiated at the time of its publication and totally debunked today, this book is a total waste of time and resources.
August 1, 2013
This is a rather unusual take on the removal of Richard Nixon. The authors assign primary responsibility to the Joint Chiefs of Staff who were cut out of the normal decision-making loop by Nixon and Henry Kissinger as regards a number of policies, most notably the secret dealings with Peoples' China. The implications of this hypothesis are interesting as Bob Woodward, the Washington Post reporter substantially responsible for breaking the Watergate story, a navy intelligence officer during his time in the service, had been the briefing officer for Alexander Haig.
June 10, 2017
OK, John Dean ordered the break in at the Watergate because his girlfriend, soon to be wife, was part of a call girl ring being run out of the DNC and he wanted to hear what was going on. Al Haig was Deep Throat and worked in his own best interest to get President Nixon removed. I never heard all of that before and although the other books I read (Haldeman's, Erlichman's, Sirica's, Jaworski's etc.) mentioned nothing about those items, they all did hate Dean and Magruder and weren't real thrilled with Haig. I'm not sure what to think. It is almost like when I used to listen to stories of the Hanson family from 2 brothers and 1 sister, you would have thought they grew up in different families. With Watergate, you would think that each author was talking about a different event.
December 10, 2014
Buried in details. Not easy to follow the trail, and I lived through this stuff. Frankly, the thesis is a stretch and reads more like neo-con sour grapes. It simply cannot be supported that the Nixon removal was a coup, unless you suspend all reason. The coup might have been by his own inner circle if at all.
February 19, 2008
This book is scary good. A lot about the whole Watergate situation just never made a lot of sense to me. Always felt that there were some pieces missing. This is the book that makes it make sense. A truly great read.
July 10, 2008
Excellent Book. I really enjoyed it, but it also shows just how dangerous and deceptive the government is. Thomas Pain was right. The less government we have the better.
August 15, 2014
Different perspective on why the break in was orchestrated, and more on the cover up then what I've read to this point.
November 29, 2014
Never finished reading. Not too interesting. Wasn't worth finishing.
January 23, 2018
This book is very difficult to follow, but also very interesting. It sounds too fantastic to believe, yet I find myself believing it. I was only 8 years old when President Nixon resigned, so I don't have any real memories of what went on, but the Watergate scandal has always fascinated me and as strange as this account is, I find it the most believable of the books I have read about Watergate.
The main points of the book are as follows:
1. During the early part of Nixon's first term, the military started spying on the administration, especially Henry Kissinger, through a liaison between the Joint Chiefs and the National Security Administration. The military was not happy with some of Nixon's foreign policy and the administration was keeping a lot of information from them. General Al Haig was an assistant to Kissinger at the time and at least tacitly enabled the spying to go on. A sub-point to this is that Bob Woodward was a Naval officer based in the Pentagon and occasionally briefed Haig.
2. The President, his administration, and even the committee to re-elect really had nothing to do with the break in of Watergate. That was orchestrated by John Dean, not in order to spy on Democrats, but rather to prevent anyone from finding out that his girlfriend was somehow associated with a call-girl ring. John Dean managed to run the cover-up and deceived the President into going along with it. In fact, the book makes it sound as if the President really had no idea what was going on because Dean told him so many lies.
3. Haig was promoted to Nixon's chief of staff for his second term and apparently did everything in his power to mislead the president during the congressional Watergate hearings and the Special Prosecutors' tenures. It appears that Haig did his best, not to serve the best interests of the president, but to get him removed from office in order to protect himself from any consequences for the military spying.
While the authors may have wanted to make the case that Nixon shouldn't have been removed from office, I can't agree with that conclusion. If this book is to be believed, he continually accepted bad advice from untrustworthy men. A man who can be that easily manipulated into making tragically bad decisions does not deserve to be president. And he most certainly participated in a cover-up, thereby obstructing justice.
The main points of the book are as follows:
1. During the early part of Nixon's first term, the military started spying on the administration, especially Henry Kissinger, through a liaison between the Joint Chiefs and the National Security Administration. The military was not happy with some of Nixon's foreign policy and the administration was keeping a lot of information from them. General Al Haig was an assistant to Kissinger at the time and at least tacitly enabled the spying to go on. A sub-point to this is that Bob Woodward was a Naval officer based in the Pentagon and occasionally briefed Haig.
2. The President, his administration, and even the committee to re-elect really had nothing to do with the break in of Watergate. That was orchestrated by John Dean, not in order to spy on Democrats, but rather to prevent anyone from finding out that his girlfriend was somehow associated with a call-girl ring. John Dean managed to run the cover-up and deceived the President into going along with it. In fact, the book makes it sound as if the President really had no idea what was going on because Dean told him so many lies.
3. Haig was promoted to Nixon's chief of staff for his second term and apparently did everything in his power to mislead the president during the congressional Watergate hearings and the Special Prosecutors' tenures. It appears that Haig did his best, not to serve the best interests of the president, but to get him removed from office in order to protect himself from any consequences for the military spying.
While the authors may have wanted to make the case that Nixon shouldn't have been removed from office, I can't agree with that conclusion. If this book is to be believed, he continually accepted bad advice from untrustworthy men. A man who can be that easily manipulated into making tragically bad decisions does not deserve to be president. And he most certainly participated in a cover-up, thereby obstructing justice.
Read
January 13, 2017I thought I had read just about every book on Watergate ever printed. I certainly missed this one. Enjoyed it thourouly. Woodward and Bernstein touched on a lot of this, but this goes into more depth. Although they deducted that Al Haig was Deep Throat, it was really W. Mark Felt, 2nd in command of the FBI. Dean only admitted to doing little stuff, not being in charge of anything. Totally blaming Mitchell for everything. Then he conned Nixon into starting the cover-up. Getting everyone else into believing Mitchell ordered the break-in and cover-up was genius. Keeping everyone off their toes and unbalanced. Haig didn't even know but he may have suspected. But he was engrossed with his own cover-up and keeping the tapes from the Senate Watergate committee as well as prosecutors.
Read
August 14, 2020It makes sense that Haig would act as a spy for the Pentagon given Nixon and Kissinger's overtures to China and the Soviet Union, and it also logical to assume that Woodward, a writer of fictitious reports as FBI reports indicate, a naval intelligence officer would brief Haig on related matters. One gets the impression that Felt was angry that Nixon didn't pick him as FBI director after Grey recommended him, and given that Woodward indicated that "deep throat" was a gossiper, it is not improbable to assume that Felt was a liar, and that Woodward was and is covering up for the real "deep throat" Alexander Haig. Woodward's trip to visit the aged and senile Felt almost seems like a CIA effort to continue the Mark Felt "deep throat" myth.
November 3, 2023
This book is about the author's theory that a conspiracy was hatched to get President Nixon out of office. The villains in this book are John Dean, the mastermind of Watergate and the coverup and Alexander Haig, who the authors suspected of being Deep Throat. Since this book, much more info has come out about the collusion between the Watergate Committee and Judge Sirica to get Nixon. Sirica, especially should have been disbarred.
July 16, 2024
WAS WATERGATE PLANNED BY JOHN DEAN, AND NIXON'S FALL HAIG'S FAULT? READ ON...,
The authors wrote in the "Acknowledgements" of this 1991 book, "The investigations from which 'Silent Coup' was born began ... (when we) were immersed in a story about journalistic ethics involving ... Bob Woodward... But... the trail inevitably leads back to Watergate and the events that brought down Richard Nixon." They ultimately assert that Woodward (despite his denials) was a "briefer" for Alexander Haig during Woodward's 1971-1975 naval service; "that Woodward was a briefer and that some of those briefings were to Alexander Haig can no longer be in doubt. Admiral Moorer has confirmed to us what other sources had told us..." (Pg. 70-71)
Basically, this book argues that former Nixon White House counsel John Dean orchestrated the 1972 Watergate burglary to remove information linking his future wife to a call-girl ring that worked for the Democratic National Convention. (Pg. 128-132) Concerning Dean's role, they speculate, "If it was not Dean who asked Caulfield to go into the Watergate, then who was it?... Had Dean learned that lonely out-of-town Democrats were using his girlfriend's call-girl ring through an in-house operative at the DNC? We do not know, but we have been informed by another source, who agreed to speak only if not identified..." (Pg. 132)
They charge that "the Nixon remarks on the smoking gun tape are the products of John Dean's deceptions that TRICKED Haldeman and Nixon into joining a conspiracy to obstruct justice." (Pg. 195-196) They add, Dean "had deceived the president ... in order to cover up a crime that Nixon had not committed, and to conceal Dean's own crimes. And the president... without gathering the facts, willingly slipped the noose Dean had handed him about his own neck." (Pg. 204) Ultimately, they conclude that Dean "threw over Richard Nixon to prevent his own deep criminality from becoming known." (Pg. 272)
Haig is also in for criticism from the authors: "Haig was tricking Nixon. Rather than inform the president that Richardson would quit if Cox was barred from later being able to seek additional tapes or documents, Haig told Nixon that (Atty Gen Elliot) Richardson supported the prohibition against Cox... He also manipulated Nixon into the belief that Richardson would stand by the White House in a showdown with Cox... Haig had perfected a double switch reminiscent of the lies of John Dean. He used the name of Richardson to sell his own bad idea to Nixon, and then used the name of Nixon to sell it back to Richardson." (Pg. 350-352)
Contrary to some reviewers' suppositions, this book does not argue that Haig was "Deep Throat," per se; rather, "Deep Throat may have been a composite of several sources... Deep Throat may have had more than a touch of (J. Fred) Buzhardt in him. The identity of Deep Throat is a phantom that it is no longer important to chase. It was always a cover story... What is apparent is that in November of 1973, Chief of Staff Alexander Haig played a key role in feeding information... to his former Navy briefer, Bob Woodward..." (Pg. 369)
At times rather wildly speculative, this is an interesting "conspiracy" interpretation of Watergate, that will be of interest to opponents of the more traditional explanations.
The authors wrote in the "Acknowledgements" of this 1991 book, "The investigations from which 'Silent Coup' was born began ... (when we) were immersed in a story about journalistic ethics involving ... Bob Woodward... But... the trail inevitably leads back to Watergate and the events that brought down Richard Nixon." They ultimately assert that Woodward (despite his denials) was a "briefer" for Alexander Haig during Woodward's 1971-1975 naval service; "that Woodward was a briefer and that some of those briefings were to Alexander Haig can no longer be in doubt. Admiral Moorer has confirmed to us what other sources had told us..." (Pg. 70-71)
Basically, this book argues that former Nixon White House counsel John Dean orchestrated the 1972 Watergate burglary to remove information linking his future wife to a call-girl ring that worked for the Democratic National Convention. (Pg. 128-132) Concerning Dean's role, they speculate, "If it was not Dean who asked Caulfield to go into the Watergate, then who was it?... Had Dean learned that lonely out-of-town Democrats were using his girlfriend's call-girl ring through an in-house operative at the DNC? We do not know, but we have been informed by another source, who agreed to speak only if not identified..." (Pg. 132)
They charge that "the Nixon remarks on the smoking gun tape are the products of John Dean's deceptions that TRICKED Haldeman and Nixon into joining a conspiracy to obstruct justice." (Pg. 195-196) They add, Dean "had deceived the president ... in order to cover up a crime that Nixon had not committed, and to conceal Dean's own crimes. And the president... without gathering the facts, willingly slipped the noose Dean had handed him about his own neck." (Pg. 204) Ultimately, they conclude that Dean "threw over Richard Nixon to prevent his own deep criminality from becoming known." (Pg. 272)
Haig is also in for criticism from the authors: "Haig was tricking Nixon. Rather than inform the president that Richardson would quit if Cox was barred from later being able to seek additional tapes or documents, Haig told Nixon that (Atty Gen Elliot) Richardson supported the prohibition against Cox... He also manipulated Nixon into the belief that Richardson would stand by the White House in a showdown with Cox... Haig had perfected a double switch reminiscent of the lies of John Dean. He used the name of Richardson to sell his own bad idea to Nixon, and then used the name of Nixon to sell it back to Richardson." (Pg. 350-352)
Contrary to some reviewers' suppositions, this book does not argue that Haig was "Deep Throat," per se; rather, "Deep Throat may have been a composite of several sources... Deep Throat may have had more than a touch of (J. Fred) Buzhardt in him. The identity of Deep Throat is a phantom that it is no longer important to chase. It was always a cover story... What is apparent is that in November of 1973, Chief of Staff Alexander Haig played a key role in feeding information... to his former Navy briefer, Bob Woodward..." (Pg. 369)
At times rather wildly speculative, this is an interesting "conspiracy" interpretation of Watergate, that will be of interest to opponents of the more traditional explanations.
May 27, 2018
An interesting book, that perhaps assumes the reader is more conversant with the events leading up to Nixon's resignation 45 years ago. Also a bit of a conspiracy theory romp, so should be taken with a grain of salt.
The book was fairly convincing that John Dean was the prime malefactor in the conspiracy and the coverup. If it wasn't him, it would have been someone else, because the Nixon administration was completely dysfunctional. For example, the JCS were actively spying on the NSC, so as not to be blindsided by decisions regarding Vietnam. For another example, the administration used back channels instead of direct channels for *everything*. I learned a few Machievellian tricks. If you want to do plan A, tell person Y that person X wants to do A. Then tell person X that person Y wants to do A. If X or Y is the President, and X and Y don't speak to each other, you just synthesized a policy without leaving fingerprints. Another trick is to suggest your subordinate do something controversial. When they ask if your manager approves, say you will check. Get back to them in a week and tell them to proceed. The third trick is the old gaslighting standby of repeating a false thing until the person accepts it as true.
The books makes a compelling if unduly conspiratorial case for Al Haig being Deep Throat. Unfortunately for the book, we now "know" it was Mark Felt. Some of the book's evidence is still strong that Haig was a leaker. Certainly he was a world-class asshole. Did he engineer the downfall of his presidency in order to protect the JCS spying on the NSC? It's a stretch. But if not, the book makes it clear that Nixon was advised terribly.
The book was fairly convincing that John Dean was the prime malefactor in the conspiracy and the coverup. If it wasn't him, it would have been someone else, because the Nixon administration was completely dysfunctional. For example, the JCS were actively spying on the NSC, so as not to be blindsided by decisions regarding Vietnam. For another example, the administration used back channels instead of direct channels for *everything*. I learned a few Machievellian tricks. If you want to do plan A, tell person Y that person X wants to do A. Then tell person X that person Y wants to do A. If X or Y is the President, and X and Y don't speak to each other, you just synthesized a policy without leaving fingerprints. Another trick is to suggest your subordinate do something controversial. When they ask if your manager approves, say you will check. Get back to them in a week and tell them to proceed. The third trick is the old gaslighting standby of repeating a false thing until the person accepts it as true.
The books makes a compelling if unduly conspiratorial case for Al Haig being Deep Throat. Unfortunately for the book, we now "know" it was Mark Felt. Some of the book's evidence is still strong that Haig was a leaker. Certainly he was a world-class asshole. Did he engineer the downfall of his presidency in order to protect the JCS spying on the NSC? It's a stretch. But if not, the book makes it clear that Nixon was advised terribly.
September 9, 2024
This was kind of hard to slog through at times but necessary to understand the backstory of Watergate. Interesting now in the more exposed political motivations of recent presidential campaigns. The author pieces together statements of memoirs, more recent interviews and evidence such as phone logs etc to get an understanding. Nixon is painted in a much different, more sympathetic light—trusting those he shouldn’t have. The true villain is Al Haig, followed a distant second by John Dean—both manipulating facts and events to cover their own rears.
May 1, 2024
This was a pick up at a dollar book sale at the university. It was an interesting book that shed some light and raised some questions about the Watergate affair and the end of Nixon's presidency. It was generally engaging and well-written. Good for history buffs and nerds.
February 7, 2019
I can't give this contrived piece of trash zero stars, or I would. Amazed that the publisher didn't get sued out existence for slander...
September 20, 2020
good book
March 4, 2021
Detailed, entertaining, factual, and in depth. All of the characteristics you want from investigative reporting. The amount of detail and evidence presented in this book is stunning. Hard to put the book down. Would have finished it in a few days if my schedule wasn’t so hectic.
March 6, 2021
NF - Fall of Richard Nixon, written by people around him
August 23, 2021
Just not that good.
November 19, 2023
Many will claim this is a farce, but the facts and evidence paint a horrifying picture. If 1/10 is true, look out!
April 16, 2014
A very well-researched, sourced, and articulated revisionist history of the Pentagon Papers/Watergate scandals of the Nixon administration. Colodny and Gettlin spare no one, not only within the administration, but even among its detractors, in particular, Bob Woodward. Their telling of the narrative tends toward relieving Nixon and John Mitchell, while especially blaming John Dean and Alexander Haig.
The weakest part of the authors' argument is the Woodward-Haig connection; specifically, the part where they allege Woodward acting as a regular impromptu briefer of Haig during Woodward's stint in Washington with the Navy. Both men denied to the authors this connection, so that places the burden on the authors to prove it otherwise. Admiral Thomas Moorer's confirmation of Woodward briefing Haig was the most authoritative source cited on this by the authors, though Moorer never claimed to have been present for one of these briefings. His information to the authors reads more like deduction rather than firsthand information. They also cite Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird as saying Woodward briefed Haig, but without establishing how Laird knew this to be true. Roger Morris claimed to have seen Woodward entering Haig's office as well. Whichever way one takes the evidence the authors present for and against a personal Woodward-Haig connection in the book's fifth chapter, they do make convincing arguments for Haig or someone close to him being one of Woodward's main sources once Woodward was reporting on the administration for the Washington Post.
Anyone interested in the scandals related to the Nixon administration, or even just how politics work in Washington, would benefit from reading this book.
The weakest part of the authors' argument is the Woodward-Haig connection; specifically, the part where they allege Woodward acting as a regular impromptu briefer of Haig during Woodward's stint in Washington with the Navy. Both men denied to the authors this connection, so that places the burden on the authors to prove it otherwise. Admiral Thomas Moorer's confirmation of Woodward briefing Haig was the most authoritative source cited on this by the authors, though Moorer never claimed to have been present for one of these briefings. His information to the authors reads more like deduction rather than firsthand information. They also cite Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird as saying Woodward briefed Haig, but without establishing how Laird knew this to be true. Roger Morris claimed to have seen Woodward entering Haig's office as well. Whichever way one takes the evidence the authors present for and against a personal Woodward-Haig connection in the book's fifth chapter, they do make convincing arguments for Haig or someone close to him being one of Woodward's main sources once Woodward was reporting on the administration for the Washington Post.
Anyone interested in the scandals related to the Nixon administration, or even just how politics work in Washington, would benefit from reading this book.
November 7, 2014
This is a well researched book, they interviewed over 150 involved participants in Watergate, compared testimony to the Senate at the time, and reviewed countless documents.
It is hard for me to re-live Watergate, even painful. However, the authors clearly proved that John Dean was the initiator of Watergate and the key person in the coverup, although at the time he was portrayed as a whistleblower. He comes across as a liar who made up meetings, and made up conversations, as well as invoking the name of the President when in fact he had not discussed a number of topics. in pursuit of instigating illegal break-ins and wiretapping. Alexander Haig also comes across as a power-seeker, and very devious, including misrepresenting information repeatedly to Nixon - he appears involved in an operation launched by the highest levels of the military to spy on the White House, especially Kissinger and Nixon foreign policy.
It appears that Watergate would not have happened if not for these two. Nixon may have had a nasty personal streak of meanness, but he was a genius at foreign policy with China and Russia.
It is hard for me to re-live Watergate, even painful. However, the authors clearly proved that John Dean was the initiator of Watergate and the key person in the coverup, although at the time he was portrayed as a whistleblower. He comes across as a liar who made up meetings, and made up conversations, as well as invoking the name of the President when in fact he had not discussed a number of topics. in pursuit of instigating illegal break-ins and wiretapping. Alexander Haig also comes across as a power-seeker, and very devious, including misrepresenting information repeatedly to Nixon - he appears involved in an operation launched by the highest levels of the military to spy on the White House, especially Kissinger and Nixon foreign policy.
It appears that Watergate would not have happened if not for these two. Nixon may have had a nasty personal streak of meanness, but he was a genius at foreign policy with China and Russia.
August 24, 2010
I finished this audio cassette investigative book by Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin on 4/11/2007. It was hard for me to follow because it was complex and there are a lot of characters as anyone that lived through Watergate will attest. If you are an avid history buff, then yes, this is your book. It did help me to understand that Nixon had many chances to survive Watergate because he really did not know anything about the break-in until well after it occurred, and he made some poor crucial choices. Nixon's crime was allowing thugs that only cared about themselves on his staff.
October 11, 2010
Not everything turned out as this book predicted (e.g., Al Haig wasn't Deep Throat), but some of the background information is still fascinating--like owlish John Dean of the Watergate hearings actually being the administration's playboy, his gorgeous wife having a friend who appears to have been a call girl, and the possibility that John Dean himself may have planted the idea for the Watergate break-in in Nixon's mind, as a way to get information on a call girl ring based there that may have serviced mainly Democrats.
September 24, 2007
The book presents a thorough and sometimes tedious case against Watergate snitch John Dean. It was Dean who orchestrated the break-ins in order to get the files in the DNC offices that would reveal his girlfriend, later wife, as a high-priced call girl. Considering the confusion as to why the Plumbers went into the DNC offices twice rather than go after McGovern or Muskie offices, the authors make an interesting case. Also fun for conspiracy theorists.
January 16, 2009
To me this was a fascinating book. It outlines much what happened in the watergate scandal without regards to politics. It does not make show Nixon as innocent, but does make revelations that make his actions more understandable.
It also effective shows the sleazy (in some cases very literaly) actions both parties used to gain and maintain power.
It also effective shows the sleazy (in some cases very literaly) actions both parties used to gain and maintain power.
Read
April 10, 2008364
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews