Soviet Atomic Effort

[Henry]

With the opening of the former Soviet archives in the Gorbachev and
post-Soviet era, do we have any new information about the Soviet atomic
program during WW II?

The trial and execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg was often
criticized by the Left. They argued that neither Rosenberg was actually
proven to have committed espionage and claimed that Ethel's
brother-in-law had simply invented their involvement in any spy ring. I
know that the Venona Transcripts are widely believed to have confirmed
that the Rosenbergs - or at least Julius - was active in the spy ring
but even that is disputed by some.

It seems to me that the definitive way to settle this one way or the
other is to know what was kept hidden in the Soviet archives for so long
on this matter. I know that a great deal has come to light about other
aspects of Soviet society going back to the earliest days of Lenin's
regime. Has anything been found to confirm or disprove the activies of
the Rosenbergs?

Also, some of those uneasy about the Rosenberg's trial and execution
make the claim that the Soviets would have had the atomic bomb within 5
years of America and Britain getting it even if there had been no
espionage. Do we now have any evidence about whether the materials
stolen by Klaus Fuchs, David Greenglass and others actually helped the
Soviet effort and helped them get the bomb any earlier than if the
espionage hadn't happened.

--
Henry

[Bill]

On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 00:04:53 -0400, Henry <he...@example.com> wrote:

>The trial and execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg was often
>criticized by the Left. They argued that neither Rosenberg was actually
>proven to have committed espionage and claimed that Ethel's
>brother-in-law had simply invented their involvement in any spy ring

Cite please.

One in the past decade...

[Don Phillipson]

"Henry" <he...@example.com> wrote in message
news:kib0dg$ra0$1...@dont-email.me...

> With the opening of the former Soviet archives in the Gorbachev and
> post-Soviet era, do we have any new information about the Soviet atomic

> program during WW II? . . . Has anything been found to confirm or disprove

> the activies of the Rosenbergs?

Libraries now offer two bodies of standard literature, focussed on the
recorded history of the USSR bomb project (cf. books by Richard
Rhodes, also historian of the US bomb project) and on the surviving
files of the KGB and other intelligence agencies, and what they tell us
about Soviet spies in the West (e.g. the Rosenbergs, Philby etc.)

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

Soviet Atomic Effort

Group: soc.history.war.world-war-ii Date: Wed, Mar 20, 2013, 12:04am
From: he...@example.com (Henry)

================ REPLY =========

Back in the 1970's two radical writers, Ronald Radonsh and Joyce Milton,
decided to prove once and for all the Rosenbergs were innocent.

They reviewed the entire trial transcript, reviewed the evdience, went
through investigative reports and interviewed surviving witnesses.

They were forced to conclude the trial was fair, and there was no doubt
Julius was guilty of espionage, as was Ethel a she typed up his reports.

The resulting book was "The Rosenberg File". Superlawyer Alan Dershowitz
reviewed the book an remarked, "Any future discussion of the case must
start from the fact thatt Julius Rosenberg was guilty of espionage."

Further evidence came out after the book was published.

In his memoirs, Nikita Khruschev thanks the Rosenbergs for their help
with the Soviert atomic bomb program.

An Army project, Venora, attempted to decrypt cables from the Soviet
embassy and consulates sent to Moscow. ALthough only a fraction of the
messages were 'broken', the Rosenbergs were mentioned and their
informsation confirmed.

Thjeir was also conformation found in some of the old NKVD/KGB archives.

There is now no doubt the Rosenbergs were guilty.
--
Henry

--
"Stupidity is always more interesting than dullness."--
R. Emmett Tyrell, Jr--

[Henry]

Would you care to provide the gist of that literature? In other words,
are there still some plausible theories that support the notion that the
Rosenbergs were framed by others in the spy ring? Or is there strong
evidence of their guilt that is now generally accepted?

Also, do the Soviet archives indicate whether the Soviet atomic effort
reached its goals faster thanks to the efforts of the Americans who were
spying for them? If so, has anyone estimated how much time was saved?

I can well imagine that both questions may still be unanswerable. It
seems to me that the Russians may still keep details of their espionage
rings and the atomic projects highly classified even today. I'm just
curious to find out what is known about these questions and what remains
a subject of debate.

--
Henry

[Henry]

I haven't read a book on the subject which is as recent as you require.
That's actually why I'm asking for the current understanding of what
actually happened.

The book I'm reading now is called Invitation to an Inquest by Walter
and Miriam Shneir. The original edition was published in 1965 but I'm
reading the revised 1973 edition. Clearly, that's way outside of the
past decade.

--
Henry

[Henry]

Thanks for that information, Padraigh.

As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, my questions were prompted by a
rather old book on the subject which is clearly trying to argue the case
that the government's case was flawed. In fact, it seems to be clutching
at every conceivable straw to raise doubt in the reader's mind about the
guilt of the Rosenbergs.

I'm familiar with some of Ron Radosh's recent writing but haven't read
The Rosenberg File. I haven't read Nikita Kruschev's memoirs and wasn't
aware of the acknowledgement to the Rosenbergs in that book. Frankly,
I'm surprised that he would do such a thing. My impression is that the
Communists and their supporters made considerable efforts to raise
doubts about the Rosenbergs' guilt, presumably to make them look like
innocent victims of a fascistic state.

Do you have any specifics on where I could find more information about
what was found in the old NKVD/KGB archives that you mention? I'm
interested in anything found in those archives, not just information
about the Rosenbergs.

--
Henry

[Don Phillipson]

"Henry" <he...@example.com> wrote in message

news:kiclf2$ovl$1...@dont-email.me...

>> Libraries now offer two bodies of standard literature, focussed on the
>> recorded history of the USSR bomb project (cf. books by Richard
>> Rhodes, also historian of the US bomb project) and on the surviving
>> files of the KGB and other intelligence agencies, and what they tell us
>> about Soviet spies in the West (e.g. the Rosenbergs, Philby etc.)
>>
> Would you care to provide the gist of that literature? In other words, are
> there still some plausible theories that support the notion that the
> Rosenbergs were framed by others in the spy ring? Or is there strong
> evidence of their guilt that is now generally accepted?

Anyone's "gist" of a whole library of publications is likely to be
challenged as biased or incomplete. The OP's reading should
perhaps begin with works published since 1995, when the Venona
material was declassified for public use. This US decryption of
wartime USSR cipher messages seems to be the best source of
an objective record, cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona.
E.g. they suggest Rosenberg was guilty and his wife innocent.

No one is likely to produce a convincing evaluation of how much
time the USSR bomb project gained from data from spies.

[j...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <kiclf2$ovl$1...@dont-email.me>, he...@example.com (Henry) wrote:

> Also, do the Soviet archives indicate whether the Soviet atomic
> effort reached its goals faster thanks to the efforts of the
> Americans who were spying for them? If so, has anyone estimated how
> much time was saved?

In Richard Rhodes' account (_Dark Sun_, which covers the period from the
end of WWII to the Soviets' testing of their first genuine H-Bomb), Igor
Kurchatov, the technical head of their A-bomb project, had access to a
lot of espionage material, which he did not share with his staff.

He used it to tell them what to research, and to check that their
results were correct. This meant that they acquired a proper knowledge
of the science and engineering, rather than just copying without full
understanding. This would seem to have been a wise policy, since they
did learn the field effectively.

--
John Dallman, j...@cix.co.uk, HTML mail is treated as probable spam.

[Rich Rostrom]

Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 00:04:53 -0400, Henry <he...@example.com> wrote:
>

> >...the Left...argued that neither Rosenberg was actually

> >proven to have committed espionage

It's actually kind of weird.

Some leftists insist that the Rosenbergs were
innocent, framed by J. Edgar Hoover, Nixon,
McCarthy, et al.

Other leftists have said that what the Rosenbergs
did was not wrong or even praiseworthy.

> Cite please.
>
> One in the past decade...

How about this:

The Rosenberg Fund for Children www.rfc.org),
established by Robert Meeropol (n�e Rosenberg) in
honor of his martyred parents, which provides support
for children "whose parents are targeted, progressive
activists", and has raised and disbursed over $4.5M.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com

[Rich Rostrom]

Henry <he...@example.com> wrote:

> With the opening of the former Soviet archives in the Gorbachev and
> post-Soviet era, do we have any new information about the Soviet atomic

> program?

Quite a bit. What we mainly know is that _during_ WW
II, there was no Soviet atomic program - the USSR was
far too busy with the war to do anything about the
Bomb then.

This not to say that the USSR was not interested:
Soviet scientists had speculated about the Bomb as
early as 1940, and Stalin responded to a warning
letter from a young physicist by conferring with
leading physicists in 1942. They told him the Bomb was
very probably possible, but not in time for the war,
and at a high cost. Stalin established an embryo
project, to be activated after the war.

He also directed Soviet intelligence to monitor and
report on the Manhattan Project (and to get as much
of its results as possible).

_After_ the war, the Soviets started their own atom
bomb project, which made much use of knowledge stolen
from the Manhattan Project.

For details of all this, see _Dark Sun: The Making of
the Hydrogen Bomb_ by Richard Rhodes (ISBN
978-0684824147).

About half of the book is about the Soviet project.

The other questions posed here are OT.

[Bill]

On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 14:34:20 -0400, Rich Rostrom
<rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> wrote:

>Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 00:04:53 -0400, Henry <he...@example.com> wrote:
>>
>> >...the Left...argued that neither Rosenberg was actually
>> >proven to have committed espionage
>
>It's actually kind of weird.
>
>Some leftists insist that the Rosenbergs were
>innocent, framed by J. Edgar Hoover, Nixon,
>McCarthy, et al.
>
>Other leftists have said that what the Rosenbergs
>did was not wrong or even praiseworthy.
>
>> Cite please.
>>
>> One in the past decade...
>
>How about this:
>
>The Rosenberg Fund for Children www.rfc.org),
>established by Robert Meeropol (n�e Rosenberg) in
>honor of his martyred parents, which provides support
>for children "whose parents are targeted, progressive
>activists", and has raised and disbursed over $4.5M.

They're not what you'd describe as 'an unbiased observer' are they...

[Paul F Austin]

From the "other" side of the argument, John Earl Haynes and Harvey
Klehr combine the declassified Venona decrypts with the (briefly in the
1990s) opened Soviet archives and revise the state of play in the "no
they didn't/yes they did" ping-pong match. The relevant titles are:
_Early Cold War Spies: The Espionage Trials that Shaped American
Politics_ by Haynes (2006) and _Spies: the rise and fall of the KGB in
America_ by Klehr (2009).

Additional sources (secondary ones since the Soviet archives closed with
a clang in 1996) include Alexandr Vassiliev's _Notebooks_. Vassiliev had
access to KGB archives from mid-1993 until 1996 and was able to take
hand-written notes from SVR (Russian Foreign Intelligence Service)
archival material. The sources could neither be taken from the SVR
offices nor copied. The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
maintains electronic copies of Vassiliev's notebooks available at their
site here:
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/alexander-vassilievs-notebooks-and-the-documentation-soviet-intelligence-operations-the-unit-0


Paul

[Rich Rostrom]

Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Rich Rostrom <rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Cite please. One in the past decade...
> >
> >How about this:

> >The Rosenberg Fund for Children...

>
> They're not what you'd describe as 'an unbiased observer' are they...

WIth the evidence that's out there,
_no_ "unbiased observer" could believe
in the Rosenbergs' innocence.

So the question is" how many are there
who are so biased that that they can?

And there are still more than a few,
sadly. Though I get the impression
that there is less effort to pretend
that they were innocent, and more to
excuse what they did and denounce their
execution as cruel and unnecessary.

[Bill]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:41:04 -0400, Rich Rostrom
<rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> wrote:

>And there are still more than a few,
>sadly. Though I get the impression
>that there is less effort to pretend
>that they were innocent, and more to
>excuse what they did and denounce their
>execution as cruel and unnecessary.

I don't think there's any doubt that their execution in peace time was
unnecessary.

Captured spies are an asset.

As for what they did, it was undoubtedly treason, but the punishment
compared to the punishment given to the source of their information
(Fuchs did 9 years) seems excessive.

[Mario]

Henry, 05:04, mercoled� 20 marzo 2013:

> With the opening of the former Soviet archives in the
> Gorbachev and post-Soviet era, do we have any new information
> about the Soviet atomic program during WW II?
>
> The trial and execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg was
> often criticized by the Left.

And acclaimed by the Right.

> They argued that neither
> Rosenberg was actually proven to have committed espionage and
> claimed that Ethel's brother-in-law had simply invented their
> involvement in any spy ring. I know that the Venona
> Transcripts are widely believed to have confirmed that the
> Rosenbergs - or at least Julius - was active in the spy ring
> but even that is disputed by some.
>
> It seems to me that the definitive way to settle this one way
> or the other is to know what was kept hidden in the Soviet
> archives for so long on this matter. I know that a great deal
> has come to light about other aspects of Soviet society going
> back to the earliest days of Lenin's regime. Has anything been
> found to confirm or disprove the activies of the Rosenbergs?

All archives are full of stuff but you won't find there the
Truth.

[Mario]

Rich Rostrom, 19:34, mercoledￜ 20 marzo 2013:

> Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 00:04:53 -0400, Henry <he...@example.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >...the Left...argued that neither Rosenberg was actually
>> >proven to have committed espionage
>
> It's actually kind of weird.
>
> Some leftists insist that the Rosenbergs were
> innocent, framed by J. Edgar Hoover, Nixon,
> McCarthy, et al.

Some rightists insist that they were guilty, with the same
information available (trial proceedings).

Framing political enemies (usually leftists or anarchists) could
happen: look for "Sacco & Vanzetti" or Joe Hill.

>
> Other leftists have said that what the Rosenbergs
> did was not wrong or even praiseworthy.

One could think that a "warm" war has been avoided.
There is no counter-proof, of course.

I am a dubious leftist but I have no idea on that topic.

>
>> Cite please.
>>
>> One in the past decade...
>
> How about this:
>
> The Rosenberg Fund for Children www.rfc.org),

> established by Robert Meeropol (nï¿œe Rosenberg) in

> honor of his martyred parents, which provides support
> for children "whose parents are targeted, progressive
> activists", and has raised and disbursed over $4.5M.

What is strange to me is that a democracy killed spies in peace
time. Usually they give them life prison and keep them alive
for exchanges or SLT.

Maybe politicians (almost all rightists) preferred to have
them "martyrs" to create troubles and division in the residual
American Left (many rightist were paranoid on that perceived
danger and saw the Devil everywhere)


--
H

[Henry]

On 2013-03-20 14:34, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 00:04:53 -0400, Henry <he...@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ...the Left...argued that neither Rosenberg was actually
>>> proven to have committed espionage
>
> It's actually kind of weird.
>
> Some leftists insist that the Rosenbergs were
> innocent, framed by J. Edgar Hoover, Nixon,
> McCarthy, et al.
>
> Other leftists have said that what the Rosenbergs
> did was not wrong or even praiseworthy.
>

No one here has cited a compelling case for believing that the
Rosenbergs - or at least Julius Rosenberg - was innocent and had been
framed as they claimed themselves by Ethel's brother, David Greenglass.

While that is not definitive proof that they were guilty, it's probably
as close as we're going to get unless there are some game-changers in
the Soviet archives somewhere.

From what I've seen so far, Ethel's guilt was entirely based on her
having typed some compromising material for her husband, material which
was then passed on to the Soviets. Doubts over whether she did the
typing after all seem to be the basis for questioning her guilt.

What surprises me most is how the Rosenbergs, for all their professed
dedication to their sons, continued to insist they were innocent, even
though it seems to have been universally believed that confessing to
their crimes would have gotten them off death row. Since they surely
knew they were guilty of the crimes, why wouldn't they admit to them and
at least have their lives spared? They might even have a chance to be
paroled some day and, in the meantime, they could presumably keep seeing
their sons.

It suppose they had some sort of martyr complex. Maybe they imagined
that their case would rally the masses to overthrow capitalism itself
and liberate them, like a latter day opening of the Bastille....

>> Cite please.
>>
>> One in the past decade...
>
> How about this:
>
> The Rosenberg Fund for Children www.rfc.org),
> established by Robert Meeropol (n�e Rosenberg) in
> honor of his martyred parents, which provides support
> for children "whose parents are targeted, progressive
> activists", and has raised and disbursed over $4.5M.
>

-----
Henry

[Henry]

I've seen that book mentioned a time or two in the past. I must get
that. It sounds very relevant to my questions. Thank you.

-----
Henry

[Mark Sieving]

On Thursday, March 21, 2013 11:04:53 AM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>
> As for what they did, it was undoubtedly treason,

This may be legalistic nitpicking, but under US law, it's not at
all clear that what the Rosenbergs did was treason. They were
convicted of espionage, and not charged with treason. Treason,
in the US, is strictly defined by the Constitution to be "levying
War against [the US], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them
Aid and Comfort". I'm not entirely sure (I'm not a lawyer), but
I think that "Enemies" requires that the US be in a state of war.
I don't think there have been any convictions of treason for actions
in peacetime.

Not that it matters much. Espionage is easier to prove than treason,
and still carries a possible death sentence.

[Paul F Austin]

I don't think any of the Soviet _spies_ captured by the West were any
particular asset. Soviet _intelligence officers_ on the other hand were
trade goods. Certainly the Sovs never acted aggressively to trade for
American and British citizens spying for the Sovs. People like Abel were
Soviet intelligence officers, very different from the spies.

The Soviet espionage effort, ranging from agents of influence like Hiss
and Harry Dexter White through talent spotters and directors like
Rosenberg to the agents of information like Fuch and Greenglass formed a
very widespread network, one whose breadth isn't really recognized to
this day.

I read a memoir (sorry, I can't provide a cite) of an Army Air Corp
officer who at one point commanded an air field in North Dakota that was
a staging field where flights to and from the Soviet Union stopped for
rest, maintenance and refueling. The passage stuck in my mind because
the author noted that the north-bound flights were loaded full with
boxes sealed as Soviet diplomatic pouch material, not subject to
inspection. Concern and curiosity eventually caused him to organize a
distraction for the crew of one aircraft, allowing him to break the seal
of one of the boxes which was full of industrial process and design
documents. When sent an urgent message disclosing his actions and
observations, his superiors in the War Department ordered him to ignore
such freight and never to repeat the inspections.

While the Sovs never had the coverage by American spies that they
desired and were very limited in how they could recruit and direct them,
they were interested in practically anything of an intellectual property
nature, not just the A-bomb. The secret Communist Party USA served as a
communications and logistics network, providing couriers as well as
relationships with which to approach targets. The Sovs pursued
(unsuccessfully) several key people in the Manhattan Project including
Robert Oppenheimer, the director of the Los Alamos laboratory, Enrico
Fermi and Leo Szilard.

In the early nineties, the COMINTERN archives were opened briefly but
more extensively than the KGB archives that Vassiliev read and
abstracted. Among the COMINTERN holdings were the archives of the
Communist Party USA (the Sovs didn't trust foreign Communist Parties to
keep their own records). The CPUSA archives described in detail the
degree that Soviet intelligence organs directed the American party and
the degree that CPUSA's funds came from "Moscow Gold".

Paul

[Roman W]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:04:53 -0400, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I don't think there's any doubt that their execution in peace time
was
> unnecessary.

Democracies also sometimes need show trials.

RW

[Rich Rostrom]

Henry <he...@example.com> wrote:

> From what I've seen so far, Ethel's guilt was entirely based on her
> having typed some compromising material for her husband, material which
> was then passed on to the Soviets. Doubts over whether she did the
> typing after all seem to be the basis for questioning her guilt.

There is no real question that Ethel Rosenberg was
entirely complicit in the espionage. She knew exactly
what was done and why, and assisted it as needed.

Historians now believe that she was the most fanatical
Communist of the two.

> What surprises me most is how the Rosenbergs, for all their professed

> dedication to their sons, continued to insist they were innocent...

>
> It suppose they had some sort of martyr complex.

Their "defense" was controlled by their Communist
superiors, who insisted on the completely implausible
claim of innocence.

By embracing "martyrdom", the Rosenbergs gave credence
to that claim, and to the claim that anti-Communists
were just persecuting innocent people.

The propaganda value of this to the Party is obvious.

If it seems improbable that they would do this - consider:
During the Great Purge in the Soviet Union, many veteran
Bolsheviks were condemned at show trials on their own
confessions. These confessions (all false) were extracted
in part by torture. But the inquisitors also persuaded
some of the victims to confess (and repeat the confessions
in court), by pointing out that in doing so, they could
serve the Revolution.

[Rich Rostrom]

Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:

> As for what [the Rosenbergs] did, it was

> undoubtedly treason, but the punishment compared to
> the punishment given to the source of their
> information (Fuchs did 9 years) seems excessive.

The Communist apparat in the U.S. proclaimed
that they were innocent victims of a right-wing
conspiracy, a claim which was taken up by many
wooly-minded liberals.

Thus the U.S. wanted confessions, which would
discredit this propaganda.

The death sentences were imposed as pressure to
get those confessions.

As to the justice of the sentence - they provided
the most powerful weapons ever invented to the
worst tyrant in history (up to that time - Mao
surpassed Stalin, but only later).

What is the appropriate punishment for that?

(OK, their information alone did not provide
the Bomb to Stalin - but that was certainly
their intention.)

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

Re: Soviet Atomic Effort

Group: soc.history.war.world-war-ii Date: Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 12:04pm
From: black...@gmail.com (Bill)

==================
They were executed for espionage, not treason.

They weren't spies. The official term in most intelligence services for
what we call 'spies' is 'officer'. They are almost always foreign
nationals, Capturing them is useful and they can be 'turned', providing
information.

The Rosenbergs were 'agents'. they had zero knowledge of anything except
their contacts.

Considering that their actions could have doomed tens of millions to a
hideous death, the punisment was well deserved.

[Bill]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:28:37 -0400, Rich Rostrom
<rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> wrote:

> Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As for what [the Rosenbergs] did, it was
>> undoubtedly treason, but the punishment compared to
>> the punishment given to the source of their
>> information (Fuchs did 9 years) seems excessive.
>
>The Communist apparat in the U.S. proclaimed
>that they were innocent victims of a right-wing
>conspiracy, a claim which was taken up by many
>wooly-minded liberals.
>

Can we have a go at defining 'wooly-minded liberals' here please.

>As to the justice of the sentence - they provided
>the most powerful weapons ever invented to the
>worst tyrant in history (up to that time - Mao
>surpassed Stalin, but only later).
>
>What is the appropriate punishment for that?
>
>(OK, their information alone did not provide
>the Bomb to Stalin - but that was certainly
>their intention.)

Fuchs was the one who provided the information.

Everyone seems to have needed his genius.

The Allies, the USSR and it seems possible that China did as well...

The Rosenbergs were just a communications channel.

And almost certainly not the only one.

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

Mario <ack...@ack.ack> wrote:

> What is strange to me is that a democracy killed spies in peace
> time. Usually they give them life prison and keep them alive
> for exchanges or SLT.

Not taking notice of the "leftists said, rightists said" stuff, but they
weren't executed because they were spies, per se, but because they were
traitors. All governments are generally harder on the latter than on the former.

Mike

[Bill]

As someone pointed out to me earlier, they were never accused of
treason.

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

That they were charged with espionage doesn't really change how they were viewed;
had they been actual Soviet spies, they probably would have been jailed, and
exchanged for someone at a later time. However, they were US citizens, born
and raised, and people generally view them as "traitors" rather than "spies".

Same actions, same charges, but a different end.

Mike

[Roman W]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 00:38:06 -0400, Paul F Austin
<pfau...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> documents. When sent an urgent message disclosing his actions and
> observations, his superiors in the War Department ordered him to
ignore
> such freight and never to repeat the inspections.

And rightly so - if the Soviets noticed, it would have been a
diplomatic scandal.

RW

[Roman W]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:28:37 -0400, Rich Rostrom
<rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> wrote:
> The Communist apparat in the U.S. proclaimed
> that they were innocent victims of a right-wing
> conspiracy, a claim which was taken up by many
> wooly-minded liberals.

The wooly-minded liberals would probably have more trust in the trial
if not for the farce of McCarthy witch hunts.

> As to the justice of the sentence - they provided
> the most powerful weapons ever invented to the
> worst tyrant in history (up to that time - Mao
> surpassed Stalin, but only later).

You mean "Uncle Joe" the US was an ally of not so long before the
Rosenberg trial? That doesn't leave much space for your moral
absolutism, does it?

RW

[Shawn Wilson]

On Mar 23, 7:28 am, Roman W <bloody_rabbitREMOVET...@gazeta.pl> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:28:37 -0400, Rich Rostrom
>

> <rrostrom.21stcent...@rcn.com> wrote:
> > The Communist apparat in the U.S. proclaimed
> > that they were innocent victims of a right-wing
> > conspiracy, a claim which was taken up by many
> > wooly-minded liberals.
>
> The wooly-minded liberals would probably have more trust in the trial
> if not for the farce of McCarthy witch hunts.

Uh, thanks to Venona we know that McCarthy was NOT on any witch hunt.
He knew exactly who he was going after. So did pretty much everyone
else involved (HUAC, FBI, etc). They couldn't publicize Venona as it
was still an important intelligence source, so it may have looked
rather random and scattershot. But they knew what they were doing.

They also knew damn well that there were huge numbers of Soviet spies
operating in the US government whose identity they didn't know.

[Paul F Austin]

Do you really think so? The discovery that an ally is using diplomatic
cover to conduct wholesale espionage and theft of industrial secrets
should be swallowed to preserve diplomatic nicety?

The Roosevelt administration agreed with you, fearing any offense to the
Soviet "ally", perhaps fearing that the Sovs would make a separate peace
over.....diplomatic nicety. The fear isn't credible, what is more
credible is the ability of Soviet agents of influence like Lauchlin
Currie to persuade State and the White House of the benignity of the Sovs.

Paul

[Mario]

mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net, 05:50, sabato 23 marzo 2013:

A court has to judge somebody according to the Law or according
to what "the people" (what is that?) wants?


--
H

[Bill]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 19:50:47 -0400, Paul F Austin

<pfau...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On 3/23/2013 10:27 AM, Roman W wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 00:38:06 -0400, Paul F Austin
>> <pfau...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> documents. When sent an urgent message disclosing his actions and
>>> observations, his superiors in the War Department ordered him to
>> ignore
>>> such freight and never to repeat the inspections.
>>
>> And rightly so - if the Soviets noticed, it would have been a diplomatic
>> scandal.
>
>Do you really think so? The discovery that an ally is using diplomatic
>cover to conduct wholesale espionage and theft of industrial secrets
>should be swallowed to preserve diplomatic nicety?

It always has been, it always will be.

What do you think trade missions are for?

It's like the 'legal' spy (usually called 'a political officer') in an
embassy.

While most diplomats are there for the cocktail parties and the
cultural exchanges some actually have important jobs to do.

[Bill]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 19:50:15 -0400, Shawn Wilson
<ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 23, 7:28 am, Roman W <bloody_rabbitREMOVET...@gazeta.pl> wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:28:37 -0400, Rich Rostrom
>>
>> <rrostrom.21stcent...@rcn.com> wrote:
>> > The Communist apparat in the U.S. proclaimed
>> > that they were innocent victims of a right-wing
>> > conspiracy, a claim which was taken up by many
>> > wooly-minded liberals.
>>
>> The wooly-minded liberals would probably have more trust in the trial
>> if not for the farce of McCarthy witch hunts.
>
>
>Uh, thanks to Venona we know that McCarthy was NOT on any witch hunt.
>He knew exactly who he was going after.

So how many Communists were actually in the State Department?

And how many did he catch?

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 23, 7:28 am, Roman W <bloody_rabbitREMOVET...@gazeta.pl> wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:28:37 -0400, Rich Rostrom
> >
> > <rrostrom.21stcent...@rcn.com> wrote:
> > > The Communist apparat in the U.S. proclaimed
> > > that they were innocent victims of a right-wing
> > > conspiracy, a claim which was taken up by many
> > > wooly-minded liberals.
> >
> > The wooly-minded liberals would probably have more trust in the trial
> > if not for the farce of McCarthy witch hunts.


> Uh, thanks to Venona we know that McCarthy was NOT on any witch hunt.
> He knew exactly who he was going after.

On General George C Marshall:

Marshall had been involved in American foreign policy with China, and
McCarthy charged that Marshall was directly responsible for the loss of
China to Communism. In the speech McCarthy also implied that Marshall
was guilty of treason; declared that "if Marshall were merely stupid,
the laws of probability would dictate that part of his decisions would
serve this country's interest"; and most famously, accused him of being
part of "a conspiracy so immense and an infamy so black as to dwarf any
previous venture in the history of man."

Knowing exactly who you are going after is not the same thing as being right.

Mike

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

Mario <ack...@ack.ack> wrote:
> mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net, 05:50, sabato 23 marzo 2013:

> > Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:29:29 -0400,
> >> mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> >
> >> >Mario <ack...@ack.ack> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> What is strange to me is that a democracy killed spies in
> >> >> peace time. Usually they give them life prison and keep
> >> >> them alive for exchanges or SLT.
> >> >
> >> >Not taking notice of the "leftists said, rightists said"
> >> >stuff, but they weren't executed because they were spies,
> >> >per se, but because they were traitors. All governments are
> >> >generally harder on the latter than on the former.
> >
> >> As someone pointed out to me earlier, they were never
> >> accused of treason.
> >
> > That they were charged with espionage doesn't really change
> > how they were viewed; had they been actual Soviet spies, they
> > probably would have been jailed, and exchanged for someone at
> > a later time. However, they were US citizens, born and raised,
> > and people generally view them as "traitors" rather than
> > "spies".
> >
> > Same actions, same charges, but a different end.

> A court has to judge somebody according to the Law or according
> to what "the people" (what is that?) wants?

Who said anything about what a court "has" to do?

I HAVE pointed out that those perceived as traitors are going to be dealt with
more harshly than those perceived as merely being spies.

However, as for "what the people want", sentences (and even verdicts) are
sometimes influenced by that.

Mike

[Rich Rostrom]

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Uh, thanks to Venona we know that McCarthy was NOT
> on any witch hunt. He knew exactly who he was going
> after.

McCarthy was never privy to Venona intelligence. Some
of his claims were made up out of whole cloth. He did
a great deal to discredit anti-Communism.

> So did pretty much everyone else involved (HUAC, FBI, etc).

The really definitive intelligence (Venono)
was closely held and not shared with the
Congressional committees.

This is not to say that the political Red-hunters
had _no_ solid evidence. They had the testimony
of defectors such as Elizabeth Bentley and
Whittaker Chambers, for instance.

It should also be noted that the Soviet apparat
in the U.S. was at its peak in the early 1940s,
and was cut back substantially after the war.
(This was confirmed by VENONA and later from the
Soviet archives, AIUI.) When McCarthy was at his
loudest, the number of active Soviet agents was
much smaller.

But this is all OT for the newsgroup.

[Roman W]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 19:50:47 -0400, Paul F Austin
<pfau...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Do you really think so? The discovery that an ally is using
diplomatic
> cover to conduct wholesale espionage and theft of industrial
secrets
> should be swallowed to preserve diplomatic nicety?

Everybody does it, USA included.

RW

[Mario]

Paul F Austin, 05:38, venerd� 22 marzo 2013:

> I read a memoir (sorry, I can't provide a cite) of an Army Air
> Corp officer who at one point commanded an air field in North
> Dakota that was a staging field where flights to and from the
> Soviet Union stopped for rest, maintenance and refueling. The
> passage stuck in my mind because the author noted that the
> north-bound flights were loaded full with boxes sealed as
> Soviet diplomatic pouch material, not subject to inspection.
> Concern and curiosity eventually caused him to organize a
> distraction for the crew of one aircraft, allowing him to
> break the seal of one of the boxes which was full of
> industrial process and design documents. When sent an urgent
> message disclosing his actions and observations, his superiors
> in the War Department ordered him to ignore such freight and
> never to repeat the inspections.
>

How childish!

What did they think they had found in the diplomatic puoch?
Nylon stockings?

I am sure most top level officers in any Govt. know that all
other powers are constantly trying to steal info and industrial
secrets.
They know that because they are doing that too...


--
H

[Mario]

Roman W, 15:29, domenica 24 marzo 2013:

(All) nations steal secrets, not only enemies' ones, but also
allies' ones.
(Echelon network etc)

Even private industry steals their competitors' secrets.


--
H

[Shawn Wilson]

On Mar 23, 6:28 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >Uh, thanks to Venona we know that McCarthy was NOT on any witch hunt.
> >He knew exactly who he was going after.
>
> So how many Communists were actually in the State Department?

Well, we *knew* of about 300 operating in the US government...

> And how many did he catch?

Uh, McCarthy wasn't in the FBI, nor in the Executive Branch. Catching
Commies wasn't his job. Kicking the ass of those whose responsibility
it was for not doing their job WAS McCarthy's job, and what he was
doing.

I mean, really, 200(ish) known* security risks in the State Department
(mostly not commies) and the State Department did nothing about them?
SOMEONE needs to be raising hell here.

*From a State Department internal memo.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Mar 23, 9:15 pm, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

> On General George C Marshall:
>
> Marshall had been involved in American foreign policy with China, and
> McCarthy charged that Marshall was directly responsible for the loss of
> China to Communism. In the speech McCarthy also implied that Marshall
> was guilty of treason; declared that "if Marshall were merely stupid,
> the laws of probability would dictate that part of his decisions would
> serve this country's interest"; and most famously, accused him of being
> part of "a conspiracy so immense and an infamy so black as to dwarf any
> previous venture in the history of man."
>
> Knowing exactly who you are going after is not the same thing as being right.

This is a more involved situation here. Marshall WAS wrong, though
even if he had done the right thing it may very well not have made any
difference.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Mar 24, 6:44 am, Rich Rostrom <rrostrom.21stcent...@rcn.com> wrote:

> > Uh, thanks to Venona we know that McCarthy was NOT
> > on any witch hunt. He knew exactly who he was going
> > after.
>
> McCarthy was never privy to Venona intelligence.

Wasn't he? He would seem to have a miraculous ability to pull the
right names from his hat then... Occam's Razor says that he was being
fed Venona information. He was certainly associating and friendly
with people who were up to their eyeballs in Venona.

> Some
> of his claims were made up out of whole cloth.

Were they? Do you have specifics in mind?

> He did
> a great deal to discredit anti-Communism.

No, I don't think so.

> > So did pretty much everyone else involved (HUAC, FBI, etc).
>
> The really definitive intelligence (Venono)
> was closely held and not shared with the
> Congressional committees.

Sure it was, at least with specific individuals on those committees.
It's *source* may not have been shared, but these committees weren't
pulling names from a hat and getting lucky.

> This is not to say that the political Red-hunters
> had _no_ solid evidence. They had the testimony
> of defectors such as Elizabeth Bentley and
> Whittaker Chambers, for instance.

And, you know, VENONA...

> It should also be noted that the Soviet apparat
> in the U.S. was at its peak in the early 1940s,
> and was cut back substantially after the war.
> (This was confirmed by VENONA and later from the
> Soviet archives, AIUI.) When McCarthy was at his
> loudest, the number of active Soviet agents was
> much smaller.
>
> But this is all OT for the newsgroup.

Venona is WWII, and therefore on topic. The decrypted emails (duh, I
mean telegrams..) were almost entirely sent during the war and the
Venona project itself started during the war.

[Paul F Austin]

McCarthy was right about the existence of the conspiracy embodied by
CPUSA, and about the influential agents of influence embedded in the
Roosevelt administration. He had little to say about the existence of
agents of information networks (conventional spying) and was remarkably
inaccurate in "naming names". McCarthy was sufficiently stupid as to
make one wonder if _he_ was an agent of influence, engaged in spreading
disinformation.

Paul

[Bill]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 17:21:54 -0400, Shawn Wilson
<ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 24, 6:44 am, Rich Rostrom <rrostrom.21stcent...@rcn.com> wrote:
>
>> > Uh, thanks to Venona we know that McCarthy was NOT
>> > on any witch hunt. He knew exactly who he was going
>> > after.
>>
>> McCarthy was never privy to Venona intelligence.
>
>
>Wasn't he?

If he was then he should have been prosecuted for access to
information he was not cleared for.

He would seem to have a miraculous ability to pull the
>right names from his hat then...

Nope.

He just fired a shotgun at a directory and got a couple of lucky hits.

> Occam's Razor says that he was being
>fed Venona information.

Occams razor says he was shooting at random and got a couple of lucky
hits.

> He was certainly associating and friendly
>with people who were up to their eyeballs in Venona.

'VENONA' is a codeword.

It describes a specific form of information derived in a specific
manner.

Nobody was 'up to their eyeballs in Venona'.

>> > So did pretty much everyone else involved (HUAC, FBI, etc).
>>
>> The really definitive intelligence (Venono)
>> was closely held and not shared with the
>> Congressional committees.
>
>
>Sure it was, at least with specific individuals on those committees.
>It's *source* may not have been shared, but these committees weren't
>pulling names from a hat and getting lucky.

Cite please.

They didn't even tell the President.

You've got to be as mad as Ann Coulter to think McCarthy was getting
access to VENONA material.

http://tfninsider.org/2009/10/29/rehabilitating-joseph-mccarthy/

[Bill]

That Marshal was wrong is one issue.

Accusing him of treason for making a mistake is another.

[Bill]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 17:20:51 -0400, Shawn Wilson
<ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 23, 6:28 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >Uh, thanks to Venona we know that McCarthy was NOT on any witch hunt.
>> >He knew exactly who he was going after.
>>
>> So how many Communists were actually in the State Department?
>
>
>
>Well, we *knew* of about 300 operating in the US government...

Cite please.

>> And how many did he catch?
>
>
>Uh, McCarthy wasn't in the FBI, nor in the Executive Branch. Catching
>Commies wasn't his job. Kicking the ass of those whose responsibility
>it was for not doing their job WAS McCarthy's job, and what he was
>doing.

So that's 'none' then...

>I mean, really, 200(ish) known* security risks in the State Department
>(mostly not commies) and the State Department did nothing about them?
>SOMEONE needs to be raising hell here.

If they're not Communists then they're not security risks.

Or does the US persecute people who thinking the wrong thoughts?

[Jim Powers]

"Mario" <ack...@ack.ack> wrote in message
news:514b45b3$0$1372$4faf...@reader2.news.tin.it...
> Henry, 05:04, mercoledě 20 marzo 2013:
>
>> With the opening of the former Soviet archives in the
>> Gorbachev and post-Soviet era, do we have any new information
>> about the Soviet atomic program during WW II?
>>
>> The trial and execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg was
>> often criticized by the Left.
>
>
> And acclaimed by the Right.
>
>
>> They argued that neither
>> Rosenberg was actually proven to have committed espionage and
>> claimed that Ethel's brother-in-law had simply invented their
>> involvement in any spy ring. I know that the Venona
>> Transcripts are widely believed to have confirmed that the
>> Rosenbergs - or at least Julius - was active in the spy ring
>> but even that is disputed by some.
>>
>> It seems to me that the definitive way to settle this one way
>> or the other is to know what was kept hidden in the Soviet
>> archives for so long on this matter. I know that a great deal
>> has come to light about other aspects of Soviet society going
>> back to the earliest days of Lenin's regime. Has anything been
>> found to confirm or disprove the activies of the Rosenbergs?
>
>
> All archives are full of stuff but you won't find there the
> Truth.
>
>>
>> Also, some of those uneasy about the Rosenberg's trial and
>> execution make the claim that the Soviets would have had the
>> atomic bomb within 5 years of America and Britain getting it
>> even if there had been no espionage. Do we now have any
>> evidence about whether the materials stolen by Klaus Fuchs,
>> David Greenglass and others actually helped the Soviet effort
>> and helped them get the bomb any earlier than if the espionage
>> hadn't happened.
>>
>
> --
> H
>
Alexander Feklisov, one of Rosenberg's Soviet handlers, wrote in 2001 a book
of his wartime activities which confirms that Julius Rosenberg was a
valuable intelligence resource for the Soviet Union. The atomic secrets
which were the focus of his 1951 trial were arguably not the most important
he provided the Soviets. In 1943, while employed as an inspector at Emerson
Radio, he managed to smuggle a top-secret proximity fuse out of the plant
and presented it as a Christmas present to the surprised Feklisov. As for
Ethel, Feksilov refutes Greenglass's testimony that she typed up his notes
before they were passed on to the Russians. He claims all the material
provided by Greenglass was in his own handwriting, which was quite legible,
since he had been trained as a draftsman.

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

Wrong about what, specifically? The Chinese war was one we were well-advised
to STAY OUT OF.

> even if he had done the right thing it may very well not have made any
> difference.

Wait; so "doing the right thing" would have involved getting US soldiers
killed for something that made no difference? Odd.

Chiang's cause was lost in WWII; the Japanese concentrated on taking Chinese
cities, and Chiang was stronger there than in the countryside. There is some
evidence, in fact, that Mao took advantage of this and initiated "incidents"
between Japanese and Chinese troops prior to the full outbreak of war in
order to further weaken Chiang.

Just for a bit of WWII flavor to all this...

Mike

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 6:44 am, Rich Rostrom <rrostrom.21stcent...@rcn.com> wrote:

> > > Uh, thanks to Venona we know that McCarthy was NOT
> > > on any witch hunt. He knew exactly who he was going
> > > after.
> >
> > McCarthy was never privy to Venona intelligence.

> Wasn't he? He would seem to have a miraculous ability to pull the
> right names from his hat then... Occam's Razor says that he was being
> fed Venona information. He was certainly associating and friendly
> with people who were up to their eyeballs in Venona.

So, which names did he name that were also in the Verona info, other than the
names that had been known before he gave his speach?

> > Some
> > of his claims were made up out of whole cloth.

> Were they? Do you have specifics in mind?

Well, there's the whole "Marshall is a conspirator" thing...

> > He did
> > a great deal to discredit anti-Communism.

> No, I don't think so.

Actually, he did, and the fact that "McCarthyism" is not a term of praise should
be a clue on that.

Mike

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 23, 6:28 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > >Uh, thanks to Venona we know that McCarthy was NOT on any witch hunt.
> > >He knew exactly who he was going after.
> >
> > So how many Communists were actually in the State Department?

> Well, we *knew* of about 300 operating in the US government...

> > And how many did he catch?

> Uh, McCarthy wasn't in the FBI, nor in the Executive Branch. Catching
> Commies wasn't his job. Kicking the ass of those whose responsibility
> it was for not doing their job WAS McCarthy's job, and what he was
> doing.

So specifically whose *ss did he kick, and which communist spies were
removed as a result of said keister-booting?

> I mean, really, 200(ish) known* security risks in the State Department
> (mostly not commies) and the State Department did nothing about them?
> SOMEONE needs to be raising hell here.

" The origin of the number 205 can be traced: In later debates on the
Senate floor, McCarthy referred to a 1946 letter that then-Secretary of
State James Byrnes sent to Congressman Adolph J. Sabath. In that letter,
Byrnes said State Department security investigations had resulted in
"recommendation against permanent employment" for 284 persons, and
that 79 of these had been removed from their jobs; this left 205 still
on the State Department's payroll. In fact, by the time of McCarthy's
speech only about 65 of the employees mentioned in the Byrnes letter
were still with the State Department, and all of these had undergone
further security checks"

Mike

[Rich Rostrom]

Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If they're not Communists then they're not security risks.

A security risk could be a lot of things
besides a Communist.

* He could be someone who was vulnerable
to blackmail.

* He could be someone who needed or wanted
money and would sell secrets for cash.

* He could be someone who blabbed secret
information out of carelessness, or
disregard of restrictions. The sister
of VP Henry Wallace was married to the
Swiss ambassador to the US. Wallace
told his brother-in-law a lot of things
he shouldn't. The ambassador was a fine
man and thoroughly pro-Allied, but he
reported to his government - and there
was a leak in the Swiss Foreign Ministry.
(A mail clerk provided copies of encrypted
dispatches to the Germans, and the Germans
broke the cipher.)

Fortunately, nothing Wallace let out was
critical, and the Germans fumbled what
they did get.

* He could be someone who was sexually
besotted with a foreign agent and blabbed
secrets to him or her.

* Or he could be a wooly-minded type who
decides on his own that some foreign
government should know about something
the U.S. is keeping secret. Harry Dexter
White was one such - there is absolute proof
that he passed secrets to them (and advocated
pro-Soviet policies), but there is no evidence
whatever that he was a _Communist_ (or was
paid off, or blackmailed). He seems to have
been just a liberal who thought good old
Uncle Joe and the heroic Soviet people were
being unfairly treated by the U.S.

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

Re: Soviet Atomic Effort

Group: soc.history.war.world-war-ii Date: Sat, Mar 23, 2013, 7:50pm
From: pfau...@bellsouth.net (Paul F Austin)

On 3/23/2013 10:27 AM, Roman W wrote:
On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 00:38:06 -0400, Paul F Austin
<pfau...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
documents. When sent an urgent message disclosing his actions and
observations, his superiors in the War Department ordered him to ignore
such freight and never to repeat the inspections.
And rightly so - if the Soviets noticed, it would have been a diplomatic
scandal.
Do you really think so? The discovery that an ally is using diplomatic
cover to conduct wholesale espionage and theft of industrial secrets
should be swallowed to preserve diplomatic nicety?

===================

To be blunt, yes. Diplomats AND THEIR POSSESSIONS are considered
sacrosanct and untouchable, even in case of war. Diplomatic properties
(embassies in paricular) are off limits to outside interference, as they
are considered part of the homeland, not the country they are located
in.
--------------------------------

The Roosevelt administration agreed with you, fearing any offense to the
Soviet "ally", perhaps fearing that the Sovs would make a separate peace
over.....diplomatic nicety. The fear isn't credible, what is more
credible is the ability of Soviet agents of influence like Lauchlin
Currie to persuade State and the White House of the benignity of the
Sovs.
Paul

--
"Stupidity is always more interesting than dullness."--
R. Emmett Tyrell, Jr--

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

Re: Soviet Atomic Effort

Group: soc.history.war.world-war-ii Date: Sun, Mar 24, 2013, 8:53pm
From: black...@gmail.com (Bill)

=====================

In "Treason", Ann Coulter has a heavily-footnoted chapter on McCarthy
and his methods. No mention of VENONA.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Mar 24, 5:54 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> So how many Communists were actually in the State Department?
>
> >Well, we *knew* of about 300 operating in the US government...
>
> Cite please.

You honestly don't know about Venona? And you want to ARGUE about
McCarthyism???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project

And, if you don't like wiki

http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/venona/index.shtml


For specific numbers, see 'Venona : decoding Soviet espionage in
America' by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr.

> >> And how many did he catch?
>
> >Uh, McCarthy wasn't in the FBI, nor in the Executive Branch. Catching
> >Commies wasn't his job. Kicking the ass of those whose responsibility
> >it was for not doing their job WAS McCarthy's job, and what he was
> >doing.
>
> So that's 'none' then...

It wasn't his job... HIS job was wondering why the State Department
continued to employ known Communists (known to the State Department)
in sensitive positions.

> >I mean, really, 200(ish) known* security risks in the State Department
> >(mostly not commies) and the State Department did nothing about them?
> >SOMEONE needs to be raising hell here.
>
> If they're not Communists then they're not security risks.

Excuse me? Do you think the ONLY thing that makes someone a security
risk is Communism? The State Department didn't. They considered
things like alcoholism and drug addiction to be security risks.

> Or does the US persecute people who thinking the wrong thoughts?

It is actually a crime to be a secret agent of a foreign power (but
not to be a registered one). It is more of a crime for a US
government employee to be one. Government employees are supposed to
be entirely on the side of the US.

And, really, pretty much everyone wanted these people *fired*, not
killed... Security risks should not hold sensitive positions,
period. The Director of the CIA was recently fired for exactly that
reason.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Mar 24, 5:53 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> McCarthy was never privy to Venona intelligence.
>
> >Wasn't he?
>
> If he was then he should have been prosecuted for access to
> information he was not cleared for.

Uh, that isn't a crime (not on how part anyway, you want to try to
prosecute J. Edgar Hoover...?). And as the issue was the government
not bothering to even FIRE known Soviet Agents, prosecuting McCarthy
would be rather... odd.

> He would seem to have a miraculous ability to pull the
>
> >right names from his hat then...
>
> Nope.
>
> He just fired a shotgun at a directory and got a couple of lucky hits.

Uh, if that were the case then you should easily be able to cite a
large number of innocent people he named, greater than the number of
guilty ones... Near as I can tell there are no such 'innocents'. Try
again. McCarthy wasn't pulling names from a hat and he sure ads hell
wasn't investigating people personally. He was being fed information
and his friends and allies were up to their ears in Venona. It isn't
a great leap.

> > Occam's Razor says that he was being
> >fed Venona information.
>
> Occams razor says he was shooting at random and got a couple of lucky
> hits.

If that were true you should be able, to cite a large number of
'misses' then. I challenge you to do so.

> > He was certainly associating and friendly
> >with people who were up to their eyeballs in Venona.
>
> 'VENONA' is a codeword.
>
> It describes a specific form of information derived in a specific
> manner.
>
> Nobody was 'up to their eyeballs in Venona'.

Dear Lord... Pathetic much?

> >> > So did pretty much everyone else involved (HUAC, FBI, etc).
>
> >> The really definitive intelligence (Venono)
> >> was closely held and not shared with the
> >> Congressional committees.
>
> >Sure it was, at least with specific individuals on those committees.
> >It's *source* may not have been shared, but these committees weren't
> >pulling names from a hat and getting lucky.
>
> Cite please.

After you cite the supposed large number of misses, given your
assertion of random chance and ocasionally 'getting lucky'.

> They didn't even tell the President.

They did, they just stopped after a little while because he couldn't
be trusted with the information, as his office was reporting to the
Soviets...

> You've got to be as mad as Ann Coulter to think McCarthy was getting
> access to VENONA material.
>
> http://tfninsider.org/2009/10/29/rehabilitating-joseph-mccarthy/

Of course he was. Given the times, it would be ridiculous to believe
that the people with access to Venona would keep it from him, at least
the information (ie names) gleaned from it.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Mar 24, 6:49 pm, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

> > > Knowing exactly who you are going after is not the same thing as being right.
> > This is a more involved situation here. Marshall WAS wrong, though
>
> Wrong about what, specifically? The Chinese war was one we were well-advised
> to STAY OUT OF.

OR, we could have supported the Nationalists and maybe they would have
won...

> > even if he had done the right thing it may very well not have made any
> > difference.
>
> Wait; so "doing the right thing" would have involved getting US soldiers
> killed for something that made no difference? Odd.

Given the body count of communism it was probably worth the gamble.
And 'aid' is not a synonym for troops. Money and equipment also
count.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Mar 24, 6:49 pm, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

> > > McCarthy was never privy to Venona intelligence.
> > Wasn't he? He would seem to have a miraculous ability to pull the
> > right names from his hat then... Occam's Razor says that he was being
> > fed Venona information. He was certainly associating and friendly
> > with people who were up to their eyeballs in Venona.
>
> So, which names did he name that were also in the Verona info, other than the
> names that had been known before he gave his speach?

Uh, as Venona had a lot of names, what names do you think WEREN'T
mentioned there?

> > > Some
> > > of his claims were made up out of whole cloth.
> > Were they? Do you have specifics in mind?
>
> Well, there's the whole "Marshall is a conspirator" thing...

Under the circumstances a possible inference. I personally think
Marshall really was just that politically naive. Others could
plausibly come to other conclusions.

> > > He did
> > > a great deal to discredit anti-Communism.
> > No, I don't think so.
>
> Actually, he did, and the fact that "McCarthyism" is not a term of praise should
> be a clue on that.

We have Venona, we *know* that he was right all along, and his
detractors wrong.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Mar 25, 10:20 am, ogro...@webtv.net (Padraigh ProAmerica) wrote:

> McCarthy was never privy to Venona intelligence.

> Wasn't he?

> In "Treason", Ann Coulter has a heavily-footnoted chapter on McCarthy
> and his methods. No mention of VENONA.

That just means there is no documentary evidence, not that it didn't
happen. If you were J. Edgar would you write a memo about a top
secret matter when you could just talk to McCarthy in person and tell
him what he needs to know? What documents would there ever be to
cite?

[Henry]

On 2013-03-22 13:19, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> Henry <he...@example.com> wrote:
>
>> From what I've seen so far, Ethel's guilt was entirely based on her
>> having typed some compromising material for her husband, material which
>> was then passed on to the Soviets. Doubts over whether she did the
>> typing after all seem to be the basis for questioning her guilt.
>
> There is no real question that Ethel Rosenberg was
> entirely complicit in the espionage. She knew exactly
> what was done and why, and assisted it as needed.
>
> Historians now believe that she was the most fanatical
> Communist of the two.
>
>> What surprises me most is how the Rosenbergs, for all their professed
>> dedication to their sons, continued to insist they were innocent...
>>
>> It suppose they had some sort of martyr complex.
>
> Their "defense" was controlled by their Communist
> superiors, who insisted on the completely implausible
> claim of innocence.
>
I've been wondering about that. Their correspondence - or at least the
portion reprinted in the Schneir book - looks very much as if it had
been written for consumption by the general public in an attempt to
appear innocent lambs. How was that strategy organized?

In other words, who concocted that strategy and sold the Rosenbergs on
following it? And how/when was it done? It seems to me that the such a
scenario would require the Rosenbergs to be in free communication with
the people organizing the strategy. Did they have the opportunity to
speak freely to anyone other than their lawyers while they were in jail?
Were their conversations with their lawyers monitored by the government?
Given the extreme sensitivity of the espionage, I'm imagining that the
government would have taken great pains with security and might even
have stooped to listening in on their chats with their lawyers. But even
if the government respected the attorney/client conferences, there might
have been other channels of communications, like letters with secret
messages encoded in them or people like sympathetic prison guards who
might pass messages. Have you heard of any such communications?

> By embracing "martyrdom", the Rosenbergs gave credence
> to that claim, and to the claim that anti-Communists
> were just persecuting innocent people.
>
> The propaganda value of this to the Party is obvious.
>
Indeed.

And the Rosenberg's true attitudes slip through from time to time, even
in the Schneir book which seems to bend over backwards to raise doubt
about their guilt. In Ethel's final note to her lead attorney, Emmanuel
Bloch, written just hours before her execution, she says "You will see
to it that our names are kept bright and unsullied by lies - as you did
while we lived so wholeheartedly, so unstintingly - you did everything
that could be done - We are the first victims of American Fascism."

> If it seems improbable that they would do this - consider:
> During the Great Purge in the Soviet Union, many veteran
> Bolsheviks were condemned at show trials on their own
> confessions. These confessions (all false) were extracted
> in part by torture. But the inquisitors also persuaded
> some of the victims to confess (and repeat the confessions
> in court), by pointing out that in doing so, they could
> serve the Revolution.
>
True enough. I've read accounts of top Bolsheviks who knew they were
innocent shouting "Long live Comrade Stalin!" or "I serve the Communist
Party!" in the moments they were shot in the Lubyanka cellar.

I think they somehow cherished the opportunity to make their country
look unjust, even if they had to die to that end. Whatever feelings they
had about dying and being removed from their son's lives were apparently
less than their desire to be martyrs for the cause.

I can only wonder if the scales would have fallen from their eyes had
they travelled to the Soviet Union and seen what life was actually like
there. I daresay they would have found a huge disconnect between the
propaganda and the reality of Soviet life. I wonder if their loyalty of
Communism would have survived that encounter?

-----
Henry

[Bill]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 14:16:34 -0400, Shawn Wilson
<ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 24, 5:54 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> So how many Communists were actually in the State Department?
>>
>> >Well, we *knew* of about 300 operating in the US government...
>>
>> Cite please.
>
>
>You honestly don't know about Venona? And you want to ARGUE about
>McCarthyism???
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project

I have already shown that the McCarthy gang had no access to VENONA
product.

>> >Uh, McCarthy wasn't in the FBI, nor in the Executive Branch. Catching
>> >Commies wasn't his job. Kicking the ass of those whose responsibility
>> >it was for not doing their job WAS McCarthy's job, and what he was
>> >doing.
>>
>> So that's 'none' then...
>
>
>It wasn't his job... HIS job was wondering why the State Department
>continued to employ known Communists (known to the State Department)
>in sensitive positions.

They didn't.

>> If they're not Communists then they're not security risks.
>
>
>
>Excuse me? Do you think the ONLY thing that makes someone a security
>risk is Communism? The State Department didn't. They considered
>things like alcoholism and drug addiction to be security risks.

Ah, but did McCarthy?

Him being an alcoholic and all...

>> Or does the US persecute people who thinking the wrong thoughts?
>
>
>It is actually a crime to be a secret agent of a foreign power (but
>not to be a registered one)

But is The Communist Party of the United States a foreign power?

[Bill]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 14:17:22 -0400, Shawn Wilson
<ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 24, 6:49 pm, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
>
>> > > Knowing exactly who you are going after is not the same thing as being right.
>> > This is a more involved situation here. Marshall WAS wrong, though
>>
>> Wrong about what, specifically? The Chinese war was one we were well-advised
>> to STAY OUT OF.
>
>
>OR, we could have supported the Nationalists and maybe they would have
>won...

Not a hope.

[Bill]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 14:16:55 -0400, Shawn Wilson
<ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 24, 5:53 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> McCarthy was never privy to Venona intelligence.
>>
>> >Wasn't he?
>>
>> If he was then he should have been prosecuted for access to
>> information he was not cleared for.
>
>
>
>Uh, that isn't a crime

Actually it is.

And as the issue was the government
>not bothering to even FIRE known Soviet Agents, prosecuting McCarthy
>would be rather... odd.

No.

It was the government not firing Communists who may or may not have
been agents of a foreign power.

>Uh, if that were the case then you should easily be able to cite a
>large number of innocent people he named, greater than the number of
>guilty ones... Near as I can tell there are no such 'innocents'.

Cy Enfield.

>> 'VENONA' is a codeword.
>>
>> It describes a specific form of information derived in a specific
>> manner.
>>
>> Nobody was 'up to their eyeballs in Venona'.
>
>
>Dear Lord... Pathetic much?

You obviously don't understand what I'm writing.

>> They didn't even tell the President.
>
>
>They did, they just stopped after a little while because he couldn't
>be trusted with the information, as his office was reporting to the
>Soviets...

Giggle...

>> You've got to be as mad as Ann Coulter to think McCarthy was getting
>> access to VENONA material.
>>
>> http://tfninsider.org/2009/10/29/rehabilitating-joseph-mccarthy/
>
>
>Of course he was. Given the times, it would be ridiculous to believe
>that the people with access to Venona would keep it from him, at least
>the information (ie names) gleaned from it.

Read my citation.

[Bill]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 14:32:33 -0400, Shawn Wilson
<ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 25, 10:20 am, ogro...@webtv.net (Padraigh ProAmerica) wrote:
>
>> McCarthy was never privy to Venona intelligence.
>
>> Wasn't he?
>
>> In "Treason", Ann Coulter has a heavily-footnoted chapter on McCarthy
>> and his methods. No mention of VENONA.
>
>
>That just means there is no documentary evidence

Ok so far.

, not that it didn't
>happen.

Ah, well, yes it does...

>If you were J. Edgar would you write a memo about a top
>secret matter when you could just talk to McCarthy in person and tell
>him what he needs to know? What documents would there ever be to
>cite?

While both Hoover and McCarthy were both deeply corrupt would even
Hoover leak TOP SECRET CODEWORD information to an alcoholic
politician?

Did Hoover know the source and reliability of the information or was
he given the usual 'A previously reliable source' tag usually used for
SIGINT information at that time?

[Paul F Austin]

On 3/25/2013 2:16 PM, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> On Mar 24, 5:54 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> So how many Communists were actually in the State Department?
>>
>>> Well, we *knew* of about 300 operating in the US government...
>>
>> Cite please.
>
>
> You honestly don't know about Venona? And you want to ARGUE about
> McCarthyism???
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project
>
> And, if you don't like wiki
>
> http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/venona/index.shtml
>
>
> For specific numbers, see 'Venona : decoding Soviet espionage in
> America' by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr.

I actually own and have read Venona. If you tabulate the identified
individuals who worked for the USG in some capacity, you come to the
following totals: Treasury-7, State-3, White House-1, Other agencies-38.

While Venona yielded a lot of counter intelligence information,
identifying agencies and industries that were penetrated, the number of
_identified_ government employees is only 49. There are some interesting
patterns. The OSS was often penetrated, possibly because of its need for
foreign language fluency. The Board of Economic Warfare was very heavily
penetrated, possibly because Nathan Silverman, the head of the
epinonimous spy ring worked there.

So, McCarthy's 300 known communists didn't come from Venona decrypts.

Paul

[Roman W]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 14:32:33 -0400, Shawn Wilson
<ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That just means there is no documentary evidence, not that it didn't
> happen.

Trying to use lack of evidence as evidence is a classic logical
fallacy.

RW

[Roman W]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 14:31:58 -0400, Shawn Wilson
<ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Under the circumstances a possible inference. I personally think
> Marshall really was just that politically naive. Others could
> plausibly come to other conclusions.

Ok. What about Charlie Chaplin?

RW

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 5:53 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > >> McCarthy was never privy to Venona intelligence.
> >
> > >Wasn't he?
> >
> > If he was then he should have been prosecuted for access to
> > information he was not cleared for.

> Uh, that isn't a crime (not on how part anyway, you want to try to
> prosecute J. Edgar Hoover...?). And as the issue was the government
> not bothering to even FIRE known Soviet Agents, prosecuting McCarthy
> would be rather... odd.

Which specific "known Soviet Agents" (plural) are you thinking of?

Mike

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 5:54 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > >> So how many Communists were actually in the State Department?
> >
> > >Well, we *knew* of about 300 operating in the US government...
> >
> > Cite please.


> You honestly don't know about Venona? And you want to ARGUE about
> McCarthyism???

Well, how about we argue what McCarthy actually said? In the telegram to
Truman, and when entering the speech into the Congressional Record, he
used the number 57, not 300.

The "300" number comes from already initiated investigations.

> It wasn't his job... HIS job was wondering why the State Department
> continued to employ known Communists (known to the State Department)
> in sensitive positions.

Well.... see below.

> Excuse me? Do you think the ONLY thing that makes someone a security
> risk is Communism? The State Department didn't. They considered
> things like alcoholism and drug addiction to be security risks.

The origin of the "205" quote attributed to McC was an initial investigation
into 284 persons in the State Department. Of these, by the time McCarthy
gave his speech, and only 65 were still with the State, and all had already
undergone further background checks.

Mike

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 6:49 pm, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

> > > > Knowing exactly who you are going after is not the same thing as being right.
> > > This is a more involved situation here. Marshall WAS wrong, though
> >
> > Wrong about what, specifically? The Chinese war was one we were well-advised
> > to STAY OUT OF.

> OR, we could have supported the Nationalists and maybe they would have
> won...

Uh, probably not. Again, the Japanese had decimated his troops more than the
communists during the war. His allies were corrupt and brutal. Sorry, he
didn't look like a winner in any sense.

> > > even if he had done the right thing it may very well not have made any
> > > difference.
> >
> > Wait; so "doing the right thing" would have involved getting US soldiers
> > killed for something that made no difference? Odd.

> Given the body count of communism it was probably worth the gamble.

Well, ya say that, then you look at Chiang's record as a "humanitarian" and
come to the conclusion that he was as brutal as Mao. Just more limited in
options.

But I'm sure the Taiwanese welcomed him with open arms... well, maybe not.

> And 'aid' is not a synonym for troops. Money and equipment also
> count.

Uh, we gave them that. Not as much as he may have liked, but he could probably
have more than tripled it if the Nationalists hadn't been so corrupt and
skimmed it.

Mike

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

He probably delivered the information by singing unicorn. Just because there's
no evidence that it wasn't, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Mike

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 6:49 pm, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

> > > > McCarthy was never privy to Venona intelligence.
> > > Wasn't he? He would seem to have a miraculous ability to pull the
> > > right names from his hat then... Occam's Razor says that he was being
> > > fed Venona information. He was certainly associating and friendly
> > > with people who were up to their eyeballs in Venona.
> >
> > So, which names did he name that were also in the Verona info, other than the
> > names that had been known before he gave his speach?

> Uh, as Venona had a lot of names, what names do you think WEREN'T
> mentioned there?

I see; so you have none. Again, by the time he gave his speech, more than
200 State Department employees had already been let go.

So, who was left?

> > > Were they? Do you have specifics in mind?
> >
> > Well, there's the whole "Marshall is a conspirator" thing...

> Under the circumstances a possible inference.

Under the circumstances, nonsense which only helped turn the public against
him.

> I personally think
> Marshall really was just that politically naive. Others could
> plausibly come to other conclusions.

Yeah, others might point to the Marshall Plan, and believe (obviously
incorrectly) that he had a bit of good sense about the world situation,
and could see where it was advisable to spend money. Those people might
point to the SUCCESS of the Plan as further proof of Marshall's acumen.

Others would scream "treason".

> > > > He did
> > > > a great deal to discredit anti-Communism.
> > > No, I don't think so.

> > Actually, he did, and the fact that "McCarthyism" is not a term of praise should
> > be a clue on that.

> We have Venona,

And we *know* that the State Department was already removing suspected security
before he arrived on the scene, and was doing so after he crashed and burned.

In fact, the Venona project had its inception before the end of the war, yes?
So, the investigations were ongoing well before McCarthy was even in politics.

> we *know* that he was right all along, and his
> detractors wrong.

Sorry, not that you've shown. You've ALLEGED much, but when asked to provide
specifics, like names, etc., you wave vaguely at the magical "Venona".

Mike

[wjho...@aol.com]

On Mar 25, 9:24 pm, Paul F Austin wrote:
>
>...If you tabulate the identified individuals who
> worked for the USG...you come to the following

> totals: Treasury-7, State-3, White House-1,
> Other agencies-38.
>

> So, McCarthy's 300 known communists didn't
> come from Venona decrypts.

True, but who knows how many others whose
identities never came to light because if they
been arrested and prosecuted at the time. The
existence of the government on-going
code-breaking operation and other
counter-intelligence activities would have been
revealed in the judicial process?
Much the same situation occurred in the case
of the resident enemy alien Japanese and
Japanese-American agents of Japan on the West
Coast whose pre-war subversive activities were
well-known to U.S. intelligence from the revelations
of the MAGIC code-breaking program and other
intelligence. To have gone through a judicial
process with them would have compromised
the MAGIC program which continued to provide
essential information on Japanese movements
and intentions throughout the war.
(As an aside, Venona confirmed that security
on MAGIC was so tight that evan J.Edgar Hoover
did not share the pre-war information about
Japanese espionage revealed by it even though
the FBI was responsible for and cooperated with
military intelligence on domestic subversion
activities.)
. Also, although in my view McCarthy and hisw
principal assistants, Cohn and Schine, were no
more than political demagogues, what the Venona
project later revealed was not so much how many
persons were guilty of espionabe, but the extent to
which some of the key persons among them were
high government officials (Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter
White) or from the non-government side, Time
magazine editor Whitaker Chambers).
In addition, what came to light through Venona
was the incredible naivety and bumbling of persons
who ran government agencies right up to thel level
of the White House itself while all this espionage
was happening under their noses. Such persons
should have known much of what the Russians were
up to but didn't want to "offend" our Soviet ally.

For a good read about Venona, try the CIA synopsis
at:
https://www.cia.gov/venona-soviet-espionage-and-the-american-response-1939-1957/forward.htm

WJH

[Shawn Wilson]

On Mar 25, 3:10 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >> So how many Communists were actually in the State Department?
>
> >> >Well, we *knew* of about 300 operating in the US government...
>
> >> Cite please.
>
> >You honestly don't know about Venona? And you want to ARGUE about
> >McCarthyism???
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project
>
> I have already shown that the McCarthy gang had no access to VENONA
> product.

Uh, no, you haven't. All you have done is point out that there is no
physicial evidence that that did. Absence of evidence is not and has
never been evidence of absence.

On the other hand, the path from Venona to McCarthy is very short and
runs directly through his friends and allies. They probably never
said "there is a secret project named Venona that decrypts top secret
Soviet telegrams which we have used to uncover direct evidence that
this list of people are Soviet spies." They almost certainly told him
"we have secret intelligence that this list of people, some with high
government positions, are definitely Soviet spies."

> >It wasn't his job... HIS job was wondering why the State Department
> >continued to employ known Communists (known to the State Department)
> >in sensitive positions.
>
> They didn't.

The State Department said otherwise...

> >> Or does the US persecute people who thinking the wrong thoughts?
>
> >It is actually a crime to be a secret agent of a foreign power (but
> >not to be a registered one)
>
> But is The Communist Party of the United States a foreign power?

The Soviet Union is. And as the CPUSA was itself acting as secret
agents of the Soviet Union it was also in violation of the law. Not
all intelligence about such things came from Venona. The FBI had
thoroughly infiltrated the CPUSA. For a while the bagman who
delivered money from the USSR to the CPUSA was either an FBI informant
or an actual undercover G-man, I forget which.

No, the CPUSA were not loyal Americans who happened to be communists,
they were a wholly owned subsidiary of the USSR...

[Shawn Wilson]

On Mar 25, 3:17 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >> McCarthy was never privy to Venona intelligence.
>
> >> >Wasn't he?
>
> >> If he was then he should have been prosecuted for access to
> >> information he was not cleared for.
>
> >Uh, that isn't a crime
>
> Actually it is.

Still not. But, feel free to cite what law you claim *McCarthy* would
have broken be being told such information.

> It was the government not firing Communists who may or may not have
> been agents of a foreign power.
>
> >Uh, if that were the case then you should easily be able to cite a
> >large number of innocent people he named, greater than the number of
> >guilty ones... Near as I can tell there are no such 'innocents'.
>
> Cy Enfield.

One name is not actually a "large number" of innocent people that
would necessarly have been accused if your theory were correct...

And, uh, do you REALLY not understand the concept of 'fact'? McCarthy
had nothing to do with him. Cy EnDfield was outed by HUAC. McCarthy
had nothign to do with HUAC, as he was a *Senator* and the 'H' in HUAC
stood and still stands for 'House', as in "of Representatives".

And, really, what a hellish fate he suffered, being blacklisted in the
US, and forced to live a life of professional and commercial success,
before dying and being considered important enough to get a NYT
obituary...

Besides, he actually was a Communist.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Mar 25, 6:24 pm, Paul F Austin <pfaus...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> I actually own and have read Venona. If you tabulate the identified
> individuals who worked for the USG in some capacity, you come to the
> following totals: Treasury-7, State-3, White House-1, Other agencies-38.

I suspect you mean "specifically named". Others are referred to only
by code name (Julius Rosenberg was 'Liberal'), and still other people
have had their identities inferred by analysis without being named (as
in such and so was part of this delegation who went here and spent
time with this person, work that through and the only person on the
face of the Earth that could be is... Alger Hiss.)

> So, McCarthy's 300 known communists didn't come from Venona decrypts.

Uh, McCarthy didn't say 300. He said 57. 300 is from Venona. (see
above)

[Shawn Wilson]

On Mar 25, 9:32 pm, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

> > > Wrong about what, specifically? The Chinese war was one we were well-advised
> > > to STAY OUT OF.
> > OR, we could have supported the Nationalists and maybe they would have
> > won...
>
> Uh, probably not. Again, the Japanese had decimated his troops more than the
> communists during the war. His allies were corrupt and brutal. Sorry, he
> didn't look like a winner in any sense.

That's why he needed aid.

> > > Wait; so "doing the right thing" would have involved getting US soldiers
> > > killed for something that made no difference? Odd.
> > Given the body count of communism it was probably worth the gamble.
>
> Well, ya say that, then you look at Chiang's record as a "humanitarian" and
> come to the conclusion that he was as brutal as Mao. Just more limited in
> options.

No... Really, Mao stands as the most bloody handed individual in
HISTORY, trumping even Stalin and Hitler.

You don't get to just blythely assert that Chiang would have been as
bad.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Mar 25, 10:01 pm, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

> Yeah, others might point to the Marshall Plan, and believe (obviously
> incorrectly) that he had a bit of good sense about the world situation,
> and could see where it was advisable to spend money. Those people might
> point to the SUCCESS of the Plan as further proof of Marshall's acumen.

Uh, Marshall wanted to include Eastern Europe in the Plan... That is
clealy a case of "not getting it"...

> > We have Venona,
>
> And we *know* that the State Department was already removing suspected security
> before he arrived on the scene, and was doing so after he crashed and burned.

Not really, not before McCarthy started shing a light on them.

[Paul F Austin]

On 3/26/2013 2:26 PM, wjho...@aol.com wrote:
> On Mar 25, 9:24 pm, Paul F Austin wrote:
>>
>> ...If you tabulate the identified individuals who
>> worked for the USG...you come to the following
>> totals: Treasury-7, State-3, White House-1,
>> Other agencies-38.
>>
>> So, McCarthy's 300 known communists didn't
>> come from Venona decrypts.
>
> True, but who knows how many others whose
> identities never came to light because if they
> been arrested and prosecuted at the time. The
> existence of the government on-going
> code-breaking operation and other
> counter-intelligence activities would have been
> revealed in the judicial process?

....
The Venona decrypts were of limited usefulness in identifying Soviet
spies because the Sovs almost universally used good tradecraft in
referring to assets, only rarely in cleartext in spite of using
"unbreakable" one-time pads. Most of the sources listed in Haynes and
Klehr (look at appendices A and B) are unidentified to this day.

> . Also, although in my view McCarthy and hisw
> principal assistants, Cohn and Schine, were no
> more than political demagogues, what the Venona
> project later revealed was not so much how many
> persons were guilty of espionabe, but the extent to
> which some of the key persons among them were
> high government officials (Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter
> White) or from the non-government side, Time
> magazine editor Whitaker Chambers).
> In addition, what came to light through Venona
> was the incredible naivety and bumbling of persons
> who ran government agencies right up to thel level
> of the White House itself while all this espionage
> was happening under their noses. Such persons
> should have known much of what the Russians were
> up to but didn't want to "offend" our Soviet ally.

What Venona decrypts did was produce yet another source describing the
scope of the Soviet attack on the US. Whittaker Chambers' briefing to
Adolph Berle in _1939_ described the Soviets methods and as many sources
as Chambers knew. Elizabeth Bentley's briefing to the FBI in 1945 of
_her_ knowledge of sources and methods dovetailed nicely with Chambers'.
For reasons both ideological and more or less religious ("No enemies to
the Left"), the testimony of both as well as products of US
Counter-Intelligence investigations were all discounted as self-dealing.
Both Chambers and Bentley fingered Alger Hiss for instance and Chambers
identified Lauchlin Currie, special assistant to FDR. Bentley identified
and Chambers confirmed that Harry Dexter White was a Soviet asset.

It's not really proper to call it an "espionage" operations since many
of the resources were employed as agents of influence at least as much
as agents of information. McCarthy proved a perfect foil for the
anti-anti-communists and Chambers and Bentley, guilty themselves of
felonies were not very charismatic anti-communist opponents. Venona
decrypts of course remained highly classified until the 1990s. Venona's
revelations were important to US Counter-Intelligence but there existed
a considerable body of information about Soviet attacks on US interests
without it.

Paul

[Bill]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 16:03:12 -0400, Shawn Wilson
<ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 25, 3:10 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >> So how many Communists were actually in the State Department?
>>
>> >> >Well, we *knew* of about 300 operating in the US government...
>>
>> >> Cite please.
>>
>> >You honestly don't know about Venona? And you want to ARGUE about
>> >McCarthyism???
>>
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project
>>
>> I have already shown that the McCarthy gang had no access to VENONA
>> product.
>
>
>Uh, no, you haven't. All you have done is point out that there is no
>physicial evidence that that did. Absence of evidence is not and has
>never been evidence of absence.
>

Well, yes it is.

>> >> Or does the US persecute people who thinking the wrong thoughts?
>>
>> >It is actually a crime to be a secret agent of a foreign power (but
>> >not to be a registered one)
>>
>> But is The Communist Party of the United States a foreign power?
>
>
>The Soviet Union is. And as the CPUSA was itself acting as secret
>agents of the Soviet Union it was also in violation of the law.

Now that really was unproven at the time.

[Paul F Austin]

On 3/26/2013 4:06 PM, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> On Mar 25, 6:24 pm, Paul F Austin <pfaus...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> I actually own and have read Venona. If you tabulate the identified
>> individuals who worked for the USG in some capacity, you come to the
>> following totals: Treasury-7, State-3, White House-1, Other agencies-38.
>
>
> I suspect you mean "specifically named". Others are referred to only
> by code name (Julius Rosenberg was 'Liberal'), and still other people
> have had their identities inferred by analysis without being named (as
> in such and so was part of this delegation who went here and spent
> time with this person, work that through and the only person on the
> face of the Earth that could be is... Alger Hiss.)
>

People referred to only by code name never were identified _through_
Venona. If you tabulate the personal names listed in Appendix A of
_Venona_ and the organizations for whom they worked, you get the numbers
I contributed.

Decrypts that produced only code names were a help to US
Counter-Intelligence in attacking Soviet networks and provide insight
(but not much) into the scope of Soviet operations. Remember that the
Venona decrypts touched upon only a small part of the Soviet enterprise.
The CPUSA archives that became available in the 1990s provided a much
broader view of the Soviet program of espionage, disinformation and
influence.

Paul

[Bill]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 16:04:14 -0400, Shawn Wilson
<ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 25, 3:17 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >Uh, if that were the case then you should easily be able to cite a
>> >large number of innocent people he named, greater than the number of
>> >guilty ones... Near as I can tell there are no such 'innocents'.
>>
>> Cy Enfield.
>
>
>One name is not actually a "large number" of innocent people that
>would necessarly have been accused if your theory were correct...

It'll do for a start for anyone with the ability to look who he was
and what happened to him.

[Paul F Austin]

On 3/26/2013 6:25 PM, Bill wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 16:03:12 -0400, Shawn Wilson
>>
>>

>> The Soviet Union is. And as the CPUSA was itself acting as secret
>> agents of the Soviet Union it was also in violation of the law.
>
> Now that really was unproven at the time.
>

That's actually untrue. Whittaker Chambers described the workings of the
underground part of CPUSA and its responsiveness to orders from the
COMINTERN and Cheka. Bentley's testimony dovetailed with Chambers as well.

Paul

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 25, 10:01 pm, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

> > Yeah, others might point to the Marshall Plan, and believe (obviously
> > incorrectly) that he had a bit of good sense about the world situation,
> > and could see where it was advisable to spend money. Those people might
> > point to the SUCCESS of the Plan as further proof of Marshall's acumen.

> Uh, Marshall wanted to include Eastern Europe in the Plan...

And they refused; the REASON they refused is that it would have given the
US too much say in their economies. Hmm, MAYBE the guy is a bit sharper
than you give him credit for.

> That is clealy a case of "not getting it"...

Well, someone clearly doesn't "get it"; have you ever even READ the history
of the Marshall Plan?

> > > We have Venona,
> >
> > And we *know* that the State Department was already removing suspected security
> > before he arrived on the scene, and was doing so after he crashed and burned.

> Not really, not before McCarthy started shing a light on them.

Again, which part of the below is wrong:

"There is some dispute about whether or not McCarthy actually gave the
number of people on the list as being "205" or "57". In a later telegram
to President Truman, and when entering the speech into the Congressional
Record, he used the number 57.[26] The origin of the number 205 can
be traced: In later debates on the Senate floor, McCarthy referred
to a 1946 letter that then-Secretary of State James Byrnes sent to
Congressman Adolph J. Sabath. In that letter, Byrnes said State Department
security investigations had resulted in "recommendation against permanent
employment" for 284 persons, and that 79 of these had been removed from
their jobs; this left 205 still on the State Department's payroll. In
fact, by the time of McCarthy's speech only about 65 of the employees
mentioned in the Byrnes letter were still with the State Department,
and all of these had undergone further security checks."

Sure LOOKS like people were investigating the issue before he "started
shining a light on them."

Mike

[Bill]

I have no doubt that the CPUSA was acting under orders from Moscow at
the time, I just doubt that the US authorities knew it for a fact.

You also have to ask if the CPUSA were actually stupid enough to allow
their own country's interests to be superseded by the party of another
country, or of that's a legend that suits the governments of both
countries to tell.

While it did happen a few times in Europe, often with men who'd been
reporting directly to Soviet agents for years, the actual Communist
Party organisations often didn't follow the Russian line.

[wjho...@aol.com]

On Mar 26, 6:24 pm, Paul F Austin wrote:
> On 3/26/2013 2:26 PM, wjhopw...wrote:
>
> >,,,,who knows how many others whose
> > identities never came to light because...
> > ...the government...code-breaking operation

> > and other counter-intelligence activities
> > would have been revealed in the judicial
> > process?
>

> The Venona decrypts were of limited usefulness

> in identifying Soviet spies because the Sovs ...
> used good tradecraft...only rarely in cleartext in
> spite of using "unbreakable" one-time pads....

Good tradecraft indeed, but with some flaws
which U.S. cryptographers found and were
able to exploit for years.
Although the Soviets used a one-time pad,
they also enciphered the message as another
step in security. However, when this is done a
flaw in the enciphering can leave the message
open to routine cryptanalysis even without the
presence of the code book associated with the
one-time pad.
The success by Arlington Hall in reading
as much of the Soviet diplomatic traffic as they
did in the 1944-46 period and beyond was the
result of superb cryptanalysis without either a
code book or plain-text copies of original
messages to work from.
One of the U.S. analysts, a linguist named
Meredith Gardner, tediously reconstructed a model
of a one-time pad code book by using normal
code-breaking methods. But there were also
other lucky breaks.
Although different Soviet agencies (diplomatic,
commercial, etc.) used their own codes, there was
a common use of the one-time pads. As a
consequence pages of these were printed with
numerous duplicates for distribution to the different
Soviet organizations using coded message traffic
to conduct their business. By attacking more than
one of such systems, Arlington Hall had found
some overlapping which led to weaknesses which
could be exploited. Not all messages could be
broken but some yielded partial results which
could be applied against partial results
gained from other messages. A fairly good
overall picture of a particular subject could thus
be obtained. Some ongoing results continued
to be successful long after the war, but some
messages were never broken either in whole or in
part.

WJH

[Shawn Wilson]

On Mar 26, 4:18 pm, Paul F Austin <pfaus...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> >> The Soviet Union is. And as the CPUSA was itself acting as secret
> >> agents of the Soviet Union it was also in violation of the law.
>
> > Now that really was unproven at the time.
>
> That's actually untrue. Whittaker Chambers described the workings of the
> underground part of CPUSA and its responsiveness to orders from the
> COMINTERN and Cheka. Bentley's testimony dovetailed with Chambers as well.

Not to mention that the FBI under Hoover had more than a little
interest in communists running around the US. Venona is nice, but old
fashioned Humint (undercover agents, informers) works just fine.

[Roman W]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 16:07:35 -0400, Shawn Wilson
<ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Uh, Marshall wanted to include Eastern Europe in the Plan... That
is
> clealy a case of "not getting it"...

Perhaps he thought this might sway some countries to side with
Western powers?

RW

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

wjho...@aol.com <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Mar 25, 9:24 pm, Paul F Austin wrote:
> >
> >...If you tabulate the identified individuals who
> > worked for the USG...you come to the following
> > totals: Treasury-7, State-3, White House-1,
> > Other agencies-38.
> >
> > So, McCarthy's 300 known communists didn't
> > come from Venona decrypts.

> Much the same situation occurred in the case
> of the resident enemy alien Japanese and
> Japanese-American agents of Japan on the West
> Coast whose pre-war subversive activities were
> well-known to U.S. intelligence from the revelations
> of the MAGIC code-breaking program and other
> intelligence.

Well... no.

In fact, nothing useful in the way of spy-related activities came out MAGIC
intercepts. Now, MAGIC *DID* detect a spy ring in Hawaii, but that was led
by a Japanese national.

All arrests were made as a result of ordinary investigation.

>To have gone through a judicial
> process with them would have compromised
> the MAGIC program which continued to provide
> essential information on Japanese movements
> and intentions throughout the war.

Which is, of course, nonsense.

After the war was over, the existence of MAGIC was made public, and we had
access to all Japanese records.

No arrests were made. How 'bout that? It's almost as if those spy rings of
nisei existed only in the imagination of people like you.

> (As an aside, Venona confirmed that security
> on MAGIC was so tight that evan J.Edgar Hoover
> did not share the pre-war information about
> Japanese espionage revealed by it even though
> the FBI was responsible for and cooperated with
> military intelligence on domestic subversion
> activities.)

And yet the FBI made arrests just after the outbreak of the war, based on
good ol' fashioned investigation.

Kinda goes to show that those MAGIC intercepts weren't really necessary, nor
informative WRT spy rings in the US.

Mike

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 25, 3:10 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > >> >> So how many Communists were actually in the State Department?
> >
> > >> >Well, we *knew* of about 300 operating in the US government...
> >
> > >> Cite please.
> >
> > >You honestly don't know about Venona? And you want to ARGUE about
> > >McCarthyism???
> >
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project
> >
> > I have already shown that the McCarthy gang had no access to VENONA
> > product.


> Uh, no, you haven't. All you have done is point out that there is no
> physicial evidence that that did. Absence of evidence is not and has
> never been evidence of absence.

Nor has it ever been evidence.

In fact, as has been pointed out, the list of "300" was down to less than
65 by the time McCarthy gave his speech, and most of the original 300 had
been let go.

Mike

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 25, 9:32 pm, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

> > > > Wrong about what, specifically? The Chinese war was one we were well-advised
> > > > to STAY OUT OF.
> > > OR, we could have supported the Nationalists and maybe they would have
> > > won...
> >
> > Uh, probably not. Again, the Japanese had decimated his troops more than the
> > communists during the war. His allies were corrupt and brutal. Sorry, he
> > didn't look like a winner in any sense.

> That's why he needed aid.

Uh, what part of "corrupt and brutal" allies indicate the US should have
backed that horse with money, troops, or weapons?

> > > > Wait; so "doing the right thing" would have involved getting US soldiers
> > > > killed for something that made no difference? Odd.

> > > Given the body count of communism it was probably worth the gamble.
> >
> > Well, ya say that, then you look at Chiang's record as a "humanitarian" and
> > come to the conclusion that he was as brutal as Mao. Just more limited in
> > options.

> No... Really, Mao stands as the most bloody handed individual in
> HISTORY, trumping even Stalin and Hitler.

That's what can happen when you get to rule the world's largest country by
defeating another would-be despot.

> You don't get to just blythely assert that Chiang would have been as
> bad.

Well, again, you can look at his record.

Mike

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

Which is why the Soviets turned it down (and forced their satellites to
do the same). They felt this would give the US too much say in how they
ran their economies.

Looks, to me, like Marshall was clearly "getting it".

Mike

[Paul F Austin]

On 3/26/2013 11:39 PM, Bill wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 19:18:04 -0400, Paul F Austin

>> That's actually untrue. Whittaker Chambers described the workings of the
>> underground part of CPUSA and its responsiveness to orders from the
>> COMINTERN and Cheka. Bentley's testimony dovetailed with Chambers as well.
>
> I have no doubt that the CPUSA was acting under orders from Moscow at
> the time, I just doubt that the US authorities knew it for a fact.
>
> You also have to ask if the CPUSA were actually stupid enough to allow
> their own country's interests to be superseded by the party of another
> country, or of that's a legend that suits the governments of both
> countries to tell.
>
> While it did happen a few times in Europe, often with men who'd been
> reporting directly to Soviet agents for years, the actual Communist
> Party organisations often didn't follow the Russian line.
>

I have little knowledge of the history of European Communist Parties
save as general impressions. Does the historiography of European
Communist Parties support the notion of significant deviationism prior
to the Secret Speech in 1956? How much financial independence from the
Soviet Union did European Parties have? The CPUSA had little.

Certainly American Communists were often as committed emotionally and
religiously as any Dominican monk. As it happens, I grew up around many
devoted leftists in the 1950s so I know from experience the culture and
commitment of members of the American Old Left.

An amusing anecdote about the nimbleness of party members in following
the vagaries of the Party Line regards The Almanac Singers, a musical
group lead by Pete Seeger, a life-long Party member. In 1940, the group
produced "Songs for John Doe", an album dedicated to anti-war and
isolationist themes. After the June 22, 1941 invasion of the Soviet
Union, all copies of the album that could be found were destroyed.

That said, CPUSA, unlike the European Parties, rarely was able to
function as a conventional political party. The American Left often
shunned them, they were expelled from major labor organizations and the
one Presidential candidate, Henry Wallace, for whom the CPUSA provided
large amounts of overt organization and support, didn't prosper from
that support.

Party and COMINTERN archives that became available in the West in 1992
clearly show the subordination of CPUSA to COMINTERN orders and Soviet
interests. Where parochial CPUSA interests and policy conflicted with
COMINTERN direction, CPUSA's interests and policy lost and any Party
member who failed to nimbly conform to the new Line was expelled from
the Party.

The COMINTERN maintained a Department of International Relations (OMS)
that was from the mid-1930s directed by Mikhail Triliser, head of the
OGPU's foreign espionage operations. OMS maintained covert
communications between the COMINTERN and each of the national political
parties. Communications between CPUSA and the COMINTERN took place using
those channels and those of Soviet intelligence apparat more or less
interchangeably. After the dissolution of the COMINTERN in 1943, the
CPSU took over these communications links directly.

The Party's cadre were often required (by the Party) to conceal their
membership, move to locations and take overt jobs that served the secret
interests of the Soviet covert intelligence operations and provide
courier and safe house support for such operations. The Party paid small
amounts to secret members to support such operations. In aggregate the
costs of the secret Party were very large, larger than the overt Party
could support.

Financially, CPUSA was both heavily dependent on subsidies from the the
Soviet Union throughout its history and subject to detailed direction in
the use of both Soviet and internally-raised funds. While initially,
Soviet funds moved to other national Parties through COMINTERN, after
the mid-1930s, subsidies were moved through and budgeted through the
NKVD. Documentation of the amounts of subsidies through these channels
are not available but the redirection was noted in archives available to
Russian historians (but not Westerners).

Soviet subsidies of CPUSA continued and expanded during the 1950s and
'60s, increasing to a million dollars in 1965. FBI informants carried
$28M from Soviet sources to CPUSA from 1958 to 1980. All foreign parties
received a total of over $200M from the Soviet Union during the 1980s,
according to Russian Deputy Prosecutor-General Yevgeny Lisov.

So in summary, the CPUSA was subject to party discipline directed from
Moscow that including expulsion of leaders who failed to conform to the
current Line, conducted widespread covert operations in support of
Soviet intelligence operations, communicated covertly with and received
financial aid and direction from the Soviet Union over decades. Does
this seem to be a conventional political party that put its nations
interests above those of another nation?

Paul

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

Re: Soviet Atomic Effort

Group: soc.history.war.world-war-ii Date: Tue, Mar 26, 2013, 11:39pm
From: black...@gmail.com (Bill)

=======================
The CPUSA did- slaviishly.

The radical 180-degree swerves by Party boss Earl Bowder from
anti-hitler to pro-Hitler (at the signing of the Molotov- Ribbentrop
pact) to anti-Hitler (after the invasion) drove many marginal party
members out.

--
"Stupidity is always more interesting than dullness."--
R. Emmett Tyrell, Jr--

[Stephen Graham]

And that's the argument that was found in the Soviet archives when
historians looked at them in the 1990's.

There are a couple of good essays on this in the collection I recently
read, edited by Norman Naimark and Leonid Gibianskii, The Establishment of
Communist Regimes in Eastern Europe, on pretty much this. They make the
point that greater social and economic stability, such as that conveyed by
the Marshall Plan, deterred the establishment of these regimes.

Certainly the plan made the task of the Greek government easier, which I
presume Shawn would favor.

[Rich Rostrom]

Paul F Austin <pfau...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> In 1940, the group
> produced "Songs for John Doe", an album dedicated to anti-war and
> isolationist themes. After the June 22, 1941 invasion of the Soviet
> Union, all copies of the album that could be found were destroyed.

"Songs for John Doe" actually appeared
in _May_ _1941_.

Talk about bad timing!

Was Seeger in fact a Party member?

He was always pinkish-red, but I have
never heard that he actually signed
on formally.

Woody Guthrie did. I saw a recent
commentary that noted that it ruined
him as a sangwriter - everything he
wrote afterwards was formulaic
claptrap to follow Party requirements.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com

[Rich Rostrom]

mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

> > No... Really, Mao stands as the most bloody
> > handed individual in HISTORY, trumping even Stalin
> > and Hitler.
>
> That's what can happen when you get to rule the
> world's largest country by defeating another
> would-be despot.

No, it's what you get with fanatic believers
in a wrong-headed political system which
they believe will lead to utopia, justifying
any possible measures to implement it, who
impose it by force and try to make it work
by ever-increasing levels of coercion.

The crimes of Communism in China parallel
the crimes of Communism in other countries,
and don't seem to have much to do with the
pre-existing regime.

As to Marshall's record - it is arguable that
Communist victory was already inevitable
before Marshall's intervention. But what he
did greatly increased the probability of
Communist victory, and had no chance whatever
of producing the result Marshall intended
(a negotiated settlement and coalition
government).

[Bill]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:30:32 -0400, Paul F Austin
<pfau...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On 3/26/2013 11:39 PM, Bill wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 19:18:04 -0400, Paul F Austin
>
>>> That's actually untrue. Whittaker Chambers described the workings of the
>>> underground part of CPUSA and its responsiveness to orders from the
>>> COMINTERN and Cheka. Bentley's testimony dovetailed with Chambers as well.
>>
>> I have no doubt that the CPUSA was acting under orders from Moscow at
>> the time, I just doubt that the US authorities knew it for a fact.
>>
>> You also have to ask if the CPUSA were actually stupid enough to allow
>> their own country's interests to be superseded by the party of another
>> country, or of that's a legend that suits the governments of both
>> countries to tell.
>>
>> While it did happen a few times in Europe, often with men who'd been
>> reporting directly to Soviet agents for years, the actual Communist
>> Party organisations often didn't follow the Russian line.
>>
>
>I have little knowledge of the history of European Communist Parties
>save as general impressions. Does the historiography of European
>Communist Parties support the notion of significant deviationism prior
>to the Secret Speech in 1956? How much financial independence from the
>Soviet Union did European Parties have? The CPUSA had little.
>

There was always a 'Moscow Line' party that was the one that got the
'Moscow Gold', but the left in Europe fragmented continuously and
split off into smaller and smaller groups including Trots and other
internationalist groups.

What would happen is that Moscow would do something unspeakable, a
lump of the party would walk away in disgust and form a new party that
believed, more or less, the same thing but without at the same time
disclaiming the dreadful excesses just perpetrated.

Because of the E|European tradition of low level political fund
raising these groups survived for years, and some are still about.

>So in summary, the CPUSA was subject to party discipline directed from
>Moscow that including expulsion of leaders who failed to conform to the
>current Line, conducted widespread covert operations in support of
>Soviet intelligence operations, communicated covertly with and received
>financial aid and direction from the Soviet Union over decades. Does
>this seem to be a conventional political party that put its nations
>interests above those of another nation?

That depends on what you feel the interests of your nation are.

If you feel your nation would be better off organised into
revolutionary soviets and sending delegates to the IVth International
then obviously you'd want nothing to do with the counter revolutionary
Stalinists in Moscow...

But somehow I doubt the FBI would be leaving your membership working
at the State Department to their own devices...

I doubt the typical counter intelligence dinosaur can tell the
difference between a Stalinist, a Trot or a Syndicalist.

I never met one who could...