Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Soviet espionage in the United States

section

In the 1930's the CPUSA recruited several hundred persons among thousands of new employees hired by the federal government under the impact of the New Deal's rapid expansion of governmental programs. Federal regulations forbade partisan political activity by federal employees, and open membership in the Communist Party brought discharge. The CPUSA evaded the law by organizing caucuses of government employees that met in secret.

KGB operatives in the United States during World War II funneled information to Moscow through a handful of professional intelligence officers who sent reports to the Center and relayed orders and questions from the Center to agents in the field. Operations in America were led by experienced hands such as Vassili M. Zarubin (covername MAKSIM), who served as rezident in New York and later in Washington, and Iskhak A. Akhmerov (covernames MER and ALBERT), the senior illegal. Some Soviet case officers, however, were raw recruits recently brought into the services in order to fill out ranks depleted during Stalin's purges of the late 1930s.

Outline

Here is an outline of eight Soviet intelligence entities operating in the United States during the time in question (1921-1943).

  • Comintern
  • CPUSA; (although CPUSA membership was legal among certain people at certain times, membership among government employees and employees of government contractors involved in the war effort, or "defense contractors relating to National Security", to use post-1947 terminolgy, was clearly illegal.
  • CPUSA secret apparatus
  • KGB "legals", i.e. KGB agents registered in the United States on valid visas, operating under a Rezident and illegally engaged in espionage. {For the purpose of discussion on this page, KGB is used to encompass all pre-1954 predessessor names conducting foreign intelligence, Cheka or VChK (1917-22), the GPU (1922-23), the OGPU (1923-34), the NKVD (1934-41, 1941-43), the NKGB (1941, 1943-46), the MGB (1946-47, 1952-53), the KI (1947-52), the MVD (1953-54), and the KGB (1954-91)}
  • KGB "Illegals"; agents operating under "deep cover", maybe native born maybe immigrant, and operating under their own separate Rezident, (or "Station Chief", to use an analagous CIA term).
  • GRU, Soviet Military Intelligence (under its own Rezident).
  • Soviet Naval GRU, had a very small operation in the U.S. during World War II
  • GRU "Illegals", again, like KBG illegals, with its own Rezident.

Note on "Illegals": Illegals are parallel organizations set up independently from the two main intelligence organizations (KGB & GRU), under thier own separate station chief, or Rezident, for the contingent purpose should a break in diplomatic relations occur, and all legal operatives with valid passports are expelled, a parallel espionage organization remains in place. Also, they still may be engaged in highly secret ongoing activities, and their absolute highest concern is to avoid detection. They are "sleeper cells", to use a term recently popularized by American news organizations.Nobs01 17:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See also: V.I. Lenin, Terms of Admission into Communist International (July, 1921) "must everywhere build up a parallel illegal organisation"[1] Nobs01 28 June 2005 16:40 (UTC)

CPUSA

Is there a reference for the claim that membership in the CPUSA by goverment employees was "clearly illegal" prior to 1947? DJ Silverfish 19:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hatch Act of 1939; for pre-1939 period, while I've encountered numerous sources that say it was illegal, I've yet to put my finger on specific legislation. Still looking.Nobs01 19:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Hatch Act would not technically make membership illegal, only political activity on the job. It wasn't illegal to BE a member of the CP. People were fired for membership anyway, frequently teachers, and by local authorities. I do think you are overstating the illegality of the CP. It was a public organization by 1924. DJ Silverfish 19:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Membership in an organization that advocated the violent overthrow of the United States government was prohibited among federal employees, sources say. Yes, this needs clarification because several pieces of legislation had been passed. Still working on it.Nobs01 15:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also, membership among naturalized citizens who swore an oath to bare "true faith and allegiance to the same" would be illegal. Nobs01 28 June 2005 16:28 (UTC)

KI

KI – Committee of Information of the Counsel of Ministers of the USSR organized following May 30, 1947 official decision. Temporarily brought MGB and military intelligence services under the same bureaucratic roof. This integration turned short-lived: following January 1949 government decision, military intelligence was returned under the roof of the Soviet Department of Defense. In its abridged form KI survived until early 1951.

General Ilichev

Anybody have biographical information on General Ilichev, head of GRU during WWII. nobs 20:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More right-wing garbage

This article is so riddled with out and out lies and nonsense it should be thrown out entirely. This is no better than "None Dare Call it Treason," the bible of the John Birch Society.

Just a few of the grosser errors and smears;

1)Many of these so-called communist front groups merely had Communists as members, along with many others who were not. That a group may have received donations from the Party does not mean it is controlled by the CP for any nefarious reasons, or under the control of the Comintern. The Lincoln Brigade, for instance, had 3,500 members in total, many of whom were not party members at all. Both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were pouring recruits and materiel into Spain on the Fascist side. Ford Motors and other American companies were selling materiel and weapons to both Germany and Italy with the full knowledge that it would be used in Spain. This article makes it appear that the Lincolns, and other Internationals, were alone in violating the neutrality agreement, when in fact the Fascist side was receiving open aid from around the world, including the US. The only countries that provided aid to the Repoublic of Spain were the USSR and Mexico.

Nobody has questioned that there existed non-communist volunteers in the Lincoln Brigades but to assert contrary to all relevant historical research that the Comintern was not organizing the "International Brigades" (of which the LB were merely one part) borders on delusion. This was part of the "aid to the Republic of Spain" from the USSR precisely because the USSR was manipulating the Comintern. Incidentally, whether fascist countries were supplying their favored side and whether this was in violation of any law, agreement, or treaty whatsoever has no bearing here but merely shows an emotional need for political equivalence.

2) The claim that 400 Americans spied for the Soviet Union is utter nonsense, and derives from the wholesale adoption of nearly every name in the VENONA transcripts as a spy. Using raw intelligence data in this fashion is a gross violation of basic common sense and historical accuracy. One could find themselves touted by the Soviets as a source merely for having answered a question at a cocktail party, or as in the case of journalist I.F. Stone, for having meetings with known soviet personnel in an attempt to get information from them!!

Being a Soviet source does not imply that the person "spied" and the 400 number has nothing to do with those individuals that researchers have not come to definitive conclusions about whether they were witting participants with Soviet intelligence either in espionage or "influence" and disinformation (in the case alluded to with Stone). Also, this is not "raw intelligence data"; the only thing that could be construed this way would be mere morsels of declassified information that exist as decrypts of which the relevant working papers are still not available but the conclusions of the counterintelligence agencies are sufficient to show notable accusation which is in fact picked up by researchers such as Haynes and Klehr, which you choose to attack on political terms without providing direct and substantial rebuttals in context to specific topics.

3) Again, the continued insistence that Alger Hiss was a known spy is garbage, VENONA does not support that claim, nor does any other source. The claim that Harry Dexter White was a spy is likewise idiotic. White was a die-hard capitalist and one of the founders of the World Bank. The link to Hoover's memo shows only how tenuous the charges were. All Hoover has done is to make a correlation between White's movements and the reports of a spy codenamed "Jurist" and concldued they were one and the same. The notion that Jurist may have been someone in White's office never seems to have occured to him.

We feel so concerned for the memory of Hiss that we choose instead to cast aspersions onto an unnamed staff member, probably in his naivete loyal to Hiss's case to the very end only to be slandered for the continuance of ancient partisan purposes.
Nobody should buy the "die-hard capitalist" song and dance routine prima facie because many participants in espionage and disinformation did so not as much for love of Mother Russia but for cold hard cash. In this case however it has always been evident that White influenced policies in ways which were quite favorable to the ends of the Soviet Union and evidence that he was involved with Soviet intelligence is rather not contested even by most critics of this interpretation of the material, rather it is held to be in perfect accordance with his "internationalism".

4)Thousands of Soviet military officers and technicians DID NOT enter the U.S. during WW2. For what possible reason would they have, particularly with the dire need for manpower on the Russian front? WE sent many of our men to the USSR, along with the Lend Lease materiel, not the other way round. Again, there is no evidence at all for the claim that "Soviet case officers waged a successful unrestrained espionage campaign against the United States, from 1942 to late 1945." What the hell does that even mean? Was there espionage? Yes, of course, largely concerning the A-Bomb. But it should be noted that the most succesful of those spies (and Julius Rosenberg was not among them) were a handful of scientists who were not recruited by the Soviets, but volunteered to provide the information.

You manage elsewhere to indulge in Radosh where it suits you but to grant little credence to his work which set out to prove the Rosenberg's innocence and irrelevance but in fact found quite the opposite. There is nothing factual here being seriously contested.

5) The claim that "At least fifteen Soviet agents penetrated the OSS, with the actual number more likely around twenty," is again silly. This number has lumped together all the known field agents who had a Party Background, all of whom were open about it, and assumed they all were spies, when indeed what they were was combat soldiers fighting in Europe. The reason they were recruited by the OSS is that they were Spanish War vets, had combat experience, and already knew many of those in the anti-Nazi underground, as the Resistence was largely communist. We needed them badly and they all served with great distinction. Oddly, and most telling, this article neglects to mention Carl Marzani, a high-ranking OSS official, A Spanish war vet and former member of the CP (1939-1941), Carl was the only such person to be imprisoned for denying Party membership. (see Carl's story in my book, Red Scare: Memories of the American Inquisition). Carl was never charged with espionage, and during the entire time he was working closely with Bill Donavan, the head of the OSS, he never heard from any Party official at all. Again, putting the question of wholesale Party involvement with espionage into question.

6)The notion that "Many party-linked espionage operations were exposed and neutralized by American counterintelligence in the late 1940s and 1950s," is again misleading to the point of being untrue. What spying went on occurred in the context of WW2, when, with our then ally the USSR bearing the brunt of the Nazi war effort, a number of Americans, probably no more than several dozen at most, engaged in what was largely industrial espionage. Tempering the claim that "Soviet agents sought to provide Moscow with a wide range of information on high-performance aircraft, battleships, cruisers, armor, navigation equipment, tank engines, and armaments from key U.S. defense contractors, including Northrop, Douglas, and Marietta," it should be noted that through the Lend Lease program the Pentagon was already providing much of this info to the Sovet Union. The notion that somehow the Soviets needed to spy in order to learn information concerning Operation Overlord (Normandy Landing) and the opening of a second front, or anything concerning a separate peace with Hitler is just fantasy. None of that was kept secret from the Soviets! Roosevelt himself kept Stalin abreast on all devlopements concerning the Normandy Landing, and there was never any idea of a separate peace raised anywhere in the US Gov't. As far spies in the the gov't went, there were no Party members or anyone with links to the Party uncovered after the war, with the sole exception of Carl Marzani, who had left the party in 1941.

7) the Soviet's first bomb was indeed a copy of one of ours, but what is not said here is that the Soviets were quite capable of developing an independent design of their own, and were well on the way. The technical information they lifted from us gave them only a year or so advantage in development. This was widely known at the time, as there were no real "secrets" to the A-Bomb as the theory was widely known to Nuclear scientists in both axis and allied nations.

The "theory" being "widely known" but development only succeeding in one country which shared the technology as well as one which happened to steal it.

8) The statement "The United States made the decision in the Spring of 1947 to assist Greece and Turkey with a view to protecting their sovereignties, which were threatened by direct or instigated activities of the Soviet Union," is again just plain wrong. The USSR played no role at all in the Greek Civil War -- it was Tito! Stalin had made an agreement with Churchill that England would have a free hand in Greece in exchange for Stalin's free hand in Romania and Bulgaria. The record is clear on this. Stalin played no role in Greece. The US took over from England after the war, and still Stalin stayed out. In fact, the Tito-Stalin split was over just this issue. Tito refused Stalin's directive to back off on Greece.

I ask any reader of this page to examine the veracity of stating that Stalin was in a position to give anyone a "free hand in Greece" and simultaneously declare the USSR has "no role" with respect to the civil war, which in the most favorable interpretation is pedantic to the extreme. The USSR did provide direct assistance but considered this particular conflict to be of little comparitive importance to its larger strategic objectives that was not itself worth the risk of confrontation when the UK and US were so apparently ready to respond forcefully. The only irony is that independence of action is insinuated on the part of the KKE's "struggle" whereas Tito, unquestionably their largest material ally, was abandoned by the vast majority of the leadership upon the whim of Stalin with lingering "Titoists" simply slaughtered.

9) Truman's Executive Order 9825 set off the worst civil liberities crisis in American History, the Red Scare, which trashed our Constitutional freedoms and ultimately destroyed the professional lives of thousands of Americans, sent hundreds to prison, and directly casued the deaths of dozens of others. That Truman denounced the "charges against Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, and others," only showed that he finally showed some common sense. The charge that VENONA somehow cinched the case against these men is just a plain lie. If anything VENONA clears Hiss of the charges against him -- it is only the extremist idealogy of the authors of this article that keep them from admitting it, or even airing the arguments for Hiss's innocence.

Most of this and that elsewhere directly addressing espionage is insubstantial ad hominem in secondary topics which already have articles and with no particular substantion of specific claims. Undoubtedly you would wish a "History of Soviet espionage in the United States" to read entirely about the paucity of "twenty years of conspiracy" but fortunately there are many much more serious observors today.

10) Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, for some strange reason, appears as a God to these authors. They quote him as if he were Moses down from the mountain, as if just because Moynihan said it, we should all accept it. Why, I haven't the faintest idea. Of course, they quote a number of proved liars, such as Joe McCarthy and Hoover, with the same religious fervor. That they do so speaks to their extremist views, and their own essential dishonesty.

Moyhihan is rather notable and well respected figure whose conclusions are only attacked by those who cling to a perception of ideological interest in holding to their fairy tales about a bygone era. McCarthy and Hoover are certainly relevant to any rational discourse of the era without the simple effect of parsed quotations and caricaturing descriptions.

Forgot to sign-off

The above corrections to this article were posted by--Griffin FarielloGrifross 01:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

more

More left wing garbage!

Might as well call this "How I support the CPUSA!

"American policy dealing with this rapidly changing scene was often confused, naive, slow to respond, and contradictory".

Umm, No!! Greece, Turkey, Korea, Berlin airlift?! More success than failure if you ask me. If anything the soviets bumbling into afganistan and poland (after there revolution) was naive!

IDIOTS! So if that commie pinko who ranted a while back! (24.75.194.50 19:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Is this NPOV?

I don't know about you guys, but this looks a bit POV to me. Comments?

Gradually it became apparent that the objectives of World War II for which the United States and others made tremendous sacrifices were not fully realized, and there remained in the world a force presenting even greater dangers to world peace than the Nazi militarists and Japanese warlords. Consequently, the United States made the decision in the Spring of 1947 to assist Greece and Turkey with a view to protecting their sovereignties, which were threatened by direct or instigated activities of the Soviet Union. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DabMachine (talk • contribs) 17:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed follwing para for POV language "gradually became apparent", "had been widespread and pervasive", "more sophisticated and determined than": apparent to who, pervasive where, and in what way and how more so? The subsequent paragraphs to do not substantiate the paragraph's allegations.

During the 1950s, it gradually became apparent that the Soviet intelligence activities directed at the U.S. government and military/economic institutions had been widespread and pervasive, and that Soviet intelligence was much more sophisticated and determined than the prewar and wartime efforts of Nazi Germany and militarist Japan.

DJ Silverfish 21:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

military history

Does this not come under the military history wiki project?--SGGH 11:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

additions

User:Nobs01 was banned yet is adding the material I erased as an anonymous IP. The additions are not encylopedic, but complete paranoia. Let the person who added them come forward and defend them. TDC is defending a mountain of junk editing from an anonymous editor who edits exactly like the banned Nobs (an old friend of TDC, incidentally) Ruy Lopez 04:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence that Nobs has edited the article, but you are more than welcome to file a checkuser. Secondly, all the material is cited and culled from reliable sources, so there is no justification to remove any of it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The additions are complete nonsense, they are garbage. You didn't even make them, User:Nobs, who is banned, added them under an anonymous IP.
You say the material is cited and culled from reliable sources. How about this sentence - "Earl Browder, General Secretary of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA), served as a agent recruiter himself on behalf of Soviet intelligence." Where is the citation for this addition? This is one of many uncited accusations. Even the ones that are cited are tenuous, disparate facts are stated which Nobs tries to add up to a certainty that so-and-so was a Russian spy. In Nobs's mind, every prominent Democrat, liberal and progressive from the Russian Revolution onward was a Russian spy. Ruy Lopez 18:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said earlier, you have no evidence that Nobs is the one editing the article, so either verify this via checkuser, or leave it alone. If you were to go to the Earl Browder Article, there is a citation for this, and I have added it. Anything that you feel warrants a citation, please place a fact tag on it and I will find one. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one who said it was all cited. These changes by Nobs, I mean, the anonymous editor, are uncited, not NPOV, are completely unencyclopedic etc. They violate a handful of Wikipedia policies. The "anonymous" editor has disappeared as well. Ruy Lopez 12:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good job, Ruy Lopez. Abe Froman 13:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, not good job, this version of the article has 24 citations. If there are NPOV issues, bring them up here. If something specific needs another citation, add a {{Fact}} tag. As is Ruy, this is a violation of your probation. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removing fact tags is not right. Please respect them and add citations as requested. Abe Froman 23:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not remove any fact tags, you however removed most of the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"First Efforts" Passage

Passage as follows:

By the mid to late 1920s, there were three elements of Soviet power operating in the United States, despite the absence of formal diplomatic relations: the Comintern, military intelligence or GRU, and the forerunner of the KGB, the GPU. The Comintern was the dominant arm, though it was not unusual for officers and agents to switch from one service to another.

During the 1920s, Soviet intelligence focused on military and industrial espionage in the United States, specifically aircraft and munitions industries, and penetrating the mainline federal government bureaucracies, such as the Department of State and War Department. A front organization was created in 1928 for the infiltration and placement of scientists into industry and government: the Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists, and Technicians (FAECT).

Formal diplomatic recognition was granted to the USSR on 16 November 1933, a condition of which was a pledge to refrain "from interfering in any manner in the internal affairs of the United States." In fact, Soviet intelligence greatly expanded their US espionage efforts, now operated under "legal" cover through embassy and consulates. That same year, several Comintern affiliate organizations were established: the American League Against War and Fascism, followed by the American Youth Congress in 1934; the League of American Writers in 1935; and the National Negro Congress in 1936. In 1937 the American League Against War and Fascism changed its name to the American League for Peace and Democracy. Between 1937 and 1938 the Abraham Lincoln Brigade was established with numerous affiliates and sent hundreds of non-governmental combatants to Spain despite the League of Nations' Non-Intervention Committee ban on foreign "volunteers". In 1939, the American Congress for Democracy and Intellectual Freedom and numerous other Comintern affiliate organizations were created.

What are the sources for these allegations? Abe Froman 00:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will the sources be added? The passage is unsupported at this time. Abe Froman 18:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Browder and Golos networks" passage

Passage as follows:

As in any target country, the Soviet NKVD (later MGB and KGB) and GRU ran parallel "legal" and "illegal" operations groups. "Legal" networks were run by Soviet case officers holding legal visas, usually working in diplomatic missions and official trade organizations. The operational station was called a "rezidency" headed by a station chief, or "rezident". The "illegal" networks were headed by an "illegal rezident", usually a Soviet national operating under deep cover with no apparent connection to Soviet organizations. Thus, if diplomatic relations are broken, an espionage organization remains in place, dispensing the the need to begin anew (which could take decades).

One chief aim was the infiltration, placement, and subversion of American political life at all levels of society. Earl Browder, General Secretary of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA), served as a agent recruiter himself on behalf of Soviet intelligence. .[1][2]

What page numbers in the two books described in refs 7 and 8 contain these allegations? I find the claim hard to verify. Abe Froman 00:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pg 217 in Special Tasks and page 42-44 in The Secret World of American Communism deals with Browder. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The passages in question, pg 42-44 [2] and pg 217 mention Browder's role in Asian, and eventually American CPUSA activities. It is silent on the other allegations contained in the passage. Are there additional sources that could anchor these claims? At this time, only the allegations about Bowlder in Asia and the American CPUSA are actually cited. Abe Froman 01:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Following today's edits, the citations in the Browder section still lack page numbers. These are large books, the citations should carry the page number(s) of the passage that supports the claim. Abe Froman 16:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will the sources be added? The passage is unsupported at this time. Abe Froman 18:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Sudoplatov, Pavel Anatoli, Schecter, Jerrold L., and Schecter, Leona P., Special Tasks: The Memoirs of an Unwanted Witness - A Soviet Spymaster, Little Brown, Boston (1994)
  2. ^ Klehr, Harvey (1995). The Secret World of American Communism. Yale University Press. pp. ????. ???? {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessyear=, |origmonth=, |accessmonth=, |month=, |chapterurl=, and |origdate= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

"Secret Apparatus" passage

What page numbers in refs 11 and 12 describe the allegations contained in the referenced passage? Ref 11 seems to be irrelevent, given it is 56 years old. Abe Froman 00:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will the sources be added? The passage is unsupported at this time. Abe Froman 18:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Soble Spy Ring" passage"

What page numbers in refs 14 and 15 describe the allegations contained therein? Abe Froman 00:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will the sources be added? The passage is unsupported at this time. Abe Froman 18:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Wartime Espionage" passage

Yet another ref in ref 16 that has no page number. Just an offline book. On which page does the book referenced refer to the allegations in the passage? Abe Froman 00:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will the sources be added? The passage is unsupported at this time. Abe Froman 18:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Atomic Bomb Secrets" passage

Not a single reference. What is the authority for this passage? Abe Froman 00:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will the sources be added? The passage is unsupported at this time. Abe Froman 18:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"OSS and State Department Espionage" passage

Not a single reference. What is the authority for this passage? Abe Froman 00:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will the sources be added? The passage is unsupported at this time. Abe Froman 18:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The Silvermaster Spy Ring" passage

What page numbers in refs 18, 19, and 21 refer to this alleged network? I find the claims impossible to verify. Abe Froman 00:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much of this entire article (particularly the Silvermaster section) has decayed to a McCarthy era "Stalin's agents under every bed" sort of paranoia. What appears to look like authoritative source citations are actually mutual cross citations to ALLEGATIONS, which sound plausible because they are PARTIALLY based on actual facts.

One example is the whole Elizabeth Bentley (she was the courrier for the Silvermaster Group) Occupation Currency plates thing. Her story eventually became that on direct orders from Moscow, Harry Dexter White ("the least productive member" of Whittaker Chamber's earlier group as described in Chambers' own words) turned over Currency samples—which, by Bentley's telling then were shipped to Moscow, found to be impossible to counterfit, shipped back to the States (a physical round trip of at least 4 weeks if all transportation connections worked perfectly, & totally ignoring any time for Russian currency experts to even inspect the alleged samples)—and then the actual plates were demanded... and (by Bentley's telling) White dutifully complied because he was such a Soviet automoton.

Only problem... the events (Occupation Currency printing plates were in fact turned over to the Soviets after a lengthy "public" internal debate) happened in 1944, Bentley's initial 1948 testimony said nothing of the plates, & by 1954 she richly embellished the story to "White following Moscow's orders..." Why did she not mention the 1944 events (the plates were in fact turned over to the Russians, but made good by the German treasury, not the US Treasury) in her 1948 testimony? Why was her memory "better" 10 years after the fact, but worse 4 years after the fact?

The citations from the Schecter "Sacred Secrets" book, are again, seemingly plausible on the surface. But when you read the book, often when "facts" are cited, the bibliographical reference is "Soviet Intelligence Archives." That smells to be of manufactured references.

This is the first time I've seen the Pavlov "Operation Snow" story told such that White's purpose was to place & protect Soviet sources... the telling of Pavlov's meeting with White (White was known to be trying to expand his knowledge of the China-Japanese-Soviet situation (remember that war started in 1931)) was that Pavlov (on instructions of Stalin & Beria) COMMANDED White to protect Soviet Eastern borders by provoking Japan to attack Pearl Harbor! It's certainly a great made-for-master-conspiracy-theorists image, but reality is far more mundane. By late 1941 Japanese plans to attack Pearl Harbor were well underway & clearly were not & could not have been influenced by a monetary policy wonk in the Treasury (at this point, White was influential, but had not been promoted to Assistant Secretary of Treasury... that promotion didn't happen until 1944 to help with the Bretton Woods conference). DEddy 02:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"United Nations Infiltration" passage

Not a single reference. What is the authority for this passage? Abe Froman 00:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will the sources be added? The passage is unsupported at this time. Abe Froman 18:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

What page number in Moynihan's report is referenced? The report runs into hundreds of pages. Abe Froman 00:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will the page numbers be added? The passage is unsupported at this time. Abe Froman 18:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abe, do you really believe the sections you removed are untrue, or would you agree they are probably true but lack complete sources. I don't think there is any harm in giving TDC a few more days to develop and add the refs. A lot of us have real lives to attend to from time to time. Thanks. Thatcher131 02:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problems

I have banned Ruy Lopez from editing the article for 5 days for disruptive editing, but that is just the start of the problems.

First off, while the anon may or may not have been Nobs, reverting the article was just wrong. The version reverted to is patently inferior in style alone, and while the supposed Nobs version doesn't source the Golos section very well, reverting removed 7 sources from the Silvermaster section. Next we have TDC, who is also on parole and may be blocked for reverting an article more than once per day, and has already used up his one revert for today.

Abe, try placing {{fact}} at places you want better citations for. Adding {{unreferenced}} even once to an article with 20 or more references just plain looks bad; adding it multiple times verges on disrupting wikipedia to make a point. Be selective.

Please discuss disputed information on the talk page. If version A and B are both defective, the answer is not to flip back and forth between them, but to collaborate on version C, D or E. If I read this right, one of the concerns is that the "Nobs" version takes citations for A, D, F, H, and M and weaves them into ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOP. I certainly don't know this field, but I know it is possible to fix this, and no version of the article is so good that it should be the basis for a blind reversion rather than repair. Note that Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources states "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." That means that while you might describe the contents of a Venona transcript, for example, you can not interpret it or say what it means. You must find a reliable secondary source that you can quote. If different historians have differing views about what a particular set of documents means, report them both. If no reliable secondary source agrees with your personal view of the meaning of a document, then you are out of luck.

Try and explain your concerns; that specific passages aren't cited; that specific statements are an editor's conclusion rather than reportage of third party sources; and so on. I can't say enough that reverting is bad—not only is it disrespectful of other editor's good faith efforts that are simply destoyed, it fixes in amber other mistakes and deficiencies. If there are specific problems, fix them individually, after talking about it here. If necessary, ask for a third opinion or RFC to get some more outside opinion. Thatcher131 01:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've added fact tags and explained problems with the passages in this discussion page. An issue I have with the current citations is the lack of page numbers. I do not think a proper citation should lack the page number(s) where a claim is supported. The lack of page numbers in the citations can encourage obscurantism in editing. Abe Froman 15:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So after getting your head handed to you on the FSLN article, you resort to adding 53 {{Fact}} tags in this article? This is a gross violation of POINT. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from personal attacks. The statements made about the citations are true, they are either missing, or lack page numbers. As the stakeholder in these edits, please address the concerns in the passages above. Abe Froman 15:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the time being, see how many can be easily fixed. Then you might think about whether there are one or two sources that support multiple sections, and use the cite.php method to simplify the citations. Then discuss if some can be removed. A few days won't hurt if many of these can be easily addressed. Thatcher131 15:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it stop in the 1950s?

Quick question... Why does this article finish in the 1950's? I know of a few cases of KGB agents in the FBI going right into the 1990's. Can I add that material, or there some reason why I shouldn't? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 23:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add away. Fred Bauder 22:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My research paper is on KGB activity in the U.S. from '68-'82 (while Andropov was Chairman), and so once I write it, I'll add those sourced facts. -Fsotrain09 23:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
quick answer... because it takes a lot of work and nobody is getting payed for it. Decora (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fact Tags

The fact tagged sections stood for nearly a week, then were reverted. TDC replaced them, without the requested refs. This is not how Wikipedia works. Either support the material with verifiable refs, or let it die a deserving death. This is not the place to discuss specific fact tags, see above in this talk page for the individual passages being challenged. Abe Froman 21:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You want me to come up with 53 citations in four days? Are you kidding me? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the editor who added 53 unsupported statements. Cite before you click "save". Abe Froman 21:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know just as well as I do that the bulk of the statements are supported by referenced material, and asking me to come up with 53 citations, many of them placed in bad faith, in four days is excessive. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know that, TDC. Trust, but verify. It is impossible to verify this article, given the paucity of citations. If the allegations are not cited, they are not ready for prime-time. Uncited allegations in this article are a classic case of "Ready. Fire. Aim..." Remove them until a time when they can be cited, with page numbers. Abe Froman 21:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is very petty and the definition of WP:POINT, and I assure you that if someone else weighs in on this, they will not agree with you. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not petty to point out an article contains 53 uncited claims. The citations that are included even lack page numbers. This is sloppy work. Abe Froman 21:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You use of the fact tags to disrupt the article is completely unnecessary, reeks of bad faith and is wholly inappropriate. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TDC is attacking me, which rather admits the 53 unverified claims are indeed a problem. Resorting to Ad hominem attacks will not cover up this sloppy article. Abe Froman 21:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abe, do you really believe the sections you removed are untrue, or would you agree they are probably true but lack complete sources. I don't think there is any harm in giving TDC a few more days to develop and add the refs. A lot of us have real lives to attend to from time to time. Thanks. Thatcher131 02:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This bothers me too, although I have not looked this all up. It does not grate which the history I know, although it is quite incomplete. Fred Bauder 19:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe the sweeping generalizations present in the uncited passages are true (see above to specific passage headings for the passages I am concerned about). I think they are confabulations. I would love to be proven wrong. All it takes is a citation with page numbers so the broad allegations raised in the uncited passages may be verified. Abe Froman 21:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A friend of TDC's has restored his version, sans fact tags. This is altogether too cute an omission. This talk page attests to a dispute over sourcing. Until this is resolved, unsourced material should not be readded to the article. Respond to the individual disputed passage headings above so we can actually start resolving this. Abe Froman 19:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with Truman "willfully obtuse" quote

The quote about Truman being "willfully obtuse" to Communism's dangers is referenced as coming from Moynihan. This is incorrect. The "obtuse" sentence rehashes, tendentiously I think, the work of two academics quoted in Moynihan's report. The Moynihan report does not call Truman "obtuse," that is the POV spin given by a Wikipedia editor. [3] Attributing this quote to Moynihan is incorrect because Moynihan never said it. The sentence should be removed or reworked to attribute it properly. The academics in question are Robert Louis Benson and Michael Warner, eds., VENONA: Soviet Espionage and the American Response, 1939-1957 (Washington, D.C.: National Security Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, 1996), vii-viii. Abe Froman 18:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out that reference (from fas.org). This is the seemingly relevant passage from there:
It would appear, however, that President Truman was not told. In their superb account of these events, VENONA: Soviet Espionage and the American Response, 1939-1957, published by the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency (in connection with a major October 1996 conference on VENONA), Robert Louis Benson and Michael Warner write:
Truman’s repeated denunciations of the charges against Hiss, White, and others—all of whom appear under covernames in decrypted messages translated before he left office in January 1953—suggest that Truman either was never briefed on the Venona program or did not grasp its significance. Although it seems odd that Truman might not have been told, no definitive evidence has emerged to show he was. In any event, Truman always insisted that Republicans had trumped up the loyalty issue and that wartime espionage had been insignifi-cant and well contained by American authorities.[21]
with [21] being the Benson-Warner reference, as you said. Now, as I understand (and please do correct me if I'm wrong, I'm still relatively new at wikipedia), the job of an editor is not to second-guess material published by scholars -- that would be WP:OR, would it not? That quote seems legit to me, I see no reason to suppress it, or to second-guess other editors that used it in other articles. I think perhaps the only issue, then, is to make sure the quote is given fully, and exactly as published. How about just quoting the above paragraph in full (starting "Truman's repeated..")? Turgidson 19:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was not the source. The problem was including a fanciful direct quote from Moynihan. The Venona information could be included in some way, as long as it is attributed to its actual authors. I'm not sure why this reflects badly on Truman. From the above quote, it appears Truman was not even told about Venona. Is Truman being blamed for not knowing what he wasn't told? Abe Froman 20:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From the above quote, it appears Truman was not even told about Venona. Yes, perhaps -- or he "did not grasp its significance." Not clear which, but still, a question worth mentioning, I'd say, not simply ignoring. While at it, how does your last (rhetorical) question gibe with the oft-repeated Truman quote, "The buck stops here"? Turgidson 21:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems clear to me. According to Robert Louis Benson and Michael Warner, Truman was probably not told about Venona. As far as 'bucks,' this one apparently never landed on Truman's desk. Abe Froman 21:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-part article?

There isn't an article for US espionage in the Soviet Union/Russia? Hires an editor (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality issues

This article reads like a piece of trash. The Earl Browder allegations are perhaps the finest example of what it is that merits this article a NPOV warning until this is rewritten in a neutral and objective style.

Take a look:

"One chief aim was the infiltration, placement, and subversion of American political life at all levels of society. Earl Browder, General Secretary of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA), served as an agent recruiter himself on behalf of Soviet intelligence.[5] [1]"
According to whom? Two sources? With neither one having page numbers given for the reference? I didn't realize it was customary to cite an entire book for such revealing claims.
"Browder later stated that 'by the mid-thirties, the Party was not putting its principal emphasis on recruiting members.' Left unstated was his intent to use party members for espionage work, where suitable."
Wondeful interpretation skills -- thanks for that. And no citation...
"Browder advocated the use of a United Front involving other members of the left, both to strengthen advocacy of pro-Soviet policy and to enlarge the pool of potential recruits for espionage work."
Oh, he didn't advocate the United Front to support the more progressive parts of the New Deal, gain mainstream support against fascism abroad, and get all of the left aboard during World War II? Of course not.
"One early Soviet spy ring was headed by Jacob Golos. Jake Golos (birth name Jacob Rasin or Raisen) was a Ukrainian-born Bolshevik revolutionary and Soviet secret police (NKVD) operative in the USSR. He was also a longtime senior official of the CPUSA involved in covert work and cooperation with Soviet intelligence agencies. He took over an existing network of agents and intelligence sources from Earl Browder."
Source? Is all of this from the same work? Are we too lazy to cite our material? Is it too much to be bothered to give page numbers for big-time shockers?
"Golos established a company called World Tourists with money from Earl Browder, the General Secretary."
From Browder himself? Source?
"Sometime in November 1943, Golos met in New York City with key figures of the Perlo group, a group working in several government departments and agencies in Washington, D.C. The group was already in the service of Browder."
Source?
By the end of 1936 at least four mid-level State Department officials were delivering information to Soviet intelligence: Alger Hiss, assistant to Assistant Secretary of State Francis Sayre; Julian Wadleigh, economist in the Trade Agreements Section; Laurence Duggan, Latin American division; and Noel Field, West European division.
No source. Again. Looking at the Hiss article itself, we get to learn that Hiss himself denied any involvement. As for what is now known since his death,

Although a variety of evidence has been added to the debate since his conviction, the question of Hiss's guilt or innocence remains controversial.[2]

Looking at the whole article, every other line or every other paragraph is written in this sloppy manner. Was this stuff written by a 16-year-old Cold War buff? An agenda-driven member of the John Birch Society?

Seeing how all of this was already brought up back in 2006, I strongly support simply removing this BS already to the extent that it can't be counterbalanced. When will the citations be forthcoming? 166.217.146.168 (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No mention ofJ. Peters

Why no mention of this key figure in 1930s Soviet espionage in the USA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.252.154 (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

two key figures?

network of agents and sources included two key figures at the Department of Treasury, Nathan Gregory Silvermaster and Harry Dexter White. This needs to be rewritten. White was clearly a key figure at Treasury, Silvermaster was most certainly not. White was at Treasury from 1935 until approx 1946. Silvermaster did 6 months at Treasury, July 1944 until January 1945. DEddy (talk) 02:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silvermaster's status is somewhat ambiguous; while he did work in the Treasury Dept. building, he was "on loan" from the Agricultural Dept. Silvermaster's entry states, "On 16 July 1942 the U.S. Civil Service Commission recommended "Cancel eligibilities...and bar him for the duration of the National Emergency," [4] but HDW intervened to bring him into Treasury offices without a formal transfer between departments. And the 162 volumes of FBI Silvermaster files [5] makes him a key figure. nobs (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Silvermaster was certainly a "key figure" but not at Treasury, where obviously he had at best a minor role. DEddy (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this decrypt, [6] Silvermaster is being considered by HDW to take Harold Glasser's position in Treasury. Glasser at this time was Vice-Chairman of the War Production Board, U.S. Treasury representative to the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, and Treasury representative to the Allied High Commission in Italy, and later considered to head up the Marshall Plan. Silvermaster was next in line. nobs (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
re: VENONA 18 Jan 1945. Surely you jest. You are aware that the Vassiliev notes say White told Silvermaster to pound sand here. The Vassiliev notes make it quite clear that White was never under [as they loved to say in McCarthy era] "control" by Moscow Center. http://www.documentstalk.com/wp/harry-dexter-white-in-alexander-vassilievs-notes-on-kgb-foreign-intelligence-files DEddy (talk) 03:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

split into "Soviet Union espionage in the United States" and "Russian espionage in the United States"

Although Russia is the main successor of the Soviet Union, Soviet Union is the Soviet Union, Russia is Russia, How about split this article into "Soviet Union espionage in the United States" and "Russian espionage in the United States"?--MacArthur1945 (talk) 07:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_Soviet_espionage_in_the_United_States