Talk:Alger Hiss/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

testified under subpoena

The usual phrase is "testified under oath" not "testified under subpoena" which is used in the 2nd para of this article. Could somebody with edit rights fix that? TMLutas (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If you will post an {{Edit protected}} request and provide exact wording you want to change to, I will gladly make the edit. Please be specific as to what needs to change. Thanks--Mike Cline (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

They mean two different things. "Under subpoena" means he was compelled to testify, while under oath means he was sworn to tell the truth. However, since testimony is always given under oath or affirmation, "under oath" is redundant. TFD (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The Four Deuces is correct on this point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Third edition of Weinstein's "Perjury" should be used

The article should direct readers to the most recent available edition of book sources. The third edition of "Perjury" was released this spring but the article has not been accordingly updated. As Weinstein said three months ago, "....Hiss had been identified years earlier in the memoirs of defecting Soviet agent Oleg Gordievsky using the same alias [ALES], and my research in Soviet KGB archives also turned up major new evidence on Alger Hiss’s and Whittaker Chambers’s involvement in Soviet espionage, which I describe in the new edition of my book Perjury." Article also neglects to note that a State Department investigation while Hiss was still employed at State showed that he had been requesting information on nuclear and military matters that were beyond the scope of his position.--Brian Dell (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning it. Gordievsky is btw already mentioned in the article. I do not think the information about Hiss requesting information is not new but it does not appear to be in the article. The words you have quoted appear to refer to what was presented in earlier editions of the book, although the review says that new KGB documents have been released. TFD (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

We should also include a classic reference in Alan Brinkley's "The Publisher" (biography of Henry Luce), where Whittaker Chambers is Luce's foreign editor... a dispatch arrives from Theodore White in China saying realistic things about the situation under Chiang Kai-Shek... Chambers tosses the dispatch into the trash without reading it. Queue: "Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up." DEddy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't. This is an article about Alger Hiss, not Whittaker Chambers.

CJK (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Just in case you are unaware of this, Whittaker Chambers was Alger Hiss's principal (sole?) accuser. Given that your knowledge of this overall topic appears to be confined to Chapter 1 of Spies, I deem it necessary to point out this "intersection" between Hiss & Chambers lives. Chambers's (alleged) grasp of reality is entirely relevant to an article about Hiss. DEddy (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Chiang Kai-Shek has nothing to do with Hiss.

CJK (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hiss was responsible for supporting Chiang from 1939-1944 and the loss of China to the Communists is believed to have played a role in his conviction. McCarthyists believed China was lost because of "treason" at the State Department. TFD (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

to TFD I've never heard Hiss's name associated with China, much less the (alleged) loss of China. I've never heard of Hiss being associated with The China Hands (likes of: John Paton Davies, John S. Service, & Theodore White (correspondent for TIME)). Is there a reference? DEddy (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

to CJK Chiang Kai-Shek has nothing to do with Hiss.

But Chambers has everything to do with Hiss. Are you aware of the connection? The point here is Chambers's overall grasp of reality. DEddy (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Chambers's behavior at TIME has nothing to do with Alger Hiss.

CJK (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned above, in 1939, Hiss was an assistant to Hornbeck, US State Department advisor on China. Horbeck was a fervent supporter of Chaing Kai-Shek and loathed the Japanese, who at this time were not only brutally occupying China, but also fighting in an undeclared war against the Soviet Union on the frontier of occupied Manchuria. I think it would be valuable to add this information to the article. 173.77.75.75 (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

See also, Soviet Japanese border conflicts: Neutrality Pact. Hornbeck, a fervent anti-Communist, then went on to urge an oil embargo on the Japanese. These intriguing facts have provoked a lot of speculation, including vague right-wing fantasies that Alger Hiss was somehow responsible for Pearl Harbor. One historian, Robert Whealey of Ohio University conjectured (on the Humanities and Social Sciences discussion page [22 Jul 2003] that Hiss might have passed to Chambers some papers about French air-craft aiding the Soviets in Manchuria. He states that:

n any case, I remain agonistic [sic i.e., agnostic] about the whole case. The many books hostile to Hiss, never discuss what was in the pumpkin papers. They were probably low grade intelligence hardly harmful to the State Department or Roosevelt. Japan and the USSR were fighting an undeclared war on the Manchurian frontier.

http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-hoac&month=0307&week=d&msg=zfJICAdjJ8LdssChyxAesQ&user=&pw=

In the same discussion, Sam Tanenhaus, Chambers' sympathetic biographer, admits that all this may not have harmed the National Interest of the United States (which at the time was strongly pro-China and anti-Japanese), but showed the arrogance of Hiss's and Dexter White's Popular Front "anti-fascism" in presuming to decide unilaterally what was best for our country. Tanenhaus apparently accepts that White was a spy.

(Of course its equally possible that Chambers might have stolen the notes from Hiss's apartment, as was his wont, and never sent them on to the Soviets, but rather kept them as part of his "life-preserver." Is there any evidence he sent them on? Hadn't he broken with the CPUSA at this point. Nor is it implausible that Hiss's notes would have been made at the behest of Hornbeck.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.75.75 (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC) edit 173.77.75.75 (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

What does it matter whether it was harmful or not? The documents were classified and sharing them would be an act of espionage. It is also quite a silly argument considering we don't know what exactly Hiss passed on after 1938.

Regarding the hand-written notes (separate from the re-typed documents) one referred to a telegram from Lithuania warning about a Soviet spy. That had nothing to do with the Far East, and Hiss initially denied he wrote it before it was examined by experts who concluded it was in Hiss's handwriting.

And by the way, the Soviet-Japanese border war didn't begin until after Chambers dropped out of the CPUSA in early 1938.

CJK (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Really? It was undeclared, so how does one date when it began? Wikipedia says it had been going on for many years, at least since 1937. At any rate, people other than myself have written about this, so you need to publish your own paper arguing with them. 173.77.75.75 (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The article Soviet–Japanese border conflicts makes clear that the first battle was not until 29 July 1938. Before then there were only a handful of isolated clashes.

CJK (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

At any rate, the hand-written note about Chinese purchase of French military aircraft was dated 2 March 1938. 173.77.75.75 (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

CJK, In 1939-1945, Hiss was assistant to Hornbeck, who had been head of the Far Eastern division of the State Dept. and was now chief adviser on far eastern affairs. The American Right tried to connect Hiss to China (McCarthy said Lattimer was his "boss") but of course there was no evidence at the time that Hiss was involved in espionage after 1938, and Lattimer was cleared. TFD (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Way to address a point I never disputed in the first place.

CJK (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

to CJK Way to address a point I never disputed in the first place.

How would you know that? Hornbeck is not referenced in Spies (well, at least not in the index). Are you implying you've read something beyond Spies Chapter 1? DEddy (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

"Convicted on 8-4 vote"

This is completely wrong. Conviction can only be by unanimous agreement of the jury. In actuality it was the first trial that ended in a hung jury with an 8-4 split for conviction. I tried to fix this, but the article is locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.72.159.156 (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, IP. Here is all this argument on trivia when a major fact is wrong. I hope an admin will fix that soon. Source. Source. Source. Yopienso (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If you will post an {{Edit protected}} request and provide exact wording you want to change to, I will gladly make the edit. Please be specific as to what needs to change to include sourcing. Thanks--Mike Cline (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

At both trials, a key to the prosecution case was testimony from expert witnesses stating that identifying characteristics of the typed Baltimore documents matched samples typed on a typewriter owned by the Hisses at the time of his alleged espionage work with Chambers. The prosecution also presented as evidence the typewriter itself. Given away years earlier, it had been located by defense investigators. This trial resulted in an eight-to-four deadlocked jury. "That, according to one of Hiss’s friends and lawyers, Helen Buttenweiser, was the only time that she had ever seen Alger shocked – stunned by the fact that eight of his fellow citizens did not believe him." [Ref: Halberstam, David. The Fifties, (New York: Random House, 1993), 16. Halberstam concludes that "Whether Hiss actually participated in espionage was never proved and the evidence, was at best, flawed" (14–25).]

In the second trial, Hede Massing, an Austrian-born confessed Soviet spy who was being threatened with deportation, and whom the first judge had not permitted to testify, provided some slight corroboration of Chambers's story. She recounted meeting Hiss at a party in 1935. Massing also described how Hiss had tried to recruit Noel Field, another Soviet spy at State, to switch from Massing's ring to his own. [Ref: Summers, Anthony. The Arrogance of Power: The Secret World of Richard Nixon, (Penguin-Putnam Inc., 2000), 73-77.] This time the jury found Hiss guilty. According to Anthony Summers, "Hiss spoke only two sentences in court after he had been found guilty. The first was to thank the judge. The second was to assert that one day in the future it would be disclosed how forgery by typewriter had been committed." [Ref: Summers, 71.]

Yopienso (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Done I made the edit as best I could: I obviously wasn't able to verify the sources, so if there are any problems please let me know (I'll add this page to my watchlist for a while). Also, as a side note, it would be helpful if you could actually include the wiki-markup in future requests...I had some difficulty with the references and wikilinks that were missing. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Adjwilley. I appreciate your disinterested help in improving the article.

As I said in the edit summary: "Hope this is accurate--hard to do in this format. Why don't you just block the disruptive editors and let the rest of us edit the article directly?" (You being the administration or whoever in Wikidom, not you or Mike Cline personally.) I think we don't usually insert footnotes on a talk page. I'll try one here to see what happens.

I supplied a link to an online book so you or any reader can check the ref. Here's another.

Anyway, thank you very much for fixing that major error. And thanks again to the IP who caught it. Yopienso (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I see I could have put in all the ref info--it just doesn't show up on the talk page w/o a Reflist. Live and learn. Yopienso (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Break: Unprotect?

Hmm...looking at the protection log it looks like it was protected in May 2013 for the reason "Edit warring/Content dispute" with indefinite full protection. That seems a little long for a content dispute, especially considering it had gone unprotected for years before that. I'd be willing to downgrade the protection from full to WP:Semi-protection which would allow registered users to edit it but would prevent IP editors...Does that sound good to people here? (Or would you just like me to lift the protection entirely?) @Mike Cline:..it looks like you were the protecting admin, and you've been observing the page for a while...what do you think? ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

We have some very contentious registered users arguing incessantly on the talk page. I am rather new to this article and didn't realize how long-standing this was until I took a peek into the archives the other day. It seems to me a few of them should be topic-banned so the article can be open to editing by others. Yopienso (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

While editors had argued in previous years over how to present mainstream views of Hiss' guilt, the current dispute and discussion began in April, which is when Yopiensko and I joined the conversation. Since the article was probably locked because of edit-warring mainly between two editors, both of whom continue to be active on the discussion page, semi-protection would probably not help. You can see the beginning of the current discussion on 25 April, 2013 at Talk:Alger Hiss/Archive 6#The preposterous defense of Alger Hiss. That type of confrontational approach does not help to persuade other editors to cooperate. TFD (talk) 07:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Well I guess I'm one of the two 'warring editors'. Ask me anything you want. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not see that you were wrong - the other editor had no consensus for his changes and other editors reverted him or spoke against his edits. Over at the Iraq War, CJK has no support from any editor, his edits have been reversed by six different editors and he has been blocked twice for edit-warring. So he files a report against one of them for edit-warring, and that page is now locked too.[1] Do you have any suggestions? TFD (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The best solution would obviously be for people to learn to work with each other and edit according to NPOV, consensus, etc. Letting the article languish under full protection until the end of time is less-than ideal, and goes against what Wikipedia is supposed to be (i.e. the encyclopedia that anyone can edit). Also, edit requests are somewhat tedious in my experience. I am inclined to unlock the article and then keep a close eye on what happens.

@The Four Deuces and Yopienso, I agree that semi-protection isn't great particularly since an IP editor is involved, and we don't want to put them at a disadvantage.

@CJK: do you have any opinion on the matter? You seem to be one of the most involved here on the talk page.

@all involved, if the article is unlocked, are you willing to follow WP:BRD to the letter and stay away from anything that resembles edit warring? (I personally recommend a voluntary WP:1RR). ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that I tried a solution in which I let ever word of CJK's edits stand while adding edits of my own. He refused to let a single word of my edits stand. Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Adjw, for working on this. I'm mostly devoting my time to other endeavors now. Yopienso (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

How about this

Arguments about the case and the validity of the verdict took center stage in broader debates about the Cold War, McCarthyism, and the extent of Soviet espionage in the United States. Most scholars believe Hiss was indeed guilty, a conclusion bolstered by more recent evidence. This consists of information from the top-secret Venona program regarding a Soviet asset known as "Ales", the private testimony of Hiss's friend Noel Field, and notes from documents in the sealed KGB archives which identify Hiss as a Soviet agent. Those who oppose the consensus believe the new evidence is inconclusive and continue to argue that Hiss was framed by a fake typewriter created by the FBI and/or military.

CJK (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

A typewriter is an inanimate object, and incapable of framing anyone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Insert "using" between "by" and "a" and I believe your deep concerns will be addressed.

CJK (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

That is just POV OR. The fact someone thinks evidence is inconclusive does not mean they believe an alternative explanation or even that they believe Hiss was innocent. TFD (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

First of all, this is just a re-hash of the proposal the editors rejected in the earlier :RFC and possible compromise thread. The editors have already made it clear many times that they do not believe the article should be re-written to include the alleged "consensus" statement in the lede, nor to introduce the Vassiliev notes in the lede as factually identifying Hiss as a spy in the Soviet Archives. It is not appropriate for the editor to keep lobbying other editors on these same rejected ideas over and over and over again no matter how many times they say, "no." The RFC should have settled this.

Specific to the suggested text:

"Most scholars believe Hiss was indeed guilty," No evidence suggests this is true.

""from the top-secret Venona program regarding a Soviet asset known as "Ales"," Given the disagreement on "Ales" I don't think this is appropriate.

"the private testimony of Hiss's friend Noel Field," totally inappropriate considering that Field's last word on the issue was the Hiss was innocent.

"continue to argue that Hiss was framed by a fake typewriter created by the FBI and/or military." Although the Hiss defense team suggested such a conspiracy at the time of his trial, the "continued argument" has not revolved around conspiracy. Belief in a fake typewriter conspiracy is not required to conclude that Hiss was or may have been innocent. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

No evidence suggests this is true.

You have to be kidding me.

Given the disagreement on "Ales" I don't think this is appropriate.

That Ales was a Soviet asset is not a matter of dispute.

totally inappropriate considering that Field's last word on the issue was the Hiss was innocent

Of course it was, he was repeating the party line. That's like saying "Hitler's last word was that he didn't start World War II".

Belief in a fake typewriter conspiracy is not required to conclude that Hiss was or may have been innocent.

The arguments in favor of Hiss's innocence rely upon the idea that the typewriter was a fake. That is the view stated quite clearly in this article, and no other alternative scenario has been presented.

CJK (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The 'alternative scenario' is that some people do not accept that Hiss's guilt has been conclusively proven. It may be difficult for you to understand that not everyone in the world sees things in the stark black-and-white terms that you do, but that is your problem, not ours... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Hiss's guilt was proven back in 1949-50 by linking the retyped classified documents to his typewriter. Of that there is no dispute. What the Hiss defense has argued since is that the typewriter itself was faked by government agencies. If you think I am unfairly representing their views, then so is this article which in the parts defending Hiss concentrates exclusively on the idea that the typewriter was fake. No alternative scenario is presented.

CJK (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

to CJK: Most scholars believe Hiss was indeed guilty,

You've really got to stay away from most. What is the evident for your claim? I admit it's possible I've missed something, but If you can produce more than a dozen scholars who even care about Hiss, I'd be astonished. DEddy (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

to CJK: Hiss's guilt was proven back in 1949-50 by linking the retyped classified documents to his typewriter. Of that there is no dispute. What the Hiss defense has argued since is that the typewriter itself was faked by government agencies.

If there is no dispute why has this edit war been raging for 3 months?

Are you saying it was impossible to fabricate/forge a typewriter in that day & age? I think Steve Salant's website ( http://quod.lib.umich.edu/h/hiss/ ) would dispute that. DEddy (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

No, what I am saying is that the fake typewriter conspiracy is the primary argument for justifying Hiss's innocence, in rebutting people claiming that a conspiracy is unnecessary.

CJK (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

to CJK: No, what I am saying is that the fake typewriter conspiracy is the primary argument for justifying Hiss's innocence

The McCarthy/Hoover witch hunt atmosphere had nothing to do with the perjury conviction? DEddy (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

If you have evidence you can present it.

CJK (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Just because one explanation for Hiss' innocence could be a forged typewriter does not mean that is the only possible explanation. Even if it did, you would need a source that says that. Questioning whether guilt has been proved does not require proving innocence. TFD (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

to CJK: If you have evidence you can present it.

You are saying the McCarthy/Hoover Red Scare had nothing to do with Hiss's perjury conviction? You're stating without dispute that McCarthy/Hoover simply didn't exist, and there was no such thing as unfounded accusations? I'm having a hard time processing this mental image. DEddy (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The forged typewriter is the only alternative explanation that has been presented in this article. Moreover it was advanced by no less than Hiss himself.

CJK (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

to CJK: The forged typewriter is the only alternative explanation that has been presented in this article. Moreover it was advanced by no less than Hiss himself.

Per usual, having a hard time following your logic here... you're saying the entire Hiss case rests on the typewriter & Hoover/McCarthy had nothing to do with the result of the 2nd trial?

I thought the argument was that Hiss was 100% guilty because the Vassiliev notes said so. Did I miss something? DEddy (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The defense of Hiss hinges on the idea that the typewriter was a fake.

CJK (talk) 23:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It may well have done at the time. That need not imply that everyone now uncertain as to Hiss's guilt necessarily considers the typewriter particularly significant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the fake typewriter theory only developed after Hiss was convicted. And it has remained very central since then. If the typewriter was not faked then it would be extremely difficult to argue that Hiss did not retype the documents given how they were matched up to his typewriter.

CJK (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Your original research concerning what you think might be 'difficult to argue' is of no relevance to article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

to CJK: The defense of Hiss hinges on the idea that the typewriter was a fake.

Again I will have to make an assumption from how you present your arguments. I assume you've never been on a jury? NOTHING left to a jury decision—particularly something as complex, convoluted & politically charge as the Hiss trial(s)—is decided/hinges on a single issue.

I thought Hiss's certain guilt hinged on the authenticity of the Vassiliev notes?

Actually, the fake typewriter theory only developed after Hiss was convicted. The VENONA cables (what there is of them) only became known in 1995. Since they're after-the-fact "evidence" I move they be stricken from the record. That evidence or additional arguments appears after a trial means what? I'd never heard of VENONA until 1995. If the existence of VENONA was known outside of a very tight circle of IC insiders, I would have heard about it. DEddy (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone source any argument in favor of Hiss that does not involve the typewriter being fake?

CJK (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

CJK, to question whether there is sufficient evidence is not the same as arguing in favor of Hiss. TFD (talk) 01:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

During the trials, the Hiss defense alleged that Chambers or a confederate has stolen the documents from Hiss' office and at some point made the copies using the original, and not a fake, typewriter. Joegoodfriend (talk) 03:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

But the fake typewriter theory is by far the most common among post-trial Hiss defenders.

CJK (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

CJK, are you actually incapable of understanding that it is possible to have doubts about Hiss's guilt without being a 'Hiss defender'? You certainly give that impression. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

"But the fake typewriter theory is by far the most common among post-trial Hiss defenders."

Why are you evaluating what you consider to be non-reliable sources for reference in the article? Or do you consider some "post-trial Hiss defenders" to be RS? Which ones? Joegoodfriend (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

are you actually incapable of understanding that it is possible to have doubts about Hiss's guilt without being a 'Hiss defender'?

The only people expressing "doubts" unambiguously take the side of Hiss. Much like the people expressing "doubts" about 9/11.

do you consider some "post-trial Hiss defenders" to be RS?

What I am saying is that the most prominent theory among Hiss defenders is the typewriter one. That is the only alternative theory presented in this article.

CJK (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

CJK, your obnoxious comparison between 9/11 "doubters" and those expressing doubts as to Hiss's guilt is beneath contempt. I suggest you retract it immediately, before I raise the matter at WP:ANI, as a violation of WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

to CJK: What I am saying is that the most prominent theory among Hiss defenders is the typewriter one. That is the only alternative theory presented in this article.

Ummm, this clearly may be news to you, since I doubt if it was well covered in Spies Chapter 1... have you heard of the McCarthy era? What sort of tricks Hoover's FBI was up to? DEddy (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Andy... we've been over this before. Hiss is dead.

CJK (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, ANI it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: I'm not really seeing the BLP violation...might I suggest that you write it off as an Ad-hominem or Red herring or Strawman and move on? ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

"What I am saying is that the most prominent theory among Hiss defenders is the typewriter one. That is the only alternative theory presented in this article."

Only as applies to the typed documents. Why should this be the only part of the Hiss defense mentioned? The defense against the accusation of his identity as "Ales" and the accusations of the notes are more under debate at this point in time. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Because even if there was no Ales and no notes the typed documents would still have to be explained away. Traditionally, this has been done by claiming that the FBI or military did it. CJK (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question. Why should this be the only part of the Hiss defense mentioned? Why does the lede need to talk about Hiss' defense against the documents, but not against Venona/Ales and the Vassiliev notes? This seems especially incongruous given that you aren't lobbying for the documents to be called out as evidence against Hiss in the lede, but you are lobbying for Venona/Ales and Vassiliev to be called out in the lede. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Because the typewriter and the typewritten documents were key to convicting Hiss. I mentioned that they find the other evidence to be inconclusive. However the difference is that they generally do not believe that the new evidence is completely bogus while they generally do take the view that the original evidence was bogus. CJK (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

This still makes no sense to me. You want to re-write the lede to focus on conclusions drawn from more recent evidence, but somehow the old documents are "key"? But this neither here nor there. You talk about the Hiss defense as "they". Who are "they"? Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The old documents were key originally and have been supplemented by the new evidence. I am pointing out that pro-Hiss sources generally do not believe the old evidence was genuine and view the new evidence as not proving anything. CJK (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

"I am pointing out that pro-Hiss sources generally do not believe the old evidence was genuine and view the new evidence as not proving anything." Painted yourself into a corner, haven't you? You want to pontificate on what pro-Hiss sources believe, but no matter how many times you're asked whom you're talking about, you refuse to say. Because if you did, you'd be admitting as germane to the article all the pro-Hiss sources you've repeatedly dismissed as not RS, not "notable" and/or not "scholars" (according to this policy on "scholars" you pulled out of your a-, er, made up). Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Guttenplan, Kisseloff, and Hiss's lawyer are the only three "scholarly" sources I complained about. Are you saying that those three people constitute the totality of Hiss's defenders?

CJK (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

So I get to figure out who you're citing by guessing and process of elimination? Or have I misunderstood entirely, and you want to discuss the views of pro-Hiss sources in the lede, but you consider them all unreliable and/or un-notable for wikipedia citations? Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hiss himself advanced the fake typewriter theory throughout his life. I have never said there are no pro-Hiss sources but have explained why using Guttenplan, Kisseloff, and Hiss's lawyer is not in line with Wikipedian standards. Presumably there are others besides them.

Besides, we don't need to deem, say, 9/11 conspiracy theorists as RS if we just want to discuss what they have to say.

CJK (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Unlocked

I've unlocked the article, which has been full-protected for over 2 months (very long for full-protection). I understand there is a content dispute going on, but it's not fair to other editors to indefinitely shut down editing here for that. I don't expect the discussion here on the talk page to stop, however, I do expect that any edits to the article itself will be made with the same attention to consensus and NPOV that is required for making protected edit requests. I have added the article to my watchlist, and I'll be looking for edit warring and disruptive editing, so I encourage anyone who wants to edit to first read and then follow WP:BRD. Cheers, ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hornbeck

"Hiss was the personal aide to Stanley Hornbeck, who would play an important role in the events leading to the attack on Pearl Harbor" Knowing what I now know, this sentence seems dodgy to me. The phrase "The events leading up to Pearl Harbor", especially, sounds insinuating in a vaguely sinister way (without being an actual lie). It would be better to say: "Hiss was an assistant to Stanley Hornbeck. A special adviser to Cordell Hull on Far Eastern affairs, Hornbeck was well known for taking a hard line toward Japanese aggression in China." Was he "the personal aide" to Hornbeck? Where does that phrase come from? 173.52.254.175 (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Other sources say "Hiss joined the staff of Stanley Hornbeck" even better because active verb. 173.52.254.175 (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, we'll go with Hiss was an assistant to Stanley Hornbeck, a special adviser to Cordell Hull on Far Eastern affairs. Hornbeck played an important role in pushing for the trade sanctions against Japan that would lead to the attack on Pearl Harbor.

CJK (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Your edit is unsourced. I have no objection to saying "Hiss was an assistant to Stanley Hornbeck, a special adviser to Cordell Hull on Far Eastern affairs." However your comments on Pearl Harbor are disputed, and in any case it is POV to add it. I assume you are implying that Hiss caused Pearl Harbor, and you need a source that makes this connection. On the other hand if you are not implying it then it makes no sense that it is included. TFD (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

What part about it is disputed? I am not implying Hiss caused Pearl Harbor but the fact that Hornbeck played a role is certainly notable. Most readers are probably unaware of who Hornbeck was and what he did.

CJK (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

to CJK: Most readers are probably unaware of who Hornbeck was and what he did.

I thought Harry Dexter White in Treasury was the cause of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. At least that's what Operation Snow says. (Not a single footnote in the entire book, but let's not sweat the details.) You are aware that State Department was in FDR's dog house & Morgenthau's Treasury was ascendant? DEddy (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article on the Pacific War makes no mention of Hornbeck. The war was caused by Japanese unrelenting aggression in China, not by any special action of the State Department. The entire Roosevelt administration with many (if not most) conservative Republicans soundly behind it was hugely anti-Japanese. See also Wikipedia's article on Clarie Lee Chennault:

By early 1941 the U.S. was preparing to send American planes flown by American pilots under American command, but wearing Chinese uniforms, to fight the Japanese invaders and even to bomb Japanese cities, all using the Flying Tigers, as soon as they were in place. A year before the U.S. officially entered the war, Chennault developed an ambitious plan for a sneak attack on Japanese bases. His Flying Tigers would use American bombers and American pilots, all with Chinese markings. l with Chinese markings. The U.S. military was opposed to his scheme, and kept raising obstacles, but it was adopted by top civilian officials including Henry Morganthau (the Secretary of the Treasury who financed China) and especially President Roosevelt himself, who made it a high priority to keep China alive.

Not to mention John Wayne's Flying Tigers (film), in production before the Japanese surprise Dec. 7, 1941, attack. It would be downright weird and certainly misleading to single out Hornbeck or Hiss. 173.52.254.175 (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC) 173.52.254.175 (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

CJK, it is not relevant. Consider for example, "Hiss worked for FDR, who had polio. Roosevelt, who would lead the U.S. in WW2, replaced Hoover, who was of German descent. Hoover was Commerce Secretary under Harding, who was a heavy drinker." TFD (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

To Deddy: Nobody is saying that other people didn't contribute as well.

to 173.52.254.175 By early 1941 the U.S. was preparing to send American planes flown by American pilots under American command, but wearing Chinese uniforms, to fight the Japanese invaders and even to bomb Japanese cities, all using the Flying Tigers, as soon as they were in place

Duly note another alleged "communist agent" accused by "our heroine Elizabeth Bentley" was Lauchlin Currie. FDR sent him to Chungking in Spring 1941 to assess the situation. By August 1941, Chennault had permission to recruit flyers & ground crews from US Army Air Corps training bases. Base commanders were NOT pleased. Sure sounds like the work of a dedicated communist to me, yes, sir ree Bob. DEddy (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

To IP: pretty much nobody disputes that the trade sanctions imposed by the Roosevelt administration spurred Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. Whether or not they were justified is a separate issue.

To TFD: Apples? Oranges?

CJK (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Japan has no relevance to this article unless a source says it is. TFD (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Sources indicate that Hiss worked for Hornbeck and the fact that Hornbeck pushed for the trade sanctions against Japan is necessary to inform the reader exactly what Hornbeck is best known for.

CJK (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

to CJK: Sources indicate that Hiss worked for Hornbeck and the fact that Hornbeck pushed for the trade sanctions against Japan\

So Hornbeck was doing what Hiss told him to do? Have I reached the correct conclusion?

Hiss worked for Hornbeck Is, let us say, ambiguous. Can you be more specific, please? Hiss was Hornbeck's personal aide? Hiss worked 3 levels under Hornbeck? What was the pecking order? Did Hornbeck know who Hiss was? What sort of work product did Hiss produce for Hornbeck? DEddy (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

We inform readers who Hornbeck was by saying he was an advisor on the far East. TFD (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Horace Schmahl

In the decades that followed Schmahl and his associates were to be linked to the CIA and with Richard Nixon (in footnote 62).

Unless someone can provide any proof of this, it seems natural to assume that this is just more make-believe from the Hiss defense.

CJK (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The statement is sourced. 16:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no proof provided for such an important issue?

CJK (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

to CJK: There is no proof provided for such an important issue?

And this is from the argument that Vassiliev is evidence/proof? Minimum three hops from original source—GRU > KGB > Vassiliev—is acceptable proof of "case closed?" Likely no chance of "signal loss?" Can you lead me through that reasoning again, svp? DEddy (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between indirect evidence and nonexistent evidence.

CJK (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

CJK, is there a reason you refuse to indent your comments? I noticed someone rebuked you about it on your talk page. Just put a colon in front of it, or two, or three, as the case may be. One might get the impression you didn't have much respect for your fellow editors. 173.77.96.185 (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Mary Martin cable

"One of the handwritten notes concerned a telegram from Lithuania regarding two Americans arrested in Moscow, unrelated to Hiss's duties at the State Department which concerned trade matters. Hiss initially denied writing it but expert analysis would later confirm it was in his handwriting." [Weinstein, A. Perjury, p. 247][2]

The phrasing is POV since it implies that Hiss had no valid reason for copying the memo. In fact he briefed Sayre on all cables arriving in the office, including ones unrelated to international economic agreements. It should be altered to show that it was seen by Weinstein (and whoever else drew the same conclusions) as evidence of guilt. This is all true, but there are other faults in the Weinstein account. The telegram was sent to the US Moscow embassy by someone working in the Library of Congress named Mary Martin. It was about the Robinson-Rubens affair, as Weinstein notes. Ms. Martin was the widow of one Hugh Martin, who had worked at the US Embassy in Riga, Latvia. Latvia is next door to Lithuania, which is evidently close enough for Professor Weinstein. When it arrived at the Moscow embassy, the ambassador, Loy Henderson, sent it to the State Department with a note saying that Ms. Martin was the widow of one Hugh Martin, who had been employed by the embassy in Riga for special work, presumably intelligence or spying. Until 1933, the US had no diplomatic relations with the USSR, so they probably got intelligence from agents based in Riga. The cable from Henderson reproduces the Mary Martin text without comment. He evidently thought that the State Department should investigate her. The page reference (247) is evidently to Weinstein's latest edition of "Perjury", so those of us still using the 1997 version will have to think about buying the new version.Rhosfawr (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

TFD (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

to TFD: evidence of guilt.

Wikipedia is a jury/court? DEddy (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course not. I said Weinstein said it was evidence of guilt and we may cite him on that, rather than imply it is evidence of guilt which turns the article into a case for the prosection. TFD (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Please cite a source for the claim he briefed Sayre on all cables arriving in the office, including ones unrelated to international economic agreements.

According to Perjury

According to Sayre, he did not remember discussing military information with Hiss, had little interest in such matters, and did not understand why copies of departmental cables on the Robinson-Rubens case--in which he had no interest whatsoever--had been sent to his office. On the last point Sayre told the FBI "that he was always disturbed by the Robinson cable [the Mary Martin wire transcribed by Hiss] as the handwritten note on this cable [Hiss's transcription] seemed to be of a personal nature an he could not understand why he was on the distribution list for this cable or why a note would be made on it or especially why an exact copy should be made." Sayre repeated the last point to Hiss's attorney in October 1949 in categorical terms: "he does not recall giving any specific instructions ro Alger Hiss to abstract telegrams." In a subsequent conversation with the defense lawyer, Sayre rejected Hiss's claims more explicitly, stating about the handwritten notes that "he does not recall it was Alger's duty to 'sift' cables and digest them and make oral report on [their] contents...." (p. 248)

Could all contributors please accept that the Mary Martin cable was not even remotely connected to "military information"? Rhosfawr September 30, 2013Rhosfawr (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

CJK (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Excerpt from Sayre's testimony before the grand jury:

Sayre: Yes. Only such possible explanation as I have already given, that here was this stack of cables, and it is possible that he wrote this memorandum digesting a cable which had come in, which he would feel it unnecessary for me to read in detail, and he would tell me in a few words what it was about, refreshing his mind to do so with this memorandum. I don't remember this specific memorandum, but I am giving this as a possible explanation.

Q. He would know that you were not interested in military information?

A. And therefore need not go through a long telegram.

Q. But also, would it follow that, knowing that you were not interested in military information, it would not be necessary to make such a long digest - referring to the French airplane matter, and the military point of view in Indo-China?

A. Of course, when you say I was not interested - I had to be interested in everything that pertained to developments going along, because when it came to the matters I was handling - economic and trade matters - you had to know about the military matters in order to make wise decisions; so that although it wasn't in my immediate field, it was nevertheless information which I ought to know about, so that there is that possible explanation.

This transcript is on the website The Alger Hiss Story which we are not allowed to reference, I understand, despite the fact that it is routinely referenced in all kinds of objective history books and the people behind it are all notable and not "fringe." Sayre also says that these cables were passed to all the departments in the State Department, and their contents would have been known to everyone there. They were hardly top secret information, in other words. In addition, Svetlana Cheronnaya Chervonnaya (also on her website) points out that, despite the fact that the busy Mr. Sayre and Alger Hiss himself had forgotten all about it, the Mary Martin case was written about in all the papers, including the NYTimes, and was a big deal at the time, so the State Department had to know about it. She also says that she found a State Department folder in the LOC that had many other summaries of cables in Alger Hiss's handwriting, substantiating Hiss and Sayre's version of why they came to be written. Weinstein had apparently not seen these. Weinstein's version of events is quite misleading, to say the least. As far as their being "too detailed", a lot of times it is easier to write a lot of details thatn to distill things into a succint summary. 173.77.76.58 (talk) 00:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It could be that Sayre did not know why cables about military affairs "had been sent to his office", but that has nothing to do with Hiss. The Mary Martin cable btw was not a "military" cable. In any case it is not up to us to weigh the evidence, merely to report what sources say about them. Personally, I could not understand what the cable meant, and am sure that neither Hiss nor Sayre would have either. TFD (talk) 04:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The point is that Hiss is accused of initialing, and then nefariously writing detailed notes about, a cable on a subject other than trade (which was what his job was officially concerned with); and this is seen by Weinstein and others as proof that Hiss was engaged in espionage about things outside his job description. (Never mind that the other three cables were about trade in arms to China -- FDR's "open door policy" on China, which is what (pace CKJ) Stanley Hornbeck is really most known for (aside from being Ambassador to the Netherlands), was all about TRADE WITH CHINA -- then at war with Japan). Sayre explained that even though his job did not concern military matters, he had to know something about the topic in order to make good decisions about trade. The Mary Martin affair was an international incident and a pressing concern of all divisions of the State Department which handled foreign relations. 173.77.76.58 (talk) 04:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Right-wing sources claim that Sayre had no explanation for why Hiss put his initials on the cable, insinuating that Hiss had seen and initialed something he was not meant to see. But in his grand jury testimony Sayre clearly explains it. Hiss previewed all the cables. 173.77.76.58 (talk) 06:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not "weighing the evidence", but reporting that different historians have different interpretations of events that transpired. Weinstein says Hiss and Sayre had no recollection of or explanation for the cable and that this is incriminating. Chervonnaya says that there was an explanation for the cable. She says that Walter Durranty (the gullible NY Times correspondent and stenographer for the Soviets) had written an article about the incident in the NY Times assuring readers (what he had been told by the Soviets) that Russians never never tortured people they arrested. She quotes Sayre's actual testimony in which he describes how he got copies of cables on all sorts of topics, not only trade and economics) and that because he didn't have time to read them, Hiss previewed them for him as part of his job. Naturally, since this was not what they were working on directly (trade with China, which was being attacked and needed weapons) they both subsequently forgot about it. She says there is historical evidence that all divisions of the State Department saw these cables -- they were breaking news, as it were -- and they were hardly top secret. It is the prosecution which is telling Sayre that he could not have been interested anything outside his immediate field (or ought not to have been interested), Sayre himself said "Of course, when you say I was not interested - I had to be interested in everything that pertained to developments going along, because when it came to the matters I was handling - economic and trade matters - you had to know about the military matters in order to make wise decisions; so that although it wasn't in my immediate field, it was nevertheless information which I ought to know about, so that there is that possible explanation." Weinstein omits this. The way Weinstein and co. interpret it has made some right wing historians insinuate or suggest that: Hiss because he had seen the cable and written a summary of it, he was somehow involved and therefore responsible the unjust detention and possible murder (?) of an innocent American citizen. And/Or that he had written the notes with the intention of passing them on to the Soviets. 173.52.247.168 (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

What nonsense.

Sayre also says that these cables were passed to all the departments in the State Department

"According to Sayre, he did not remember discussing military information with Hiss, had little interest in such matters, and did not understand why copies of departmental cables on the Robinson-Rubens case--in which he had no interest whatsoever--had been sent to his office. On the last point Sayre told the FBI "that he was always disturbed by the Robinson cable [the Mary Martin wire transcribed by Hiss] as the handwritten note on this cable [Hiss's transcription] seemed to be of a personal nature an he could not understand why he was on the distribution list for this cable or why a note would be made on it or especially why an exact copy should be made.""

Furthermore

"And the next month [January 1949] [Sayre] told Hiss's attorney "that the handwritten notes are too complete to be summaries which Alger would have prepared for him..." see also P. 248)

CJK (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Since Weinstein's book was written, the grand jury transcripts have been released and show a different view. Regardless we are not supposed to argue the case against Hiss, just to report it. Incidentally, why are you highlighting "to his office?" Hiss did not send the cables to Sayre's office. TFD (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

CJK Sayre's words in the newly released grand jury transcripts totally contradict what Weinstein says Sayre said. Weinstein has already been successfully sued by more than one person he quoted in his book for misreporting what they said; and Bruce Craig says Weinstein's book belongs in "the dustbin" (Britishism for "garbage pail"). You apparently believe that Hiss caused an American citizen to be "disappeared", caused Pearl Harbor, caused World War 2, caused the "loss" of China, and caused the betrayal of Poland and other central European countries! This is a bit ridiculous. Yet you accuse "the left" of harboring conspiracy theories! 17:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.83.202 (talk)

Again: what nonsense. Sayre explicitly denied that the Mary Martin telegram concerned him, explicitly denied that it was Hiss's job to write summaries for him, and said even if it was it would not have been in the form of an exact copy like Hiss wrote. Those are the facts. Your original research refusal to accept them, like your refusal to accept other evidence, is of no importance. Incidentally, the quote you provided has nothing to do with the Martin telegram which is being addressed.

CJK (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Sayre agreed with his (hostile) interlocutors that the cable did not concern him, but he then went on to say that he received cables on other matters of importance (what we would call the news of the day). CJK's idiosyncratic notion of "original research" is remarkably self serving. Or rather it serves his own RW conspiracy theories. 208.105.83.202 (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It was not the "news of the day" but private information regarding the people arrested from the widow of an American intelligence officer. Hiss had no business in making an exact copy of the Martin telegram, as confirmed by Sayre himself.

CJK (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The incident was the subject of a New York Times article. Therefore it was news. QED.208.105.83.202 (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Please cite a source that says Hiss had no business making notes on such a cable. 20:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.83.202 (talk)

The arrest was news, the information from Mary Martin was not. Sayre explicitly said that he had no idea why it would concern him and that there was no reason for a summary, let alone an exact copy, to be made. I gave the relevant quotes.

CJK (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

He did not make an exact copy, and the telegram was two sentences. He does not even mention who sent the telegram, Loy W. Henderson, the Chargé d'Affaires in Moscow. And again, Weinstein no access to the grand jury testimony. TFD (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

First, it was virtually an exact copy. Henderson's name was unnecessary, it was denoted as from "M" as in Moscow.

Second, it being two sentences should confirm that there was no valid reason to copy it.

Third, your transcript argument is just more original research.

CJK (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not original research to point out that an author writing in 1978 had no access to documents released after that date. Is there any reason why you would use an edition of a book written 35 years ago instead of the edition published last year? TFD (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't play games. You know very well that your selective use of transcripts is original research.

CJK (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It is only OR if one suggests using primary documents to argue a position, which is what you are doing at Talk:Iraq War. My point here is that your source was published before grand jury testimony became available. TFD (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Is that illegal?

CJK (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Some contributors seem to think that they have a better idea of what cables were important to Sayre than the State Department's DCR (division of communications and records). They distributed copies of cables to the persons to whom they thought they were important. They also say that Sayre was worried by the copying of the Mary Martin cable, and did not see what relevance it had to his work. Well, if he was talking to the FBI, then they wrote down what supported their preconceptions. If Sayre was unable to recall the Mary Martin cable, that was enough for them to add that he was worried about it. Professor Theoharis has told us how misleading these texts are. Finally, if Sayre was so doubtful about the procedures that Hiss described, why did the defense call him as a witness? Rhosfawr 28/08/2013Rhosfawr (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is a contemporary reference reported all over the country by UPI to the affair alluded to in the so-called "Mary Martin" cable. which is officially known as the "Robinson-Rubens affair." "Passports Mystery Will Be Put Up to Grand Jury", Schenectady Gazette, January 8, 1938".

"Rubens", was a Latvian-born Communist, who had become a naturalized American citizen in 1934 under the name of Adolph Arnold Rubens. While in NY he had been involved in a criminal passport-forging ring run out of the New York City Public library. In early December 1937 he was arrested in Moscow traveling with his wife, having entered that city with a false passport bearing the names of "Mr and Mrs. Donald Louis Robinson," It was further discovered that the couple also possessed a second set of passports issued to Mr. and Mrs. Adolph Rubens. (Traveling with false passports violated both US and Soviet laws.) The day after the disappearance of her husband, the U.S. State Department, which happened to be located next to their hotel, paid the distraught "Mrs. Robinson" a call to see if they could help. The next day, however, "Mrs. Robinson" also vanished. According to Svetlana Chervonnaya, "Rubens-Robinson" was in reality a Soviet operative whose real name was Arnold Abramovich Ikals. The Soviets now imprisoned him on a charge of spying for the Nazis (a standard charge, she says, adding that he was posthumously rehabilitated by the Soviets in 1956). It seems that in 1937-38 the US State Department (authorized issuer of passports) was having some trouble figuring out just who these people really were and why they had two sets of passports. As for the cable, Mrs. Mary Martin was the widow of Hugh Martin, an American diplomat who had been stationed in Riga in the 1920s and had died there. Mrs. Martin now worked for the Library of Congress. She decided to help out. She cabled the US Embassy in Moscow from her home in Washington, D.C., claiming that she remembered Rubens from the time when she and her husband were stationed in Riga, Latvia, 10 years earlier. Mrs. Martin turned out to be a fanatical anti-Semite and was not called to the witness stand at the Hiss trial. See also Andrew Meier, The Lost Spy: An American in Stalin's Secret Service (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2008), p. 230., which mentions the case in passing.

Allen Weinstein regards the cable as the cinching empirical evidence that Hiss was a spy. He writes that there was an article about the Robinson-Rubens affair in November 1938 entitled "The Faking of Americans: the Soviet Passport Racket", which contains the Mary Martin cable verbatim, and that Assistant Secretary of State Adolph Berle noted in a memo in 1938: "When [American Ambassador] Loy Henderson interviewed Mrs. Rubens, his report went immediately back to Moscow-- Who sent it--such came from Washington." But the article was written by Whittaker Chambers and Berle's memo was also taken from notes Berle made during his interview with Chambers. Thus, Chambers is the source of all Weinstein's evidence. According to Morton and Michael Levitt,

When one searches the voluminous Weinstein footnotes for the journal in which the Chambers article appeared, one is referred to Herbert Solow [q.v. Herbert Solow (journalist), a former Trotskyite and classmate at Columbia of Whittaker Chambers, who went to work for the Luce empire and helped Chambers get an entry there]. Tracking this reference down brings the disturbing conclusion that the Chambers article was never published but that Weinstein has come into possession of a notarized copy of material written by Solow covering some talks in 1938 with Chambers. Both Solow and his presumed literary executor, Sylvia Salmi Solow, are now dead and there the trail grows very cold indeed. --Morton Levitt and Michael Levitt, A Tissue of Lies (New York: McGraw Hill, 1979), ff. p. 318

Svetlana Chervonnaya points out that the Mary Martin cable in Chambers's possession was dated January 28, but the Soviet government did not permit the US embassy staff to interview her until early February. Thus the [Chambers/]Weinstein's account confused the date of the interview, which occurred two weeks after the cable was sent:

Eager to ascertain the couple’s identity and to learn more about the passport fraud, American diplomats requested permission to visit Mrs. Rubens. They were turned down, however, until early February. Not until February 5 would the U.S. press report that a representative of the U.S. Embassy would be allowed to visit Mrs. Ruth Marie Rubens.

On February 10, U.S. Embassy officials finally visited “Mrs. Rubens-Robinson” in Moscow’s Butyrskaya prison – and the circumstances of the visit were immediately reported in major U.S. newspapers and in a U.S. Department of State Press Release dated February 12. The news was that the Soviets “imposed a heavy censorship… on the efforts of U.S. diplomats to obtain from Mrs. Ruth Marie Rubens full details of the American woman’s arrest and detention as Soviet spy” – and that she herself had refused any assistance from American authorities. Hence, the crucial question of the nationality and identity of “Mr. Robinson-Rubens” remained open – and the U.S. Government investigation continued for many months to come.

In any event, according to Chervonnaya, the man "Rubens" whom Mrs. Martin later identified to the FBI turned out in the end to be a different Rubens.

Francis Sayre, for his part, never wavered until his death in his belief in his assistant Alger Hiss's innocence. Shortly after the trial, when psychologist Meyer Zeligs was researching his book on the case, Sayre wrote Zeligs a letter in which he declared that "no sound proof of these preposterous charges have ever been brought to me." Sayre's letter is quoted in Meyer A Zeligs's Friendship and Fratricide:An Analysis of Whittaker Chambers and Alger Hiss (New York: Viking, 1967), p. 405. 173.52.248.178 (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

In their interpretation of the wording of the Mary Martin cable at the time of the HIss trial, the FBI apparently erroneously concluded that the Robinson-Rubens couple had been American double agents, and that Rubens (Ikals) had worked undercover for the late American diplomat Hugh Martin in Riga. In fact, it was Hugh Martin's wife Mary who had worked for him there. Chambers and others also suggest the couple were dissident communists (Trotskyists) who had fallen afoul of Stalin, but if this is the case it is unclear why they would have taken the risk of traveling to Moscow, or why Ikals was subsequently rehabilitated. The February 10, 1938, interview of Mrs. Robinson/Rubens was reported on at length by the NY Times correspondent, the British-born Walter Duranty, who apparently serenely accepted Soviet assurances that the imprisoned couple were being well treated. In fact, the 10-year prison sentence was the equivalent of a death sentence. Chervonnaya thinks Ikals may have died circa 1942. In the course of trying to unravel this convoluted story, I have concluded that it should probably have its own wikipedia page.

Another interesting tidbit, reported in the Morton Levitt book, is that about this time, when Chambers was going around talking to people like Berle and Solow about communist infiltration, one of the people he buttonholed was the literary figure and Bucks County, Pa., resident Malcolm Cowley, to whom Chambers breathlessly revealed that there was a Soviet spy in the State Department and that his name was — Francis Sayres! Cowley concluded that Chambers was crazy. 173.77.14.166 (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC) 173.52.253.246 (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC) edit

NB -- According to Sam Tanenhaus and Andrew Meier, Rubens-Robinson/Ikal and his wife had been recalled to Moscow, where they were arrested, in other words, the Soviet military recalled them with the intention of purging them. These authors state that Chambers said he had known and worked with the couple in New York City. (I suppose the source for this information was Chambers himself). Has Chambers' unpublished article, that Weinstein originally omitted to note was unpublished, ever actually been published? 173.52.249.148 (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Chambers' friend Herbert Solow, the prominent dissident Communist (Trotskist) and later editor of (the self described "Capitalist Tool") Forbes, had himself authored numerous articles about the Rubin/Robinson passport forging case, in which he warned that it demonstrated that Soviet secret agents (as spies were then called) were over-running the US. Solow accused the Roosevelt administration of ignoring this peril. Herbert Solow, I believe I once read, was the person who had persuaded the 78-year-old American philosopher and humanist John Dewey to go to Mexico and interview Trotsky. The conclusion of one of Solow's articles, which is on the web, accuses the State Department, which had handled the Rubin/Robinson disappearance, of having a lot of information in its files that it did not want to make public, insinuating it was engaging in a sinister covering up. Perhaps this belief, if widespread in Trotskyist circles, was why Chambers at first named Francis Sayre to Malcolm Cowley as the big spy in the State Department -- a shot in the dark, perhaps. Only later would he settle on Alger Hiss as the prime suspect. Chambers' own article on the Rubin/Robinson incident was never published, a fact that Allen Weinstein obscured in his writings about the case. Weinstein did indicate that Chambers' writings alluded to the stolen Hiss's note to Sayre about Mary Martin's telegram that Chambers must have had in his possession. Weinstein did not say where he had read Chambers's article (it is in the Hoover Archive), perhaps confusing it with Solow's published articles about the case.

Another investigator, Steve Salent, believes that Chambers' account in Witness of his 1948 finding of the file containing the Pumpkin papers, expressed what Salent interprets as Chambers' surprise at their heaviness, since Chambers, Salant believes, had expected the envelope to contain only the purloined telegrams and not the many pages of typed documents, which Salant argues had been forged and deposited there by current and/or former US military Counterintelligence Corps agents working with Nixon. 173.52.252.7 (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC) 173.52.252.7 (talk) 05:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

In contrast to Whittaker Chambers who merely planned to do so, Herbert Solow published a series of articles about the Rubens disappearance in the Socialist Appeal, one in Partisan Review and one in The New Leader. Another article about the passport ring (it should not be called "the Mary Martin affair", since she was a very peripheral, incidental figure, who turned out to be quite mad) appeared in the American Mercury under the title "Stalin's American Passport Mill". (The full title is "Remember the Rubens-Robinson Affair? They were only part of Stalin's American Passport Mill.") In the article Solow hypothesizes that "Rubens" might have been a "desperate anti-Soviet agent" and he speculates (with no evidence whatsoever) that Stalin had recalled Rubens and his wife with the attention of having them confess at a "new Moscow trial". See Alan Wald, The New York Intellectuals: The Rise and Decline of the Anti-Stalinist Left (University of North Carolina Press, 1987), p. 149. Solow ends his article this way:

The Department of Justice apparently has not delved into the question of the passport-makers’ political affiliations. The State Department has conducted a fuller investigation and is in possession of rich data concerning Communist Party connections with Stalin’s passport mill. For diplomatic reasons, presumably these data gather dust in the files of the State Department building in Washington.—Herbert Solow, "Stalin's American Passport Mill, The American Mercury (July, 1939), p. 309.

Potential Possible Compromise Wording?

Some historians state (but not all agree) he passed secret information to the Soviet Union

Is this possible? DEddy (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

If you can't acknowledge, even at this point, that there is a consensus/majority against Hiss (as proven by Collect, Yopienso, and myself repeatedly) then there is little hope.

CJK (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

to CJK: there is a consensus/majority against Hiss (as proven by Collect, Yopienso, and myself repeatedly

Fascinating way of counting.

Is this a NO?

A consensus of two people (from this list?)? Your vote doesn't count since you've only read one chapter in one book (at least you've never acknowledged or demonstrated anything more substantial) and you're clearly not an historian. Or have you always been advocating that the "consensus" is the people who comment on this talk page? What happened to the consensus of professional historians? I could easily claim "historian" credentials, I just don't choose to wave the published or Wikipedia references, since you're just going to retreat to your one chapter one book position.

From memory, a single valid historian made a fleeting appearance here & you soundly, instantly rejected their credentials. DEddy (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, a fascinating notion of what constitutes historical proof. 173.77.96.185 (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

173.77.96.185 fascinating notion of what constitutes historical proof

Quite.

Please to indulge what may appear to be a little rant. I believe it's on topic. YMMV.

Comment: Appallingly late in my life I stumbled into what for me was a significant observation... just because someone can write well & lucidly about a topic does not mean they actually know anything about the topic. It could just mean they're a good listener & can write well. There are obviously plenty of readers who never learn this. If it was written in a newspaper or book, clearly it can't be untrue or a flat out lie? There are clearly some people who are aware of this (write well, jumbled ideas) human foible & take advantage of it.

Example#1: I recently read the trash book "Operation Snow." Some accurate facts, lots of heavy political spin. A good portion of the writing was engaging (not great, but engaging)... however there was not a single footnote in the book. Suspicious. Author claims he didn't want to "burden" the reader. Burden with what? Thinking? Given it's allegedly a history book, this is not a positive. Bibliography on the surface looked impressive (but having written a history thesis, I know what games & shortcuts can be taken with a bibliography... lemme see... do I want to spend 4 months actually reading these 20 books, distill the notes or do I just want to list them in the bibliography & sprinkle an occasional footnote around? Horns of a dilemma.) What's worse, at one point the author quoted someone I knew. There was no bibliographic reference for this person!

Example#2: the Schecter book "Sacred Secrets"... granted he was a TIME magazine editor (Moscow station chief no less), so what is to be expected. Book is about how the Soviet bear/KGB has viciously & continually raped little ol' America up & down. One particular chapter I remember has 54 footnotes, 11 of which are precisely & entirely this: Soviet Intelligence Archives. Huh? This is a footnote/reference? What should I expect, the guy's from the Henry Luce/Whittaker Chambers school of "creative" journalism. "Tell the sheep what I want them to think, not what actually happened."

Example#3: One passage in Spies describes a 1944 meeting with a Russian "operative" (what precisely is the meaning of "operative" here... unclear, but the implications are ominous) (no question it happened, precisely who said what to whom is less clear), and then backs up the perfidy of the American's alleged espionage by referencing (in a footnote) a 1950s event in the Soviet Union. Again, huh? This American is able to accurately predict the future 10 years ahead? I certainly know American KGB "agents" are good, but correctly predicting the future? I cannot recall ever having seen such a blatantly spun FOOTNOTE! Truly gives fresh meaning to: "The devil's in the details." DEddy (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

When "proof "= repeating the same thing over and over: "there is a consensus", "there is a consensus". In the words of Dr. Johnson, Sir, a man might write such stuff for ever, if he would abandon his mind to it (Samuel Johnson, quoted in James Boswell Life of Johnson [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989], p. 1207). 173.77.14.38 (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

DEddy - yes, I'll endorse this compromise wording. Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The consensus has been demonstrated over and over again, as any read through the archives will show. Even Hiss supporters like Chervonnaya admit most historians think Hiss did it. The problem is your refusal to accept it.

CJK (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

to CJK: The consensus has been demonstrated over and over again. Even Hiss supporters like Chervonnaya admit most historians think Hiss did it. The problem is your refusal to accept it.

In your eyes, no doubt. But you've only read one chapter in one book (or at least that's all you'll admit to). Trust me, I've read far more books & done far more research on this greater topic than you have. Just my past five years electronic library (not same as physical 50+ year library) shows approximately 150 books in Cold War & History (tremendous overlap here). So what's on your book shelf? The complete H&K collection?

Maybe we're reading from different dictionaries, you're using the JEH edition & I'm using the OAD?... "think" is a consensus? I know this is a silly question, but can you provide a URL/reference into her site, please? I thought Wikipedia didn't accept Chervonnaya as a RS since she's: Russian (clearly untrustworthy), not a formally published author (as is Ann Coulter), and her website is "self-published" (unlike Regnery press). Are we switching sides here?

It's still not clear—yet again a direct question & surprise, surprise obviously expecting no answer—who is the "consensus" here? Historians or folks on this highly informal chat thread, of unknown provenance & knowledge?

I think I might be willing to agree with you that the Hiss case appears to be leaning towards his having not been entirely straight up in his positions. Certainly there's no "consensus." But then look at the times—McCarthy era—and his accusers, Hoover & Chambers... an upstanding duo if there ever were one. But I've seen absolutely nothing in these discussions that supports the Spies flat declaration of "case closed." The Vassiliev notes are far too dodgy to reach such a definitive conclusion. I've read H&K stuff (definitely in the dodgy/political spin bucket, watched Vassiliev's discussion at Wilson center, but it's highly unlikely I'll read 1,100 pages of highly questionable notes from such a "source." What's "closed" is the Soviet intelligence archives.

From what you've argued, one guy with seriously questionable credentials provides "evidence" (just how did Vassiliev get those notebooks out of the SVR archives?... yet another unanswered question) used in one chapter in one book & declare Hiss 100% guilty. You'll have to do better than that.

The major issue here is that Hiss was a minor, minor character in a backwater department (FDR didn't like State Department's anti-Soviet position on Lend-Lease, so he went around State), so why all the yelling & shouting? The Republicans, led by Hoover & McCarthy were delighted to have someone's neck in the noose post WWII. And it looks like Republicans are poised to play the same card today with the NSA/Snowden flap... "Obama's getting soft on national security." What ultimately unfolds is that Democrats will be driven farther to the right than the already obstructionist Republicans. Hiss was a New Dealer & that was plenty enough for many Republicans—who were hopping mad since they'd been significantly out of power for 20 years—in that era to label Hiss & many others as "communists" (with typically neither definition or evidence as to precisely what a "communist" actually was). Here we are, 60 years later, squabbling like Constantinople vs Rome over totally inconsequential issues like which three fingers one uses to give sign of the Cross. DEddy (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with what I said?

CJK (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

to CJK: What does any of this have to do with what I said?

Since your alleged—certainly never refuted nor denied—knowledge about the Hiss affair is a single chapter in a single book I'm just trying to determine what you have said... other than Hiss is 100% totally, absolutely, irrefutably, unquestionably guilty. Isn't that what you've said from day one? I'm just having trouble groking such a narrow base of knowledge on such a complex topic. DEddy (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

We are talking about the consensus against Hiss. That has nothing to do with my "knowledge", Haynes, or Hiss being 100% guilty.

CJK (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

to CJK We are talking about the consensus against Hiss.

Ok, so that's finally cleared up. You have no knowledge of this Hiss issue. You've just found a "consensus." Please produce suitable references.

What consensus? Who is being "polled" or asked their opinion? The dozen posters on this talk list? That single NYTimes article? Verifiable professional historians? Professional historians who actually know something about the McCarthy era & Hiss? People/sources—not necessarily accepted by you as RS? Ann Coulter, Stan Evans & Diane Wild? One chapter, one book? Precisely who/where is this consensus you have found? (I feel like George Clooney putting the screws to the Blue Suiters in "Good Night & Good Luck.")

I'll certainly concede (for now) that it may appear that things seem to be tilting against Hiss. (Do you detect a serious waffle there?) But this sort of "consensus" has seesawed back & for over 60 years. Typewriter, VENONA, Ales, can't remember all the passionate hand waving & break through revelations. Vassiliev is just a tantalizing footnote so far until his stuff is seriously vetted, which is likely not in the offing from the Russian (SVR) side, which is the only one that counts at this point. DEddy (talk) 00:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

CJK, I find it interesting that your two arguments on Wikipedia are that although we now know Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction (Iraq War), that was the only possible conclusion based on the evidence, and that there is no doubt Hiss was guilty because that is the only possible conclusion based on the evidence. Do you not think that since you were wrong before, with iron-clad evidence that Hans Blix, the Democrats, the French and everyone else found persuasive, you could be wrong now? TFD (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Deddy, a large number of sources were presented and are now archived. Do you want me to fish these out and present them to you one by one?

TFD, your comments, even if they were not comparing apples and oranges, are of no relevance whatsoever.

CJK (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Haynes and Klehr have written in their many previous books that for thirty years there was a liberal consensus (conspiracy) to whitewash communist influence in the New Deal and to present the victims of blacklisting in a heroic light. It is true that when Venona came to light bolstered by Vassiliev's research, it became clear that there were Communists in the federal government during the war taking orders from Moscow, and such infiltration was not a trivial problem. Historians such as Ellen Schrecker have handsomely acknowledged as much. Now Haynes and Klehr are trying to spin that into a consensus vindicating their view that the victims of McCarthyism got what they deserved. For myself, I would like to see Wiki's article about Alger Hiss make it clear to the layman what the issues are, without taking a stand one way or the other, casting more light than heat. That would be a real service to the public, given the labyrinthine arguments surrounding the case. 71.190.37.21 (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

to: 71.190.37.21 Now Haynes and Klehr are trying to spin that into a consensus vindicating their around their view, that the victims of McCarthyism got what they deserved.

Well said.

The talent lost to the McCarthy purges is inestimable.

it became clear that there were Communists in the federal government during the war taking orders from Moscow

But at what level did the folks "taking orders" work? This stuff that Hopkins, Currie & White were "under orders from Moscow" & Hiss was a "high level official" is largely nonsense. Also there's the little issue that so far the story for the past 60 years has been told entirely from our point of view. Has anyone ever seen a reputable analysis of what the Soviets actually GOT from all those espionage efforts? What are the visible actions/consequences at the other end of that VENONA chatter? Let us not forget that our country was to a certain extent founded on industrial espionage, so we can claim neither ignorance nor innocence.

This was Washington. Then as now, the name of the game is information, however you can get it to advance your position or your boss's. You give me something, I'll give you something. The serious competition isn't the Soviets or terrorists, it's that agency across town that's poaching on MY turf & budget. As far as I remember the only discussion of cash changing hands (Hiss giving away a clapped out car?) was the 3 rugs Chambers handed out. Where's the motivation? Where's the conversion to communism? A communist in that day & age was primarily someone Hoover or McCarthy didn't like & they could beat up on to enhance their images as "true patriots."

such infiltration was not a trivial problem.

Based on what? It didn't seem to bother Hoover. The espionage allegations invariably focus on Washington, right under Hoover's nose. Maybe he thought Silvermaster, Chambers & Bentley were working for the Mafia? The China Hands "loosing China?" The world is always a seriously messed up place. What significant advantages did Russia get from us? Once again, the bomb doesn't count since it was never our secret. White's Keynesian capitalism? I'd love to see how Marxist economics translated capitalism to their economists.

Please to remember in WWII the Russians contributed 50 to 60 dead to our 1. To what extent an unstated "deal" was made between the allies I've never seen analyzed. But the reality of the situation must have been known to FDR & Churchill: bleed the Germans in Russia while we get our war machine spun up. Remember we didn't seriously get into the war until November 1942 in a very small way in North Africa. Russia had already been in the war for 18 months. Stalingrad was just about to unfold & the tides finally turn. That WWII was coming certainly was not news. Keynes called that in 1919 at Versailles. Read: Economic Consequences of the Peace. WHY do you think White & Keynes were the principals at Bretton Woods? To go belly up to the Russians? Show me the connections please.

The greater historical issue is that due to the vast amount of smoke around the post WWII/Cold War era ("Reds under every bed"), lots of people believe there is substance & therefore likely fire. Again nonsense. The reality is, as Ike warned with his "beware the military-industrial complex" exit speech, we're armed to the teeth paranoid as hell & spoiling for a fight at the slightest twitch. At what cost? DEddy (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, the Communists really did take over "front" groups, working in teams. The Trotskyites do this, too. So does the Mafia. It also occurs in academia. The controversy really is over how much harm they did, if any. Or good, for that matter, in the fight for labor and racial equality. I was only reporting what Ellen Schrecker had said, which gave such great joy to the heart of John E Haynes, & co. Personally, the vicious infighting and constant personal attacks among Marxists of all stripes I find distasteful. As far as espionage, the British were spying on us up the ying yang and also engaging in counter-espionage hanky panky, before and during the war (forging typewriters, for example, by their own admission). In fact, they arguably taught us a thing or two after the war began. Were they spying on us with the consent of the Roosevelt government? Things were different than they are now. One thing. Martin Dies was convinced before the war began that the New Deal was riddled with Communists. What got the goat of Southerners like him was FDR's labor act instituting the eight-hour day (1939?)-- clearly a Communist plot. Trotsky, too had become convinced that Stalin posed a greater danger than anything, including Fascism, segregation, and debt peonage. He was willing to make an alliance with Dies from Mexico and volunteered to come and testify before Dies' committee before he was assassinated. He was only stopped by the knowledge that if he left Mexico he might not be able to get back in. 71.190.37.21 (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Now Haynes and Klehr are trying to spin that into a consensus vindicating their around their view, that the victims of McCarthyism got what they deserved.

Of course, this just more nonsense. Haynes and Klehr have said no such thing.

Deddy, the issue of espionage is significant primarily because liberals first tolerated, then tried to cover up the reality Communist infiltration. Rather than acknowledge that McCarthy & co. had a few legitimate points, they simply entered into full-fledged denial mode at least up until the Venona transcripts were released. The defense of Hiss is a continuation of said denialism.

The reality is, as Ike warned with his "beware the military-industrial complex" exit speech, we're armed to the teeth paranoid as hell & spoiling for a fight at the slightest twitch.

It seems to me that if this your concern you should be more outraged by FDR's unprovoked military/economic aggression against Germany and Japan which killed 292,000 Americans and started said military complex, not McCarthyism.

CJK (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

FDR's unprovoked military/economic aggression against Germany and Japan which killed 292,000 Americans and started said military complex, not McCarthyism.

Whoo, boy!! FRINGE????? Anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.37.21 (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not fringe to note that FDR goaded Germany and Japan into war against the U.S. It is widely acknowledged that he wanted to go to war from the very beginning and lied to the American people about a threat he knew didn't exist. For example. claiming he had a map that showed that the Germans wanted to divide Latin America into five vassal states and abolish all world religions. [3] Really puts the Bush WMD outrage in perspective.

CJK (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Not FRINGE if your name is Pat Buchanan. 71.190.37.21 (talk) 00:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

to CJK: you should be more outraged by FDR's unprovoked military/economic aggression against Germany and Japan

I'm moving to Area 51.

I know this is a really, really silly question, but WHERE do you get this stuff? Seances with Lindberg & Joe Kennedy? I'd consider buying the book that makes that allegation... with supporting facts, of course. My humor shelf is pretty thin. DEddy (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Um, the history books? FDR ordered U.S. warships to escort British convoys and attack German U-boats in violation of international law. His support of Britain was key in sabotaging the possibility of peace Hitler personally offered in 1940, and it was blindingly obvious to everyone that he doing everything he could think of to justify attacking Germany. He also imposed a trade embargo (in collusion with the British and Dutch) to strangle Japan, while rejecting any negotiated solution that did not involve total surrender on the part of Japan. All this time, there was no evidence that Germany or Japan posed the slightest threat to the U.S.

Any country, including the U.S., would regard those acts as legitimate grounds for war.

CJK (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Gee, I thought CJK thought Alger Hiss personally caused the war with Japan (and Germany, those pesky anti-fascists). 71.190.37.21 (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

to CJK: FDR ordered U.S. warships to escort British convoys and attack German U-boats in violation of international law. His support of Britain was key in sabotaging the possibility of peace Hitler personally offered in 1940

#1 - Hitler's personal peace offer? Yet another class I evidently slept through. FDR turned that down because Stalin—via Chambers via Hiss of course—instructed FDR to do so? I think I'm getting the picture now.

#2 - Ummmmm... errrrrr... ahhhhh.... I was asking for references, please. RS—reliable sources as they say here. That is to say WHAT history books?

#3 - What happened to Munich, Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, the Low Countries, & the Blitz? Was I smoking baked banana peels in that class?

#4 - Please, please, please... I really would like to see the book(s) that document & support your allegations.

#5 - <redacted> DEddy (talk) 11:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Lebensraum. Inquiring minds would like to know how Hiss/FDR provoked the Nazi invasion of Poland? Not to speak of peace-loving Japan's invasions of Manchuria and Nanking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.37.21 (talk) 12:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Nobody said that Hiss or FDR provoked the invasion of Poland (which was of no importance to U.S. security interests). The point is that liberals and Communists both pushed for a war that killed 300,000 Americans and millions of Germans and Japanese. Anybody who opposed entering it and supported a negotiated peace was smeared as fascist fifth columnist. That was infinitely worse than anything McCarthy, Hoover, or Nixon did, and pretending otherwise involves breathtaking hypocrisy.

Given the dubious alliance between liberals and Communists in the 1930s and 1940s (unlike the nonexistent alliance between conservatives and fascists dreamed up by warmongering liberals) it seems reasonable to ask to what extent the liberals opened themselves up to manipulation by the Communists. Instead of dealing with this issue honestly and forthrightly you (and others) engage in denialism with regards to Hiss (and others). That only proves there must be something to hide.

I didn't meant to turn this into a debate forum, but you insist on going off topic so many times it really leaves me with no choice.

CJK (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I see, so the persecution of Hiss andthe McCarthyism that followed, were payback for the character assassination of upstanding, patriotic isolationists like Charles Lindberg and others whose careers were destroyed (not). OK when done to liberals but not OK when done to conservatives. 71.190.37.21 (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

to CJK: I didn't meant to turn this into a debate forum, but you insist on going off topic so many times it really leaves me with no choice.

Tad late for that. You led with: "Hiss is 100% guilty because H & K & V say so in Chapter One of Spies since there is consensus amongst historians.

I & others have repeatedly asked you for references for your increasingly wide ranging & quite imaginative allegations & so far you stick—quite doggedly I might observe—to your One Chapter, One Book position. Very much reminds me of Nixon's fundamental philosophy: When you tell a lie, tell a big one & stick to it. Could, of course be equally applied to either Hiss or Chambers—although I believe the book on Chambers is that he couldn't tell the same story twice without injecting yet more convincing sounding "details." Looks very much like we'll never know, since at least in some circles H&K&V have more opened the case than closed it. As always YMMV.

Wait a minute. Yesterday it was 292,000 American dead. Today it's 300,000. I quote 400,000 from the dedication of the WWII memorial on the Mall a few years back. You're not making this stuff up as you go are you? I'd be sore disappointed if I thought you were just winging it these past 3 months. DEddy (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Sources wholly apart from Haynes agree there is a consensus, and these sources have already been presented multiple times. For example, Chervonnaya, who is pro-Hiss says "most historians have conceded the argument to Weinstein". [4]

292,000 is the number killed in battle, 405,000 the total dead from all causes.

CJK (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

John Haynes complained that for thirty years Cold War scholars published books and papers that in Haynes's opinion idealized the activities of American Communists in the Popular Front in the 1930s and denied the evil deeds of Stalin. Since the revelation of Venona, Ellen Schrecker (presumably one of those excoriated by Haynes) publicly changed her mind about the guilt of the Rosenbergs and the prevalence of espionage. She and several others also made informal comments acknowledging the possible guilt of Hiss. It is misleading, however, to suggest that these comments are the equivalent of a notable rise in the incidence of papers in journals making reasoned arguments that HIss was guilty (which would be a consensus of historians). What you have is the same people (Weinstein, Haynes, Klehr, and so on), making the same arguments they always have, along with an absence of papers (due to absence of evidence) from other scholars. Thus, it is premature to suggest there is a consensus of opinion about Hiss's guilt. I think it would be fair to say that the weight of evidence from Vassiliev's notes seems to point tilt the scales in that direction. But the evidence from Vassiliev's notes (like that from Venona) remains incomplete and inconclusive. 173.77.14.38 (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

evidence from Vassiliev's notes (like that from Venona) remains incomplete and inconclusive.

Strongest agreement on the inconclusive. DEddy (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, you could also say that the "weight of the evidence" seems to tilt that way by design because that was the intention or prejudgment of (POV, of which there is ample evidence) of those who compiled it. They were hardly neutral. It is also incomplete because there is no way to know what Vassiliev might have left out or didn't see. 173.77.14.38 (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I dimly remember a piece describing how people reading sensitive materials had to work in open rooms where many people could see what they were doing. Image of the "librarian" peering down from 2nd balcony with opera glasses has always stuck with me. Copying long passages from what was being read would quickly be noticed. Snowden wouldn't have gotten an inch if this sort of security were in place. I remember Vassiliev had to leave his notebooks when he left. Image of full strip search when leaving for the day... Never have seen how he actually got them out. Kept an additional copy at home, written from memory? Dubious. Never have heard anything about how Vassiliev ultimately did get the notebooks out of KGB archives. Do you know? Regardless... plenty of wiggle room.. GRU to KGB to Vassiliev... for let us say "preferential spin" to be injected into the process. DEddy (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, Vassiliev went in under the terms of an agreement promising that the US would reciprocally open its archives, but the US failed to live up to its promise (or perhaps never intended to). Who knows what treatment or access Vassiliev received at first. Maybe he was not subject to strip searches. Maybe he had collaborators who helped him. But even if he was entirely in good faith and on the up and up and did it all himself, there was still plenty of room for "preferential spin". Preferential, prosecutorial spin is what Weinstein, Haynes and Klehr deal in and have dealt in from the get go. 173.77.14.38 (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

DEddy - yes, I'll endorse this compromise wording on Vassiliev/Venona. Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Given the lack of scholars who agree with your conspiratorial interpretation of the notes, the callous dismissal of Vassiliev is utterly inappropriate.

CJK (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Conspiratorial? "callous dismissal"? How so? It is Haynes and co. who always alleged that there was an liberal academic conspiracy to ignore their POV. Vassiliev just got caught in the middle of a business deal. He even ended up suing threatening to sue Weinstein, as I recall. 173.77.14.38 (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC) 173.77.14.38 (talk) 00:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC) But let us not be callous toward Vassiliev, poor thing!