Talk:Soviet influence on the peace movement

Unreliable sources

Article is only referenced using an old essay hosted at a conservative website. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I added a ref to a book; there are many more. The title seems to be debatable. May be "Soviet sponsorship of peace movements" or something else?Biophys (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I have put in a link to an article in the New York Times from 1982, though it amounts to little: people under investigation for receiving money, but results of the investigation not stated, or Soviet grants made to insignificant groups and known Soviet fronts. An article about the Soviet Peace Committee might be more useful in an encyclopaedia than relaying right-wing conspiracy theories about peace movements in western Europe and the USA. Marshall46 (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Relevance

The paragraph beginning with "With the election of Ronald Reagan..." is a bit unclear and of questionable relevance. Were the peace movement organizations listed in it Soviet run or Soviet funded? If so then that should be stated explicitly and referenced. If not, it should probably be replaced by a general statement(s) that there was a peace movement and that a portion, but not all of it, was Soviet funded. Right now it's hard to tell what the purpose of this paragraph in the over article is.radek (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence for any Soviet funding as the article stands, except for claims made by Soviet spy defectors working with the American intelligence services or conservative-run think-tanks. The claims here are exclusively theirs; the sole book included as a reference in this article – Peter Earley's Comrade J – is a biography of one defectors. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about that particular section. It's completely irrelevant - it only shows that a broader peace movement existed. So why was it re-inserted? Your complaints are of a different kind. Gonna remove the section again.radek (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think one possibility of dealing with your contentions is to clearly attribute the relevant text to the defectors - which is what the article does. To go beyond that I guess it's possible - until other non-defector sources can be found to back it up - to change the wording to something like "it is claimed by some former KGB agents and some think tank in US that..."radek (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The one paragraph of general information provides the mainstream context for the (excruciatingly) marginal accusations levelled against the US peace activists. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

<-- Maybe, sort of, not really. If you want to include a paragraph about the broader peace movement and how a lot, maybe most, of it was not Soviet-sponsored then that's fine (include sources). But as it stands the paragraph is pretty much off topic and not written in a way that fits in with the article. Besides the fact that it's not good to keep material inserted by a banned user. So rewrite or remove.radek (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• So what? Anyone can add more sourced content on whatever side of the dispute and improve the article. Fix it.Biophys (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the offending paragraph. It was not relevant and did not claim that the very big peace protests of the 1980s were run by the Soviets, but it was probably included because an editor wished to imply that they were. As far as the UK is concerned, a major player in the peace demonstrations in the early 'eighties was END, European Nuclear Disarmament, set up precisely because its founders (including E.P.Thompson) considered that established peace organisations like the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) concentrated on opposition to American nuclear weapons and were soft on Russian ones.

It has been claimed for fifty years that CND is communist-run. The facts seem to be as follows.

• 1. When it was formed in 1957, the Communist Party of Great Britain opposed it. It is claimed that left-wing Labour MP Aneurin Bevan was persuaded in 1956 to drop his opposition to British nuclear weapons by none other than Nikita Khrushchev on the grounds that a UK deterrent was a counterbalance to the US deterrent.

• 2. Very soon after, the Communists changed their policy and became active in CND, and they have been active in it ever since. Communists have rarely managed to control CND because the countervailing ideologies within it have been too strong. However, they have managed to do so three times. Its chairman from 1971-77, John Cox, is a Communist. Its General Secretary from 1990-94 was Gary Lefley, also a Communist. He was sacked because of his support for nuclear weapons in communist countries. Its current chair, Kate Hudson, is also a communist. It should be said that communists have taken control of CND in periods when its membership is low and when it has little support in the country. In 1999 there were revelations that a member of CND's ruling council, Vic Allen, had spied on CND for the Stasi, but CND activists say that his Stalinist rants on the council were a standing joke in CND and that he was without influence.

• 3. From the late 1960s until the mid-1970s, MI5 designated CND as subversive by virtue of its being "communist controlled". From the late 1970s, it was downgraded to "communist-penetrated". MI5 says it has no current investigations in this area.

Marshall46 (talk) 08:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Given the level of cold war paranoia and the fact that MI5 wouldnt have approved of CND's disarmament message anyway it could possibly be argued that MI5’s assessment of the level of communist infiltration at CND might have been a tad exaggerated ? 86.112.254.193 (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Given that there are significant differences, would you say that there are similarities between the the statement that because a person of the professed belief in Communism was the head of CND, that CND was communist controlled between 71-77, and the fact that because a former actor held the highest office in America, that America was Hollywood-controlled between 81-88? Or that because a former CIA director held the highest office in America, that America was CIA-controlled between 89-92? Anarchangel (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

POV

Im suprised nobody has tagged this article for POV or weasel words. Even the title is pretty loaded. The allegation that peace movements in the West were run by soviet agents. Was (and still is) a common charge levelled by critics of these movements and occasionally there may even have been a small grain of truth there (as in some degree of infiltration or funding from questionable sources) but to infer that such movements were by and large run by the Soviet government is a controversial suggestion to say the least. As for the Nuclear winter hypothises being a forgery by the Soviet academy of sciences there was a lot of support from western scientists (along with evidence from large volcanic eruptions) for the notion that a large scale nuclear conflict would have some medium term effect on global climate. Such concerns were even raised during the late 1990's India/Pakistan standoff. 86.112.236.189 (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have tagged it. I agree that it is highly tendentious. At best it ought to be inserted as a section in the relevant article about the modern peace movement, along the lines of, "It has been claimed by opponents of these peace movements that some were created and funded by the Soviet Union. The evidence they put forward for this claim is ..." When this is done it ought to be listed in Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. Marshall46 (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on removing it. The anti-war and peace movement articles are pretty big as they are, and I think this merits a new article.

But I would agree on a name change. Communist support and Soviet influence is not always the same thing as being controlled by them. A name change would broaden the scope of the article.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually the claims that these peace movements were created and funded by the Soviet Union came not from opponents, but from Soviet defectors Stanislav Lunev, Oleg Kalugin and Sergei Tretyakov, would they be considered opponents of these movements? --Martintg (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont see why not and Lunev for one has made some pretty wild claims regarding "suitcase bombs" and "Molniya traps". 86.112.254.193 (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It was totally inappropriate to removed the tag considering there is ongoing discussion here about this. Dlabtot (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to keep the tag; the discussion is stale and the arguments above are hardly solid. What weasel words remain? What POV is unduly represented? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well since we are currently, as in right now, discussing it, labeling the discussion stale is rather ludicrous. Why don't you try participating in the discussion below? I'm not going to repeat what was already said. The entire article unduly represents a POV that is not collaborated by sources. Dlabtot (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Dubious tag

I've replaced the "dubious" tag within the text with references to Pete Earley's book "Comrade J: The Untold Secrets of Russia's Master Spy in America After the End of the Cold War". This book was reviewed by the historian Nigel West in the International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence, Volume 21, Issue 4 December 2008 , pages 793 - 796, titled “The New Kind of Russian Defector”. According to West, the SVR defector Tretyakov waived any royalties from the book and claims he is a man of principle. In conclusion the only issue he had with the book was to say the "author Pete Earley is guilty of a major irritant— failure to provide an index, thereby reducing the utility of his otherwise fine volume". So the book's claims seem reasonable enough to remove the tags. --Martintg (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Name

How about Soviet-influenced peace movements in the West? I don't think that the word "run" is the best here; many movements were influenced by Soviet agents and propaganda, but were they completely run by them? And "Europe and the United States" equals the West (which includes Canada, Australia and New Zeland - which I am sure were also affected by this problem). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Would be an improvment although I can imagine some people would still take issue with it ? 86.112.254.193 (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The title "Soviet-run peace movements in Western Europe and the United States" indicates that the article is about at least one named peace movement that was run, directed or controlled in some meaningful sense by the Soviet Union or another communist country. In fact, it does not refer to a single peace movement in Western Europe or the United States that was run by the Soviets, and I suggest that is because there was none.

All the article amounts to is:

• a description of the Bolsheviks' attempts to spread communism in the west;
• the fact that British Communist Party followed the Moscow line;
• one claim that anti-Vietnam-War movements received Russian funds; and
• one claim that the KGB organised peace conferences and festivals in the west and planted disinformation.

None of these is about Soviet-run peace movements and it does not amount to an encyclopedia article about any Soviet influence on peace movement. I suggest that the article was created as a peace of POV-mongering by editors who want to imply that western peace movements were run by the Soviets but have no evidence that they were. Even the fact that CND has at times been led by communists is not evidence that they were run by the Soviets. That matter is discussed in CND and does not warrant an article with this title.

I suggest that the article should be deleted because it is not about what its title suggests, and is therefore not suitable for an encyclopedia, and that most of what it does contain cannot be attributed to reliable sources.

I will leave the discussion up here for a few days to allow for some justification or improvement, but if none is forthcoming I will nominate it for deletion. Marshall46 (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it should be removed. The problems you see could be resolved simply by redirecting the subject, which could be done by changing the title.

The previous suggestion is a good one but "in the west" seems unnecessary. The article should cover Asia, too.

I'm tempted to say Soviet-influenced peace movements. That may be too broad, though.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That is too broad for an encyclopaedia article. "Run" means something definite, "influenced" can mean almost anything. If there is anything interesting to say about a movement's influences, it can be said under the relevant article on that movmement.

Having said that, I cannot find anything in this article about a named peace movement that was demonstrably influenced by the Soviet Union, let alone run by the Soviet Union. And so I have to conclude that is was created as a bit of anti-communist and anti-peace-movement POV pushing. Marshall46 (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree... this article could, however, possibly serve as the germ of a broader article like Covert Actions during the Cold War which could encompass the subversive actions Kalugnin describes in his interview as well as similar efforts by the West. Dlabtot (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sure there is a case to be made for an article on covert operations during the cold war. The claims about Soviet funding of anti-war campaigns and disinformation would be relevant, although the sources are slender and they don't seem to be corroborated. But the material on the Polish-Soviet war and the Daily Worker has no more to do with covert operations than it does with western peace movements. Marshall46 (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Any useful material could be added to Covert operation, Communist front or Astroturfing. Marshall46 (talk) 07:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The article has a clear scope: it is about Soviet covert operations aiming at creation and/or strengthening social movements (which exist primarily in the West, but not only - see for example Soviet Peace Committee) whose goal was to influence their public opinion and governments in a way to align them with Soviet goals. In most cases (but perhaps not in all?) this involved supporting movements to weaken Western military, and to discourage Western governments from supporting anti-Soviet military operations and opposing Soviet covert or overt military intervention. The problem, obviously, is that we know little about any Soviet covert ops, and little research is being done into this, hence the article is not very comprehensive and reliable. Overall, with the discussion of Soviet Peace Committee, I agree that "in the West" is unnecessary, and the article should be renamed to Soviet-influenced peace movements. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Kalugnin quote

Why is this in the 'Vietnam War' section? He doesn't mention Vietnam. He does mention neutron weapons, AIDS... these things came along after Vietnam. The interview is informative but the material seems more suited to the lead or perhaps a new section on Soviet goals. Dlabtot (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

World Peace Council

This needs better refs, but the first para of that article is quite interesting.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

From the very beginning, it has been alleged to be a front organization of Communist parties due to its advocacy of unilateral disarmament in western countries and the active participation and funding of the council by the Soviet bloc as well as the leading role taken in the WPC by Communists such as Frédéric Joliot-Curie, the WPC's founding president. Indeed, the documents of the former Communist bloc archives indicate that from its inception the WPC heavily relied on the Soviet government subsidies. The WPC itself admitted in 1989 that 90 per cent of its funding came from the Soviet Union (WPC, Peace Courier, 1989, No. 4).

The WPC is well-known as a Soviet-controlled organisation, and it has its own entry. The trouble is that Lunev does not name any U.S. anti-war organisation that the Soviets funded and his claim is uncorroborated. Kalugin similarly refers to the Soviet Union organising "all sorts of congresses, peace congresses, youth congresses, festivals, women's movements, trade union movements, campaigns against U.S. missiles in Europe, campaigns against neutron weapons", etc, but does not name any. In the early 1980s, E.P.Thompson asked which western peace movements were Soviet-funded and never got an answer. (See John Minnion and Philip Bolsover (eds.) The CND Story, Alison and Busby, 1983, ISBN 0 85031 487 9) I am not saying that no such funding or support occurred, only that the claims are too vague for an encyclopaedia and are best left in the articles on Lunev and Kalugin. This article is now nominated for deletion. Marshall46 (talk) 09:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

See the ref below for a large list of such movements.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

In the section on Soviet funding of peace movements, I have cited Staar more accurately. He says that the World Peace Council and the International Institute for Peace received funding from the Soviet Union; the other organizations listed are said to be "closely associated" with them. The Pugwash and Dartmouth conferences are said to have allowed Soviet delegates to promote the policies of the Soviet Union. I have removed references to the World Federation of Democratic Youth and the World Federation of Trade Unions because they are not peace movements. I have also tightened up the prose and removed repetition. Marshall46 (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

USSR front organizations

Just found an interesting chapter in Richard Felix Staar, Foreign policies of the Soviet Union, Hoover Press, 1991, ISBN 0817991026 ([1]). Soviet Foreign Propaganda chapter starts at p.75, in particular, look at Front Organizations chapter at p.79, there is a large list of such organizations, from World Peace Committee to Esperantist Movement for Peace or International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War... On p.84., there is a subchapter for Front Conferences, and on p.86, a subchapter on "Specialized Peace Movements". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Staar does not say that International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War was run by the Soviet Union, funded by the Soviet Union or even influenced by the Soviet Union. What he actually says is that Soviet delegates used it as a platform for Soviet policies. Unless there is a good source saying that the Soviet Union influenced its programme, it does not even count as a front organisation.

The Esperantist Movement for Peace has only one Google hit. Do you think it is a significant western peace movement? Marshall46 (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how reliable is this source: [2] but it has a nice clear statement: "The Soviets exploited Western peace movements as a means to reduce the build-up of arms in the West." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

On the Russian Revolution and the Polish-Soviet War section

I agree that this section needs improvement. It is not, however, as some suggested, about the Bolshevik/Soviet invasion of Poland, but about how Bolsheviks/Soviets employed propaganda/agents/etc. in a (rather successful) attempt to influence Western public opinion, portraying their invasion as some form of liberation or defense, denying that they had plans to advance further (to Germany and beyond), and prevent Poland from receiving support/supplies from the West. Part of that involved supporting/encouraging pro-peace sentiments and demonstrations in the West. I am not sure how significant were the peace movements before the era of Cold War, but there is enough reference to see that Bolsheviks/Soviets tried to influence the Western peace movements as early as during the time of the Russian Revolution and in its immediate aftermath. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

" ... Bolsheviks/Soviets tried to influence the Western peace movements as early as during the time of the Russian Revolution ... " All you are saying is that they may have tried to influence movements which may not have existed. Which peace movements are you talking about and which sources say the Soviets ran them? It is necessary also to distinguish between covert Soviet influence (e.g. through direct funding or placing of persons in controlling positions) and overt propaganda. You are gradually back-tracking from Soviet control of peace movements, to covert Soviet influence, to overt Soviet propaganda, which may or may not have been effective on movements which may or may not have existed. This irremediable vagueness is the reason why I have nominated the article for deletion. Marshall46 (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not backtracking, I am just pointing out that the phenomena existed outside Cold War, but is quite underresearched. Further, the phenomena we discuss are a bit blurry - just as modern movements coalitions can be. And Soviets used various means of influencing movements, via direct agents, but also via general propaganda - and both of those are relevant here. Hence I prefer influenced to run, as while some movements where run by the Soviet agents directly, most were influenced by agents in other movements and / or propaganda. As Staar notes - most activists had no idea they are supporting Soviet policies / goals. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The least we can expect from an article on Soviet-run peace movements - OK, let's say "Soviet-influenced movements" - is good sources to show that named organizations were either directly controlled or covertly influenced by communist countries, e.g., by funding or placing influential individuals. All we have is vague claims about un-named movements.

Although western peace movements are generally anti-American, communist countries have found it hard to influence them. In the 1990s it was revealed that Vic Allen, a member of CND's national council, was a Stasi agent, but those who served on the council with him say that his Stalinist rants were treated as a joke and he had no influence. As far as I know, Vic Allen is the best example of attempted influence by a communist government on a western peace organization and it failed.

As to the phenomenon being under-researched, Wikipedia is not the place for original research. - Marshall46 (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest you read the linked chapter by Staar, which I have already used to expand this article? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I will do so. From what I have seen so far, it is the only source for this article.

Can you name a western peace organization that was controlled or influenced by Russia during the Polish-Soviet war? The British Trades Union Congress, the Labour Party and the French socialist newspaper L'Humanité, which you cite, were not "peace movements" in any sense of the word. Marshall46 (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(sigh) western Peace movements were (and are) no more "Anti-American" than any other organisation which criticised/s the US government of the day (Including those which criticise it for not being hardline enough) 213.40.116.220 (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You are missing a point, which is that peace movements played into the Soviet hand much more than the others. Soviets could care less about green movements and the environment issues in the West, for example - but they cared a lot about making the West be less prepared to resist the Soviet military-backed attempts to spread the revolution... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

As this section does not name any western peace organization that was controlled or influenced by Russia during the Polish-Soviet war, it is irrelevant to the article and I am deleting it. Marshall46 (talk) 06:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is a relevant sources:

• Giles Scott-Smith, The politics of apolitical culture: the Congress for Cultural Freedom, the CIA, and post-war American hegemony, Routledge, 2002, ISBN 0415244455, Google Print, p.87: on how WPM was inspired by the policies of reaching out to Western intellectuals in 20s

The Cold War era Soviet interference in world (West...) peace movements can be dated back to Soviet policies of 20s and PSWar, hence this section is important. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I ask you yet again to name a peace organization that the Soviet Union ran in the 1920s. You seem not to know of any or to have any sources which refer to such. This is WP:SYN. Note the article is now entitled "run" and not "influenced", so the bar has been set higher than mere "interference". But if you cannot name any organization at all, this is just waffle. I am reverting. Marshall46 (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If an organization is protesting against the war, it is a pro-peace movement. It doesn't matter if in addition to that, it is a labor union or such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the passage deleted, neither the trades unions that tried to blockade supplies in the 1920s nor the Daily Worker in the 1930s were protesting against any war. In the Polish-Soviet war, the TUs took the side of the Bolsheviks, and to that extent were pro-war. The Communist Party of Great Britain (publisher of the Daily Worker) was never part of the peace movement in the 1930s, and its support for the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between 1939 and 1941 did not make it a "pro-peace movement" in any normal sense of the word. The leading peace organization at that time was the Peace Pledge Union, which took a strong line in favour of Appeasement and against re-armament. Such a position was anathema to the Communists. Nobody has ever suggested that the Soviet Union had any influence on the peace movement at that time. Marshall46 (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War

I have cited Staar correctly. He says that this organization was "closely connected" with the World Peace Council (Table 4.3, p.82). As to actual influence, he says that its Soviet members put forward the policies of their country at its meetings. I have removed Staar's statement that IPPNW was formed at the same time as the USSR started a campaign against NATO because this is spin and innuendo - one might as well say that it was formed at the same time as the USSR started deploying its SS20 missiles. Marshall46 (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Or, more to the point, the IPPNW was formed at about the time that the missiles it protested the deployment of, were deployed. Sinister, eh? Anarchangel (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Weaseling

We have sources that clearly state some peace movement were founded/infiltatrated/run/heavily influenced by Soviet intelligence. There should be no weaseling along the lines that "It has been claimed that some of these movements were..." or "Organizations said to be "closely associated" include...". Example of major weaseling in intro: [3]--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

These are controversial claims, not established facts, and the controversy surrounding them should not be masked by stating them as facts. An analogy is "Princess Diana was killed in a car crash" vs. "It is claimed that Princess Diana was killed on the instructions of Prince Philip."

"Closely connected" is the phrase used by Staar. He does not say that the International Physicists were "affiliated" to the WPC, which is the word I replaced. Marshall46 (talk) 06:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of Soviet influence on non-Soviet activist groups

AfD statements

Anarchangel's statement

There are more citations of Richard F. Starr's book (eighteen) than there are other sources that match the article text, combined (fifteen). Starr's citations in his book include citations of books by Richard F. Starr. I am not joking. He really does cite himself, numerous times.

Starr paints the WPC black by assertion and then assumes that the rest of the WPC list of affiliated organizations are guilty by association. Any action of any organization on the list is then considered to be an action directed from Moscow. The only real citation of anything whatever of consequence in the entire nine pages of Starr's assertions and lists is one man's testimony before the US Congressional Committee for Intelligence. The text is not given.

Five citations, including the one of Starr's in the lede, do not verify what is said in the article.

Of the 15 non-Starr verifying cites, eight are in the first half of the article. This section, is about the pre-WWII Soviet maneuvering to get themselves a piece of Poland. Sad. But with no facts that bear upon the title of the article. The article is a stub without it, but then, I don't think it should be an article at all.

Of the remaining seven non-Starr, verifying, relevant citations in the article, one is from an ex-KGB accused of being a double agent. Two are from a defector. As well as spinning some ripping yarns about Russia funding anti-war movements during Viet Nam to get them to protest against the war (Talk about money well spent, eh? That must have been hard) the defector promised that there were caches of nuclear weapons hidden throughout Europe, guarded by bomb traps. At one of the locations, searchers accidentally set off an explosive device. Seeing as I haven't heard anything about a giant cloud of uranium particles floating across any of the states bordering Switzerland, or a cache of nuclear material, I am just going to have to assume that there wasn't any weapons-grade uranium at that location. Why does that sound familiar? He can always make up the locations of some more, if he is getting a bit short on lecture invitations.

Another defector given the remaining four cites (it was five, but it didn't match the text and there was another cite that didn't match the text anyway, why confuse things with one tag for two non-matching cites) doesn't need to go on lecture tours. He was given 2 million dollars by the CIA when he defected. He has a heck of a story about a couple of red-linked (WP, not commie conspiracy) russian science labs that cooked up this story about, get this, giant clouds of radioactive dust obscuring the sun for years, and called it, hah! nuclear winter. Can you believe it? Boy were those Nobel-prize-winning scientists dumb to fall for that one. Still not sure it was worth $2 million though. He wrote a book, too, for when the two million dollars runs out.

I added two citations to the article, which cite that useful idiots was wrongly attributed to Lenin. It is my opinion that this is the only solid piece of evidence in the entire article. It's kind of like hanging a gold star on top of a dead christmas tree. You end up wishing you didn't enjoy making things look nicer, so much. Or had an industrial-strength gold star to use, that would make it all better. It's awkward to clarify that there is no proof of it being Lenin's statement, etc etc, so wrongly will just have to do unless the whole phrase is removed or someone can think of a better way to phrase it.

If I am counting right, the entire article rests on the testimony of five individuals. There is no indication that anyone else in the historical community concurs with Starr, the two defectors, the double agent, or even the Congressional witness. Anarchangel (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I completely disagree with the nominator that information in this article should be added to other articles. The madness must stop here. Unless there is, somewhere, better evidence for the existence of Soviet influence on western activist organizations, then any information on this subject should be restricted to articles about urban legends. Extraordinary claims such as these require extraordinary evidence. At this point I would probably settle for two cites per fabulously widesweeping and generalized insinuation, but I have probably had all my common sense worn down by the offhand and wholesale confabulation of this article. Anarchangel (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC) (previously written at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet-run peace movements in Western Europe and the United States) Anarchangel (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Closer's statement

"The result was no consensus. If the article is not improved I would suggest a new AfD or a merge discussion on the talk page. BJ^Talk 19:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)" Diff of Closing statement added to this page by Anarchangel (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be some irregularity with regard to the closing. The closing statement now reads "The result was Keep. The notability of the subject in regard to the Cold War period is obvious; the question here is about content, focus and referencing in the article. However, that can be addressed via the editing process. AfD is not WP:CLEANUP, and I would recommend all interested parties in this discussion to please revisit the article and work towards its improvement. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)" Added by Anarchangel (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a question for Pastor Theo about the AfD decision, which I will print here first: "The notability of the subject, were it factually based, would not be at issue, nor was that issue addressed in the AfD. Would you care to comment on the Verifiability of the sources, and the multiple issues raised in the AfD about their quality? Anarchangel (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Post-AfD

Later, I propose to address the following problems:

The REDFLAG section (irony) in WP:VERIFIABILITY is pertinent to continued discussion of this article. In the AfD, I said, "Extraordinary claims such as these require extraordinary evidence" and REDFLAG is titled "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Had I only known.

Every post-WWII section is based solely on the testimony of a single individual. Every single individual's testimony is given on their own bio page. This article is utterly superfluous.

For now, I will restrict my arguments to the following problem:

Profusion of unrelated evidence in the pre-WWII sections

When superfluous details are removed from the pre-WWII sections, what remains is not notable (WP:N). This pretty much ends need for further consideration. For the sake of argument, however, I will discuss other problems, and of course show the details as superfluous.

Workers decide not to ship goods to Poland.

That is the entire substance of the first section. The rest is background.

There is no consensus of historical experts shown in this article for the circumstantial evidence concerning the non-shipping of goods to Poland. The mere statement of the fact that they didn't ship isn't controversial in any way. But in itself, it isn't notable.

There is no evidence shown that there was any influence by the Soviet Union on the trade unions, however the presence of the statement in an article about influence implies that there was. I don't believe that there is any WP rule covering this, I really don't like to do the usual thing that everybody does and try to stretch rules to fit the situation. The closest rule to this is WP:SYNTH, but we have a problem of implication by juxtaposition, not implication by assertion. What we have now is a section that assumes that there was influence, who states the facts. The trouble is, the facts don't back that assumption.

• What purpose is served by "Soviet leadership's confidence soared" and the rhetoric following?
• The fact that a general gave a stirring if somewhat bloodthirsty Orders for the Day message to his troops doesn't prove much of anything. What is the purpose of this?
• The fact that Soviet Russia employed rhetoric does not make it a clear-cut case of "propaganda". To say so is unwise.

There is no evidence for the following. The language is PoV. Even if these assertions were not PoV, they would be removable under WP:CITE:

• Any (unnamed) persons accepted anything "at faith"
• Any (unnamed) persons were "communist sympathizers"
• Something "served to alienate Poland on the international scene"

• Assuming the workers who decided not to load cargo didn't have radio receivers implanted in their heads that caused pain if they didn't do what the Soviet Union wanted, wouldn't Occam's razor suggest that the simpler explanation be that they decided, with the facts available to them, that it would be best to not load it? Where is the 'running of the peace movement' here?

This section is a Von Daniken-esque profusion of unrelated evidence, each piece of which signifies absolutely nothing on its own, but which when presented in the desired context, purports to be circumstantial evidence.

When all the superfluous 'evidence' is removed from this section, what is left is: Previous edit by Anarchangel illustrating the paucity of the central thesis of the 1920 section.

I welcome your comments on this matter, and will respond to all that adhere to the top 3 layers of the discussion pyramid, and most that don't. Hopefully all. Some useful links to WP procedure: WP:LOP, WP:LGL, WP:EQ. Anarchangel (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG

I thought I would wait until this first section stuff is resolved, but looking up at the rest of the talk page, it seems that Marshall believes Starr to be a reliable source. Allow me to acquaint you, Marshall, with a concept you may have heard of; consensus. Not, in this case, the editors on the talk page, but consensus in the academic community. The same thing goes for information coming from sources as for information going into the article; it has to meet the established consensus of scholars on the subject. Starr is one guy. Even assuming you don't see, don't want to see, or don't buy the argument that he shows no evidence of a connection between the the Soviet Union, the World Peace Council, and its list of affiliated members, you are still bound by WP:V and its attendant rule, WP:REDFLAG.

I also looked at the BBC cite; it is sad to see what a sorry tabloid POS BBC has become. Time was when I could accept the BBC as a reliable source and quote from it at random. Britain Betrayed, eh? "Fearsome Stasi held nation in its grip" with the immortal first line, "The Stasi earned a frightening reputation for thoroughness" -shudder- and "Respected lecturer's double life". All that's missing are the "I met Elvis on a UFO" stories and page 3.

I suggest you take a bit of a step back from this and reassess. What about the article has gotten better since you nominated it for deletion, other than what you yourself have added to it? Are you not putting ribbons on rubbish? There is nothing different about a Communist newspaper editor telling Russian Communists what he believes in his heart they ought to know to keep the balance, to what has been done by a thousand CIA informants, except that it is for significantly less money and with considerably more ethical considerations. And yet it is, the Reds 'control' this and 'manipulated' that. Wake up. Anarchangel (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I proposed this article for deletion but I accept the decision to keep it. I have now made major changes.

By the way, Marshall, the original decision by the original closer was "no consensus". That only defaults to keep, it doesn't mandate it in the same way. Bishop or w/e his name is seems to have come along and wanted to clean up the original closer's faulty "unclose as relist", as his reasoning on close about notability is faulty. No one mentioned WP:N and there was a lot of questioning of WP:V which he didn't say anything about at all. Remember, the defectors and the general all have their own articles, that material is already on WP. Anarchangel (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have re-named it "Soviet influence on Western peace movements".

I have removed all material about matters unrelated to Western peace movements, notably the material on the Polish-Soviet war (no peace movement mentioned), the Citrine affair (the CPGB and its organ the Daily Worker were not peace organizations), reference to trades union organisations, etc., and references to AIDS. I have also removed Tretyakov's conspiracy theory about nuclear winter (discussed below).

This is essentially an article about the material in pages 79-88 of Richard Staar's 1991 book Foreign Policies of the Soviet Union. I have read it carefully and reported precisely what it says, which is that one organization was directly linked to the World Peace Council, two organizations were funded by the Soviet Union, and three organizations gave a platform to Soviet representatives and had policies similar to those of the Soviet Union.

There are also imprecise and uncorroborated claims about funding for the campaign against the Vietnam War, etc., which I have left in for the sake of balance, but they are referred to as claims rather than facts. Marshall46 (talk) 09:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Reliability of Richard F. Staar

What is the basis of claiming that Richard Felix Staar is an unreliable author? He is an author of numerous printed works ([4], [5]), published by the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, University of Michigan and other reliable presses. He also published in reliable academic journals ([6] and [7] in Mediterranean Quarterly - Duke University Press). He has a PhD, and in US academia has a rank at least a visiting / associate professor. Here's his bio: [8]. Here's an academic review of one of his work (or memoirs?), that states: "As a scholar, Richard Staar represents the best. In his works he has gathered facts carefully, painstakingly, and has drawn his inferences from reality rather than theory." As far as I can see, any criticism of his work above is pure IDONTLIKEHISPOVTHUSHEHASTOBEUNRELIABLE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"International communist front organizations play a key role in projecting a positive image of the USSR and an unflattering one of the West in general and of the United States in particular." (Which strategy he would know all about, because he wrote for one that actually exists rather than is only asserted as propaganda, albeit with the USSR and the US reversed, namely "Yearbook on international communist affairs" for the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace, which publish all his books.) "These fronts are especially useful because they are less likely to fall under suspicion of operating as tools of Moscow or of local communist parties."(Notice there aren't any cites yet?) "Officially, fronts pretend not to adhere to the tenets of Marxism-Leninism," (so in other words, because they are sneaky commies, you can't even tell that they are sneaky commies, which is kind of handy for the person identifying them as such, because the fact that there is no proof only proves that they are) "although in practice they are virtually controlled by the Soviet Union. The most important groups are listed in table 4.2." (let's go there) Table 4.2: Oh, and some "Sources: US Congress, House, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Subcommittee on Oversight," (there's a nice solid unbiased source with no chance of infiltration by counterintelligence disinformation) Hearings on Soviet Covert Action: The Forgery Offensive (such a restrained and neutral title, don't you think), 96th Cong., yada yada. "...which also gives a breakdown of financial support (staff, salaries, administration, travel, publications, conferences, and in-house meetings.)" (What a great list. With all that info, he's sure to give a citation sometime soon, showing how his premises are backed up by facts) "Wallace Spaulding, International Communist Organizations, in Richard F. Starr, ed., Yearbook on International Communist Affairs 1990 (um, did he just cite his own publication?) Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 1990), p.501. (Yep, he did. Hmph. Maybe there'll be some better citations later.)

"Sectors within the International Department direct the fronts and provide for their ultimate coordination. All activities are supervised by the World Peace Council," (aw, we gotta have a cite here...nope) "on which most of the other organizations are represented, through joint meetings held once or twice a year. Iulii F. Kharlamov (for the World Peace Council)..." (OK, that's it. No more. He just waltzed right past what would be a BLP violation if it was in Wikipedia and we're still waiting for a cite that shows some evidence of the basic premise. This guy is a CIA-paid hack. He doesn't even care if we believe him or not, just as long as the seeds of doubt are planted. You can believe whatever you like about this, I am outtahere)

That's why. Paragraph after paragraph of unfounded unverified insinuation. Tables of organizations affiliated with the WPC, with the citation for the information coming from the WPC itself ("Say, could we trouble you for a list of the organizations you are in league with to overthrow the world in a massive Communist Conspiracy?" "Jed? Have we got any of those lists of our fellow Comintern slaves?" "Sure, let me just get one from the Useful Idiots file." "Here you go.") and the testimony of one man in a House subcommittee. Absolutely no unequivocal proof whatsoever of anything at all. The proof is in the pudding, chum. He can have a list of letters after his name as long as your IDONTLIKEIT renaming, and he's still a lying pseudoscientific disinforming hack. And the cites you presented? The Sarmatian Review says of him, "As associate director of the Hoover Institution for a critical twelve years, he helped make that organization serve the Soviet-slaying purpose for which its founder had endowed it." Yeh. Slaying. That's a reliable neutral source about the USSR. Anarchangel (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to write an academic review of his work and criticize him. Till then, he is a much more reliable source than your criticism of his, I am afraid, which does, indeed, boil down to IDONTLIKEITBUTIHAVENOSOURCESOTHERTHANMYOWNOPINION. Further, your comments like "This guy is a CIA-paid hack" are violating WP:BLP and I'd advice you to refactor them and avoid them in the future. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I had -his own work- as a source. I am fully aware of BLP rules. You asked ("What is the basis of claiming that Richard Felix Staar is an unreliable author?"), it was a fair comment, and he doesn't strike me as someone with nothing to hide that would relish appearing in courtrooms speaking under oath, unfortunately, or I would jump at the chance. Thanks for creating an article on him. I was kind of wondering where to put the Soviet-slaying quote. Speaking (to anyone willing to listen to reason) of cites and not finding things, and I guess "bought and paid for", too, as in, "bought and paid for by a Black Ops fund": I can find neither "World Peace Council" nor "bought and paid for" in the Google Books listing of the source citing the Reagan quote. Anarchangel (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Staar is the most reliable of the sources cited. I have kept in the quotations from three of the Soviet defectors, but two of them are unreliable because of the vagueness and size of their claims and the fact that they have an intelligence background, which has trained them to lie. In reality, this article is about Staar. At the end of the day, Staar talks of significant links between the Soviet Union and six western peace organisations, plus the World Peace Council, which is widely acknowledged to have been a Soviet Front Organisation. (I have deleted all reference to organizations other than peace organizations because they are irrelevant.) Of these six, two are said to have received Soviet funding, one (the obscure Esperantist Peace Conference) is said to have had a "special slot" in the WPC, one is said to have had overlapping membership and policies, and two (the Pugwash and Dartmouth organisations) are said to have given a platform to Soviet apologists.

Piotrus has tended to go beyond Staar in his edits, e.g. talking of "affiliation to the WPC" when Staar does not claim that. He also tends to use expressions like "in fact" to strengthen controversial claims. There is no reliable evidence that the Soviet Union has run any western peace organizations, unless you include the WPC.

Piotrus's "I don't like it" claims deny good faith and ought not to be repeated. As I have said before, I have no reason to deny that the Soviet Union tried to influence, subvert, control or fund western peace organizations, but we need some evidence for it.

One final comment about Staar, whom I know only from the book cited here. He is undoubtedly an academic, but his book is not written in the cautious language we should expect from academics. The Hoover Institution, which published the book, is part of Stanford University but it is not an academic department, it is a think tank established by Edgar Hoover, who was a cold warrior and red-baiter and who played an important part in destroying the career of atomic scientist Robert Oppenheimer because of Oppenheimer's opposition to the H-bomb. 09:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh???????

The Hoover Institution was founded by Herbert Hoover, not J. Edgar. Despite his bad (albeit well intentioned) meddling in the economy that pushed us into the Depression, Herbert Hoover was very much a humanitarian. That was a man who put up his own wealth to save lives when others would not have.

But even if it was J. Edgar, being a cold warrior during a time when Stalin was ruthlessly putting up an Iron Curtain was the only smart and decent move. Even if the so-called "peace" movement was with good intentions, it's no different than those who took that in the Hitler-Stalin pact, or for that matter, when they take it to defend fascism today.

Perhaps your biggest mistake is in your misunderstanding of intelligence. Telling lies is precisely opposite of that job. They're to interpret data about the world and inform our government what may be happening around the world. The CIA's The World Factbook is one prominent example of this.

There may be some operatives who go into foreign countries to spread propaganda, but that's obviously not Staar's job.

The U.S. military has intelligence officers assigned to various units. Do you seriously think they're supposed to lie to their commanders? It's preposterous.

For actual liars, you need to look at the politicians, activists, and (especially) lawyers whose jobs it is to shape the truth.

I don't know what your standards are, but someone from Hoover is generally more than acceptable.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I made a foolish mistake about the Hoover Institution.

I didn't say that Staar was lying, I suggested that the testimony of defectors who worked in Soviet intelligence ought to be treated with caution. Marshall46 (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Umm, this entire section is about Staar, not defectors. Staar, as far as I know, doesn't cite any defectors as his sources...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Treating with caution doesn't mean we pretend it doesn't exist. If a notable source makes a claim you don't like, make sure the source is described within the body of the article. Then the reader can figure it out.

I also disagree with removing organizations other than peace organizations. Others are part of their peace strategy and, thus, not irrelevant.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, in my recent edit I actually led with Lunev for precisely that reason, but Tretyakov is alone is his claim that the KGB faked "nuclear winter" (although he has been parotted).

When you say "part of their peace strategy and thus not irrelevant", that begs the question. But a more important editorial reason for leaving them out is that the article needs shape and focus on peace movements if it is not to drift into a general review of Soviet covert operations.Marshall46 (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear Winter

I have deleted Tretyakov's conspiracy theory about Nuclear winter as WP:Fringe.

He is the only source given for the claim that the nuclear winter hypothesis was a malicious fabrication by the KGB foisted on credulous westerners in order to foment opposition to the US weapons programme. The claim is inherently doubtful.

• The hypothesis appeared in the magazine Nature (journal) before it appeared in Ambio, the western journal in which Tretyakov suggests it was planted.

• One of the co-authors of the Ambio article was a Nobel prize winning scientist specializing in the the study of the earth's atmosphere, so he is unlikely to have been duped by falsified research.

• We are expected to believe that Western scientists have naively accepted nonsense foisted on them by the KGB.

• The nuclear winter hypothesis is not a fact but a scientific model of what might happen after a nuclear war, and as such can't be faked, it can only be proposed. It has lasted and has been subject to repeated analysis. If it was a crude hoax it would not have survived.

• The citation of the Time article about the disappearance of the Soviet mathematician who wrote one of the models is the stuff of conspiracy theories. It implies, without actually saying so, that he falsified his model and was killed by the Soviets to silence him; but if his model was false it could be analyzed and its fallacies exposed whether he was dead or alive. That has not happened.

• Finally, it has not occurred to the editor who included this passage that Tretyakov, as an experienced intelligence agent, is perfectly capable of creating black propaganda about the KGB atfer defecting to the West. His testimony should not be quoted unless corroborated. Marshall46 (talk) 07:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There are quite a few sources to support the "NW was invented by KGB" argument:

Marian Kirsch Leighton, Soviet propaganda as a foreign policy tool, Freedom House, 1991, ISBN 0932088511, p.90 (Google snippet only, unfortunately, other snippets indicate this is discussed in KGB context)

Notes KGB infiltration of environmental groups: Adrian Krieg, Vale: The Illuminati and Their Plans for the Future, a2zPublications, 2005, ISBN 0974850233 - but ths source looks quite unreliable (but perhaps some facts can be double checked and could be reliable in that mess) Google Print, p.158

Notes another possible point of origin for the theory: Robert G. Breene, Latin American Political Yearbook 2002, Transaction Publishers, 2004, ISBN 0765802112, Google Print, p.377

Notes that theory was recycled by KGB: Carnes Lord, Frank R. Barnett, Political warfare and psychological operations : rethinking the US approach', DIANE Publishing, ISBN 1428982035, Google Print, p.216

There are some other snippets that may be relevant. In any case, this theory has a few sources to it, and should be mentioned in the article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It does seem now that Tretyakov is not the only person to suggest that the theory was KGB propaganda, but it is a genuine and respectable scientific theory, not just a hoax and a plant. It is open to scientific debate. It is quite possible that the Soviet Union exploited the theory to encourage Western peace movements, but it's equally possible that it's been rubbished to discredit Western peace movements. Does anyone claims that Hampson, J., Nature, 250, 189 (1974) was a Soviet plant? This is still WP:Fringe and strays into the area of WP:OR. Best left out. Marshall46 (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not disputing nuclear winter, but it is a fact that it was used (up to promoted) by the KGB in the context of anti-war/pro-peace movement. This should be mentioned. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, you say "it is a fact" that the nuclear winter theory was pushed by the KGB in the West when it is a claim. Where is the evidence that the KGB pushed it? It seems to have originated in the West, long before Sagan popularized the theory. I have mentioned the earliest outline of the idea (J. Hampson, 1974). The modeling seems to have been done simultaneously in the West and the USSR. Alexandrov (the disappeared mathematician) did his mathematical modeling in about 1982: Alexandrov, V. V. 1982. A general atmospheric circulation model with baroclinic arrangement. Rep. Acad. Sci. USSR 265(5):1094-1097. Crutzen and Birks (the authors of the Ambio article) also ran their computer models dealing with stratospheric ozone to determine the effects of a nuclear war in 1982. Where is the evidence that the KGB influenced Crutzen, Birks, Sagan or the editors of Ambio, or even had access to them? Marshall46 (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No one is claiming the KGB originated it, but they certainly promoted it. As Carnes Lord and Frank R. Barnett state in their book Political warfare and psychological operations : rethinking the US approach: "they troll our mainstream for useful bits of idiocy - and simply repackage them. (For example, the "nuclear winter" hobgoblin, so exploited by peace groups, was not invented by Moscow, but recycled)." --Martintg (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Tretyakov does claim that the KGB originated it!

Repeating a statement does not make it true and a multiplicity of unreliable sources do not add up to one reliable source. The phrases "troll our mainstream", "useful bits of idiocy" and "nuclear winter hobgoblin" persuade me that Lord and Barnett's book is lazy and emotive and not the record of careful research. Why on earth should this quote make anyone certain? It does not contain any information. I ask again, where is the evidence that the KGB had access to the people responsible for disseminating the nuclear winter theory, Crutzen, Birks, Sagan or the editors of Ambio? Marshall46 (talk) 10:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a useful discussion about this on the Discussion page of Nuclear winter. Marshall46 (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion at Nuclear winter seems to revolve around the reliability of Pete Earley's book "Comrade J: The Untold Secrets of Russia's Master Spy in America After the End of the Cold War", which devotes a section on Tretyakov's claims. Nigel West has reviewed this book (West, Nigel(2008) 'A Review of: “The New Kind of Russian Defector”', International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence, 21:4, 793 — 796), and he doesn't dismiss it as unreliable, his only criticism was "author Pete Earley is guilty of a major irritant— failure to provide an index, thereby reducing the utility of his otherwise fine volume". Unless we can find another published source that claims Earley's book is unreliable, we cannot really dismiss these claims with rhetorical questions calling for evidence that the KGB had access to certain people. --Martintg (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Earley is not unreliable, Tretyakov is. Earley gives Tretyakov's claims that the KGB made it all up and comments that it's not possible to know if Tretyakov is right. Tretyakov is WP:Fringe. The discussion at Nuclear Winter is about more than this: it includes consideration of the "faked" articles referred to by Tretyakov and the difficulty in identifying them, the role of Georgy Golitsyn, the fact that Tretyakov gets the chronology wrong with relation to Golitsyin and the apparent friendly co-operation between US and Russian atmospheric scientists on the research that led up to Nuclear Winter. Marshall46 (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion page at Georgy Golitsyn sheds light on the chronology. It appears that Golitsyin was the originator of the theory in Russia and that Crutzen and Birks in America followed his work. Golitsyin is an internationally respected scientist, which makes Tretyakov's claim that the Russian scientific papers were faked by the KGB look dubious. However, I have left his claim in the article. Marshall46 (talk) 08:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Correction. My earlier comments assumed that Ambio is a popular campaigning magazine. In fact it is a journal of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and the papers in it are peer reviewed. Tretyakov's claim that a bogus article could be placed in it as a result of propaganda by the KGB makes him look like an ignoramus.

Work in the west and in Russia proceeded at the same time, but the early publications were in the west. Work was initiated by Ambio in 1980 and published in a special edition of the journal in 1982, including the paper by Crutzen and Birks. Golitsyn became aware of their work in 1982 and then, with other Russian scientists, notably Alexandrov and Stenchikov, made important contributions. The Academy of Sciences of the USSR held a seminar on the consequences of nuclear war in 1983 and Golitsyn published his work on global cooling in September 1983. The phrase "nuclear winter" was coined by Sagan and Turco in 1983. Marshall46 (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The latest changes

Major changes, a lot of work, and work well done I say. Only one of we three got what they wanted, but I got more of what I wanted than did Piotrus I think. I am satisfied with the way it is now, on first glance; it at least gives a neutral distance between Starr's assertions and the reader. Have to sleep, will take another look tomorrow.

Starr's Institution is not as easy to categorize as a tool of Edgar Hoover, unfortunately. I think the person quoted on Starr's bio page may have made that mistake, or maybe he knew something about President Hoover that I don't. It was founded in '59, tho; an Anti-Red agenda fits with that time frame, no matter who founded it. It has become a sort of prep school for foreign service/spy/diplomats, with the same goals but different means to the School of the Americas (aka new name), as far as I can tell. It's ironic that this propaganda machine in some ways resembles the World Peace Council that Starr rails against, except the WPC churns out publications, where the HI puts the finishing touches on the likes of Condoleeza Rice. Anarchangel (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Bukovsky

I am still trying to improve this entry and I have tracked down the Bukovsky article cited (Vladimir Bukovsky, "The Peace Movements and the Soviet Union", Commentary, May 1982, pp.25-41). Bukovsky reports on the proceedings of the 1980 World Parliament of Peoples for Peace organised in Sofia by the World Peace Council, citing articles in Izvestia and Pravda. He notes that the conference's call for action in 1981 against the build up of Western armaments was followed the next year by huge peace demos in the West. "How on earth could the Soviets have known in 1980 about events that would take place in 1981," he asks, "unless they were running the whole show?" As evidence of Soviet influence, this speculation is without value, and, although I put in the Bukovsky citation, I am now deleting it. Marshall46 (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The new title - Soviet "influence" on Western peace movements

Soviet "influence" on Western peace movements - the new title is misleading now to say the least.--Jacurek (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I moved the title back to the original, lets have the discussion first before moving. --Martintg (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It's been up for months, I can wait for months more. Marshall gave his reasons for changing in his -edit summary: "No evidence is given of any peace movement in Western Europe or the United States that was run by the Soviet Union". I would add that you will never find evidence of "running" a peace movement, as that would require that every decisionmaker in those movements was directly following orders from Soviet Union decision makers.- Please address those reasons. You have given us a word, 'misleading'. Please back this with reasoning. This is not a votefest. You have to have good reasons for what you do, especially with a page title. Anarchangel (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Content within - - added Anarchangel (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see previous discussion about naming at #Name. The current name is wrong, so it needs to change. I will do the uncontroversial move to Soviet-run peace movements in the West, at least one error will be fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

We have had a discussion about deletion and we are trying to reach a consensus. As Piotrus says, even before the AfD discussion there was some agreement that "run" was not the right word and that "influenced" was better. I might point out that I nominated the article for deletion and, having accepted the decision to keep it, have done a lot of work on seeking out reliable sources.

What they amount to is that the Soviet Union (and in one instance East Germany) tried to influence some western peace movements, not always successfully. There have been no serious suggestions that important peace organizations, (e.g., Students for a Democratic Society (1960 organization) and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) were influenced at all. The "useful idiots" were rarely idiots and seldom useful. Even the most hostile sources, such as Staar, can produce evidence only of two organizations receiving funding and others being used by Soviet delegates to push the Soviet line. The only peace movement that does appear to have been run by the Soviet Union is the World Peace Council (WPC) and its national affiliates, like the British Peace Council and the U.S.Peace Council. The tiny World Esperanto Movement for Peace is a more complex case - see the external link to "Esperanto kaj socialismo" - and it is not really a Western organisation at all, being most strongly represented in Eastern Europe.

I would disagree with Anarchangel that you will never find evidence of "running" a peace movement. If we could find evidence that Soviet agents set up a peace organization or took key offices and made its policies, that would be evidence enough. Even if we could find evidence of substantial direct funding, that might be evidence. Apart from the WPC, there is none. We have a lot of vague claims in unreliable sources. (I am astonished that Piotrus should cite rubbish like The Illuminati and Their Plans for the Future.) Lunev and the US state official cited in the Time article are vague, inconsistent and do not name any organizations.

Let us try to be objective about this and dispassionately review the evidence. Change back to "influenced", please. - Marshall46 (talk) 09:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Some movements were run, many were only influenced by the SU. As run movements can be seen to belong to a wider subcategory of influenced movements, I think that Soviet-influenced peace movements in the West may be a good title. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I propose a modification of my previous title idea: Alleged connections between the USSR and on activist groups in the West. 'Run' is preposterous. Influence has only been alleged, not proven.

Moreover, if the Johnny Appleseed Society proposes that more apple trees be planted, and the CEO of Fnord Motors decides that is a fine idea, and declares himself a fervent apple-tree-planter, is Fnord Motors run by the Appleseed Society? Is Fnord Motors influenced? The decision to become an apple tree advocate is unilaterally, the Fnord CEO's. Apple-tree related business decisions later made by the CEO are his/ers. Beliefs aren't a disease that people are infected with. Causality is a real problem here. "Connections" takes away the supposition about cause and effect. Contacts between individuals and an organization do not cause the individuals to do something, and 'influence' implies that more than 'connections' does. Anarchangel (talk) 04:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what kind of proof you need. It was always in their interest to do this. Former Soviet officials say it happened. The CIA gave a dollar amount. Protesters carry communist signs and flags.

The word connections is fine with me, although I think "Soviet influence on Western peace movements" still works.

We could go one step lower and replace "Soviet" with "communist" or "socialist". That allows us to take it past the days of the USSR, and include the Trotskyists. The trouble with that is, most of the prominent "peace" organizations (ANSWER, Stop the War Coalition, etc.) have a communist influence. It's hard to know where to stop.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No, let's keep it as Soviet. It's common knowledge that "peace activist" and "communist" are synonymous anyway. PasswordUsername (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have already said what counts as proof: evidence that Soviet agents set up, directed or gave major funding to peace movements. The CIA gave a dollar amount but have named no organization that received funding. The fact that peaceniks are left-leaning and that some of them are communists is not evidence that the movements were Soviet-run. Large communists factions, the Trotksyists and Euro-communists, were anti-Russian. Anyone who elides "Soviet" and "socialist" (and now "peace activist" and "communist") is obviously unfamiliar with this topic. Is this an article about Soviet operations during the Cold War, or simply an anti-communist rant? The fact that the irrelevant material on the Polish-Soviet War and the Daily Worker has been put back suggests the latter. I have reverted for the reasons given with my previous deletions. Marshall46 (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, Marshall46, and my reply was to Randy2063's suggestion above. The article is a poorly-sourced crapfest. I voted in favor of deleting it, but I see no reason to have it called "Soviet-run peace movements in the West" now that the discussion is closed. That said, no patriotic American stood for peace during the Cold War. Only bloody communists want stuff like that - and there is a communist wearing a bushy Stalin mustache behind every peacenik in these parts. Hence my response. PasswordUsername (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Title suggestion: Communism and peace movements in the West

The above title gives a little bit of wiggle room to include Trotskyite stuff if need be. More importantly, it is neutral, without having to go the other route and say 'allegations', which implies that the reports might not be untrue. I withdraw my suggestion of 'activist groups'; such can easily be put in their own section, and spun off into another article if need be, or the article title could simply be changed again to reflect the new content. Anarchangel (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That is the title of an essay, not an entry in an encyclopaedia. Where would such an entry begin and end? With such a title you might include the material I have just added under "On the Russian Revolution and the Polish-Soviet War", saying that communists opposed the peace movement in the 1930s. Marshall46 (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Marshall this title would not be very encyclopedic. This article is not about communism anyway, but Soviet foreign propaganda and intelligence activities AND Western peace movements. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a common format on Wikipedia, particularly for subjects of controversy, to preserve neutrality in titling. At the risk of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (but then, you did bring it up), there is Nuclear weapons and the United States, United States and the Haitian Revolution, and Torture and the United States. And that's just a WP search for "America and"...

The material you added is a perfect example of why I chose 'activist groups'. As for including the fact that communists and the trade unions opposed the peace movement, that sounds like a reason for changing the name. What's wrong with including that material? Because it contradicts the thesis of the article?

I'll give you this. The Lenin-era Communist Party was nothing like the Stalin era which was nothing like the Brezhnev era. But lumping them all together under Communism is considerably less of a liberty than claiming they influenced 'peace groups', whatever that means, by means assumed, unstated, and uncited.

I don't buy the 'where will it end' argument though, that's a 'Camel's nose'/'thin end of the wedge' argument I see a lot of in AfD. I'll give you the same answer I give them there. If someone wants to include information that expands the scope of the article too much, you delete it, and tell them why. The article is at nine kilobytes, seems a little early to be worrying about exceeding the 100 KB limit (WP:SPLIT). Anarchangel (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I am glad that Piotrus and I are beginning to agree! I thought the article was very bad a couple of weeks ago, but it is looking quite good now. I don't really agree with "Soviet-run", but I am willing to leave it in the interest of consensus. Marshall46 (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus most definitely disagrees with my proposed title, but he has also stated many times that 'run' is not what he wants either.

• "How about 'Soviet-influenced peace movements in the West'? I don't think that the word "run" is the best here"
• "the article should be renamed to 'Soviet-influenced peace movements'"
• "I think that 'Soviet-influenced peace movements in the West' may be a good title".
• The final comment requires a lot of context to fully understand: "The current name is wrong, so it needs to change. I will do the uncontroversial move to ':Soviet-run peace movements in the West', at least one error will be fixed." The title was 'Soviet-run peace movements in Western Europe and the United States' at the time, so I take it that the other "error" to "be fixed" was again, 'Soviet-run'. Anarchangel (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The article has settled down to accounts and claims of Soviet funding of peace movement, conferences, delegates, propaganda and spying during the Cold War. "Soviet-run" does not describe that level of influence. If there is still an objection to "Soviet influence on western peace movements" in favour of "Soviet-run peace movements", the discussion should be taken from here, where no agreement is possible, to mediation. Marshall46 (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologise if my stand on that was unclear.

I prefer "Soviet influence on western peace movements" to "Soviet-run peace movements" as a step towards consensus and a more accurate title. Anarchangel (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Password Username's edit

This one [9]. Please see W:POINT.radek (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed. I have also removed Joklok's edit to the effect that the USSR sought world hegemony and the USA didn't. At best that is WP:POV, at worst it is WP:point. Marshall46 (talk) 08:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

See below. --Joklolk (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

World hegemony

Please bring a reliable source which says the US tried to establish an evil capitalist empire throughout the world and the Soviet Union tried to stop the spread of evil capitalism. As far as I know and the sources are saying, USSR tried to spread communism throughout the world in accordance with proletarian internationalism and the US tried to stop the spread of communism. The opening sentence in this version is misleading and inaccurate, which is why I made this edit to make it clear. --Joklolk (talk) 10:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You should read what is written: there is no mention anywhere of "an evil capitalist empire" and all that is implied is that the US wished to spread its influence. However, it is a sufficient introduction to the article to say that the USA and the USSR were engaged in an arms race and I will remove the reference to world hegemony. Marshall46 (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Title suggestion: Soviet-influenced peace movements

Rationale: influenced is more broad and often more correct than run and we don't discuss only the West (for example, Soviet Peace Committee which is mentioned is not a Western organization, but a Soviet one). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I support the title "Allegations of Soviet influence on western peace movements". The extent of the controversy over this article must convince all parties that the topic is controversial. Hence, there is agreement that Soviet influence has been alleged but no agreement that it has been demonstrated. Marshall46 (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• I support ""Soviet-influenced peace movements" There's no doubt that influence took place (where are the sources that dispute that there was any influence?) and no need to limit it to "Western". Reconsideration (talk) 23:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I wonder that anybody can say there is no doubt that influence took place when so much doubt has been expressed on these pages. I know there is no doubt in the minds of some editors, but there is considerable doubt in the minds of others.

At the risk of repetition, the sources are vague and none mentions any major organisation. I suppose you can build a case on the World Peace Council, which was known to be a Soviet mouthpiece, and there is an article to that effect; or you can refer to insignificant organisations like the Esperantist peace group; but when it comes to an article about Soviet influence on western peace movements, there has to be good evidence that at least some of the major organisations carried out actions under Soviet influence, and there is none. If you look at the article you will see that despite President Reagan's belief that the big demonstrations of the early 1980s were Soviet inspired, even the security services doubted it.

This was a propaganda battlefield for a very long time and evidently it still is; therefore the sources have to be corroborated, beyond doubt and fairly specific if the title is to report influence as a fact.

For that reason "allegations" or "claims" is the appropriate word. All editors agree that influence is alleged, but not all agree that it is demonstrated. Marshall46 (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Marshall46. There don't appear to be any unbiased academic sources that discuss Soviet influence on Western peace movements as a fact. There is an article published by a right-wing think tank, a few shadowy memos by defectors, and a bunch of unsupported allegations that were repeated in the popular press — but nothing clear and definite from neutral academics. "Allegations" is the right term for the title, if this article must be retained. *** Crotalus *** 13:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Move

Moving the article should be postponed until the AfD is concluded. Can this be moved back to Soviet-run peace movements in the West until then?radek (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The article should be taken back the the original name, then we can start a WP:RM to move it to the current title. This is the proper procedure (not a controversial move with salting redirects and RM to reverse it afterwards). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, pending AfD discussion. Marshall46 (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD has been closed as no consensus (defaults to keep). Can we move the article back now? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources

[10] - it's Hoover which is respectable and reliable but still somewhat partisan. It may also aid in finding further sources.radek (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And here is one from Routledge press [11].radek (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And here is another academic source from a prominent historian [12].radek (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually a lot of info from this source should be put into the article. Laqueur distinguishes between Soviet manipulated peace movements ("useful pacifism" - as in Useful idiots) and genuine "virtuous pacifism". As to whether these are just "allegations" or actual phenomenon, here is a quote:

Soviet-manipulated pacifism has appeared as a considerable political force inside the countries of Western Europe.radek (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And more history books [13].radek (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Cambridge University Press: [14]radek (talk) 01:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Greenwood Publishing, though this one's more about influence on Japan's peace movement (West?) [15]radek (talk) 01:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for finding those sources. From a cursory survey, they appear to focus on the World Peace Council (WPC), a well-known Soviet front organisation. There are also a few vague statements of the sort quoted above, "Soviet-manipulated pacifism has appeared as a considerable political force inside the countries of Western Europe". We still lack any reference to major western peace organisations during the cold war, e.g. the National Coordinating Committee to End the War in Vietnam, National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam, Students for a Democratic Society (1960 organization), the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign, Washington Peace Center, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, European Nuclear Disarmament, War Resisters International or the British Council for Peace in Vietnam. The more sources that are found repeating the fact the the WPC was controlled by the Soviet Union and omitting any mention of the major western peace organisations, the more likely it appears that the latter were independent of the Soviet Union. Marshall46 (talk) 08:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not quite true - I've used the WPC as a convenient way to search for relevant literature (since they're going to be the main focus in any kind of scholarly work on the subject) but this doesn't mean that the sources only talk about the WPC. If you look at them you'll see that in fact they discuss the general phenomenon in some detail - as for example illustrated by the Laqueur quote I gave above. In fact Laqueur is pretty explicit about this - the quote above you call "vague" is taken verbatim from a reliable source noting the importance of this subject. If there is some organization which is mentioned in this article for which Soviet involvement is not well sourced then by all means fact tag it or remove it - but this in no way affects the notability or the importance of the article as a whole. Of course there are/were plenty of peace organizations which were in no way involved with the Soviets - but where does it say that all of them were? Feel free to start an article on Non-Soviet influenced Peace Movements in the West if you'd like. But that's of course silly.radek (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have never questioned the notability or importance of the article, only the lack of evidence for the assertion that western peace movements were influenced by the Soviet Union. Which peace organisations other than the WPC were influenced, manipulated, funded or run by the Soviet Union? So far I have only seen Staar's references to the Vienna-based International Institute for Peace, the Czech-based Christian Peace Conference, and the Esperantist Movement for World Peace, which was especially active in Hungary and East Germany. Two of these are not really western peace organisations at all.

Radek refers to "peace organizations which were in no way involved with the Soviets". We are not talking here about anything so vague as "involvement". According to Staar, some western peace conferences admitted Soviet delegates, and to that extent they were involved with the Soviets. But "involved with" does not amount to "influenced by", "manipulated by", "funded by" or "run by". Marshall46 (talk) 09:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Another book source: [16] Resisting the bomb: a history of the world nuclear disarmament movement ... By Lawrence S. Wittner. Not saying it supports any specific claim (I haven't read it) but clearly relevant. Rd232 ^talk 12:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. There is a good chapter on "Non-aligned vs. aligned movements", pp.83ff, which sets out clearly the relationship between the World Peace Council and the non-aligned peace organisations. There was an uneasy dialogue and the unaligned organisations tried to keep clear of the WPC. Marshall46 (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I have used material from that book in the section on the World Peace Council. Marshall46 (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Marshall I don't think we disagree that much here. I certainly don't think that this article should give the impression that the entire peace movement was Soviet influenced. At the same time, this article is not about any 'allegations' that were made but rather about specific instances and organizations (like WPC) which were in fact Soviet influence or controlled or whatever the appropriate terminology here is. Also, if you have a source which states that a lot of peace groups tried to stay clear of the WPC for the reasons you state then that'd be a great addition to the article.radek (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Good. I've put in material from Wittner's book.

The picture that emerges from the recent reading I've done on the subject is this. During the cold war, the Soviet Union tried to weaken the threat from the USA by promoting peace movements that campaigned for world disarmament but always focused on western arms. Their main agency was the World Peace Council (WPC), which got most of its funding from the USSR and appears to have been directed by it. There were numerous affiliated bodies. The Soviets tried to get the support of non-communist bodies, which they thought would strengthen their position. In the 1950s there was a degree of co-operation between western peace movements and the WPC, but increasing friction. For example, the WPC would not condemn Russian H-bomb tests; in 1956 the WPC condemned the Suez war but not the Russian invasion of Hungary. From this point on relations between the WPC and western peace organisations began to deteriorate and by the early 'sixties the western organisations had pretty well distanced themselves from the WPC and refused to have anything to do with it. At the same time, the WPC was weakened by the huge numbers of communists who left their national communist parties over Hungary.

Communists remained active in some western peace movements and exerted a degree of control over some of them, notably British CND in the 1970s. E.P.Thompson and others formed European Nuclear Disarmament in the late 70s precisely because they wanted to campaign actively against both western and Soviet armaments. Conservative commentators like Staar have tended to confuse the WPC and its many affiliates and fronts with the non-aligned western peace organisations and to tar them all with the communist brush. It has been claimed that some of the defectors from Soviet intelligence, who make a similar point, were double agents, and, although this has not been proved, it should make us treat their statements with caution.

If my recent amendment to the article is acceptable, I would be happy for it to be kept under the name of "Soviet influence on western peace movements" or something like that. Marshall46 (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Move suggestion

The deletion review resulted in a decision to keep the article. I suggest that it is renamed "Soviet influence on non-aligned peace movements".

I have re-organised the material and I would suggest that it now gives a balanced view, reporting the undoubted attempts by the World Peace Council (WPC) to influence non-aligned peace organisations, and fairly reporting writers like Lunev and Kalugin who claim that Soviet influence went far beyond the WPC. I have also quoted Wittner, who reports how non-aligned peace organisasations distanced themselves from the WPC.

Why "non-aligned" rather than "western"? Because a large part of the WPC's constituency was organisations in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Similarly, the organisations that remained independent of the WPC and Soviet influence were from the Non-Aligned Nations as well as from Europe, the USA and Australasia.

I feel that we are coming to a consensus on this hotly-contested topic, and I hope my recent amendments meet with the approval of other editors . Marshall46 (talk) 10:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that the title you propose, while not 100% perfect, is pretty good. As the article develops and other sources are added it may be reasonable at some point to rename again - just wanted to note that.radek (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't like it. I can see getting rid of "western" but "non-aligned" also reduces the scope.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't get the "non-aligned", neither. How about just Soviet influence on peace movement? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I would go with "Soviet-influenced peace movements". There was more than one.Marshall46 (talk)

In fact singular is more correct. There is one peace movement, composed of many peace movement organizations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really. As Peace movement says, "There is much confusion over what "peace" is (or should be), which results in a plurality of movements seeking diverse ideals of peace." The point of this article is that the Soviet-led movement tried to co-opt non-aligned movements. Marshall46 (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The confusion is from the article not being written by scholars but by a bunch of well meaning amateurs :) Plus, it is not contradicting what I said: there is one peace movement composed of many diverse organizations. Social movement is not the same thing as a social movement organization. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that bunch of "well-meaning amateurs" (read: "Wikipedia editors") is confused about the plurality of movements, though it may be confused about what peace is. Surely all those in a movement have to be moving a similar way. If one group is moving one way and another is moving another way, they are different movements.

At least let the title be idiomatic: "Soviet influence on the peace movement" or "Soviet influence on peace movements". "Soviet influence on peace movement" is not English. I think Piotr's move was premature. The discussion at the moment seems to be between him and me, and so far he is the only editor who wanted the move that he has just made. I have reverted pending agreement. Marshall46 (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to move it to Soviet influence on the peace movement or Soviet influence on peace movement organizations. My argument here is about academic nomenclature: there is ONE peace movement composed of MANY peace movement organizations. To speak of peace movements is (technically) incorrect in academic discourse (although I am sure it is a term often used in less academic works). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's agree on Soviet influence on the peace movement. Marshall46 (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Marshall, just chill. Just because this article brings certain things to light doesn't mean that one day you're going to have to find all those receipts. You're in the clear. Tringross (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Please - no personal attacks. Discuss content, no editors. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Tretyakov revisited

I have removed this passage because it gives undue weight to a fringe theory:

"More recently, Russian former intelligence officer and SVR defector Sergei Tretyakov went further and claimed that the KGB invented the concept of nuclear winter to foment opposition to Pershing II cruise missiles in Western Europe, alleging false reports released through the Soviet Academy of Sciences ... According to Tretyakov, this propaganda was distributed to peace groups, the environmental movement and Ambio, a peer-reviewed journal of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, which published a key article on the topic. It then entered the mainstream with the help of popular scientist Carl Sagan, co-author of a study of the consequences of nuclear war."

Tretyakov is the only person to say that nuclear winter theory was invented by the KGB. He also gets the facts wrong:

• The nuclear winter scenario did not suddenly emerge from publications by the Soviet Academy of Sciences or anyone else. It developed gradually out of of research on the effects of nuclear war by dozens of scientists on both sides of the Iron Curtain. See Nuclear Winter. Much of it was done in the USA in the 1970s.

• Tretyakov is mistaken about the sequence of events. The work of the Swedish Academy of Sciences began in 1980. Russian Academician Golitsyn became aware of Ambio in 1982 and the Soviet Academy of Sciences published papers in 1983. Alexandrov (whose disappearance is adduced as evidence of KGB involvement) also published in 1983. The Soviet scientists in the Ambio studies, Bochkov and Chazov, wrote on the medical effects of nuclear war, not on atmospheric effects. Kondratyev, who is also supposed to have been part of the KGB fraud, didn't publish his work on dust storms until 1986.

• The phrase "nuclear winter" was invented by Sagan and Turco in 1983.

• We now know that this rubbish has been pushed by editors on the secret Eastern European Mailing List, who know nothing about the subject, as part of their anti-Russian agenda.

Marshall46 (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

According to the sources you removed along with the text, Tretyakov is NOT the only person to say that nuclear winter theory was invented by the KGB. For example, the Time article states "some Western scientists (believe) that the nuclear winter scenario was promoted by Moscow". "Some Western scientists" =/ Tretyakov. It's ok to reword the text to better reflect the sources, but don't blank-remove entire sections.radek (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, Penguin books is not a "fringe publisher".radek (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Time said that some western scientists believe NW was promoted by Moscow, not that it was faked by the KGB, which is Tretyakov's claim. The Time report is vague: which western scientists and how promoted? I have done a lot of work on this and I can't find any detail or corroboration, but maybe you can. And irrelevant: the passage in Time refers to a topic in atmospheric and climatological research, not to the peace movement.

Tretyakov got it wrong and no-one sensible agrees with him. Why would you want Wikipedia to say that Golitsyn, Alexandrov and Kondratyev published before Crutzen, Birks, Turco, et.al, when they clearly published after? Do you know anything about this?

As an experienced editor, you must know that no way is Tretyakov a "reliable, third-party source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". As a commercial publisher, Penguin does not endorse every nutty idea in its books; nor in this case does does the author. Leave those claims at his entry.

Marshall46 (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the section can be moved to Tretyakov's article - but there should be a short summary of it here, per due weight. There are enough sources mentioning it that we should not ignore it. Even fringe theories like that deserve some coverage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The claim has due weight there, but there is no need to repeat it here. Marshall46 (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I discuss Tretyakov's claims in full here Marshall46 (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is not written from a neutral POV

I have added a neutrality tag -- this article only presents claims from one side, saying what people thought was Soviet influence. Ot states them as claims, but it makes little attempt to provide sources that refute the claims. 204.167.92.26 (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I have added "it has been claimed" and "it has been said" where appropriate, but the article still needs references to sources that actually challenge the claims. Marshall46 (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I haved added Joseph Rotblat's view of Soviet influence on the Pugwash movement. Marshall46 (talk)

... and a note on the Esperanto movement. Marshall46 (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the neutrality tag. The editor who put it in posted it from an IP address with multiple users and hasn't followed it up. If they want to pursue it, perhaps they might like to improve the article. Marshall46 (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I have added more information about the Christian Peace Conference, the International Institute for Peace and the World Peace Esperanto Movement. The first two appear to have been founded as WPC front organizations. The World Peace Esperanto Movement was generally pro-Soviet, but merely tolerated in the Soviet bloc because of Stalin's deep-rooted suspicion of Esperanto. Its founder was eventually expelled from the Communist Party.

Soviet influence on independent peace groups in the west seems to have been harder to achieve. It is notable that KGB defectors like Lunev and Kalugin make huge claims about KGB influence but are unable to name a single organizations that the KGB controlled or funded. I suspect that KGB agents exaggerated their influence. Tretyakov's claim about the KGB faking the data behind the nuclear winter scenario seems also to be bragadoccio, as western atmospheric scientists were a long way ahead of those in the Soviet Union. Marshall46 (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Repetition

An anonymous editor keeps putting in a passage that adds nothing to what is already there, except to mention Pershing missiles as per Earley p.170. I have added Pershing but taken out the rest. Marshall46 (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Rob Prince's articles on the World Peace Council

There is an interesting series of articles by Rob Prince about the World Peace Council (WPC), of which he was secretary. They cast further doubt on the extent to which the Soviet Union succeeded in influencing the peace movement in the West.

• He says that the funds that went through the WPC were squandered on huge peace congresses, which did no more than issue peace resolutions and denunciations of western imperialism.

• When the WPC's files came to light after the collapse of Communism, it was found to have spied on its staff but to have very poor intelligence on Western peace organizations.

• Although its HQ was in Helsinki, it had no contact with the large Finnish peace movement.

• The communist-oriented third world bodies that involved themselves in the WPC did so largely in order to gain access to Moscow.

If we add that the WPC denounced pacifism and hence distanced itself from most western peace organizations, and that Western peace organizations distanced themselves from the WPC, the extent of its influence is dubious. The few organizations that have been found to be closely associated with the WPC and to be funded by it were organizations in the Eastern bloc, not in the west. Marshall46 (talk) 10:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Soviet influence on the peace movement

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Soviet influence on the peace movement's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "barlow":

• From World Peace Council: Barlow, J.G.,Moscow and the Peace Offensive, 1982
• From Soviet influence on the peace movement: Barlow, J.G.,Moscow and the Peace Offensive, Heritage Foundation, 1982

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Current status of this article, October 2011

I have done some work on the World Peace Council (WPC). According to all the sources I have seen, the Soviet Union took a position shortly after the Second World War to promote the concept of peace in order to protect itself against American superiority of arms. In 1950, through the agency of the International Department of the CPSU and the Soviet Peace Committee, it promoted the WPC, which Communist organisations throughout the world were instructed to support. The WPC followed the Soviet line that the world was divided between a peace-loving Soviet Union and a warmongering USA, and never deviated from it. When the Soviet Union developed the atom bomb, the WPC supported it. When the USA attacked Korea, the WPC attacked it. When Russia invaded Hungary, the WPC was silent.

Huge resources were put into the WPC, which mounted large international conferences, attended by thousands of delegates. Because of the resources and energy of the WPC, and its ability to attract star names like Frederic Joliot-Curie, Paul Robeson, Pablo Picasso and Jean-Paul Sartre, it dominated the peace movement in the early '50s to such a degree that it appeared in the public mind to be identical to it. Dozens of organisations were directed by Moscow to support it. They are all well-known front organisations, like the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU), the World Federation of Democratic Youth (WFDY) and the International Union of Students (IUS).

Two events changed this. The first was the silence of the WPC on the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956, which revealed it as a ridiculous Soviet mouthpiece. The second was the growth in the non-aligned peace movement in the late 1950s, following the development of the H-bomb and the emergence in Britain of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. This movement differed from the WPC – it was less ideological, more sceptical of governments, more youth oriented and generally unbiddable. This peace movement was anathema to the WPC and the Soviet Union, which condemned its pacifism and its non-aligned stance. At the height of the anti-Vietnam war, the CIA decided that although the anti-war movement served the interests of the Communists, they did not control it. The WPC plodded on with its pro-Soviet line, but despite its grandiose conferences and declarations it had been sidelined by the non-aligned movement.

We have a few writers, like Staar, who claim that the peace movement was controlled by the Soviets, but when it comes to detail he mentions only known Communist front organisations, no non-aligned groups. Kalugin said that the Soviet Union ran all sorts of congresses, but it seems he is referring to outfits like the WPC, the WFTU, the WFDY and the IUS. Lunev claimed that the KGB funded every anti-war organisation in the USA, but fails to mention even one. His claim is contradicted by the CIA, whose 1967 report on the peace movement is now available.

We have known for some time that this article was written by members of the EEMG, who were motivated by an anti-Russian POV and didn’t know anything about the peace movement. (They even included the peace movement before the Second World War, which was in fact infiltrated by fascists, not by communists.) The idea of Communist or Soviet control of the peace movement is an old anti-Communist trope, given credence by the Soviet control of the WPC, but no source gives any evidence of Soviet influence on non-aligned peace groups.

What, then is, the point of this article? Marshall46 (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

In the 21st century

Something about human rights organizations criticizing Ukraine for using some types of weaponry (that Russia uses anyway) like mines or cluster munitions or such may be relevant here. Ex. [17]. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)