Talk:Harry Dexter White

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents 1 Roger Sandilands 2 Inconsistency 3 Rewrite needed 4 Reversion 4.1 External links 4.2 See also 5 FBI Venona file 6 Morgenthau Diary 7 How much evidence is "enough?" 8 RfC 9 Stuff moved from talk pages 10 From RFC 11 FBI ID 12 NPOV and totallydisputed tags 13 Stalin 14 Allegations denied 15 Significance of Venona 16 Currency plates 17 More currency manipulation 18 Venona #83 19 Export Control statutes 20 Morgenthau Diary (Hyde Park) 21 Proposed language 22 Morgenthau Diary quote source 23 White's death 24 decrypts 25 "Alleged" 26 Bretton Woods 27 Accusation vs Evidence 28 Opening Paragraph 29 Soviet Archival Sources 30 Ovakimian memo 31 Quality of Publishing Houses?

[edit] Roger Sandilands

As the original author of this article on White I object to the way it can be edited by someone else in this way. The person who edited my piece (D J Clayworth? see below) asserts that White was a spy. I did not assert that, though I made it plain that he was _accused_ of spying, which is very different. So I am now going to delete the last part of the article, to restore my original text. I have done the same with my article on Lauchlin Currie, where someone again inserted contentious (and illiterate) material into my article. Again, if you don't like what you read, add a signed addendum, or write in the discussion page. Thanks. Roger Sandilands (r.j.sandilands@strath.ac.uk)

To the original author of this article:

Hi Roger

Please note that a) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for reviewing books; b) you should not sign your name on articles. Articles are common property. For more information please see Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers.

Having said that, you obviously know your stuff. I was fascinated by what I found out about Harry White. I rewrote the article, not because I thought I knew more about Harry White than you, but to give you an idea of what we are looking for at Wikipedia. My style could definitely be improved, but the main point is that we are looking for biography in articles about people. I hope you will keep contributing to Wikipedia, You obviously have a lot to offer.

DJ Clayworth 13:18, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi Roger. It's important to remember that no one at Wikipedia has ownership of an article; it's a public encyclopedia that anyone can edit; if you dislike having articles you have contributed to edited mercilessly, you may not enjoy yourself here. With that being said, you have every right to dispute information you feel is inaccurate in an article. Also, you should really add new text to talk pages at the bottom of the page, not the top. People will expect new comments to be added at the bottom; noone is likely to see your comment way up here. Also, when making comments please sign them by typing four tildes ~~~~. It makes it a lot easier to sort out who's said what. · Katefan0^(scribble) 02:08, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Sandilands bio [1]. nobs 20:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Hi! I don't know why must delete this page (Harry Dexter White). Because he sign? You are delete the sign and at all... not? PEDA

Not deleted based on discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Harry White

[edit] Inconsistency

This article implies that White was not a Communist. The Henry Wallace article says outright that he was a Soviet spy. Obviously this is problematic. john k 04:43, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's not necessarily an inconsistency - plenty of KGB moles (including most of those in the UK) weren't communists. More spying was driven by money than ideology - selling secrets or succumbing to blackmail. White certainly wasn't a communist, and there doesn't appear to be any solid evidence that he spied for the Soviets. Mind you, the absence of solid evidence doesn't seem to prevent a number of other articles listing their subjects as Soviet spies. -- Gregg 11:52, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite needed

These discredited McCarthyite lies against White keep on getting reinserted. This article needs a complete rewrite. I think that the IMF's biography is public domain, and we can use it as a basis for a new article. [2] I'd appreciate it if someone could double check this for me? Thanks. 172 07:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The terms and conditions are: The IMF grants permission to visit this Site and to download and copy information, documents and materials from this Site for personal, non-commercial use only, without any right to resell or redistribute them or to compile or create derivative works, subject to these Terms of Use and also subject to more specific restrictions that may apply to particular information within this Site. See the Copyright and Permissions policy to find out how to request other permissions from the IMF. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved. Is Wikipedia not subject to the restrictions against derivative works and redistribution because it is non-commercial? 172 07:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

IANAL, but I don't think Wiki can use it because of the derivatives. Every time we edit it we make a derivative version. Also, since Wikipedia allows its work to be used for commercial purposes, we can't use it. It's incompatible with the wiki licence. Putting it on wiki would also be redistributing it. Basically, they are allowing you to make hard copies for research and educational purposes. Steve block 10:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Another good source, though NOT public domain (and not free outside university libraries with subcriptions) is James Boughton "New Light on Harry Dexter White" Journal of the History of Economic Thought, June 2004, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 179-195. 172 07:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seems Broughton is the same source as the IMF site; how does this qualify as "another source"?Nobs01 17:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Use of the term McCarthite betrays a POV, seeing the Harry Dexter White matter predates Joseph McCarthy & McCarthyism by several years. This is proven by prima facia evidence. Nobs01 16:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your explicit declaration that he was a spy, in spite of the apparent existence of dispute on this question, shows much more strongly your POV. john k 16:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion

Reverted text placed here for editing.

White became involved with Soviet intelligence espionage in May of 1941. One of his most valuable assets was his ability to place in the Treasury Department individuals the Silvermaster ring wanted to have assinged in the department. Among them were Lud Ullman, William Henry Taylor, and Sonia Gold.

After the war, White was closely involved with setting up what were called the Bretton Woods institutions - the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. These institutions were intended to prevent some of the economic problems that occurred after the First World War, and help ensure that capitalism became the dominant post-war economic system. After the war, White was closely involved with setting up what were called the Bretton Woods institutions - the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. These institutions were intended to prevent some of the economic problems that occurred after the First World War, and help ensure that capitalism became the dominant post-war economic system.

On December 4, 1945, the FBI transmitted to the White House a report entitled "Soviet Espionage in the United States." The report summarized White's espionage activities. Copies of the report were sent to Attorney General Thomas Clark too. The evidence indicated a substantial spy ring operating within the Government and involving White. Given the secrecy of the Venona project materials, the president went ahead six weeks later and nominated White for appointment to the International Monetary Fund.

In August 1948, White appeared before the House Un-American Activities Committee to defend his reputation. Two former spies, Elizabeth Bentley and Whittaker Chambers, were alleging that he had spied for Russia. Bentley said his colleagues had passed information to her from him. Chambers claimed that White gave him documents for an underground Communist cell in the 1930s. White, though recovering from a series of heart attacks, stoutly proclaimed his lifelong commitment to the principles of democracy and the ideals of Roosevelt's New Deal. He died of a heart attack three days later and HUAC dropped the case.

In August 1948, Harry Dexter White appeared before the House Un-American Activities Committee to defend his reputation. Two former spies, Elizabeth Bentley and Whittaker Chambers, were alleging that he had spied for the Soviet Union and was a member of the Silvermaster ring. FBI laboratories established a highly confidential handwritten memorandum provided to Chambers in 1938 was White's handwriting. Bentley said his colleagues had passed information to her from him and accused White of providing stolen U.S. currency plates to the Soviet Union. The plates were used to print unlimited amounts of occupation currency in the eastern zone of postwar Germany precipitating the Berlin Crisis. Chambers claimed that White gave him documents for an underground Communist cell in the 1930s. White, though recovering from a series of heart attacks, stoutly proclaimed his lifelong commitment to the principles of democracy and the ideals of Roosevelt's New Deal. He died of a heart attack three days later and HUAC dropped the case. + Some believe one of the code names in the secret VENONA project referred to White (all of the agents in VENONA were identified by code names only.) In 1953, claims were made by Senator Joseph McCarthy and others that Truman had known that White was a Soviet spy when he appointed him to the IMF. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover convinced Attorney General Herbert Brownell that White was a spy, and White's reputation was publicly vilified. White's bronze bust was ignominiously removed to the IMF's basement.

Venona cyphers quote him as saying he was willing for any self-sacrifice on behalf of the MGB, but was afraid that his activities, if exposed, might lead to a political scandal and have an effect on the 1944 Presidential election. In 1953 J. Edgar Hoover convinced Attorney General Brownell that White was a spy. White's bronze bust was ignominiously removed to the IMF's basement.

[edit] External links

• Biography of White by the IMF
• FBI Venona FOIA
• FBI Silvermaster file, p.27
• Time Magazine, The White Case Record, Nov. 30, 1953

[edit] See also

• Biography of White by the IMF
• History of Soviet espionage in the United States

[edit] FBI Venona file

pgs. 17-18 Text

Office Memorandum ° UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

DATE: October 16, 1950

TO: The Director

FROM: Mr. Ladd

SUBJECT: ESPIONAGE - R

PURPOSE: To advise you of the positive identification of agent Jurist (the cover name of a Soviet agent operating in 1944 and named by [Venona project]) as Harry Dexter White, deceased. White was formerly the Administrative Assistant to former Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau.

DETAILS: You have previously been advised of information obtained from [Venona project] regarding Jurist who was active during 1944. According to the previous information received from [Venona project regarding Jurist, during April, 1944, he had reported on conversations between the then Secretary of State Hull and Vice President Wallace. He also reported on Wallace's proposed trip to China. On August 5, 1944, he reported to the Soviets that he was confident of President Roosevelt's victory in the coming elections unless there was a huge military failure. He also reported that Truman's nomination as Vice President was calculated to secure the vote of the conservative wing of the Democratic Party. It was also reported that Jurist was willing for any self-sacrifice in behalf of the MGB but was afraid that his activities, if exposed, might lead to a political scandal and have an effect on the elections. It was also mentioned that he would be returning to Washington, D. C., on August 17, 1944. The new information from [Venona project] indicates that Jurist and Morgenthau were to make a trip to London and Normandy and leaving the United States on August 5, 1944.

On the basis of the foregoing, the tentative identification of Harry Dexter White as Jurist appears to be conclusively established inasmuch as Morgenthau and White left the United States on a confidential trip to the Normandy beachhead on August 5, 1944, and they returned to the United States on August 17, 1944.

You may recall that Harry Dexter White was named by Whittaker Chambers in his statements as having been a source of information for Chambers in his work in Soviet espionage until Chambers broke with the Soviets in 1938. Chambers produced a handwritten memorandum that White had given him and our Laboratory established this memorandum as being in White's handwriting. The Treasury Department advised that parts of the material were highly confidential, coming to the Treasury Department from the Department of State.

In addition to the foregoing, Elizabeth T. Bentley in November, 1945, advised that she had learned through Nathan Gregory Silvermaster that White was supplying Silvermaster with information which was obtained by White in the course of his duties as Assistant to the Secretary of the of the Treasury.

RECOMMENDATION:

There is attached hereto a blind memorandum which has been prepared for the information and assistance of [redacted] setting forth this identification. There is also attached a memorandum to the Field giving them the new information from [Venona project] which establishes conclusively the identity of White as Jurist.

Attachment

[edit] Morgenthau Diary

The concentration of Communist sympathizers in the Treasury Department, and particularly the Division of Monetary Research, is now a matter of record. White was the first director of that division; those who succeeded him in the directorship were Frank Coe and Harold Glasser. Also attached to the Division of Monetary Research were William Ludwig Ullman, Irving Kaplan, and Victor Perlo. White, Coe, Glasser, Kaplan, and Perlo were all identified as participants in the Communist conspiracy…In his one appearance before the House Committee in 1948, White emphatically denied participation in any conspiracy. A few days later he was found dead, the apparent victim of suicide by sleeping pills.” Morgenthau Diary, p. 80.

[edit] How much evidence is "enough?"

It boggles the mid that so many people can state with a straight fact that there is "no," "little" or "insufficient" evidence indicating whether Harry Dexter White was a soviet spy. The evidence is overwhelming. Had he not died, he would have been tried and executred as a Soviet Spy. The fact that he died before he could be tried does not mean, as some state, that he "was cleared" or "was never charged."

That article is left-leaning propaganda, pure and simple.

To add - almost parenthetically and at the END of the article - ambiguous statements about White's involvement with the Soviet Union is laughable. The man was a spy. A paid Soviet spy. You'd think that would rate inclusion in the first paragraph of his bio.... unless you want to "bury" it for ideological reasons.

Amen. And given the appologists at the IMF today, of coarse it's easy to pile all the blame on Frank Coe & Solomon Adler (incidentally, I need hel uploading this image Mao, Coe, Adler & Strong), seeing they both died in China after implementing thier economic ideas that resulted in the Three Years of Natural Disasters.Nobs01 21:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Although not all, here are the most damning decrypts:

1119-1121 to Moscow, 4 August 1944, Translation 50; New York 1634 to Moscow, 20 November 1944, Translation 71; and New York 79 to Moscow, 18 January 1945, Translation 84.

[edit] RfC

I've had a read of this page so hopefully I'm up to speed...

I can't see what can't be sorted out by applying the policies of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Verifibility. People seem to be talk about evidence for against White being a spy - so just write the article from them. Say source X says he was a spy, source Y says that's a disputed source, and source Z says he wasn't a spy.

It might help if you had a go at colating the relevant references here on the Talk page first, and then discussing how to use them. Dan100 (Talk) 07:31, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Does the United States government, in its various entities of National Archives and Records Administration, Department of Justice, Army Signal Intelligence Service, and other agencies qualify as a single "source"?Nobs01 20:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stuff moved from talk pages

I'm moving this stuff from my and Nobs's talk page, since it is relevant to the arguments here: john k 21:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am available now to discuss any problems with the article. The reference to McCarthy you just reverted to is clearly out of place, seeing all the McCarthy business came much later, and was perhaps even motivated after the Harry Dexter White matter was disposed of. Please read the Time magazine article at the bottom of the page regarding the White matter in 1945-46; while it does give a good insight into how Americans percieved the matter in 1953, according to the notorious McCarthyite publication Time Magazine, the material I added in for factual reference to pre-1948 is indisputable. Nobs01 16:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what your edits are obviously trying to do is to indicate that Harry Truman was a communist sympathizer. As to a Time magazine article from 1953 as a reliable source, please. Time magazine was a McCarthyite source in 1953! See Henry Luce (although our article on him isn't very good). Beyond that, surely there must be some recent sources on White that establish what people think about it now. Forgive me for not having much faith in a Time magazine article from 1953. john k 16:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if that is the impression, and I will be happy to work with you to achieve a NPOV vis-a vis Harry Truman. However this matter relates to the entire period of American history, basically from 1921 onwards (see History of Soviet espionage in the United States). Clearly, Truman was no communist symapthizer, witness Truman Doctrine, Containment etc. However, the primary source to gain proper perspective is FBI Venona file pgs. 61-75, where we see Venona project evidence was kept secret from President Truman himself, which explains why he went ahead with the appointment of White. (See also Talk:Whittaker_Chambers#Psychiatrist for the basic thesis, that while it was true a large Soviet appartus existed in D.C. in the 1930s & 40s, McCarthy began with a half truth and went after the wrong people. Most probably because in his perception, the FBI wasn't doing anything about it. Hence the real significance of the FBI Venona file pgs. 61-75). All this information needs to be inserted properly throughout a host of articles). Trust me, I am no defender of McCarthy and not a critic of Truman, but it seems while McCarthy persecuted innocent people, many of the truelly guilty have been able to hide & escape under the cloak of being McCarthyite victims. For now, until you have had time to examine the documents, to achieve a NPOV, I propose removing the McCarthyism reference in the Harry Dexter White article to where it can be reinserted later after the pre-McCarthy Venona material is properly handled. Thanks. Nobs01 17:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you want to remove stuff, that's fine. That being said, I will admit a considerable lack of knowledge about the Venona files. In particular, I don't feel that I have enough specific background in this stuff to be able to read the document you give me and have any understanding of what it means in context. I would greatly appreciate a scholarly secondary source from the last decade or so that discusses the question of White's involvement with the communists. john k 17:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Very good. I will be happy to work with you if you are interested. This article Politics and the Attack on FDR's Economists I beleive comes from an IMF publication. While I don't agree with all its conclusions, offers some balance. The case of Lauchlin Currie is somewhat even more disputed, and personally I have trouble with it cause I genuinely like the guy; but it appears he was not just an ideological informant, but a paid informant. I placed the reversions on the Talk page and will makes some changes and submit them to you. The notorious right-wing rag, Time magazine, is interesting in that it gives a glimpse into the atmosphere of popular public perceptions in 1953 apart from McCarthy. For now (and I expect for a quite a while), I am not really even dealing with the decade of the 1950s. Thanks. Nobs01 17:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite of disputed text.

On December 4, 1945, the FBI transmitted to the White House a report entitled "Soviet Espionage in the United States." The report summarized White's espionage activities. Copies of the report were sent to Attorney General Thomas Clark too. The evidence indicated a substantial spy ring operating within the Government and involving White. Given the secrecy of the Venona project materials, the president went ahead six weeks later and nominated White for appointment to the International Monetary Fund.Nobs01 18:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't like that version, either. Among other things, it implies that it is uncontroversial to say he was involved in espionage. Given the link you sent me from cooperativeindividualism.org, which I am in the process of reading, it seems to me that this is questionable. I think the minimum that that article admits about White should certainly be put in - that he employed a good number of communists in the Treasury, and was friends with various known communist spies; that he was almost certainly very loose with his tongue, and didn't see any problem with telling his communist underlings about his work; that he is mentioned in the Venona dispatches. Beyond that, it seems to be disputed - certainly, Boughton and Sandilands dispute it, and they seem to be relatively reputable sources. I think it is absolutely key that the various different explanations for White's behavior be brought in, and that we not just say he was a spy. john k 18:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good points; I don't wish to be too hasty. I will however also include National Security Archive (two extracts from the mongraph: "Exploitation of VENONA exposes major KGB espionage agents such as Klaus Fuchs, Harry Gold, David Greenglass, Theodore Hall, William Perl, the Rosenbergs, Guy Burgess, Donald Maclean, Kim Philby, and Harry D. White" and "UN conference (attended by KGB agent Harry Dexter White") link to the External links where anyone can access the decrypts themself. This I beleive may even be overkill. The accumulated evidence over the decades is overwhelming to the point of being conclusive. One would expect apologists of course, perhaps even from the IMF itself. But I beleive any issues in the [cooperativeindividualism.org] link, vis-a-vis White can ultimately be refuted. Lauchlin Currie, however, is where the dispute really should take place, IMHO. In his case, there does appear alot of evidence against the guy, to the point of even being paid, but the motive issues dont' always square with what appear to be his fundemental beliefs. Truelly a much more complex character. Nobs01 18:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, the question is not what you or I or the NSA think (obviously you and the NSA think that White is guilty; I don't really feel like I know enough to say one way or the other.) The question is if there is a legitimate dispute over whether or not he is guilty, or if it is generally accepted that he is guilty. Again, I don't feel that I am necessarily up on this enough to say for sure, but the existence of an article by seemingly serious people which argues that he isn't guilty suggests that there is still some dispute (Could one at this point find similar articles about Alger Hiss, for instance?) As to the IMF, considering that, per our article, they moved his bust to the basement, I don't see that they would necessarily be likely to defend White. Once again, the existence of a relatively non-partisan account of this would make deciding this much easier. john k 19:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, the Alger Hiss is the sore point of partisan dispute in the United States now for two generations. Watergate, indeed can be seen as a political vendetta by Hiss defenders against Richard Nixon, who rose from an obscure congressman to the Presidency by sending Alger Hiss, the first Secretary General of the United Nations to prison because of his Communist espionage activities which resulted in the Western betrayal at the Yalta Conference. All those issues can be dealt with there when the time comes. What is particularly dispicable about some of these characters (like Hiss), is that rather than admit to his own complicity, he was willing to cast aspersions upon people around him & subordinates who trusted him until he died in 1992. These questions are all actively being debated on those talk pages. The question of Harry White giving Soviet intelligence stolen templates to conterfeit US currency is indisputable, and doesnt pass the anti-fascist test. As to separating White from Truman, because Truman truelly was in the dark about his complicity, which led to 50 years of lies and distortions, and partisan bitterness in the United States (see VENONA_project#Significance), again let me refer you to the FBI Venona file pgs. 61-75, which needs to placed in Wikisource. Nobs01 19:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here's another source [3], a book by R. Bruce Craig, which also seems to suggest that White has not been proven to be a communist spy. As to the counterfeit US currency thing, what is your source for this? (And the Nixon and Hiss thing - well, I think I'll do best just to pretend you didn't say that). My point about Hiss was that you will not find scholars today who are willing to defend Hiss. This does not seem to be the case with White. john k 19:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This guy, an official State Department/CIA historian, seems more convinced by the Venona stuff that White is guilty, but he doesn't seem to think that Craig's argument is beyond the pale, and generally seems to respect Craig's work, even while disagreeing with him. The Washington Post review reprinted on Amazon is much more negative, but I don't know anything about Ted Morgan. Some of the points, though, seem pretty specious. The Library Journal also gave what appears to be a favorable review, and there are quotes from various luminaries on the back praising the book. It seems to me that this suggests, at least, that there is still a legitimate dispute on the subject of White's guilt. john k 19:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This, by the way, seems to interpret Craig's book completely differently from Ted Morgan and the State Department/CIA guy, saying that Craig accepts that White was a spy. So now I'm confused. john k 19:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There will always be a legitimate dispute, seeing he was never tried and/or convicted. I have is no problem with referencing that within the Harry White article, but the more of those stale arguements you wish to site, then the more of the overwelhming evidence I would have to ask to insert within the article. This article has graduated from being a glorious bio page about a dead New Dealer (and that issue must be addressed, how FDR himself was betrayed by people he trusted) to an article that is going to be more related to the History of Soviet espionage in the United States. I'm really sceptical about the ability to rehabilitate this man's reputation. (Haven't finished reading the interpretive analysis you sent me, but will do) Nobs01 19:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reading the Prologue to Treasonable Doubt I find this immediate distortion on pg. 4[4]:

What was the evidence that enabled Chambers and Bentley, in 1948, to declare Harry Dexter White a Soviet spy...

Chamber left espionage work in 1938 and I don't believe ever met White. White I don't believe was recruited into Soviet intelligence until 1941. Thus, they author seeks to draw upon the sympathies of those who have vilified Chambers credibility for 57 years now by suggesting Chambers was one of White's accusers. A distortion, reverting history back in the same manner as suggesting Joseph McCarthy was one of White's accusers in 1948. Source is prejudiced. Still reading. User:nobs01

Let me correct myself (I spoke to soon). Chambers did name White as member of the CPUSA he knew in 1938 (Chambers Testimony). However, he was never an accuser of White's espionage activities during the war since he had no knowledge of them because he defected from the group in 1938. Here is a relevent excerpt from August 3 1948 Testimony:

Mr. HEBERT. Was he considered as a source of information to the Communist cell?

Mr. CHAMBERS. No. I should perhaps make the point that these people were specifically not wanted to act as sources of information. These people were an elite group, an outstanding group, which it was, believed would rise to positions as, indeed, some of them did-notably, Mr. White and Mr. Hiss-in the Government...

The motives for a distorion are obvious, there is still a huge market to sell books to, to defend Hiss, etc. Nobs01 22:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From the Truman Library Oral History Interview with Stephen J. Spingarn, President's Temp. Comm. on Employee Loyalty, 1946-47, see pgs 770-772 to get a good first hand account of the Truman White House dealing with this matter, good flavour of the personalities involved, attitude toward FBI bungling etc. Nobs01 01:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The author in footnote 2 you sent me yesterday Robert Louis Benson is the same author I quoted from the NAS Monograph National Security Archive so I hope we're back on the same song sheet. I'll make one more comment in FDR header bellow & leave it at that so as not to confuse the issues. I'm sorry for doing so. Nobs01 14:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] From RFC

The subject is clearly still being debated. I don't think it's appropriate to state in categorical terms that HDW was a spy. In fact, a cursory Google search turned up recent research casting doubt on the claims, even in light of what was contained in the Venona files: [5] · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:07, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

• His daughters appear to still be denying it as well. From a letter to the editor in the Washington Times, which rebutted a review of the Craig book, issue date May 29 '04: Mr. Goulden does not soberly question the author's interpretation of evidence, counter his arguments or disagree with his conclusions. Still in the grip, it seems, of the anti-Communist rage of Cold War days, Mr. Goulden can only display his contempt for the man whose book he is reviewing. He says Mr. Craig "haggles over details," lectures him on the historical significance of the Comintern [Communist International], and dismisses his work as a "ploy by the academic left." In closing, he attacks Mr. Craig for his "dishonesty," "moral squalor," etc.

The truth is that Mr. Craig's book should be criticized, not because it tries to justify Harry Dexter White's supposed espionage, but because it accepts commission of espionage as a proven fact.

Harry White is safely dead and unable to confront those who libel him. But as his daughters, we wish to express our outrage at this renewed insult to his memory, to reaffirm his innocence and to declare our pride in his service to his country.

JOAN PINKHAM

Amherst, Mass.

RUTH LEVITAN

Stamford, Conn.

· Katefan0^(scribble) 17:28, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

See the above discussion with john k regarding the prejudicial premise found on page 4 of the Prologue to Treasonable Doubt; that falls into the category of what historians call a conclusionary premise, pretending to reexamine a verdict from a starting point with the end is already in view. There will always be discussion in the absence of trial & conviction (hell, that still wouldn't stop some people). However, the factual evidence proves that the issues themselves were decided long before Joseph McCarthy & Herbert Brownell, Jr. ever discussed it. Venona was another nail in the coffin that wasn't even needed. White falls into the category of the guilty who have pretended to be McCarthyite victims (in his case, even while being dead). Venona files now give us the opportunity of separating the truelly guilty from the truelly innocent, whom McCarthy persecuted. To maintain the lie another 50 years, does not serve that end. Nobs01 17:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, I respect your interest and readings on this particular topic, but we are not here to pass judgment on various theories or elevate ones above another per se. We are here to summarize pertinent and valid information, particularly when referring to items that are in dispute. This particular item is clearly in dispute, whether you agree personally with Craig's book or not. It deserves a mention in the article, especially since his family disputes the claim, though the amount of space dedicated to it should be commensurate with its status. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:04, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

It may be useful to refer to this bit from WP:NPOV: First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view is correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present. Ideally, presenting all points of view also gives a great deal of background on who believes that p and q and why, and which view is more popular (being careful not to associate popularity with correctness). · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:12, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Also, from WP:Wikiquette: Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent all views (more at NPOV). The Talk ("discussion") pages are not a place to debate value judgements about which of those views are right or wrong or better. If you want to do that, there are venues such as Usenet, public weblogs and other wikis. Use the Talk pages to discuss the accuracy/inaccuracy, POV bias, or other problems in the article, not as a soapbox for advocacy. Apologies for the amount of text, but these policies directly bear on my point. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:17, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the surviving families sensitivities should be taken into account. Nobs01 18:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that. I still think, though, that given that there is active and recent scholarship going on (regardless of whether you agree with Craig's book or not) seeking to disprove claims of White's having been a spy, that this information also needs to be included. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:26, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Katefan: I truelly appreciate your help very much cause you impress me as an experienced editor. And I truelly mean that. What I wouldn't want to see happen in this article however, is the old sledge hammar being used to kill a fly. Even White's daughters appear to recognize the book in question can't refute the evidence, can only recyle half century old partisan arguements. Truthfully, this article is far from complete; the subject of White being on the trail of Nazi gold hasn't even been broached. The views of John Loftus, who formerly worked in the U.S._DOJ_Office_of_Special_Investigations Nazi hunting unit, and Stuart Eizenstat, who negotiated compensation for slave laborers during the Clinton administration I would consider extrememly valuable. Nobs01 19:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FBI ID

Note on positive identification of White as agent jurist Wikisource:FBI_Memorandum_identifying_Harry_Dexter_White_as_agent_Jurist: To make the record complete, if necessary, I would be happy to "walk the dog backwards" within the text of the article, if requested or demanded, to articulate the multifold corroborative evidence accumulated over several years that led to the positve identification of White as "jurist". This could be done, I suspect, in 5 or 6 paragraphs. It should be noted, the positve identification of a deceased person is not taken lightly, and done with extreme caution in counterintelligence investigations, because if a mistake is made, a living person can continue operations under a mistaken indentification. Rather, I would prefer expand the article in the direction of White's pursuit of Nazi-gold and other stolen assets, which really is underreported his official biographies. (As a further note, Loftus's book has very interesting comments regarding Allen Dullas, Alger Hiss & Richard Nixon, and is strangely silent on Harry Dexter White, which, in itself, is telling. Hiss, who worked for Dullas in 1945, was identified by Nixon who at that time was in Naval Intelligence; Dullas appreciated Nixon allerting him to the danger of his suborndinate, and so was the beginning of a mutual relationship. Meanwhile, Nixon got out of the Navy, went back to California, got elected to Congress, went to Washington and continued working on the discovery he made while in Naval Intelligence regarding Hiss, and the rest is history, but that is for another place, I guess). Thank you. Nobs01 01:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The IMF article we discussed earlier does not deny that White was Jurist - it says instead that what is known about Jurist is not enough to say that White was spying for the Soviets - that an interpretation which just has White being extremely indiscreet in discussions with Soviet agents is equally credible. I don't know that this is a plausible explanation, but I do know that this is not an argument which can be refuted by proving that White was Jurist. john k 03:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

U. S. and Allied Efforts To Recover and Restore Gold and Other Assets Stolen or Hidden by Germany During World War II, William Z. Slany, The Historian Department of State 64.106.112.148 04:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and totallydisputed tags

These should not be removed until a consensus is reached that the NPOV and factual accuracy disputes that caused the tag to be placed are resolved. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:17, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Again -- the tags should not be removed (or "downgraded") except by the person who originally placed them, or through a consensus of editors here on the talk page. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:42, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, my screw up. nobs 19:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, it's no problem, thank you for being understanding and gracious. We're all learning our way around here -- after all, nobody's ever tried to do a project like Wikipedia before. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:16, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Is there anybody who isn't okay with the removal of {{totallydisputed}}? · Katefan0^(scribble) 02:49, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Due to the interest in this article, I would propose any insertions by User: Coqsportif be properly sourced & cited. Thank you. nobs 22:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw: User:Coqsportif's insertions have confused me; what sections of the main text article are referenced by the Andrew Kubek citation? nobs 19:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

English Language Primary Sources on China at War, 1937-1945 from fas.harvard nobs 19:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Meaning? That article doesn't mention White. -Willmcw 21:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Haven't looked at it but he was just asked below about China. --TJive 01:05, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if you've noticed yet, there is a One China policy article, but the Two China policy article is yet to be written. which I suspect will provoke much controversy. And it will tie into this article. nobs 22:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

So "English Language Primary Sources on China at War, 1937-1945" is going to be a source for a future article, but has nothing (yet) directly to do with this article? -Willmcw 08:09, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Please note: in response to User:Coqsportif [6], ALL my insertions are properly footnoted and sourced Harry_Dexter_White#Notes. nobs 19:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw: IHR yes; GPO & NARA no. nobs 02:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stalin

Coqsportrif: interesting edits and thank you for your contribution. I removed two refereences to Stalin, cause they may be a little over the top which would probably need references. They are, "In truth, these idealistic beliefs were a mask for an agent of Stalin's Soviet Union. He remained an impassioned supporter of Stalin until his death." Also, I don't preesuppose we can get into Mr. White's head with the declaritive "In truth, these idealistic beleifs", etc. Perhaps we save the debate for Mr. White's love of Joseph Stalin for another day when more contributors may be interested. I would like to include the information about White pursuing stolen assets & Nazi gold, etc., which is very important and underreported. Thanks you. nobs 17:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

See [7]; and timestamp, I really did not have my glasses while I was attempting to manage this latest sockpupet vandal, and will no longer consider this editor in good faith. nobs 23:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, I am struggling to follow what your issue is here. I also don't get the neo-Nazi reference, I can assure you I am not one. Quite the reverse. I am just interested in getting to some sourced material about White, particularly his importance as a Soviet spy. He clearly was on the evidence, mind you it's important the article point out his denial and his family's continuing denial.

I don't have the answers but I think important questions the article should address:

• Was he a paid agent of the Soviet Union? I found a reference to the KGB wanting to pay his children's school fees but couldn't find much else.

• What were his political views? I think he was a supporter of Stalin but haven't found much to support it.

• Was his plan or what was called the Morgenthau Plan consistent with USSR policy? I have assumed so but would like to see more on that.

Coqsportif 23:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see the problem now. What appeared to be scholarly and well-researched is the mad ravings of David Irving ites. That's bad. Very bad. I am not very comfortable with using them as a source although it did claim to be based on diaries, but given what else these people claim it is obviously not much use. I will remember that "revisionist" is code for Holocaust deniers et al. Aren't they sneaky? Coqsportif 00:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations denied

Placed here for revision; good source, however there are prima facia factual inconsitencies that must be addressed.

Shortly before his death, over several days of intensive public examination on the issue White vehemently denied on oath ever being a Soviet spy. His family continue to protest his innocence. His defenders include publications issued by the International Monetary Fund which argued that his motives were unfairly impugned, and that such attacks "ranged from the questionable to the bizarre." They point to the credibility of his main accuser at the time, the now discredited Senator Joe McCarthy. They dispute that his unwillingness to facilitate Government approved loans to the Chinese Nationalist Government was an attempt to undermine it in favor of Mao Zedong. Rather they argue he was merely trying to hold them accountable for the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars. They say his plan to deindustrialize Germany was not part of a "grand design to create an economic vacuum in Europe to be exploited by the Soviet Union." His support for the Soviet Union, they argue, was in the context of a "wartime military alliance" against the Axis countries. [8]

nobs 00:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

In otherwords, Joseph McCarthy was not his "main accuser" "shortly before his death" in 1948, as stated here. nobs 00:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it is ambiguous what "at the time" means in this case. McCarthy certainly was a main accuser of White shortly after White's death. john k 01:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

That depends if you consider 5 years "shortly". I think it is deliberately deceptive and discredits the source, seeing the context even refers to "vehemently denied on oath" etc., and McCarthy did not sit on the HUAC in 1948, nor for that matter ever served in the House. This is all in one paragraph. It can be fixed, because this is not what the original source material says. nobs 01:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

What about:

Prior to his death, after several days of intensive public examination on the question of whether he was an espionage agent for the Soviet Union, White denied the allegation repeatedly. His family continue to protest his innocence. His defenders include authors published by a journal of the International Monetary Fund which argued his motives were impugned unfairly. They point to the strength of feeling and over-zealousness of some of White's accusers such as Senator Joe McCarthy and point to his role in the creation of institutions like the IMF and World Bank whose objectives include the promotion of capitalism.

I think putting the counter view would be helpful at the end of the article to put it in context. He is clearly a spy but his denial is an importatnt part of his story. Coqsportif 12:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

You have to deal with this simple question in English: Under a Sub-head entitled "Allegations denied", you are stating (1) Joseph McCarthy accused a dead man. (2) the dead man denied the allegations from the grave. Clearly we can do better for Wikipedia than this disguised recycled POV. nobs 15:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw:Are we really gonna keep the ihr site, cause there is better primary source and secondary source available. Thanks. nobs 19:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not an "IHR site" so much as a Kubek paper. Can you tell me if Kubek's other work, his introduciton, is used as a source for any material? If so, then he is regarded as a reliable source. -Willmcw 19:58, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Significance of Venona

Please note, the materials just inserted (or the subject of those materials) is directly related to this article Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Significance of Venona, seeing that Harry Dexter White's active assistance in the subversion of FDR's policy of support for Nationalist China is what brought the present day non-democratic CCP to power, a nation that is expected as a hegemon to overtake the United States in GDP, military strength etc, before the year 2030. Recent estimates have moved that date up somewhat. So there is more than just an historical or revisionist aspect to these articles. Thank you. nobs 02:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

What evidence to we have for this "active subversion"? In what way was he personally, and intentionally, responsible for delaying the loan to China? Thanks, -Willmcw 06:19, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I've been working on that for several months, but these incessant edit wars keep taking up too much time. Definitive text probably will have to wait til issues on other pages are settled. But what keeps happening in this article are continutiy breaks, as now with the IMF section, he keeps getting resurrected after he's dead. nobs 19:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Are you sure that whatever you're "working on" wouldn't be considered original research? · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:26, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I am referring to presenting the case with all proper citations, and budgeting the time to deal with potential challenges. Thank you. nobs 19:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you're working on it then let's remove it until you have supporting info. Now there is a strong innuendo that White intentionally undercut the Nationalists in order to help their Communist opponents. -Willmcw 19:56, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

(Just wanted to note that during World War II, the Soviets were basically supporting he Nationalist government. So I find it hard to understand how someone like White, who, whatever his status as a Soviet spy, does not seem to have been a Communist, would be going beyond actual Soviet policy in his efforts to help the CCP. john k 20:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC))

If the Soviets were supporters of Nationalist China then why did Molotov want China ejected from the Council of Foreign Ministers in 1945? Stalin declared his support for Molotov's position on Sept 24 and the Council, meeting in London, had to adjourn on October 2 because of this specific impasse (the Anglo-American position was that asking the Chinese Foreign Minister to withdraw then would be a humiliation and make a mockery of the Council). See Piers Dixon's "Double Diploma", J.F. Byrnes' "Speaking Frankly" and "All in One Lifetime", and Truman's "Year of Decisions" if you want sources.Bdell555 23:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing it for now; there are other questions dealing export licences etc., beside the activities of the Bureau of Monetary Research under Harry White during World War II. And I'd just as soon deal with all the economic issues at one time. Thank you. nobs 20:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Currency plates

Interesting question; excess currency printed on real plates. So it was half-counterfeit, though the paper & ink was somewhat different from original. It's always been a difficult subject to explain.nobs 04:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The article implies that the effort by White was unauthorized and that he gave the plates to the Soviets secretly. Is that also true? -Willmcw 06:17, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

The transfer of the stolen plates effectively amounted to this (1) the American taxpayer paid the salaries of Soviet Occupation troops (2) it economically, socially, and politically destabilized the Joint Occupation Zone leading to the Berlin Crisis. This was a well thoughtout strategy that originated in Moscow. Those complicit in Washington only followed instructions. nobs 18:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

No it wasn't secret, but it was secret that they were printing vastly excessive amounts of currency and intending to use it to promote the spread of communism in Europe. Coqsportif 12:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

If he was doing his job than it is unremarkable. -Willmcw 19:54, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'd just note that I have never read a single account of postwar Germany which mentions this issue at all is a particularly important cause of economic, social, and political destabilization of Germany. It seems likely that, given the results of the war, there would have been an incredible amount of economic, social, and political destabilization anyway. I'm also confused - as occupying authorities, didn't the Soviets have the right to print currency, anyway? What exactly is the accusation here? john k 20:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Unremarkable? It was a bigger theft than that Brazillian one the other day. Leaving aside the morality of what he did, I wonder whether there's been a secret agent more effective than White ever? He is little known compared with Philby etc. and I think did so much more damage. And John, I think Nobs know more of this but they were printing currency that the US was effectively issuing and therefore obliged to redeem, the Soviets weren't printing their own currency they were printing ours and as we all would kept the printing presses running day and night thanks to Mr White. Regarding the destabilization, the currency was used to destabilize the emergence of democracy in East Europe, something I'm sure you'd agree the Soviets did very well at in the 1940's and after. Coqsportif 20:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

john: Here is the most recent declassified information available [9] (PDF format pgs. 681-702), released in May 2003, Executive Session Hearings of the Permanent Subcommittee on Government Operations (pgs. 3403-3424 in original). The Editor's introduction is written by a present day Senate staffer, and the material is released through joint efforts of Sen. Susan Collins & Sen. Joe Lieberman; editor's intro excerpted as follows,

"In 1945, Elizabeth Bentley (1908-1963) told the FBI that during World War II she had served as a courier between Soviet agents and a Communist cell in Washington headed by Nathan Gregory Silvermaster and William Ullman. They provided information passed along from a group of government officials, and although Bentley had not met them all, she identified Treasury Department officials Harry Dexter White, V. Frank Coe, and William H. Taylor as part of the group. To handle the volume of material passing through the group, Ullman, who lived in Silvermaster's house, had set up a darkroom in the basement to photograph the documents rather than copy them by hand. Some of the individuals whom Bentley identified were mentioned in the KGB cables intercepted and deciphered by the Venona project, although William H. Taylor's name was not among them.

"Alvin W. Hall, director of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, testified in public session on October 20, 1953. Although discussed at that hearing, William H. Taylor did not testify in public.

I place it here to give you a flavor of the issues involved. nobs 21:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Elizabeth Bentley's testimony follows, a short page or two, that may be worth reading as well. nobs 21:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Reads like a spy thriller. I cannot believe we were that stupid. A plane "crashed" so we sent more equipment so they could print U.S. currency. Truth is indeed stranger than fiction. Thanks for the link Nobs, very interesting. 203.82.183.147 21:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Reading (well, skimming) over the McCarthy hearings from 1953, it appears that the transfer of the currency plates, etc, was a policy decision which was discussed and approved in a normal manner. It was neither secret (well, just normal wartime secrecy), nor explictly illegal. It may have been a bad policy, and it may have been strongly influenced by White, who in turn may have been pressured by the Russians, but I don't see how it can be called "theft". BTW, is Bentley's testimony considered fully trustworthy? Also, are plane "crashes" in wartime so rare? Did the cabal kill Carole Lombard and Glenn Miller? -Willmcw 22:11, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

The theft was done by the Russians, facilitated by White pushing the idea through. Coqsportif 22:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

"It was neither secret nor explictly illegal." (I suggest you do a little research before shooting from the hip like that). nobs 19:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The transfer of the currency plates exposed the United States Treasury to a huge liability; the Executive does not have the Constitutional power to contract a debt on behalf of the Untied States govenment. Not even the President has such authority. nobs 19:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Was it a secret from Morgenthau? What law was broken? Is there a U.S. law the bars the transfer of the printing plates of occupation currencies? Thanks, -Willmcw 01:25, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

A significant issue of inconsistency in the allegations surrounding the occupation currency plates story is that when Bentley testified in 1948 (the plates issue happened in 1944) she didn't mention the plates. Her October/November 1953 testimony however was rich with details of how Moscow demanded early copies of the currency which was allegedly obtained, sent to Moscow, and returned (Bentley's story had White sneaking out early copies & they had to be returned) since Moscow determined they couldn't be counterfited. The imagery of Moscow (Stalin?) ORDERING White to provide (by sneaking them out... this sort of thing isn't something you stash in your desk drawer) early examples of the currency when it would take several weeks (at minimum) for such materials to travel between Washington to Russia & back is obviously ludicrous. DEddy 22:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More currency manipulation

Editor's introduction written by a present day Senate staffer, "AUSTRIAN INCIDENT" [10] (PDF format pgs. 443 - 467) pgs. 1349-1372 in original

(Note: Sen. Scoop Jackson asks the tough questions and developes a clearer picture), excerpted introduction:

"On May 29, 1953, the subcommittee heard testimony from two former Economic Cooperation officials in Austria, Clyde King and Gabriel Kerekes, that the high exchange rate for Austrian currency in 1949 had worked against that nation’s financial stability and in favor of the Russian occupation forces. Objections to their efforts to devalue the currency had come from the International Monetary Fund, whose secretary was V. Frank Coe (1907–1980). In 1948, Elizabeth Bentley had identified Coe as a member of Nathan Silvermaster’s Communist cell in Washington. Coe, who had previously directed monetary research at the Department of Treasury, asked to appear before the House Un-American Activities Committee, where he denied under oath the allegations made against him. In a campaign speech on October 27, 1952, Senator McCarthy had declared Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson unfit to serve as president because of his past associations. Specifically, he charged that Alger Hiss and Frank Coe had recommended Stevenson as a delegate to an Institute for Pacific Relations conference ten years earlier. ‘‘Frank Coe was the man [named] under oath before Congressional committees seven times as a member of the Communist party. Why, why do Hiss and Coe find that Adlai Stevenson is the man they want representing them at this conference? I don’t know, perhaps Adlai knows.’’ The Democratic National Committee responded by pointing out that Stevenson had not been a delegate to the conference.

"That December, when the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee called Coe to testify, he refused to answer any questions about Communist affiliation or espionage. After his testimony, the IMF requested his resignation. Following his executive session testimony before the subcommittee, Coe testified in public session on June 5 and June 8, 1953. In a written statement submitted to the subcommittee he denied having participated ‘‘in any orders or requests or suggestions which may have been given in November 1949 relating to devaluation of the Austrian currency and the negotiations connected therewith.’’ The later opening of the KGB archives confirmed that Coe had provided material to Soviet intelligence agents. In 1958, Coe moved to the People’s Republic of China, where he engaged in translating the writings of Mao Tse-tung into English. nobs 16:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Coe was forced to leave the country since the FBI hounded him out of even a job as a house painter. DEddy 22:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Venona #83

Harry Dexteer White tells Greg Silvermaster how to get $6 Billion from the United States at a better interest rate. 83 New York to Moscow 18 January 1945 nobs 03:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought White was Jurist? That link doesn't refer to Jurist at all. john k 05:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, so White was "Richard," as well? At any rate, this is such a vague reference that I don't see how it disproves the IMF "White was a moron who was too loose in talking to Soviets and Soviet agents" version. john k 05:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

This is the problem inherent in trying to insert our own analyses of primary source documents on Wikipedia. Sometimes people might disagree. It's really better to summarize other published sources on this stuff instead of drawing our own conclusions. I fear that Nobs' Venona stuff is stepping over the line into original research (with all due respect, Nobs). I don't know anything about this stuff, but when I see comments like these from John it makes me concerned. · Katefan0^(scribble) 13:01, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid that in this discussion, we see time and time again, efforts by editors to draw conclusions. I am placing materials here, and it is only a fraction of the materials available, simply to draw interested editors attention to the issues involved. It is absolutley pointless to attempt to draw any conclusions from these materials (we see above for example, confusion over codenames, a discussion of which has been gone into in depth on other pages, and evidently may need to be cut and pasted 168 times, into 168 different articles, seeing this issue was raised once again). But an examination of the evidence, for interested editors, is necessary, to speak with any knowledge on the subject, seeing the the rash of disinfomation sources had a 50 year head start to circulate, unchecked, without refutation. nobs 15:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, if editors are indeed, drawing conclusions, among their number is surely you. Some of your comments do seem to be disinterested references to primary sources, but then you also go out of your way to draw possibly unwarranted conclusions, like "Please note, the materials just inserted (or the subject of those materials) is directly related to this article Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Significance of Venona, seeing that Harry Dexter White's active assistance in the subversion of FDR's policy of support for Nationalist China is what brought the present day non-democratic CCP to power." I think you will be hard-pressed to find a historian of China who believes that the "non-democratic" CCP (the KMT, I assume was a beacon of democracy and freedom) was brought to power because of the efforts of communist spies in the American government. john k 15:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and I apologize in advance if this sounds harsh Nobs, but I was really referring to you, not John. What I was getting at was that your additions seem to rely a lot on your interpretations of these Venona materials, and the question raised by John was concerning insofar as it implies that the conclusions you're drawing, Nobs, are contested. I really feel like we need to stick to secondary published sources here, not primary source documents. And, again, respectfully, we aren't here to refute a "rash of disinformation sources." Wikipedia articles summarize published sources, including debates over information where pertinent, but we aren't here to find the "truth." That's something more appropriate for a personal blog. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:17, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

"we need to stick to secondary published sources here, not primary source documents". Since when do historians prefer secondary sources to primary? "we aren't here to find the 'truth'." So Wikipedia should just state bald lies as if they are fact if there are enough "published sources" for the lie? There are plenty of publications that deny the Holocaust, to take an example. That doesn't mean that it didn't happen and, more relevantly here, that it should be denied in Wikipedia.Bdell555 00:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Bdell: Thanks for a series of valuable edits in several articles. This generation evidently is too stupid to think for itself until information is first sanitized through secondary sources. See Talk:Harry_Magdoff#Challenges. nobs 01:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

john: you will note, it is not an insertion into the main article, nor an attempt to do so; it is simply drawing attention to a continuing relevency of the subject, in response to questions of why all the interest in what appears to be dead issues.

Please see Talk:VENONA_project#Proceedural_proposal; this is part of an effort which may take several years, drawn from the basic sources (excerpted from above proposal):

• the unanimous findings of the bipartisan Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy Report,
• the National Security Agency Archives, Custodian of documents for the Army Signals Intelligence,
• the Official History of Counterintelligence in the United States of the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive [11]
• the Archivist of the United States
• the Library of Congress Manuscripts Division

Many of the above published findings of the 38 year National Security Agency/Federal Bureau of Investigation into espionage are not paranoid conspiracy theories of yesteryore, they are the published findings of the United States Government. If a cooperative editor is interested in participating, I would be interesting in hearing. Thank you. nobs 15:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Primary sources are all well and good, but if you (or anyone) are using them to draw unsubstantiated conclusions, that's where it becomes a problem. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:38, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Nobs's "conclusions" are stripped very directly from the secondary and even the primary sources given. If one is going to argue from a point of abject ignorance in regards to espionage (e.g. asking why there are multiple names, why a full name appears here, how we know if someone is witting) then don't be surprised if the answer appears shrift or patronizing. The only ones inserting their own original research (for the purposes of discussion or of the article itself) are the ones reading single decrypts and declaring that it doesn't say what someone else wants it to. --TJive 01:01, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

All editors are required to justify unsourced information if asked. Civility should be maintained whether a person feels the questions are "ignorant" or not. · Katefan0^(scribble) 01:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say the questions are ignorant--they are quite natural--however they represent what amounts to an argument from the point of ignorance; that is, rather than the assertions be cited specifically, challenges to the actual interpretation of factual data are instead presented. It should not be Nobs's task to lecture a course in espionage to editors who don't understand every detail. From my vantage point (of little direct involvement) it makes users appear as if they are simply being obtuse to put up a wall to contributing on this topic; a sort of creeping movement to throw out both the baby and the bathwater under the guise of "original research" when: 1) the accusation was never demonstrated in the first place, 2) the tertiary comments in analyzing resources were asked for by other editors. --TJive 01:34, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

From my point of view, which is to say one of the unwashed espionage masses, if explaining the justification behind information in an article requires a lecture, then maybe it's not ready for prime time, so to speak. If it's not as easy as saying "Tim Smith said it in All Your Questions Answered," then maybe that raises the question of whether such an assertion really belongs in any certain article in the first place. · Katefan0^(scribble) 01:39, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

That's a rather lengthy way of implying that there is insufficient secondary sourcing on this matter, which is demonstrably false. What is unnecessary is endless harangues on the veracity of every detail in the material, which is often what it bogs down to. See: Argument from ignorance. I did not mean to insult you by implying you are not intelligent if that is what you construed from my comments. --TJive 01:42, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

That some of the information is demonstrably in question seems obvious from this talk page, so to state that the article is so impeccably sourced as to be unassailable to me is a little naive. · Katefan0^(scribble) 13:10, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Katefan: I requested sourcing on Coqsportif's insertions two days ago and (1) it has not been provided (2) insertions have not been reverted. nobs 01:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

TJive: User:Coqsportif did extensive editing adding in information from a neo-Nazi website, which, as a rule is revereted. Willmcw has in fact himself reinserted the material, saying that until the source is disproved or discredited otherwise, we don't know how much of it is in the article. I requested Coqsportif, and all others on this discussion page to require Coqsportif to do sources and citations several days ago. At this point, I believe a wholesale deletion of all Coqsportif & his neo-Nazi sourcing may be in order, with a reversion back to the previous concensus version. nobs 01:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

If the author himself is affiliated with IHR, whether as a genuine citation or in turn an attempt to discredit the assertions posed by assocation, it should be deleted. If it is not, surely it can be referenced from elsewhere. --TJive 01:55, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. nobs 02:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm all for removing both of the Kurek links once we have removed the material sourced from them. -Willmcw 06:38, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I removed the "revisionist" material as soon as I was aware of it being holocaust deniers. Need I post up the edits to establish this. All I was interested in was the references to the Morgenthau diaries, which are themselves of interest. Coqsportif 07:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Export Control statutes

More of the "flavor" of issues involved, Introduction extracted from PSI hearings. authored by present day Senate staff in bipartisan release effort. [12] PDF format pgs. 450-495 (pgs. 411-456 in original)

VIOLATION OF EXPORT CONTROL STATUTES

[EDITOR’S NOTE.—In 1950, the subcommittee had held hearings on ‘‘Perversion in Government,’’ acting on the premise that homosexuals were vulnerable to blackmail that might coerce them into espionage. Early in 1953, it collected information on alleged homosexuals who had served in the government, but held only this executive session on the subject and no subsequent public hearings.

Eric L. Kohler (1892–1976), a CPA, had served as controller of the Tennessee Valley Authority, 1938 to 1941, on the staff of the Office of Emergency Management and War Production Board, 1941 to 1942, as executive officer of the Petroleum Administration for War, 1942 to 1944, financial advisor to the secretary of agriculture in 1946, and as controller of the Economic Corporation Association, 1948 to 1949.

One of the nation’s most prominent accountants, he was president of the American Accounting Association, edited the Accounting Review, taught as a visiting professor at several universities and published Kohler’s Dictionary for Accountants. He did not testify in public.] nobs 15:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Morgenthau Diary (Hyde Park)

From NARA:

"The records of the Morgenthau Diary Study, 1953-65 (12 ft.), consist largely of copies of portions of memorandums, correspondence, transcripts of meetings, and other records preserved by Secretary Morgenthau in order to document his tenure. The original records are in the custody of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library in Hyde Park, NY. In 1965, the SISS issued a two volume committee print entitled Morgenthau Diary (China), containing entries from the records at the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library selected to illustrate the implementation of Roosevelt administration policy in China. According to the editor of the publication, the subcommittee wanted to produce a documentary history on the subject and "also indicate the serious problem of unauthorized, uncontrolled and often dangerous power exercised by nonelected officials," specifically Harry Dexter White. White was a major figure in Senator William Jenner's investigation of interlocking subversion in Government departments in 1953. The records also include subject files accumulated by the editors of the volume and copies of subcommittee publications produced as a result of or accumulated during the study." [13] nobs 14:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately we don't know from that excerpt if the inner quote, "...unauthorized, uncontrolled...", is from Kurek's introduction, or from other materials in the diaries. Wasn't Kurek the editor? -Willmcw 18:39, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

the quote ""...unauthorized, uncontrolled...", Kubek is the editor (I am speaking from memory). It is cited as a direct quote by the archivist ("According to the editor"). nobs 19:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

So it is from Kubek, right? -Willmcw 06:21, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed language

Senator William Jenner's interlocking subversion in Government departments investigation by the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee looked extensively into problem of unauthorized, uncontrolled and often dangerous power exercised by nonelected officials, specifically Harry Dexter White. Part of its Report looked into the implementation of Roosevelt administration policy in China and was published as the Morgnethau Diary. The Report stated, "The concentration of Communist sympathizers in the Treasury Department, and particularly the Division of Monetary Research, is now a matter of record. White was the first director of that division; those who succeeded him in the directorship were Frank Coe and Harold Glasser. Also attached to the Division of Monetary Research were William Ludwig Ullman, Irving Kaplan, and Victor Perlo. White, Coe, Glasser, Kaplan, and Perlo were all identified as participants in the Communist conspiracy…In his one appearance before the House Committee in 1948, White emphatically denied participation in any conspiracy. A few days later he was found dead, the apparent victim of suicide by sleeping pills." (Morgenthau Diary, p. 80). nobs 14:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, is that Kurek's writing? -Willmcw 18:53, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

It is an amalgamation of the NARA archive description with a direct quote from the intro to the U.S. Government publication entitled Morgenthau Diary, whom Kubek (Kurek is the girl with short hair on the Today Show) provided the Introduciton. nobs 19:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Dr Anthony Kubek was Professor of History at the University of Dallas. Note the final paragraph of his introduction (on the next page, 81):

Never before in American history has an unelected bureaucracy of furtive, faceless, 'fourth-floor' officials exercised such arbitrary power or cast so ominous a shadow over the future of the nation as did Harry Dexter White and his associates in the Department of the Treasury under Henry Morgenthau, Jr. What they attempted to do in their curious twisting of American ideals, and how close they came to complete success, is demonstrated in these documents. But that is all which is known for sure. What priceless American secrets were conveyed to Moscow through the tunnels of the Communist underground will probably never be known - and how much actual damage these sinister men did to the security of the United States remains, at least for the moment, a matter of surmise.Bdell555 00:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy support of 1967 Jenner finding [14]

"And so to an irony that only now begins to emerge. It would appear that by the onset of the Cold War the Soviet attack in the area of espionage and subversion had been blunted and turned back. There would be episodic successes in the years to come, but none equal to earlier feats. New York of the 1930s. Los Alamos. Some unions. The State Department. The Treasury Department. nobs 15:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

---

On a personal note, and in the interests of full disclosure, I was first informed by a "high-level source" (to use a Washington Press Corps euphemism) in 1982 that the gubmint had conclusive evidence of Harry Dexter White's involvement. This was four years prior to publication of Robert Lamphere's FBI-KGB Wars which contains the first published reference to Venona, and thirteen years prior to full declassification of the Venona porject.

One of my first Wikipedia contributions was to rewrite the International Monetary Fund article [15] and place all the conspiracy theories in a subhead of "Criticism" (which there should be a Wiki guideline demanding "critics" be named by name). Also the Special Drawing Rights article contained this glaring misrepresentation [16] which two clicks to the IMF site could prove false.

I've been involved with this subject in one capacity or another for 30+ years, am familiar with the source material, and know where the bodies are buried. nobs 15:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Another potential source for White is

US Senate, Committee on the Judiciary [Subcommittee on Internal Security], Scope of Soviet Activity in the United States, Part 23, 84th Congress, 2d Session, 1956.

I see you are already aware of the Subcommittee's Interlocking Subversion in Government Departments Report from another article. I must say I'm pleased you've contributed to this page. The page when I first came across it was all "Philosophically, White was a Keynesian New Dealer. As a dedicated Rooseveltian internationalist..." (and that's still there, btw) and gave not the slightest hint of the fact that White was even suspected of being a spy and a traitor.

In fairness, I should note that Kubek has had his paper on the Morgenthau Dairies published under his name in the IHR. This, of course, means that someone who learns of that will attempt purge Wiki of anything that cites him as a source. If anything, this kneejerk practice makes the reverter look like the obscurantist because it is entirely unknown in advance of an inquiry as to whether the source is credible or not. In Kubek's case, if he is some sort of Nazi it would surely be rather odd that the US Senate would hire him to review the 900 volumes at the Roosevelt Library that constitute the Morgenthau Dairies, and furthermore that they would countenance his Introduction to an official US Senate report. Finally, he seems to have been an uncontroversial professor at U of Dallas. While Kubek's judgment in being willing to present a paper to a revisionist conference may be questioned, given what I have found with respect to some of Roosevelt's statements about the Germans in my reading of the war-time Conference minutes (e.g. "castrate the German people", agree with Stalin that 50 000 German officers should be shot, etc.), I am somewhat more inclined to think that certain "revisionists" might actually be on to something on occasion. The bottom line is that what matters is proper historical methods.Bdell555 03:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Well informed comments & I appreciate the input. Mr. Roger Sandilands Talk:Harry_Dexter_White#Roger_Sandilands is the original author of the article; the same Sandilands is published by the IMF in Politics and the Attack on FDR's Economists. As to Kubek, the IHR is the only extant website with extractions from the Morgenthau Diary, so a group of appologists, masquarading as truth seekers, have attempted to link Kubek to the IHR, in an effort to destroy the entire basis of the article. This will need close watching. I may be able to scan in portions of the SISS report if need be. Another good source appears to be The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet influence on American postwar policy, by John Dietrich, Publisher New York : Algora Pub., (c2002), is a post-Venona release book, but I'm just starting to read it. It seems this Harry Dexter White article is also is just beginning. This is a huge, huge, untold story. nobs 03:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Kubek gave a paper at an IHR convention. There's no need to attempt to link them. They're linked already. -Willmcw 07:52, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Morgenthau Diary quote source

Do any of you have the Morgenthau Diary in hand, or are we relying on this document for our information? Anti-Christian Discrimination At Indiana University: Footnote to "A Few Comments On The Jewish Supremacist Organization Known As The American Jewish Committee":Assassinations of Jewish, Zionist, and Communist Opponents at http://www.misconduct.org/ The web document contains the exact quotes from the document that have been repeated here. Kubek shows up in interesting places. -Willmcw 07:52, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Kubek was the editor of a two volume report published by the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee. The Subcommittee investigation spanned 12 years (1953- 1965). The report took two years to be edited and published in 1967. By 1967, when the report was finally published by the Government Printing Office (GPO) and made available to the public, it did not attract much public attention, as the world was preoccuppied with Vietnam, etc. By 1967, when the government finally made available to the public what was known about Harry Dexter White & the Treasury Department (excluding the corroborative evidence of the Venona project), within the two volumes is an admission the government still did not know the extent of White, et al, subversion, and what all had been transmitted to the Soviet Union. Plus the admission that full knowledge may never be known. Soviet Archives may give more of a clue in the future. But what is known is unprecedented in the annals of corruption and abuse of power within the federal government.

For a variety of reasons, the SISS Report (Morgenthau Diary), has never attracted much attention, even in academic circles. Largely, presumably because (a) it's old news (b) it's very voluminous, and (c) it's criticial of New Dealers and the New Deal administration. One can understand the reluctance of both mainstream media, and mainstream academia, for not pursuing and/or publicizing. In retrospect, the abuses within the administration of Richard Nixon, who himself was intimately involved in investigating the abuses of New Dealers, and in a sense "modeled" some of his ideas after them, where a triffle, in comparison to what is now the published findings, and official archival record, of the United States Government regarding the Executive branch, from the period of roughly 1933 to 1947 or 1948. nobs 14:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Another abbreviated edition also exists under two different titles: Blum, John Morton, From the Morgenthau diaries, Publisher Boston, Houghton Mifflin, (1959-67), Revised and condensed version issued in 1970 under title: Roosevelt and Morgenthau Contents [1] Years of crisis, 1928-1938.--[2] Years of urgency, 1938-1941.--[3] Years of war, 1941-1945, nobs 14:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Regarding my question, do you have the document in hand? Or are we relying on that website's quotations? -Willmcw 21:24, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I've got portions of the SISS Report in hardcopy, but that doesn't mean it isn't also quoted on that website you note as well. Being quoted by a Nazi doesn't make one a Nazi. If it did, the US Senate is arguably Nazi because it is a US Senate publication that is the source at issue here. As far why the source is being used by the people it is, what those people are primarily concerned about is the various unhumanitarian consequences on Germany of White's and Morgenthau's influence. The concern of the Senate subcommittee - and Kubek, I would suggest - was not that but the security impact that White had on the US. I've done an overhaul on the Morgenthau Plan page so that this background is clearer. Kubek has written a book that suggests that some American officials aided and abetted the Communist victory in China, but I am not familiar with that (that's surely a whole story unto itself). In any case, I would suggest that in the circumstances one must assume that the Senate endorsed Kubek's damning findings. Keep in mind that this Report came out BEFORE the Verona decrypts, so Verona would have to be considered corroborating evidence.Bdell555 22:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd assume that the Senate endorsed the finding if they voted on it. Simply because some hired historian adds his own summary of events does not mean that it has been endorsed by anyone, absent specific proof. No, being quoted by Nazis does not make one a Nazi. But delivering an academic paper at a Holocause denial conference comes close. -Willmcw 23:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't you concede that Chomsky comes closer, since he has defended a Holocaust denier in the Faurisson affair? Is anyone aware that Kubek has a position on the Holocaust or is for or against any Holocaust deniers? In any case, I acknowledge your objection that what we have here is ultimately a secondary source. But I also acknowledge that Chip Berlet has said "As I have requested repeatedly, please supply the actual language used by these published secondary sources to describe Magdoff" in the Harry Magdoff Talk. This is exactly what has been provided here. Needless to say, those denying the influence of Communist sympathizers in Roosevelt's government can't have it both ways, so you'll have to choose which standard should be used.Bdell555 02:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Kubek edited the Jenner Committee's (SISS) final report. Kubek was selected by the Committee. All language was voted upon by the committee, kinda like editing a wikipedia article, a collabotrative, cooperative effort. If Kubek was a closet Nazi, let's hold the late Senator William E. Jenner and other members of the Committee responsible next time they run for reelection. By "holocaust denier", is that a reference two (a) the book Hoax of the Twentieth Century which appeared in the 1970s and spawned coinage of the term, or (b) David Irving, who does not deny the holocaust took place, but agrues Hitler didn't order it (seems there is a big difference between "holocaust deniers" since some deny it took place, while others don't). And if Kubek went berserk in his final years, hell even Barry Goldwater had a abortion at 86. Bottom line is, if Kubek wrote the intro, it still was voted upon as the final language of the Committee, and not Kubeks private invention. nobs 03:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the holocaust is irrelevant to the issue at hand. It only comes up here because it appears the most extensive excerpts online from the report appear on revisionist websites. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v09/v09p287_Kubek.html was cited but removed. In terms of pure academic sourcing, the ihr.org link would remain, as an addition to the full SISS Report cite, as it is the most complete WWW resource, but I agree with your sentiments that links to controversial sites should be avoided because so many people are unwilling or unable to reserve judgment about the academic credibility of a "Revisionist Conference". I will concede that just because I can compare what I see published before me on paper with what is on ihr.org, not everyone can readily do that, so the questioning is understandable.Bdell555 05:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The Morgenthau Diary exists in only 150 libraries in the United States. It may still be available from the GPO. It is an official Senate document. Kubek's relationship to the Senate Committee should not be confused with any personal sentiments he may have held years later (which we don't know anyway). And the work is not Kubek's ideas, they are the expressed findings of a legislative committee. nobs 05:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I remain dubious of its POV, but it appears from what Nobs say that the Diary is officially sanctioned, so I withdraw my concern about its inclusion as a source. This is a large, and rate source, indeed. I can see why so many condensed editions were issued. I disagree with what Bdell555 wrote, "I agree with your sentiments that links to controversial sites should be avoided because so many people are unwilling or unable to reserve judgment". That is no reason to exclude a link. We shouldn't pander to people's biases. We should present links that we think are of use to readers who wish to learn more, as well as references to the article itself. -Willmcw 08:28, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Your stance is noble if unrealistic; you've emboldened me to add back the link, since it indeed appears to be the most complete online resource for the hardcopy introduction, and readers can judge for themselves what to make of the Harry Dexter White commentary. However, as expected jpgordan is reverting the link and, from an extensive discussion elsewhere, his position is unfalsifiable in that no argument based on logic or on the reliability on source would cause him to change his mind. Guilt by association and poisoning the well are logical fallacies, but protesting appears to be a waste of time. Apparently, a book burning of all revisionist authors isn't good enough for jpgordan; - any association with a revisionist also warrants censorship. I wouldn't call it McCarthyism because McCarthy could at least be rebutted in an open hearing.Bdell555 09:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

For the record I would disfavor the IHR link, the first reason being that it is not necessary. nobs 16:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I disfavor it as well; it is an unhelpful link from an inherently unreliable source. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I count the concensus 3/2 to keep IHR site out. nobs 18:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Which is not a consensus at all. -Willmcw 19:56, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

So a 40% minority, with 60% opposed, constitutes a consensus ? nobs 20:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

No, it means one side reverts the other until either one gets tired of it. --TJive 20:26, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, jpgordan would win any revert war because, as an administator, he can revert an unlimited number of times in a given time period. Jayig and jpgordan are not opposed because they contend that there are any inaccuracies in the source. Rather, they are opposed because of their (unfalsifiable) belief that any claims made by ihr.org are a priori false (a classic poisoning the well logical fallacy). However, ihr.org is not advancing any claims here, so that issue is not even raised. Rather, the ihr.org is repeating the claims advanced in another (US Govt) publication. I might add that even if everything in the disputed link were original to the IHR, no claims are advanced with respect to the Jews such that suppressing this link is going to help minimize anti-Semitism. Hence jpgordan's and jayig's reason for taking an interest in this source in the first place could hardly be more irrelevant. This without any questioning of whether keeping readers ignorant is a better way to combat prejudice than providing information for self-education. Which brings me to Nobs' objection that the link is "not necessary". It would not be necessary to provide a further reading link if everything contained in the linked paper was essentially contained in the Wiki article. But that is far from the case. No mention is made in the Wiki article, for example, of the fact White essentially sent 250 million US taxpayer dollars to the Soviets by giving them a duplicate set of currency printing plates. Neither is their any mention of White's role in the Morgenthau Plan which would have deliberately reduced the living standards of another people (an objective that seems no less a betrayal of an economist's professional ethics to me than a physician deliberately impairing a person's health). If Nobs objects to the accuracy of what is contended in the disputed link, that is one thing, but Nobs' concern here is not the accuracy of the historical record but a desire to indulge the guilt by association fallacy before John Q. Public does it.Bdell555 04:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

As I see it, there is a One China Policy article, but not a Two China Policy article. The Morganthau Diary will be much the basis for a Two China Policy article, at which time we can look more into violations of the Export Control Act. That will include currency plates and uranium exports to the Soviet Union. Plus we will develope more information on the Morgenthau Plan. So in working in that direction, direct relevent biographical information for the Harry White article will just fall into place. nobs 05:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] White's death

Though Kubek asserts that White died of an overdose, other sources describe his cause of death as a heart attack. Do we have any way of resolving this or NPOVing the description? I see that the heart attack description has been deleted outright. Does the Diary reference an autopsy or inquest? -Willmcw 21:18, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

This may be one of those issues that never gets resolved; one would presume a Senate Committee would have the power to look into D.C. area autopsy reports, which they probably did based in the Committee's finding report, but the power of myth & legend grown out of popular media and books is so entrenched, no one has seen fit to attempt to set the record straight. In doing so, it just gives birth to another conspiracy theory. May be best to leave both statements in, referencing the heartattack something like, "it was widely reported at the time White died of a heartattack". nobs 22:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

(It took five years after his death before an investigation began; the investigation lasted twelve years; when the report was written it detailed events twenty-plus years prior. Then the report laid dorment for forty years. With two tales a conspiracist could argue the KGB had him killed to cover their tracks. Best to leave sleeping dogs lie.) nobs 23:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

John Wheeler-Bennett says it was a suicide in a footnote on p. 175 of his "Semblance of Peace" book.

It probably was a suicide, but some reference to the widespread reporting of a heart attack should be made. nobs 01:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Does Wheeler-Bennett footnote his assertion? He might just basing that on the same source. -Willmcw 01:24, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

The full excerpt is as below. The book is from 1972. Although SISS Reports are cited at the end of the sentence, my assumption is that those cites are for the first clause of the sentence, not the second. That said, it could be he gets it from Kubek, since mentions Kubek in the same paragraph. I would note, though, that Wheeler-Bennett does not state blankly that Treasury was full of spies, rather that there are those that that have "charged openly". Presumably he would have also been careful to say some have "charged" that White died by suicide if he did not fully accept that it was a suicide. My view is thus that Wheeler-Bennett's source must be Blum, the other significant secondary source for the Diary. If Wheeler-Bennett had done a lot of his own primary research with he Diary, he presumably would have come to his own conclusion about whether the "charges" were fact or frivolous.

Morgenthau's ultimate thinking on the post-war future of Germany originated partly from his own inner consciousness and partly from intimate exchanges of views with his close friend and adviser, Harry Dexter White (John Morton Blum, From the Morgenthau Diaries: Years of War, 1941 - 1945 (Boston: 1967), p. 338). White was later indicted before a Senate Committee on a charge of subversive and pro-Communist activities in 1948; he committed suicide shortly after testifying (SISS Reports "Interlocking Subversion in Government Departments" (Washington, 1955) and "Scope of Soviet Activity in the United States" (Washington, 1956). There have not lacked those who have charged openly that Morgenthau was surrounded at the United States Treasury by a group of Communist sympathizers who were actually guilty of passing Government secrets to Moscow, and the Morgenthau Plan has therefore been formidably attacked as Soviet-inspired, more especially as it followed so closely the political sentiments of Marshal Stalin. The most recent of these charges has been made in November 1967 by Dr Anthony Kubek, Professor of History at the University of Dallas, Texas, in his historical introduction to the report on the Morgenthau diaries of a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. (footnote to that report)" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bdell555 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 25 August 2005.

Well, this cites the 1955 Interlocking & the 1956 Scope & Activity reports as the source, not the 1967 Diary. Those I believe are down in the basement from where I sit right now. nobs 04:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] decrypts

White is referenced in the following decrypts:
590 KGB New York to Moscow, 29 April 1944; 1119–1121 KGB New York to Moscow, 4–5 August 1944; 1251 KGB New York to Moscow, 2 September 1944; 1271–1274 KGB New York to Moscow, 7 September 1944; 1388–1389 KGB New York to Moscow, 1 October 1944; 1634 KGB New York to Moscow, 20 November 1944; 79 KGB New York to Moscow, 18 January 1945; 83 KGB New York to Moscow, 18 January 1945; 248 KGB Moscow to New York, 19 March 1945; 292 KGB Moscow to New York, 29 March 1945; 328 KGB Moscow to New York, 6 April 1945; 230 KGB San Francisco to Moscow, 4 May 1945; 235–236 KGB San Francisco to Moscow, 5 May 1945; 259 KGB San Francisco to Moscow, 13 May 1945; 312 KGB San Francisco to Moscow, 8 June 1945.
nobs 19:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Alleged"

The charges aginst White have never been proven. Therefore "alleged" is the correct term. -Willmcw 20:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This appears to be the future now: Jesus is alleged to have risen from the dead; the crew of Apollo 8 allegedly walked on the moon; the human species allegedly began with Peking man or Adam and Eve, depending on your POV. What's most amazing is, a crew that allegedly investigates kook conspiracy theories is who we have to thank for this alleged progress in accummulating the sum total of human knowledge. nobs 22:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Espionage is a crime. We should not go around calling people criminals who have not been convicted of any crime by the criminal courts. -Willmcw 23:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Harry Dexter White & Alger Hiss are the two best example; White was never convicted of anything in a court of law, so therefore the case against him remains a bunch of conspiracy allegations. Hiss, on the other hand, was convicted in a court of law. The Court of Law, however, is BS, and he's an innocent man, who is the victim of conspiracy allegations and Courts of Law. Hence, after reading the Alger Hiss article, one see's a conviction in a Court of Law, is meaningless (depending again, of course, on your POV). nobs 17:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Alleged is incorrect. Venona tagged him "conclusively" as Jurist. At the minimum, leave the article as I've just changed it, which attributes the positive identification of White as a spy to the Venona Project, not leaving it as global or consensus truth. It's unquestionably true that he was tagged as Jurist, so the "alleged" qualifier is too milquetoast for the actual truth of the situation. -WRK

Churchill & Roosevelt were also in the VENONA messages with cover names. Why are they not also to be labeled Soviet agents? DEddy 20:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Cause they WEREN'T soviet agents! They weren't commies doing spy ops! yankeeroman(24.75.194.50 16:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Bretton Woods

After the war, White was closely involved with setting up what were called the Bretton Woods institutions - the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. These institutions were intended to prevent some of the economic problems that occurred after World War I, and help ensure that capitalism became the dominant post-war economic system.

Would'nt it be better to skip the "war" part of the sentence. Or add "During and after the war". The plan was drawn up alrready during the war, and White was the creator of it. Se also

• Mr. White's White Paper Time Magazine Dec. 6, 1943

--Stor stark7 20:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accusation vs Evidence

We could go back & forth on this "accusation vs evidence" edit. Anyone can make accusations... evidence needs to be able to stand up to a MUCH higher standard. Please to cite precisely what you consider evidence against White.

I would cite as accusations the whole Elizabeth Bentley story about the Occupation Currency plates. There is no dispute that in fact the US did turn over currency printing plates to the Soviets & as anticipated the Soviets did "run the printing press." White was involved in the debate, but to the best of my knowledge was NOT the sole decision maker. [Duly note that today in Iraq, it would appear essentially the same event is happening... Americans show up with stacks of $10,000 bricks of $100 bills that do not need to be accounted for. Perhaps Stalin, Beria & Co. have risen from their graves?]

More damning is the fact that while Bentley defected in fall 1945(?), & first testified to Congress in 1948, it was not until her 1953 testimony that she "suddenly" remember the details of the Occupation Currency plates.

It's certainly a great story & made for wonderful testimony... but it just doesn't hold up under more detailed scrutiny.

Ball's in your court... DEddy 22:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opening Paragraph

Please to provide VENONA evidence (not FBI opinions) that White was in fact an NKVD/KGB agent. While White most certainly was a source of information (in Washington anybody who's anybody is a "source of information"), that does not make him a Soviet Agent.

Both Franklin Roosevelt & Winston Churchill were mentioned frequently in VENONA & I've never seen them accused of being Soviet Agents. Both were obviously "sources of information" to the Soviet intelligence collection process.

While I'm by no means an expert on what Whittaker Chambers said (the man clearly had an excellent imagination & a flair for the written word), to the best of my memory at one point Chambers called White "not very productive."

Which VENONA cables prove White was a Soviet Agent? DEddy 21:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

A: You're really whistlin' up a blind alley, DEddy. It's not just the Venona cables project. It's also the 1953 intelligence committee findings and testimony by witnesses (much of which is corroborated), testimony by various Soviet KGB defectors, AND recent revelations from Soviet KGB archives, in which original memoranda from the head of the NKVD American desk in Moscow confirms White as a Soviet agent who protected other NKVD agents such as Glasser but also helped to advance Soviet interests.

The accusation that the 1953 hearings were simply "political theater" is a left-wing slur. Actually the committee heard testimony from witnesses that was later confirmed by both Venona and Soviet archives.

Churchill and Roosevelt were referenced in Venona. However, they did not intentionally transfer confidential and sensitive information to the Soviet Union, as White did. The FBI did not even know who White really was until he was identified by his travel routes and the type of information transferred as the only possible U.S. official who could have passed the information to NKVD controllers.

Many of these sources have information that has now been cross-corroborated. For example, Bentley's claim that on White's acted for the Soviets on obtaining the occupation currency plates (derided as a fabrication by many) was later corroborated in full by the MGB's internal memo in Soviet archives by the NKVD head of the American Desk = White's a spy, allright. Democratic Senator Moynihan saw all of the intelligence, and came to the same conclusion in 1997.

Cited references are cited references. No one here has to travel to Russia to photocopy memoranda for you that you choose not to consider or ignore. Try explaining how the NKVD head wrote a memo for internal Soviet use confirming what Bentley had testified to - for what possible purpose, other than THAT IT WAS TRUE.

"recent revelations from Soviet KGB archives"... references please? Hopefully this isn't a reference to the Weinstein/Vassiliev book... no one's ever seen those alleged references.

I've never heard of any "intelligence committee findings." References please? HUAC/SISS was political theatre & had nothing to do with intelligence, particularly at that point VENONA was the deepest of secrets.

Which witnesses? Chambers? Bentley?

Please to be provide specific references.

What about the charge about White provoking the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor (on Stalin's instructions)? You haven't put that one on the table yet. DEddy 03:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• "Democratic Senator Moynihan saw all of the intelligence, and came to the same conclusion in 1997."
  • Please to provide evidence that DPM "saw all the evidence." Senator Moynihan appeared to me to be a pretty busy man at that point in his life, so I have a bit of difficulty embracing the image of him—or even his researchers/ghost writers—seeing ALL the evidence.

• "The accusation that the 1953 hearings were simply "political theater" is a left-wing slur."
  • I take it you've never been to a Congressional hearing. Even for the most mundane of topics a Congressional hearing is "theatre." And if there are serious stakes, then adjectives are applied.
  • Left vs (I assume "Right") wing slur... where I came from Ronald Reagan would have been seen as too liberal.
  • I'm going to see if I can find that picture of Richard Nixon peering intently at the film strip from Whitaker Chambers (in)famous pumpkin... if that wasn't 100% intentional theatre I don't know what is. DEddy 03:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• • "Churchill and Roosevelt were referenced in VENONA. However, they did not intentionally transfer confidential and sensitive information to the Soviet Union, as White did."

Now this sounds substantive... please the references where White KNOWINGLY transferred confidential/sensitive information to the Soviets. As you might imagine I heavily discount the factual accuracy of what Chambers/Bentley allegedly said or did not say against White.

Memory tells me Chambers (whose knowledge ceased as of either 1937 or 1938 when he left his courier job) called White his "least productive asset" ... or something like that.

Bentley admitted (again from my memory) to never having met White, and at the same time labeled White/Currie as "our best sources." I have a real problem with someone as imaginative as Bentley saying on the one hand she never met someone & at the same time calling them "our best sources."

The most damning "evidence" against White was something also found in Chambers's famous pumpkin (or perhaps somewhere else... as always, it's very difficult to keep track of any story from Chambers since it has so many variations) which consisted of a few pages of hand written notes in White's hand.

Now given that White was a VERY busy man—I think in the war at one point he was on something like 40 committees & I can only assume he was pretty busy in the pre-War period when Chambers likely had access to him—might it not at least be possible that information that White handed down to a subordinate to finish/flesh out was then passed along to Silvermaster/Bentley?

Personally I cannot imagine being as busy as someone in White's position (even when he was not as busy as he was in WWII he did job interviews as late as 10:30pm... so he worked VERY hard), but I've certainly—even recently—come across papers/notes I've written & 100% forgotten about. If I'd been in a senior managerial position & handed such notes/thinking to a subordinate with the instructions: "Here... finish this..." & I'd never seen the originals again, I wouldn't give it a moment's thought about what happened to the original scribblings. DEddy 04:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet Archival Sources

• Dear 4.240.186.125/202: You keep referring to what you variously call memos/sources from "Soviet Archives." Excuse my ignorance, but I'm not aware of such sources. The materials that Weinstein/Vassiliev wrote about in "Haunted Wood" have not been seen by anyone other than themselves, as far as I know. Granted the world is a big place & we can all see this is a complex topic, and it's 100% certain that I do not have access to all available sources... and I'd love to know which sources you are referring to, svp.

I'm aware of a single VENONA cable—the famous ALES/#1822—that's been "fully" released by NSA. And that's after some 10+ years. It's my assumption the Russians are way stingier with such materials than the folks at Ft. Meade. Again, I could be wrong on my assumption/knowledge to date... please to set me straight with references, not polemics & tirades. DEddy 04:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

DEddy: Please do not deleted referenced and cited factual material from the White article. If you choose not to look at the cites listed for VENONA FOIA documents, the Silvermaster report, or the many books (including the Schecter and two Haynes/Klehr histories listed in 'Resources') that contradict Mr. Craig's polemic (the word used by the Washington Post), a book since refuted by Haynes, as it leaves out evidence against White including the Ovakimian memo and White's discussion of compensation by Soviet intelligence in VENONA), that is your problem, but you have no right to excise material that is sourced and properly referenced.

* Those are "facts" in your eyes because you choose to accept Haynes/Klehr & Schecter as legitimate sources. I am less accepting of how these authors choose to spin "the facts."

* The Silvermaster Report, as raw data contains just about anything you want to find. Beside, the FBI wasn't exactly a disinterested party here.

* What I am challenging regarding the "Silvermaster Report" is not that he wan't actively involved in espionage—which he/Ullmann/Bentley certainly appeared to—it's just that there's far too great a leap from the Soviets ORDERING White to turn over currency samples & then the plates themselves.

* The mental image of White—on Soviet instructions mind you—sneaking out currency samples "wrapped in newspaper" (page 3426 of October 21, 1953 Senate testimony by Elizabeth Bentley) is just something I find too absurd to believe. I just cannot see currency samples being left lying around in someone's desk drawer like an interoffice memo.

* Bentley's October 21, 1953 testimony indicates she was on either a 2 or 4 week routine of visiting the Silvermasters. There's no way White—or anyone for that matter—could have snuck currency samples out of Engraving & Printing for a minimum of a month.

* Alvin W. Hall—as Director of Engraving & Printing (his testimony begins on page 3418)—clearly didn't run the sort of printing shop where samples of currency were left lying around or unaccounted for. I've never seen or heard a whiff of evidence or testimony that the paper trail accompanying printed currency (which I have to assume existed & was accessible to investigative authorities that chose to follow a thoroughly documented paper trail) was anything but correct.

* Hall's Senate testimony of October 19, 1953 explicitly refers to a meeting in Secretary Morgenthau's office—after there had been "...some reluctance on the part of the Treasury Department in going along with this request to the Russians, so that memorandum was written in the strongest terms to try to discourage the whole proposition"—in which Hall was instructed to turn over the plates. It is very clear from this testimony that turning over the plates was a publically (at least within what I have to assume was a pretty tight "need to know" circle) debated issue.

* And as always, why did Bentley NOT mention the Occupation Currency plates in her 1948 Congressional testimony and DID feature it in the 1953 testimony, when the actual events happened in 1944?

* re: Craig's "Treasonable Doubt" not mentioning this elusive (at least to me so far) Ovakimian memo... these various sources of information have been dribbling forth for many years. Since this Ovakimian name is new to me, I'm assuming it's a new source, which does take time to vet, which runs into publishing deadline issues.

* re: "White's discussion of compensation by Soviet intelligence in VENONA" Again, this is a new one on me, please to provide a specific reference. I assume you're not referring to the "Bokhara(sp?) rugs" that Chambers seems to have used to reward/pay someone in his stable. DEddy 00:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ovakimian memo

• Dear 4.240.186.125/202: Where/what is this "Ovakimian memo" that you mention without referencing?

* The 4 references to Ovakimian in Haynes/Klehr's "VENONA" (the 2000 paperback edition) indicate Ovakimian was a US based KGB official focused on SCIENTIFIC matters. Using the index I cannot find a reference to an Ovakimian memo.

* I'm not familiar with KGB/NKVD organizational structure, but I question a man tasked with scientific matters having his hands in economics. Somehow I just do not see Soviet intelligence as being strong in cross-functional reporting. As we can see today, intelligence agencies—well at least American intelligence agencies—seem to have difficulties with "sharing information." I assume that the Soviet culture, where the Moscow phone book was considered a state secret, is significantly less adept at cross silo information flows.

* Have you read Craig's book? Or is an 1,100 word review sufficent?

* Since "Sacred Secrets" clearly ranks high as a source of factual information in your view of the world, why have you not mentioned "Operation Snow?" FYI... that's the "factual material" offered in "Sacred Secrets" where Stalin & Beria, concerned about their Eastern Front (Japan in China) INSTRUCT White to provoke the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor. And since the Japanese undisputably did attack Pearl Harbor, this is proof that White was "under Communist control," correct? I would think causing Pearl Harbor would be a far more interesting accusation than a piddling few hundred million dollars in currency. DEddy 00:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quality of Publishing Houses?

• Not that I would claim substantive expertise regarding the pecking order in the publishing/printing trade, but it strikes me as odd that Haynes/Klehr moved from Yale University Press (which appears to be an arm of Yale University) to the unfindable (at least not by Google, which is pretty definitive these days, particularly if you're a legitimate commercial effort that wants to be found) "Encounter Press."

• "Potomac Press" is findable [17]... looks distinctly like a printing press... e.g. what used to be called "vanity press." I assume there is a significant difference between a "publishing house" and a "printing press." DEddy 00:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting... "Sacred Secrets" wasn't published by "Potomac Press." Published in 2002 = yes. Published by "Potomac Press" = no. Unless, of course, there's been a 2nd edition, which seems highly dubious. DEddy 13:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)