Talk:Samuel Krafsur

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 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]
Votes for deletion This article was the subject of a previous vote for deletion.
An archived record of the discussion can be found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Krafsur.

Contents

[edit] Krafsur

The entry on S.S. Krafsur is not a neutral point of view. Indeed, it's a calumny, using perjorative wording and presenting conclusions unsupported by fact or evidence. Krafsur was never charged with espionage. Why build a potted biography on the premise of espionage. What's the motive here?

S.S. Krafsur was an employee of TASS and as such, a registered agent of a foreign power, as required by law. That is not synonomous with 'spy' or 'secret agent'. Upon whom could he 'spy' as an open and acknowledged employee of TASS, with full press credentials to do what reporters do? Everyone around knew he worked for TASS. TASS was the Russian news agency and they didn't even pay union scale. Krafsur was right to leave TASS when US - USSR relationships became increasingly hostile.

I'd like to know who wrote this smear. I can find no evidence in reading published Venona transcripts that Krafsur played a 'key role' or any role in recruiting other journalists as agents for the Soviet Union. He did, it seems, answer enquiries from TASS management about the attitude of one or more journalists to the Soviet Union. In the context of WWII in which the USA, GB, and USSR were allies this hardly seemed treasonous. It was, moreover, entirely consistent with the paranoid style of Soviet practice to ask such questions.

It is false to describe Lincoln Brigade volunteers as 'fighting for the communists'. In fact, they were fighting with Spanish loyalists for the legally elected government of Spain and fighting against Franco's insurgents, Hitlers' Condor Legion, and Mussolini's army, all of whom were supporting vigorously and decisively the fascist revolution in Spain. The International Brigades' volunteers could not have known that USSR support in the conflict was compromised by Soviet internal affairs (read their witch hunts and show trials) because of the highly secretive and paranoid ways in which the Soviets operated.

S. S. Krafsur was 'uncooperative' with the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1956 because they only wanted him to name publicly people he might have thought were communists or communist supporters. Nothing was asked about spying because there wasn't any. This was show business because the Committee already had full knowledge of American leftists. Krafsur was right not to play the game of fingering others for the Committee's witch hunt. And it cost him too.

The fact is that S.S. Krafsur was no more than a legal, registered employee of an allied nation in wartime doing his job as a newsman. His request in 1944 (if memory serves) to volunteer for the armed forces was turned down by the State Department because his job with TASS held to be in the national interest of USA.

- Elliot Scoville Krafsur

If you are taking unbridge to this article it is because you don't like what it says, it does not mean that the information is incorrect. The article is well sourced. Most of the people who "volunteered" to fight as members of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade were members of the Communist Party, including Conlon Nancarrow.
You don't deny that he was a foreign "agent" I see, and most likely you weren't quite aware of just what Krafsur's involvement was with the KGB since the Venona papers weren't released until the 1990's. And it would have been difficult for HUAAC to know that Krafsur was an asset to the KGB because his codename IDE protected his identity until the records of the Soviet Union became available and revealed that IDE was indeed Krafsur.
You can read the latest books and sources on the Venona papers and the American Communist Party for the old standards of beliefs on these issues are being shattered in light of the information that has been uncovered. ClownBoy 03:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Replies on a couple of points:

  • "Upon whom could he 'spy' as an open and acknowledged employee of TASS, with full press credentials to do what reporters do? Everyone around knew he worked for TASS." It appears from the record that he was what was known in the argot of the intelligence world as a talent spotter - i.e. someone who found other people whom the intelligence officers could recruit as sources of more significant information (e.g. the way Flora Don Wovschin talent-spotted Judith Coplon, who gave the NKGB a priceless trove of US counter-intelligence information). This is an important role in an intelligence organization.
  • "I can find no evidence in reading published Venona transcripts that Krafsur played a 'key role' or any role in recruiting other journalists as agents for the Soviet Union." Well, it doesn't seem to have been for lack of trying. But you're right, he doesn't seem to have produced much for the NKGB, which is why I said (on VfD) that's he borderline notable.
  • "International Brigades' volunteers could not have known that USSR support in the conflict was compromised by Soviet internal affairs". If you've read Homage to Catalonia, it's clear that some people managed to come back from Spain having figured out basically what was really going on (which was that to Stalin and others, it was better to let Franco win, than have the Troskyists succeed in Spain - although I confess I didn't fully appreciate the full scope of that until I read Deadly Illusions.)
  • "they only wanted him to name publicly people he might have thought were communists or communist supporters. Nothing was asked about spying because there wasn't any. This was show business ... Krafsur was right not to play the game of fingering others for the Committee's witch hunt." Just out of curiousity (and maybe this did happen, I don't know), had the FBI asked him in quietly and privately (i.e. not to make publicity out of it) to ask him who he had talent-spotted for the Soviets, so that they all could be checked on (since he wouldn't have known whether any subsequent recruitment attempts - which the files now do show occurred - failed or succeeded), do you think he would have co-operated?
  • "The fact is that S.S. Krafsur was no more than a legal, registered employee of an allied nation in wartime doing his job as a newsman." Talent-spotting for a foreign intelligence agency - which the files make quite clear he did - is not part of the job of a normal newsman.

I would guess that he was not entirely open with you about some of his activities. If so, I'm sure this is a shock. But he did it, not you, and it was a long time ago. Noel (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] hostile tone and inaccurate information

I take umbrage at the tone and inaccurate information in your entry on Samuel Krafsur. Read Elliot Krafsur's comments more carefully to understand why. Beyond a hostile tone and factual inaccuracies, your posting suffers from spelling and math mistakes that only further undermine your credibility.

I believe that if you post libelous and misleading statements you should at least have the courage to publish your name and provide your contact information. Have you considered the harm that these statements could cause the descendents of S.S. Krafsur?

Ed Krafsur Ed6061 14:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


Further to my earlier comments (E.S.Krafsur)

The biographer is clearly on a mission. For what purpose? - the cold war was declared won twenty years ago. Perhaps he feels USA fought on the wrong side in WWII? I don't deny my father was an 'agent' because ALL employees of foreign governments were by law designated as 'agents' and no pejorative meaning attended the word. The biographer clearly believes it to be a crime to have been a communist in the 1930s; moreover, he tars with the 'communist' label those who worked with or knew Reds, for example, International Brigade volunteers. Why the inverse commas for 'volunteers'? What does the anonymous biographer mean to imply by that?

This highly inflammatory and greatly distorted biography will cause futher harm to the Krafsur name. Some of us have been considered possible security risks in the early 1960s because S. S. Krafsur's name as an 'agent' was made known to employers.

The biographer's crusade is out of date and his motives obscure. Why do you adopt anonymity, Mr. Biographer? Ekrafsur 14:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}. FYI the identity of people making edits is available in the page's edit history. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Id say that hiding behind a username with no other contact information is just that, hiding. Ed6061 15:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

And I'd say that you appear to be more interested in making a fuss about why someone chooses not to sign their edits than doing anything positive about the allegedly scurrilous nature of this article. An interesting choice to make, but up to you, of course. Tonywalton  | Talk 16:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I am trying to do something positive - having this slander deleted from wikipedia. Read closely E.S. Krafsur's comments on just why it is slander. How would you like someone anonymously posting inaccurate information about your family? If our reaction to this is "making a fuss", then Im guilty. Ed6061 16:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

There are criteria for deletion. "I don't like this article" is not among them. If the information is inaccurate, edit it and replace it with accurate information. If the information is not written from a neutral POV, re-write it so it is. The article may or may not be deleted according to the Votes for Deletion debate now on-going at [1], however as I said, "I don't like what this says" is not a valid criterion. And I repeat, the identity of the editors is freely available on the article's edit history. If you choose not to look at that, that is up to you. There are no anonymous edits to this page, going by the history, and edits are never signed in the page itself. Tonywalton  | Talk 16:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Who is clownboy? Thats not a name. Does he have an email? None listed with Wikipedia. That is anonymous by any definition. Amoung the criterea for deletion is a biography that fails to be of a significant individual. Take away the accusations about being a spy, and all there is left is a paragraph about a journalist who worked for a few years for TASS, and was later caught up in the Red Scare. Just another American caught up in a self-righteous attempt to slime others. One that we can see is still alive. As I keep writing, read E.S. Krafsur's comments. Ed6061 16:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

A suggestion:biographical information from the immediate family certainly would be welcome and considered (for the most part) authoritive. nobs 17:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Who is clownboy? I have no idea. You could try asking him on his talkpage. Your definition of anonymous doesn't seem to match the one anyone else uses, I'm afraid. And "Ed6061" is hardly a name either.
ES Krafur (who I suspect not being a million miles from your good self) seems merely to keep repeating the same "I don't like it" as you, though. As I keep writing, edit the article, if you feel it contravenes POV. Myself, I can't see it does, to be honest. As for notability we'll see what the VfD says. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Venona

Venona transcript 705 KGB New York to Moscow, 17 May 1944 reads in part,

"After months of study we propose to use an employee of the Editorial Office [TASS], Samuel KRAFSUR (name sent in the clear), henceforth "IDE", for cultivating newspapermen's circles in Washington, D.C. IDE is a Communist Party member, was in the International Brigade in SPAIN. He is absolutely devoted to the USSR, always zealously carries out minor tasks set by Vladimir Pravdin in connection with the obtaining of information. Systematic work among IDE's extensive connections will give opportunities for obtaining valuable information and also of studying individual subjects for signing on [KONTRAKTsIYa]. Of the more than [B% 2] leads of IDE's which could be used on the basis of I.'s[Ya.] personal relationships with them [the following][a] deserve special attention: Joseph BERGER - personal secretary of the Chairman of the National Committee of the Democratic Party. [redacted Journalist born 1899] - brother of the well-known journalist [redacted Newspaper correspondent born in 1897, brother of redacted]. IDE is very friendly with them both. In future, if development of IDE's work requires it, [C% we shall provide] him with an active contact [ZhIVAYa SVYaZ'] so that information will be recieved in New York promptly. We await your sanction."

Thank for the opprotunity to extract this document from the gif file; will be happy to extract more documents if necessary. nobs 18:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America

According to the above mentioned book on page 242:

"Another Communist journalist who played a key role in the KGB's efforts to find journalistic informants and agenst was Samuel Krafsur, an American who worked for TASS. Not much detail is known about his background and life."

This book corroborates much of what was in the article. These family members want to still keep Sam's activities hiding in the shadows I see. Dwain 20:05, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Page 242 also reads, "Venona makes clear that Krafsur was an important Soviet agent"; the contents of
are particularly devastating, they could warrant an entire article in themselves. We don't even need to go into the remaining seven decrypts until # 1178 KGB New York to Moscow 17 August 1944 is fully addressed. (Also, it should be noted there can be no denial that "IDE" was Krafsur, as the first decrypt clearly defines). nobs 20:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the input. I would encourage more. A word of caution, it appears the family is approaching this with what wikipedia refers to as a Wikipedia:Point of view. This POV it seems differs from the published findings of the United States Government. Partisan declarations, such as offered above, may backfire, and be regarded as unencyclopedic. nobs 03:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I can feel for the family even if I think they are somewhat misguided in their assertions. Most likely they wouldn't really know the full extent of what SS Krafsur was up to in the 1930's and 40's apart from what was told to them as they would not have been old enough to know precisely. Regardless of what their father and grandfather may have been doing in his relationship with Soviet intelligence his behavior does not reflect upon them. No one would even have known they were related to him if they hadn't advertised the fact. That being said, I feel that it is beyond obvious, that like thousands of other Americans in that time period, he did have more than a journalist relationship with the KGB. Dwain 03:18, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
The irony is the reference here to Ronald Reagan, the man history widely acredits with liberating 350,000,000 human beings from Soviet Communism, as a "snitch", in an effort to spare the reputation of a man whom the United States Governments says aided in their enslavement. The language cited above ("He is absolutely devoted to the USSR") betrays a lack of respect for human rights. I believe seeking the input of our friends who authored the Western betrayal regarding discussion of the "Polish Question" as referenced in this decrypt [2] may be in order. nobs 03:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
It'll come as news to most historians that Ronald Reagan is widely credited with the downfall of the Soviet Union. After all, "Partisan declarations, such as offered above, may backfire, and be regarded as unencyclopedic." But here is of course not the proper forum to discuss what Reagan should or should not be credited with. Jdivine 07:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Dwain, 100% agreement with all your comments above (I can feel for the family even if I think they are somewhat misguided in their assertions., etc). As I said elsewhere, I certainly don't blame family members for what someone else (someone who's now dead, in any case) did; they bear no blame, morally (and certainly legally) for his actions. Noel (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TIME OUT

This business is going nowhere. Legitimate objections have been registered in asking Wikipedia to withdraw the biography. Wikipedia's spokesman Tony Walton encourages the controversy and denies the validity of the points we've made. It seems entertainment is the company interest here.

Well, it's not entertaining for the family and it's time to withdraw from this discussion. There are other ways to deal with this. We've got some anonymous (yes, Mr Walton, anonymous) folks hugely enjoying their exercise in rightousness and so let's let them 'win' the day. After all, what have they won since only they know their names? - E S Krafsur

Just out of curiousity, have you asked Yale University to "withdraw" the book they published, naming Samuel Krafsur as "an important Soviet agent" who "played a key role in the KGB's efforts to find journalistic informants and agents"? (Haynes/Klehr, Venona, pp. 242) Will you be employing "other ways" to deal with them, and the Library of Congress, where Mr. Haynes is an employee? Noel (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I F Stone

As this article is being researched, one thing to keep in mind is there will be a tie-in with the I. F. Stone article, another highly controversial piece. In Krafsur's case, the evidence seems much more clear cut. I would encourage researchers to pay close attention to the relationship if Izzy Stone. nobs 16:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, good point. I had forgotten about the IF Stone tie-in. Given how notable the IFS controversy is, I would say this ups the notability of Krafsur, who apparently talent-spotted him. (BTW, I'm not sure that Stone ever really did anything for the Soviets, although I guess it's somewhat murky.) Noel (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Personal view on Stone: I don't think Stone was much of an information source, he did however provide "legitimacy" to numerous front organizations, which had the effect of overwhelming FBI counterintelligence operations. That may have been his only task. nobs 17:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nobs' Contribution

I have to commend User:Nobs01 for all the precise and hard work that he has done adding to this article and many other articles in relation to the Venona documents. He has really shown a great aptitude in researching these articles and providing good and legitimate source materials and even linking to them. Really great job Nobs! Dwain 18:25, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Вы, камрад! nobs 19:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
This excercise has been very good; we see for example in # 1178 & # 1291 Krafsur is entrusted with carrying the intimate thoughts of Roosevelt and disspelling the myth FDR was a KGB agent.
# 738 shows how vital he was, being assigned a "live laiason" instead of the use of dead drops. # 847B & 848 are important post-war policy planning discussions. # 1178 shows Cordell Hull speaking off-record, meaning it was not intended for the American people to hear, yet it was communicated directly to Moscow (this may explain why Hoover accused Hull as being a Communist). And # 1178 with it's allusions to what we now refer to as human rights abuses ("methods and systems of the USSR may be shocking in questions of its internal policy", see [3] and [4] 1941 Army G-2 Report), meaning Krafsur was well aware of what Hull was speaking about, coupled with # 705 reference to his "absolute devotion", one can hardly call him a Jeffersonian democrat. nobs 20:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] General Comment

We can only judge Krafsur's importance from the Venona transcriptions and rightly so. However, the US only managed to intercept and decryipt fraction of the estimated messages that were being send to Moscow. There is bound to be much more involvement that has not yet been discovered and my never be. So his true importance as an operative may never be known. Dwain 22:41, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Krafsur is unique in many ways; what is decrypted, from his recruitment onwards, gives a very good picture. And he is not a low-level source, he was regarded as extrememly important. Twice we have him relaying the thinking FDR, also Secretary of State Cordell Hull, and Ambassador Harriman, among other important sources. And the issues discussed in #878B & 848, the dismemberment of Germany and the Polish question, remain extremely controversial. Plus we have good insights into how he functioned both as a recruiter & purveyor of high level information. There are good insights into how the KGB operated in handling him. And one thing I found interesting, to underscore its importance, the date on #878B & 848, 31/3/1967, twenty-three years after it was sent, the NSA was still working on decphyering that document. nobs 01:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1433, 1435

The contents of decrypts # 1433, 1435 are particularly interesting; the KGB operational report says how dependant they are of the "Editorial Office", i.e. TASS (Krafsur), the suggestion that the whole Editorial Office may have to be moved to Washington. This is the famous decrypt whrere the New York and Washington KGB offices criticize each other. Pravdin is responding to Aspresyan's statement that without "their help" (CPUSA, specifically Krafsur's Editorial Office) "we are completely powerless". It goes on to say that if Thomas Dewey were elected in 1944, "this source would dry up", i.e. the connection Krafsur had to the White House & President. nobs 03:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

It is part of what is discussed in the section New York Espionage Operations -- the New KGB of the NSA's release "The Venona Story" by Robert L. Benson, a primer on the subject of Venona. Writers have made light of two facts (1) the dispute & criticism of each other by the two KGB offices, and (2) their open admission of their dependence upon native FELLOWCOUNRTYMEN CPUSA members. With the Samuel Krafsur bio, we see exactly why they were so dependent, Krafsur was a source of FDR's "thinking" in at least two decrypts, plus other high level sources. nobs 03:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

Excerpted reference from # 1291 KGB New York to Moscow, 9 September 1944, p.2

"In a talk with Krafsur the correspondent of the Baltimore Sun Paul Ward completely confirmed Walter Lippmann in regard to the principal aim of Franklin D. Roosevelt's meeting with Winston Churchill adding the Roosevelt also intends to discuss the question of India." [5]; message was resent here[6] with more of the coded signal recovered.
Krafsur is a direct pipeline into the White House, transmitting to the KGB confidential planning for World War II Summit Conferences. I beleive this is the Quebec Conference (List_of_World_War_II_conferences).nobs 02:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV and inaccurate Info notices

I am removing the POV and inacuracies notices from the page because I feel that those issues were addressed and things were reworded and more sources cited to back up the information in the article.

They can be put back if and when someone actually has evidence to refute the accuracy of the article apart from just not wanting it available. Dwain 19:12, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cause of Death

I believe that Krafsur died from cancer. Is this correct? Dwain 19:15, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rezidenturas

Moved this down, and made it a separate section, since it seems to be turning into a thread of its own. Noel (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

This appears a good place to insert this comment: Krafsur was a "legal" registered foreign agent. Krafsur had contact with other "legal" registered KGB agents working out of the "legal" KGB Rezidentura. This is not surprising or unexpected. No one ever accused Krafsur of having contact with, or working for the KBG's Illegal Rezidentura, or the GRU's Illegal Rezidentura, or the GRU's "legal" Rezidentura. Arguements like this, taking advantage of popular misundestanding of the various Soviet intelligence agencies (plural) that simultaneously operate in any given country, has long been a ploy to deny complicity. Contrary to popular understanding, there is no one, single, "KGB", that directs ALL operations. nobs 20:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Umm, the legal and illegal KGB rezidentura's were both run out of the First Chief Directorate, no? I assume the illegal residents would have come under Directorate S, like the normal illegals - or would they have answered directly to the appropriate Department of the FCD (US, Latin America, etc)? Noel (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
In Moscow, yes. In New York (or whatever target country), not necessarily. An operative run by an illegal Rezidentura is much harder to detect, because information sent back to Moscow is not necessarily always transmitted via the legal rezidentura (usually the Embassey), as illegal Officers often have little or no contact with the legal Rezidentura. This was much more precisely defined after 1948, but prior there was some crossover. In the 1930s, though parallel organizations existed, Russian Case Officers did move back and forth between the two. As somewhat of a sidenote, Alger Hiss worked for the illegal GRU, hence virtually nothing is detected in Venona from him in that regard. The famous # 1822 transcript comes from the legal KGB, who were not running him (hence the reference "working for sometime with the neighbors"). Edward Mark has explained this unusual circumstance was because Pavel Fitin ordered in # 195 March 5, 1945 to obtain information quickly regarding the upcoming UN Charter Conference in San Fransisco, which led to a unique breach in security protocol, a KGB Officer crossed lines and directly contacted Hiss. And thus we have the result, he was discovered. nobs 19:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Right, it was in Moscow that I was wondering about above (when I asked about the FCD, and whether the illegal residencies came under Directorate S or the appropriate Department of the FCD).
Just a side-notes about the embassies; I seem to recall that many had a "Line N" dedicated to illegals support, but I think that was mostly for stuff like filling/emptying dead drops, etc. Noel (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Line S is, as I read it, the illegals ('Nelegely', or Special Tasks). But as you know, there were lots of changes over the years. I'm trying to get John Barron (journalist)'s old book, if I recall it has an Appendix with the structure known up to that time. nobs 00:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Are you keeping distinct the 'Lines' (sections of legal rezidenturas) and 'Directorates' (of the FCD in Moscow)? Illegals are indeed "Directorate S", but support (i.e not illegals themselves) in rezidenturas is "Line N". (See KGB Andrew/Gordievsky pp. 652, 656.) A similar situation applies for Science/Technology - it's "Directorate T" of the FCD, but "Line X" in the rezidenturas.
I looked at Barron, KGB: Secret Work (I only have the paperback, though), and although it has appendices, none are on structure. Structure is covered in Chapter 4, "Behind the Guarded Gates", and it confirms the above for Directorates. It doesn't discuss Lines (on a quick look), but other books - e.g. his second book, KGB Today, Appendix B (maybe this is the book you meant by his "old book"?) discuss Lines, and confirms Line N as illegals support. Noel (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
All I recall about Barron's book (it's been many years) was it was copyright after about 1958, and it has the story of Rudy Hermann, his wife & son. I see Barron has written several on KGB, so I can't identify it by title. Do you have the year of copyright on those two? nobs 16:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/a/m/Talk%7ESamuel_Krafsur_b26d.html"