Talk:I. F. Stone

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]
This article is part of WikiProject Media, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to media. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

I was under the impression that Izzy's legal name was Isidor Feinstein, which was his birth name, and that I. F. Stone was simply a pen name. On the other hand, it is possible that he legally changed his name to Isidor Feinstein Stone. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I am could clear this up, and change the article to reflect the situation Too Old 01:05, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

His birth name was Isador (not Isidor) Feinstein. He first used IF Stone as a pen name at the Philadelphia Inquirer and then legally changed his name to Isador Feinstein Stone. 71.193.252.158 05:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Kalugin

Here is the proper citation FBI Venona FOIA, p. 37, ( under the section entitled "Vladimir S. Pravdin). I know, I know, "Have You No Sense of Decency...". Nobs01 19:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So he published a book about how the U.S. and South Korea "initiated casualties" and "planned for the conflict." OK... now how 'bout we add in the fact that it's now confirmed that the war was started by dear ol' Kim in the North? J. Parker Stone 06:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

LOL, didn't even realize that an edit war on this was already in progress... checked this article after seeing Mr. Lopez's references to IF Stone on Magdoff. J. Parker Stone 06:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

There are some pecularities regarding Stone I would be happy to discuss, in context with the larger edit war that same to be going on. nobs 21:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] KGB status

Could we take one paragraph at a time and discuss the text. Much of the Red-baiting POV and conservative attacks at least need to be cited to a published source so we can discuss them properly.--Cberlet 16:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Some writers, mostly conservative, have claimed that Stone had an involvement with the KGB. These claims are disputed.

I am sorry but this reeks. All who have commented on the subject acknowledge that Stone had some kind of cordial relationship with the KGB field office. Some argue that this went further, with the bulk of the research being done by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr (the foremost authorities on Venona).

As much as you might like to, lets not paint all those who believe that Stone was working for the KGB either as an "agent" or more appropriately an "agent of influence" as knuckle dragging right wingers. TDC 16:33, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Also, why do you continue to presnet Navasky's article as gospel truth? the least you could do is attribute it to him and write in an NPOV manner.

Please provide the cites to the claim that Stone was "involved with the KGB." We can count them and see where they come from. The paragraph on Stone's research style, although sourced to Navasky, is a view widely held across the journalistic community--and across political boundaries. It is a focal point of the documentary film made about Stone.--Cberlet 16:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, they are already cited in the article in the Venona link to the CIA's website. The Kauglin reference, and the issue is discussed in Venona : Decoding Soviet Espionage in America by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr.
Then explain this:
Title: Stone miscast.(journalist I.F. Stone)

Date: 11/4/1996; Publication: The Nation; Author: Schneir, Miriam

===And in 1994 Kalugin himself, the only named source, resolved the matter in his memoir, The First Directorate. He recalled his K.G.B. posting to Washington, D.C., in the 1960s as Soviet press attache--a credible cover because he had previously studied journalism at Columbia. Seeking political information, he got to know "some of the leading journalists and politicians in the capital," including Izzy Stone. "KGB headquarters never said [Stone] had been an agent of our intelligence service...." Kalugin's only reference to money was an incident when he lunched with Stone shortly after the Soviets crushed the Prague Spring. Stone, he said, was "aloof," and "angrily" refused to let him pay the tab. They never met again. End of story.

The current text seems like a total misrepresentation that conflates Stone meeting with Tass reporters (who turned out to be KGB agents) and the suggestion that he worked with the KGB, which Kalugin himself disputes. This is why I say the text is POV from the political right.--Cberlet 17:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Short answer, it bullshit from the Nation magazine.
Long answer, read Kalugin’s memoirs, where he states quite explicitly that he considered Stone an “agent of influence” whom he used to pass along disinformation to eager Stone.
Keep in mind that Kauglin's activities are quite separate from the Venona information. TDC 17:23, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Material from Nation magazine was properly quoted and cited. It is directly relevant to the page. It is not appropriate to just delete it. an "agent of influence" simply means that the KGB attempted to use Stone--not the other way around. Much of the text attacking Stone is written in a misleading POV way that misrepresents the underlying material.--Cberlet 14:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Then summarize it. If you want block quotes in the article, there are about 20 pages of Kauglin. and about 10 from Haynes and Klehr that I could put in as well. Summarize and source. From Venona and Kauglin, it seems clear to me that Stone was a willing "agent of influence". TDC 19:31, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Clear to you does not count. It is original research. and "agent of influence" is a weasel term. I summarized your quoted material to be fair.--Cberlet 19:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not the one piecing the information together to label stone an "agent of influence". It is a widely recognized term describing the activities of many individuals during the cold war, and it is a charge that others (not by others, I mean Kauglin, Romerstein, Haynes and Klehr . TDC 20:14, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stone & KGB Redux

The attacks on Stone in Reader's Digest have been largely debunked. How do you explain this?

"Title: Stone miscast.(journalist I.F. Stone)
Date: 11/4/1996; Publication: The Nation; Author: Schneir, Miriam
===And in 1994 Kalugin himself, the only named source, resolved the matter in his memoir, The First Directorate. He recalled his K.G.B. posting to Washington, D.C., in the 1960s as Soviet press attache--a credible cover because he had previously studied journalism at Columbia. Seeking political information, he got to know "some of the leading journalists and politicians in the capital," including Izzy Stone. "KGB headquarters never said [Stone] had been an agent of our intelligence service...." Kalugin's only reference to money was an incident when he lunched with Stone shortly after the Soviets crushed the Prague Spring. Stone, he said, was "aloof," and "angrily" refused to let him pay the tab. They never met again. End of story. ===

Sounds way different from the current text.--Cberlet 17:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The Nations selective use of Kalugin's quotes is very suspicious. Go check out a copy of Kalugin's memoirs if you want to read what he relay said concerning this subject, which is currently reflected in tthe article.

Kalugin is very specific about the difference between an agent and an agent of influence. TDC 17:37, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

"Agent of Influence" is a term proliferated by the political right when they want to smear their political opponents, but lack the evidence. Reading government intelligence files requires a baloney and hype detector. Agents are constantly claiming to have recruited a source, when all that happened was that they had lunch. The current text conflates being a KGB agent and being someone approached by a career-conscious KGB agent with a quota.--Cberlet 22:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Brush up on your cold war lingo. An "agent of influence" is not neccesarily a "spy". An "agent of influence" may be a well-placed, "trusted contact" who consciously served Soviet interests on some matters while retaining his integrity on others, or an unwitting contact who is manipulated to take actions that advanced Soviet interests on specific issues of common concern (like North Korea). The KGB takes a person who tends to agree with the Soviet position on at least one significant issue, such as opposition to some element of United States policy, and then seeks ways to motivate and help that person become a successful advocate on that issue within their own circle of influence.
Based on what I have read concerning Stone, from Venon to Kalugin's writings, he would most certainly classify as an "agent of influence", but not a spy. In noe of my edits, have I attempted to label him as a "spy" or "agent". TDC 00:21, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
I would also like to point out, when referring to "government intelligence files" and needing a "baloney detector", the fact that these are most likely the most objective sources one can find. The authors of these files never expected or foresaw them becoming declassified and entering into the public debate. In my opinion, these are the rawest and most candid historical records for that reason. The interpretations of them are and have been subject to a great deal of debate, but that said, the information within them is top notch. TDC 00:31, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
as far as i can tell there is a factual debate going on about whether Stone was involved in espionage. there is no McCarthyite "smearing" occurring. J. Parker Stone 22:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Then can we make the text a more balanced rendition of the debate?--Cberlet 22:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Having read the underlyign materials, I have to say this is an attempted hatchet job on Stone. There is a difference between a person considered an "asset" by an undercover KGB case officer, and a person being run as an agent by the KGB. There is not one iota of evidence that Stone was aware he was talking to a KGB officer. He was having lunch with the press officer of the Russian embassy. When I was a reporter in Washington, D.C. registered in the Congressional Press Corps., I had lunch with many embassy press officers. That's what they do. They take reporters to lunch and chat them up. This is all ridiculous.--Cberlet 13:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Please do not revert my edit before at least dicsussing it here for a few rounds. I am serious about challenging the text as a POV distortion of the historic record, misrepresentation of underlying documents, and failure to differentiate between a person exploited by a KGB agent as a source of information and a person who collaborated with the KGB.--Cberlet 16:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
An agent of influence, the term Kalugin used, it is unclear to Kalugin whether or not Stone knew he was dealing with just another Soviet official, or a KGB handler. But in 1944 Stone did meet with Vladimir Pravdin, who at the time had journalistic cover and was an “agent” in the James Bond sense of the term, and told Pravdin that “he had noticed our (KGB) attempts to contact him
  • Stone said that he had noticed our attempts to contact him ... but he had reacted negatively fearing the consequences. Stone ... was not refusing his aid but one should consider that he had three children and did not want to attract the attention of the FBI. Stone earns as much as 1500 a month but, it seems, he would not be averse to having a supplementary income.
Which is where the 15,000 copies of the IF Stone reader comes into play. Stone must have realized that he was not simply dealing with a TASS official, which many journalists did in 1944 with the war on and all, otherwise he would not have been afraid of FBI scrutiny.
This is the argument Khelr and Haynes put forth. TDC 16:35, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
The you need to say that some authors claim that Stone should have known he was in contact with someopne who may have reported to the KGB, and then cite the reference. That is not what the text does. It is a biased POV version that needs to be cited properly.--Cberlet 16:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Pecularities regarding Stone: (1) Stone had a covert relationship with the Soviet Union from 1944 to 1968. (2) Stone, it would appear, worked for cash, and was not necessarily ideologically motivated. (3) Information Stone could offer was not much more than his personal commentary on domestic political events. (4) The true nature of his relationship has more to do with subversion, than with information gathering or transfer. Stone lending his high profile name to various front organizations, or Communist fronts, which as the HUAC article describes, was often no more than a "petition drive", Stone help to build an elaborate system of "cut outs". Stone was able to successfully aid in the recruitment of thousands of persons into front organizations, whose sole purpose is to confuse and consume the limited resources of counterintelligence agencies. Each counterintellignece agency acts within a limited, finite budget, with a limited number of properly trained personel; when faced with an investigative list with a hundred names on it, precious time and resources are used up chasing shadows. And that is more less what Stone's job was, to lend his name for recruitment of others into various causes for the purpose of countering counterintelligence. It was not "unwitting", it was paid subversion. nobs 21:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

_____________________________

Oh sure, and "subversion" is a word used by right wingers to delegitimize political activity they disagree with. Note that in the above writer's view, government agencies have the right to operate like secret police and investigate citizens involved in protesting their government or other issues in the manner of Watergate, COINTELPRO or worse. It is exactly this sinister bullying mentality that motivated and justified the imposition of military and fascist dictatorships in Latin America with the aid of the CIA. While "Verona" may in fact have valuable and truthful information regarding the activities of Soviet intelligence, the way Verona is being used by people who have not studied it, with reckless and false accustions made against decent citizens by those glibly citing to it, reminds one of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," a notorious fraud used to demonize Jews and liberals. Moreover, the term "agent of influence" as used here is not merely vague and ambigous, but is really an intellectually dishonest, demogogic way of smearing dissidents. An "agent" is someone who acts at the direction of a principal. The fact that one shares political views with another or has some other affinity with that person or entity, particularly when they or it are our ally in a major world war and are under seige by our common enemy with their survival at stake as the Soviet Union was in WW2, does not make one an "agent" or "agent of influence" anymore than those in this country who, rightly or wrongly, support Israel are its agents. "Agent of influence" could only be someone who knowingly, either for money or not, acts at the direction of a foreign power to advance its interests through disseminating its information. For example, those in Iraq who knowingly (and for $) published fabricated news stories about what we and the "coalition forces" were doing at the behest of a phony "contractor" are agents of influence of the US; those who support us and have a friendly attitude toward our presence are not, even if they are mentioned in confidential government documents or communications as those we have had contact with. Thus there is a difference between friend, ally and agent.

There is no evidence that Stone was an agent of the Soviet Union. Quite the opposite. He was an independent leftist who loathed Stalinism but he, unlike many anti-communist conservatives who made excuses for Hitler and sympathized with his war on Russia, Stone-like people of good will generally in this country-supported the defense of our ally Soviet Russia against Axis aggression. I had the privilege of hearing Stone speak when I was in high school back in the days of the anti-Vietnam war movement in the late 60s and even met him briefly. He was a decent person of the highest integrity. It is no accident that Albert Einstein subscribed to his paper and respected it and Stone. Thank you. Tom Cod

________________________


So you admit that your highly biased and opinionated POV original research actually has no reputable published source to cite to? That because you are a militant anticommunist you feel it is OK to put in print here that anyone who was a commie symp is the same thing as a active witting KGB agent? Is that your position, at long last?--Cberlet 22:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I cited a source for this above, Khelr, Haynes, and Kauglin. TDC 22:16, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
I posted an analysis of Stone's role on the talk page; you will note I have not inserted this into the article or attempted to do so. I am discussing on the Talk page, which is what the Talk page is for, I assume. And the HUAC insertion, which is not my work, touches on this point. It seems there needs to be some clarification of understanding what Stone's relationship was, seeing (1) he did not work in government (2) he did not work in Washington. nobs 22:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
So what is a fair summary for the actual page? I find the language about "involvement in espionage" to be a weasel way to imply that Stone was a KGB agent or "Red spy." Most of the people who say stuff like this (Klehr, etc.) made their bones by being militant anticommunist authors whose views are not widely shared in journalism or academia, and who have been refuted on the issue of Stone and the KGB. Just papering the page with FBI and Venona documents is just absurd. SOme say X, others say Y. We have a dispute here. What's an NPOV way through the dispute?--Cberlet 17:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Korean War

Please provide a published source for this claim:
"Documents from Soviet era archive show that Stone was wrong in his assesment and that Joseph Stalin and Kim Il Sung orchestrated the Korean War. "

Thanks.--Cberlet 16:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Stone’s main point of contention in “The Hidden History of the Korean War” was that Korean war that the United States and Syngman Rhee planned for the conflict and initiated hostilities. All information that has come out of Russia since the break up of the Soviet Union shows Kim Il Sung seeking for and receiving approval from Stalin to launch a sneak attack on the south.[1] [2] TDC 17:18, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Fine, so you should add the cites and try to make the sentence NPOV.--Cberlet 17:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
First of all, what TDC is saying here and what is said in the article are two completely different things. In the article it says Stalin is one of the people who orchestrated the Korean war, and Stone was wrong in what he had said regarding this. So what is said is Stalin orchestrated the Korean war, and that what Stone said regarding this was wrong. Here, TDC is saying something else, he is saying Sung was seeking approval from Stalin to be more militant (I'll be more general about what he said, putting "sneak attack" and all aside for the moment). OK, but what does this have to do about Stone being wrong about what Stone said regarding Stalin being who orchestrated the Korean war? The point is that Stalin would have to have had orchestrated the Korean war, and Stone would have had to have been wrong about this, or at least the documentary evidence would have had to have been different. On the contrary, all of the documents that have come out have shown the exact opposite. Stalin absolutely did not want a conflict breaking out in Korea, he was very happy with the status quo there. In fact, the Russian army pulled out of North Korea while the US army was still milling about in the south.
This sentence says that Stalin orchestrated the Korean war, what Stone said regarding this was wrong, and the documents coming out show that Stalin orchestrated the war and what Stone said about that was wrong. The exact opposite is true - all documents that have come out show that Stalin did not want war to break out in Korea, and repeatedly told Sung he did not want war to break out in Korea. So the evidence coming out of the USSR has been the exact opposite of what has been stated. Ruy Lopez 21:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
OK folks, more cites and sources on both sides of this sentence, then. Or at least we need to end up with cites and sources for both sides.--Cberlet 17:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Korea

Someone needs to cite this claim:

"Although in the case of the Korean War, many of these documents have turned out to be fabrications."

Thanks.--Cberlet 13:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Post-Soviet declassified documents have shown that Kim Il-sung launched the invasion of the South on his own initiative. I'm not sure about the extent of Soviet encouragement, but the leftist "the U.S.-South Korea 'provoked' the North" theory -- held by every Marxist-leaning individual from Stone to Pablo Picasso during that time -- has been proven wrong. If this was a controversial claim (which it's not) than it would need to be sourced -- if anything, Stone's argument is the one that should be "sourced" if it has any merit at all. J. Parker Stone 05:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Then it should be easy for you to find a cite and quote to allow the claim in the article to remain.--Cberlet 12:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article on the Korean War, for one, this for seconds [3]. Even longtime DPKR sycophant Bruce Cumings now admits that South Korea and the US did not start the war and the North, with explicit approval from Moscow invaded. TDC 22:16, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
THEN CITE CUMMINGS! Jeez! Why is this so hard? Cite a published source! It isn't rocket science. It's Wiki policy, especially on controversial pages. --Cberlet 22:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
You know that blue thing with the number inside of the brackets, its called a "link" and if you "click" on it, you will be taken to the source. TDC 22:35, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
I know what a link is, now paste it in the article! --Cberlet 00:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
It is not necessary to cite something that is no longer disputed. J. Parker Stone 06:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article says Documents from Soviet era archive show that Stone was wrong in his assesment and that Joseph Stalin and Kim Il Sung orchestrated the Korean War. You give a link, but this link corroborates what I have been saying, that Stalin did not orchestrate this war but on the contrary threw up every roadblock he could to prevent a war. Here are some quotes from the page you cite as your evidence which completely contradict the above sentence, and the idea that the page you linked to supports that sentence:
"Stalin knew at that time that "there was no way they could advance on the South" as the Korean Peoples' Army (KPA) did not have numerical superiority over the forces of South Korea. Besides that, American forces were deployed in the southern half of the peninsula in accordance with the Soviet-American agreement over partition at the 38th Parallel. The North, as the Soviet leader stressed, would only have the moral right to enter into combat operations in the case of an unprovoked attack upon them by the forces of the South."
...
In early April 1949, Moscow received the observations of their ambassador in Pyongyang that North Korean intelligence felt that in the April-May timeframe the Southerners would concentrate their forces along the 38th Parallel to launch a surprise attack on the North in June, and by August 1949 have completely destroyed the DPRK. An immediate advisory from the ambassador on 4 May indicated that the South Koreans were massing along the 38th Parallel, especially along the Pyongyang direction, where they had gathered some 300,000 troops.
...
THE POSITION of the Soviet side was very clearly laid out in a directive from the Central Committee of the CPSU to the USSR Embassy in Pyongyang. This document categorically rejected the possibility of a North Korean attack on the South. It stressed that in the case of an attack on South Korea, it would become inevitable that the Americans would militarily intervene under the UN flag on the side of Syngman Rhee, permanently occupy the South, and perpetuate the division of the peninsula." Ruy Lopez 05:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
A perfect illustration of the problem of vague citation. "Look, I've pointed to a web page. What I'm saying must be true." Never mind whether the citation bears out any of what is being said in the Wikipedia article. A citation apparatus is no substitute for intellectual honesty. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:01, July 30, 2005 (UTC)


The point in this article isn't to know who started the war but rather what Stone said: in the Hidden History he never blamed Rhee and the US; his analyses indicated that the American intelligence had warned about imminent dangers and that the US gov. chose to ignore these facts, thus giving North Korea an opportunity to ATTACk - anon 12 Aug 2005

The anon is right though, at least according to my recollection of the book, Stone was careful in what he said, and inconsistent statements in the article should be eliminated.--John Z 03:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Columnist" "Shill," "Hero," etc.

"...with one columnist going as far to call..." Name the columnist. If this is, say, Michael Novak it is pretty different than if it is, say, Russell Baker. Without a name and citation, this is nothing but weaselly POV. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:58, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

With respect to Navasky and the belief that is "widely held across the journalistic community", its still unattributed POV, cause there are many people in the "historical community" as well as the "journalistic community" who see him as nothing more than a Soviet shill. TDC 16:55, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
That's certainly not POV, is it? :-)--Cberlet 17:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
What does this remark about Navasky have to do with my request for citation? Am I missing something? Surely Navasky didn't say this. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:29, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
So we still need a citation____________________--Cberlet 11:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

He sure seems like a great guy from his quotes, I guess its pretty key to figure out if he was sincere, or a lying traitor. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 13:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Venona

Reverted materials placed here for discussion. (Note to User:Viajero: Please note Stone's name is transmitted in the clear in Venona transcript # 1433, 1435 KGB New York to Moscow, 10 October 1944, which makes questionable your assertion of "questionable primary source materials"). Thank you so much. God Bless. nobs 00:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

<end of Nobs' list>

From what I've heard, though, translation in the clear is usually considered strong evidence against a given individual having had any sort of clandestine relationship with the Soviet Union. No? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:10, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Translation in the clear indicates a report back to Moscow that (a) contact has been made to attempt recruitment (b) instructions to Moscow to beginning vetting source. In other words, a he has not "signed on" yet, and has not been assigned a code name. Often times the recruitment occurs within the first meeting, which is safest for all cause it does not expose the recruiting officer to risk of surveillance etc; in Stone's case, it appears he did not sign after the first meeting, made demands for money, and Moscow and the New York Rezidentura felt he was a valauable enough target to attempt a second meeting, or series of more meetings. He evidenetly had no objections to covert relationship, the question appears to surround money. More importantly, the real question is to what value he could be to Soviet intelligence, seeing he did not work in government, and did not live or work in Washington. I suggest it was twofold (1) had to do with personal analysis of domestic politics based on what we call today "open source" information, and (2) more importantly, giving legitimacy to subversive front organizations, i.e. assisting in confusing counterintelligence activities by lending his name to a multitude of Comintern affiliate organizations. His celebrity drew in fresh faces, and that number of fresh faces then overwhelms counterintellignece investigators to sort out the few trained operatives form the multitude of card carrying members.
It is sort of like passing through a metal detector at an airport, Stone helped round up the mob to stand in line, each one then has to be individually vetted in hopes of catching one bad actor, and the process is very trying on the patience of all involved. nobs 16:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
So now we have one of the gang of right-wing spy hunters creating the page agent of influence so they can use it to smear the left-wing people they don't like by using a term they have defined in a POV way. The KGB approached Stone. We only have one version of events, written in a way that may reflect the typical hype of agents reporting about the people they speak with as part of their job. Not fair. Not accurate. Not appropriate.--Cberlet 16:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Cberlet: I will address this comment to you once in open forum: please confine your comments to the subjects and issues under discussion. Please confine pointed references of your impressions of a users personal ideological or political persuassions to User Talk pages. Please do not litter these pages up with bitter partisan arguements intended to detract from the substance under discussion. Respectfully, nobs 17:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
My comment is directly related to my complaint of bias and the obvious proliferation of pages that only portray a narrow right-wing view on matters relating to Soviet Intelligence and how to fairly and accurately summarize research into those Americans who may have been used as information sources by the KGB. The problem is exactly the partisan text that has been written in a way that does not conform to Wiki standards. That is why I have asked for mediation for a number of pages, as you are well aware. See: see this page--Cberlet 21:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing your pre-ordained conclusions. Be advised: the records of the Subversive Activities Control Board are now open [4], as are Soviet and Comintern Archives. Committing oneself to a conclusion based on partial evidence may result in having the your legs kicked out from beneath you later. I stand on a presumption of innocence clause, you have declared you will reject whatever evidence doesn't agree with your partisan foreordained conclusion. Which one of us is qualified to sit on the jury? The best I can say is good luck. nobs 01:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Korean War, redux

Right now we have in the article:

…A critic of the emerging Cold War, Stone published the Hidden History of the Korean War that same year. One of Stone's more famous books, Hidden History alleged that the United States and Syngman Rhee planned for the conflict and initiated hostilities. Documents from Soviet era archive show that Kim Il Sung instigated the Korean War with the eventual approval and backing of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin [5].

The citation—apparently either a summary or quotation (it is not clear to me which) from History of the Fatherland: Stalin, Kim Il Sung, and the 38th Parallel," Krasnaya Zvezda, 5 August 1995, page 7. -- Anatoli Torkunov, Professor Yevgeniy Ufimtsev—does not seem to me to bear out the claim. It says nothing about Stone; it draws on Soviet archives; so I assume that it is intended only to support the last sentence.

It is a relatively brief account of a rather complicated story, so I suggest people look at it rather than blindly accept any citation, either mine here or the sentence in the article. Given that caveat, the cited piece says:

In early April 1949, Moscow received the observations of their ambassador in Pyongyang that North Korean intelligence felt that in the April-May timeframe the Southerners would concentrate their forces along the 38th Parallel to launch a surprise attack on the North in June, and by August 1949 have completely destroyed the DPRK. An immediate advisory from the ambassador on 4 May indicated that the South Koreans were massing along the 38th Parallel, especially along the Pyongyang direction, where they had gathered some 300,000 troops.

Note that this is before the 3 May date on which it says Stalin sent a letter reversing Soviet policy and deciding to reinforce North Korea and (presumably) move toward war.

So let me ask: how does 300,000 South Korean troops massing on the border, intending an attack, prior to the Soviets reinforcing the North Koreans show that Kim Il Sung "instigated" the war? I read it as at least strongly suggesting the exact opposite.

I'll allow at least 24 hours for response before I make any edit to the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This now seems to be going back and forth between two versions that I believe are both wrong. I believe that TDC is completely correct in saying that Hidden History alleged that the United States and Syngman Rhee planned for the conflict and initiated hostilities. I never read it, I know it only from reviews (including one in The Nation), and I believe TDC is characterizing it correctly.


However, my objection to the rest of what he wrote is above, and he has not responded to it in the week since I wrote it. At the very least, I believe his citation does not bear out his statement. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


This guy was a spy and a "traitor". Venona proves it! and anybody who thinks the North Korea was 'innocent' of that war is INSANE! And since South Korea still exists and what 2 million men on their side were lost (not to mention that they asked for an armistice and were getting the crap kicked out of them by the time they did that, and that the objective was to liberate the south which was a success), I'd call that a loss for them, not a total loss however, since they still exist (68.228.14.176 23:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Latest Rev, the KGB, the Soveits and Stone

There are many problems with the version I removed, aside from presenting blatant POV opinion as fact (i.e. the question of whether Stone was ever a witting collaborator with Soviet intelligence was settled definitively (and in the negative) by D.D. Guttenplan), the recent additions address the wrong issue. No one is saying that Stone was an agent for the KGB, at least not in the way Rosenberg or Hiss were.

An agent of influence is somoeon who, in Stone's case, was so sypathetic to Soviet aims and goals, that he could be told anything and trusted to report it unquestioningly. This is the crux of Kalugin's statements, not that he had to pay Stone to get an uninvestigated Soviet claim into the American press, but that he did not have pay Stone, as he was such a sycophant, he would do it for nothing. He was used, knowingly or unkowingly to pass Soviet disinformation out to his readers. That is, unless you believe his reports about Korea, reports that have been so completely debunked (from the use of biological weapons by the US, to Stone's statement that the South actually invaded the peace loving North), that they have lost all credibility.

If you are serious about turning the section from months of compromise into a POV screed ala The Nation Magazine (intereting didnt Stone write for them too), then you had best justify this in talk. DTC 00:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I would consider The Nation a perfectly valid source as, at the other end of the political spectrum, I would consider the National Review. I really thought it was too bad back 15 years or so ago when they stopped exchanging ad space in each other's magazines: I always rather liked running across two column-inches of commentary from either one while reading the other.
I've done my best to get all of the material from the two conflicting versions into the article and to give it a structure that can accomodate both sides. I know my version isn't final: in particular, there is a lot here that still needs citation. I would strongly suggest that the citation problems be among the first addressed. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting sidelight on Kalugin

Before I noticed that the reference for Miriam Schneir's "Stone miscast" was right here on this talk page, I had contacted The Nation to try to get the date of publication. This resulted in a brief, interesting correspondence. They took a look at our article and had a rather interesting comment to make; the following is verbatim from Mike Webb; "our publisher" these days would mean Katrina vanden Heuvel:

Thank you for writing to The Nation. We took a look at your note and the Stone Wiki and our publisher offered the following:

"My memory is hat (sic) Kalugin did not name Izzy as the journalist in question. As a matter of fact, I believe it was at a Nation- sponsored InterNation Conference in Moscow, that Kalugin told (or hinted to) the attorney Mary Garbus that the journalist in question was Jim Aronson (a slur, in my opinion on Aronson, even as the suggestion that Izzy took payments from the Soviets was a slur on Izzy). I also believe that Eric Alterman may have written about all this."

I'm going to forward your note to a couple of other people here and hopefully they'll be able to help. I would also like to suggest the Nation Archive as a tool to find the exact quote. You can access it at http://nationarchive.com/index_login.asp I'm in between interns at the moment, and tied up promoting the magazine, so I can't check myself. But I'm sure you could find it there.

I hope this has been of help. Thanks for trying to get it right!

Regards,

Mike Webb
Nation Publicity Director

Has anyone ever heard anything citable on the Jim Aronson thing, and/or seen what Alterman might have written on this? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of the timeline is as follows:

  • Andrew Brown reported a speech at Execter in 1992, in which Kaulgin mentioned a journalist that the KGB (NKVD) had a relationship with during the cold war.
  • Romerstien followed up on this and asked Kaulgin who it was, Kauglin told him it was Stone.
  • Brown then followed up with Kaulgin and was told that he (Kauglin) never gave money to Stone, only that he was a sympathetic ear, a fellow traveler, who Kauglin could use.
  • Numerous editorialis in the WAPO, The Nation, NY Times, slams the thoery.
  • VENONA comes out and Romerstien uses it to confirm his suspicions. Haynes and Klehr are more reserved with their interpretations.

Alterman sees stone as his "mentor", which is fitting considering both are commie tools (sorry I couldn't resist), and has written about him on numerous occasions, but not, to my knowledge, anything about the allegations. DTC 02:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I assume "Kaulgin" and "Kauglin" are both Kalugin; "Romerstien" is obviously Romerstein. What is "Execter"? Possibly "Exeter"? If so, the one in England or the one in Massachusetts? Or yet another? If there is something here you think is significant and missing from the article, go for it. Except for your asides here about "commie tools" (ever hear of How to Win Friends and Influence People?) I believe we are all painting the same picture.
Some citations were already there, and I found a few more myself, but I have a lot of requests in the the text at the moment for citation. The Haynes and Klehr one should be easy if someone has the book at hand. If anyone can be of help with the others, great. Other than the need for citations: TDC, Cberlet, do either of you have any major problems with this as it stands? Is there anything in there that either of you doubts can eventually be verified? -- Jmabel | Talk 10:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
WOW, you ARE a good speller! It was Exeter in the UK and I have more than enough friends. With that said, I think there are som e POV issues in the language as is, and will address them shortly. DTC 17:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Still need citations

Cleanup flag - still need citations for a number of statements in the "Agent of Influence" section. This section still is way out of proportion to the text in the entry.--Cberlet 13:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Trimmed down a bit, added a few sources, removed a few tags, and many of the [citation needed] tags are not needed (much of the information is covered in the respective links. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged Vs Whatchamijigger

All parties, even sympathetic ones, agree that Stone used to meet with a KGB man for lunch and to talk, there is no dispute about that I believe, hence there should be no dispute about Stone having a relationship of some sort with the KGB. The dispute lies in what the nature of that relationship was. Were the meeting with Kalugin innocent as some would say or sinister as others would contend, and that is discussed at some length in the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Unproven and refuted allegations should be called "alleged." That's an NPOV approach. There is no evidence that Stone knew that he was meeting a "KGB man" for lunch. Stone was meeting with someone from the Soviet embassy. Common for journalists in DC.--Cberlet 14:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether he knew or did not know the Kalugin’s function within the embassy, that does not erase the fact that he had a relationship with the man, and hence the exclusion of alleged. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Please stop trying to smear Stone in the subheading. It should be NPOV. The content does not suport the subheads you propose. --Cberlet 17:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I could add more that does if that would satisfy you? Your argument that Stone’ sonly used the embassy as source for his stories might be more convincing it was not for the fact that Stone almost always swallowed what they said without any scrutiny. While it is true that journalists regularly used the Moscow embassy as a source for their pieces, most did not take what was said at face value like Stone did. You know, things like the Korean War was actually started by the US and South Korea, and the DPKR was the victim of their aggression, and the Soviets had no involvement what so ever. The US was using biological weapons against the North Koreans. The US was using Sarin nerve gas in Vietnam. Never once did Stone treat his Soviet/Soviet block sources with the same scrutiny that he imposed on US/US aligned sources. Why is that? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
You original research does not matter. What matters is that reputable scholars disagree. Therefore it is an allegation--not a fact.--Cberlet 23:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Its an allegation that he had a relationship with Soviet Intelegence? Funny, because no one is saying that he had no relationship with them, they just argue the extent and nature of his "relationship". As for original research, I fail to see your point. Romerstien bases his allegations off of Stone's coverage of Cold War politics, so you seem to be at a loss here. I think I might go back and read a few old copies of the IF Stone Weekly Reader, and see just how much he followed the Soviet line. I wonder how much of it could go into the article? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
You are totally misrepresenting the content of the text on this page. Please attempt NPOV. Please stop POV pushing. Shall we ask for comments before we go to mediation?--Cberlet 02:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
And what would we need mediation on this matter? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the present "Debate over relationship with Soviet Union" is good, better than anything before. The accusations, at least as presented here, are fuzzy. "Relationship with Soviet intelligence" makes it sound like there is something more solid and tends to the POV that he was a (witting) "agent of influence," while "alleged" sounds argumentative.John Z 06:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I like Debate as well; any guesses to his original intentions would just be original research. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
OR does not apply in this instance, because this was Romerstein’s argument, not mine.

[edit] died June 18 not July 17

according to NY Times Stone died of a heart attack on June 18 not July 17; two memoiral services were held for him in July —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Recall (talk • contribs) 18 June 2006.

[edit] Radio broadcast

I've linked a rather interesting hour-long radio program about Stone.

By the way, at about minute 50, this article is mentioned, not particularly favorably: Myra MacPherson takes us to task for rehashing at length charges that she considers basically refuted. - Jmabel | Talk 04:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] external link: NYTimes Sunday Book Review

Added NYTimes Sunday Book Review : "The Watchdog" by Paul Berman, October 1, 2006, review of "All Governments Lie: The Life and Times of Rebel Journalist I. F. Stone" by Myra MacPherson and "The Best of I. F. Stone" Edited by Karl Weber. Introduction by Peter Osnos BobK 03:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] additions to KGB section

I added this information, to be cited shortly when I figure out how, from Myra MacPherson's recent bio of stone. she read the declassified reports from start to finish and they are cited in her bibliography. whether kalugin said he was an "agent of influence", I dont know or care. If the US Government couldnt find any evidence of treason (and stone did consider selling secrets dire treason) I'm thinking that the general debate over whether he ACUTALLY DID ANYTHING to jeopardize the national security of the US is over. VanTucky 05:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/2E/_/Talk%7EI._F._Stone_f999.html"