Talk:Samuel Dickstein (congressman)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I deleted the Soviet spy accusation - there were NO direct citations, sources, or even details; just a bald statement as fact, and an acceptance of a single source as definitive. Uh uh. --Calton | Talk 00:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] damning evidence he was a Soviet spy

Alas he was a spy. The details on his career as a Soviet spy appear in The Haunted Wood, pp 140-50, based on the KGB archives. Even strong anti-anti-communists agree that he was a spy. For example, Ellen Schrecker agrees. See her review in The Nation (May 24 1999) online at [[1]] She says "the KGB pay New York Congressman Samuel Dickstein thousands of dollars for inside information" and notes that he did not deliver much of value. Most historians think he did it mostly for the money. Further corroboration from Alan Theoharis another liberal historian can be found at [[2]]

Even strong anti-anti-communists agree that he was a spy. For example, Ellen Schrecker agrees. See her review in The Nation (May 24 1999) online

Horseshit. The review's source is, in the reviewer's words, "Allen Weinstein's limited excursion into the KGB's archives". You left off a few quotes from the review, where she talks about how shaky the source material is:

This sort of research is not the kind that inspires confidence within the scholarly community (especially given Weinstein's refusal to let other historians see the material he collected for an earlier book on Alger Hiss). Besides the ethical questions that buying exclusive access to official archives raises, it will be impossible to replicate--and thus check up on--the authors' research. Since they were not allowed to see the finding aids for the files, they were (and we are) completely at the mercy of the KGB's gatekeepers, whose principles of selection are unknown. In addition, because no photocopying was permitted, other scholars cannot verify how accurately the documents were transcribed and interpreted. Nor will they be able to identify those materials elsewhere, for the notes do not contain such basic information about the documents as who wrote them, for whom and when.

We must, therefore, take Weinstein's account of Soviet spying in the United States on faith. Perhaps he is purveying the product of a massive disinformation scheme involving thousands of forged documents created by a seamless, leakless network of Russian and American agents dedicated to historical fabrication; but it is hard to imagine why such a project would have been undertaken...

Even as Ellen Schrecker gives Weinstein the benefit of the doubt, she writes:

It is unclear whether all these people considered themselves spies. In their cables to Moscow, the Russians may well have been hyping their own work, portraying as "agents" unwitting sources who just thought they were discussing policy or trading information with friendly diplomats and political allies. The party's top US spymaster, Jacob Golos, and his courier-girlfriend, Elizabeth Bentley, tried to keep their Washington informants in the dark. They feared that these people might stop supplying information if they found out it was destined for the KGB instead of the party or the Comintern. Understandably, the Russians scoffed at such misgivings. They claimed that many of their US sources knew exactly whom they were working for and were, one Soviet operative boasted, "very proud of this fact."

So even assuming Weinstein was correct and the Soviets were passing on money to Dickstein, it's not a given he was spying. --Calton | Talk 15:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You can find a summary on p 156 in The Complete Idiot's Guide to Spies and Espionage by Rodney P Carlisle (2003) which is partly online at books.google.com at [[3]]

The Complete Idiot guides are NOT scholarly material nor research, just light reguritations of existing material for lay readers. Carlisle's source? Allen Weinstein's book. --Calton | Talk 15:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Both of ya'll are selectively quoting. If one reads Miss Schrecker article carefully, while she does say there are problems with how the KGB files were accessed, she beleives that much of the info in them is genuine. She quotes the part about dickstein without any specific disapporval.--Dudeman5685 05:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC) Another leading historian is Harvey Klehr; he says Dickstein was a spy in Morality and Politics v 21 p 156, which is online at books.google.com at

[[4]]

Klehr's quote:

KGB records shown to an American historian identify...Dickstein. The source? Guess who? Weinstein again. --Calton | Talk 15:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe all historians who have looked into it agree that he was a spy, so it's hardly a POV anymore. certainly the encyclopedia should report the consensus among scholars that he spent several years as a paid Soviet spy at $1250 a month. The $1250, by the way, was about the average ANNUAL wage for workers in 1937 so this was real nice money. It's probably true that he cheated the Soviets...one suspects his integrity. Rjensen 05:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe all historians who have looked into it agree That's not an argument, it's a statement of faith -- and all the refs you provided boil down to single, not necessarily reliable, unverifiable source -- Allen Weinstein's word, that the material he looked at -- and which he doesn't have copies of to allow comparisons -- was genuine in the first place, was accurate when it was written (assuming it's contemporary its purported time), refers to what he thinks it refers to, was translated properly, AND is being interpreted correctly by him. Yet Rjensen has no trouble spinning all of this up as a bald, multiply sourced statement of fact. --Calton | Talk 15:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

How about footnoting this in the article? It will make it a better article. Travb 01:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, i will footnote the article, Alan Theoharis actually quotes. the book The Haunted Wood. I will add this. Travb 01:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Rather odd here that people will have total faith in the weirdest stories (Butler-as-dictator) and yet distrust the Archivist of the United States, who was confirmed by the Senate last year. The idea that the Soviets faked their archives? That Weinstein faked archives so that he could attack a forgotten Congressman?? That the Kremlin did not try to get a spy in Congress? What next: no spies at Los Alamos? The problem here is the critics don't have a sense of history. They buy one outlandish theory without blinking and deny documentary evidence they don't like. When the entire history profession agrees on a point they say, the conspiracy is just HUGE... But remember this is an encyclopedia and when all the scholars in fact agree, we need to say so. Rjensen 16:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

How can you call him a spy if he never actually passed along any information? Taking money from the Soviets and not giving them anything in return is scamming, not spying. FCYTravis 02:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

He was a spy I agree that the information should be added back.

JJstroker 00:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

JJ, please stop adding this back. The criteria at Category:Soviet spies says,

• See also Category:Accused Soviet spies for those who were linked to espionage activities by the National Security Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation or other federal investigations, but who denied any complicity or who were never convicted of an espionage-related crime.

This subject was never convicted, hence "Category:Accused Soviet spies" is the correct category. -Will Beback 00:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dickstein's law school

Not on the same plane of interest as whether he was a spy, but I question the statement that Dickstein graduated from "the New York City Law School." I know that this statement is to be found in the Congressional Biographical Directory, but even Homer nods, and I am not familiar with any institution by that name, past or present. Does anyone know whether Dickstein might have actually graduated from New York Law School or the New York University School of Law or another institution? Newyorkbrad 01:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)