Posted on 06/27/2003 9:05:38 AM PDT by walford
...rather than have Oppenheimer supply classified documents to agents, his Soviet spy masters might have preferred that he "appoint other Communists to key positions who would in turn hand over the information." Crouch then identified a number of scientists with Party affiliations appointed by Oppenheimer to key positions in the Manhattan Project. Nearly fifty years later, the Schecters would uncover a letter in the Soviet spy archives written by Lavrenti Beria, Stalin’s chief spy and then head of his nuclear program. Beria refers to Oppenheimer as an "unlisted agent" of the CPUSA and praises Oppenheimer’s role in providing Soviet spies access to U.S. atomic secrets...
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...
Any big conflict with the Soviets in the late 40's would have required massive use of ground troops. In 1945-46, the U.S. and Britain were faced with the prospect of mutinies if the troops were not sent home quickly. As a result, the troops were sent home. A massive use of ground troops against the Soviets was just not politically possible at the time.
And if I don't need it will it stop? It's silly to reduce intellectual dispute to personal insult.
...Africa has been helping through war,famine and aids.South America is heating up and Chavez is ready to do his part.
True. And your point is...?
From the document you supplied. Additionally, Japan had been in China since '31. That's where they saw their future. They had fought with the Russians over Manchuria in 1905. Siberia was a side-issue.
By the late '30s we were the principal obstacle to their expansion into China and Southeast Asia. That's why they attacked us.
It never ceases to amaze me how willing people of your mentality are to ignore basic realities in favor of far-fetched conspiracy theories which give grand powers to small men.
LOL...you feign ignorance, bait people and then trot out your copy and paste of the same garbage we've seen a zillion times. Nobody is fooled.
Howard Zinn on I.F. Stone and Memorial Day By Brian Carnell Tuesday, May 29, 2001 From the "when will they ever learn" department comes an old commentary by Howard Zinn about Memorial Day. For some reason Common Dreams chose to republish an article of Zinn's, Whom Will We Honor Memorial Day?, that was originally published in 1976. Apparently one thing nobody will do on Memorial Day is remember the past accurately. Among the list of people Zinn extolled us to remember in 1976 includes, "...I.F. Stone, who virtually alone among newspaper editors exposed the fraud and brutality of the Korean War." The main problem being that Stone's own claims about the Korean War were definitively proved to be fraudulent recently. In his 1952 book, The Hidden History of the Korean War, Stone claimed that the received history of the Korean War was false. Rather than the war having been a result of a surprise attack by North Korea, instead the United States and Syngman Rhee planned for the conflict and initiated hostilities. This was always an absurd view that was contradicted by the evidence (to follow this line of reasoning, you had to go along with Stone's ridiculous claim that the well-orchestrated North Korean incursion into the South was a spontaneous military reaction), and it was definitively proved false when documents from the Soviet archive were released that clearly showed Stalin giving his approval for Kim Il Sung's proposed invasion of the South. And Zinn, who asks his readers to believe that he offers an more accurate history in contrast to the propaganda propounded by the capitalist press, fell for it hook, line and sinker. Source: Whom Will We Honor Memorial Day? Howard Zinn, June 2, 1976.
-----------------------------------------------
I happened to catch Captain Dan the Newsman's elegy to Stone when the bastard croaked in 1989. I'm surprised Rather didn't break down blubbering.
Stone started his propaganda sheet in 1953 and apparently one of his primary goals---as assigned by his Kremlin handlers I suspect---was to attack an anti-Communist Senator from Wisconsin.
PS, Do any of you recall seeing reference to KGB financial records becoming available to scrutiny in the early 1990s. And a certain I.F. Stone's multi-decade payments being found?
What it comes down to is that if essential resources become scarce people will do very nasty things to obtain them...and very nasty things will happen regardless of what people want.
Why do essential resources become scarce? For lots of reasons: Sometimes unfavorable natural conditions such as earthquake, volcanic eruption, drought, etc. Sometime bad governance which results in poor crops, wars, interruptions in trade, etc. These are not disputed.
But one reason which is is overpopulation. If it exists and has the negative consquences attributed to it, then it's worth trying find better answers than the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
Good. I'll sleep better tonight.
Q. Wasn't it reported that McCarthy used the number 205 in his Wheeling speech, lowered it to 57 later, and then raised it again to 81? A. Yes, this was reported, and here is the explanation: In the Wheeling speech, McCarthy referred to a letter that Secretary of State James Byrnes sent to Congressman Adolph Sabath in 1946. In that letter, Byrnes said that State Department security investigators had declared 284 persons unfit to hold jobs in the department because of Communist connections and other reasons, but that only 79 had been discharged, leaving 205 still on the State Department's payroll. McCarthy told his Wheeling audience that while he did not have the names of the 205 mentioned in the Byrnes letter, he did have the names of 57 who were either members of or loyal to the Communist Party. On February 20, 1950, McCarthy gave the Senate information about 81 individuals -- the 57 referred to at Wheeling and 24 others of less importance and about whom the evidence was less conclusive. The enemies of McCarthy have juggled these numbers around to make the Senator appear to be erratic and to distract attention from the paramount question: Were there still Alger Hisses in the State Department betraying this nation? McCarthy was not being inconsistent in his use of the numbers; the 57 and 81 were part of the 205 mentioned in the Byrnes letter. Q. Was it fair for McCarthy to make all those names public and ruin reputations? A. That is precisely why McCarthy did not make the names public. Four times during the February 20th speech, Senator Scott Lucas demanded that McCarthy make the 81 names public, but McCarthy refused to do so, responding that "if I were to give all the names involved, it might leave a wrong impression. If we should label one man a Communist when he is not a Communist, I think it would be too bad." What McCarthy did was to identify the individuals only by case numbers, not by their names. By the way, it took McCarthy some six hours to make that February 20th speech because of harassment by hostile Senators, four of whom -- Scott Lucas, Brien McMahon, Garrett Withers, and Herbert Lehman -- interrupted him a total of 123 times. It should also be noted that McCarthy was not indicting the entire State Department. He said that "the vast majority of the employees of the State Department are loyal" and that he was only after the ones who had demonstrated a loyalty to the Soviet Union or to the Communist Party. Further, McCarthy admitted that "some of these individuals whose cases I am giving the Senate are no longer in the State Department. A sizable number of them are not. Some of them have transferred to other government work, work allied with the State Department. Others have been transferred to the United Nations." Senator Karl Mundt supported McCarthy on this point by noting that "one of the great difficulties we confront in trying to get Communists out of government is that apparently once they have been removed from one department there is no alert given to the other departments, so they simply drift from one department to another."
Q. So, was McCarthy right or wrong about the State Department? A. He was right. Of the 110 names that McCarthy gave to the Tydings Committee to be investigated, 62 of them were employed by the State Department at the time of the hearings. The committee cleared everyone on McCarthy's list, but within a year the State Department started proceedings against 49 of the 62. By the end of 1954, 81 of those on McCarthy's list had left the government either by dismissal or resignation.
Q. Even if McCarthy was right about Service, Jessup, and Lattimore, weren't there hundreds of others who were publicly smeared by him?
A. This is one of the most enduring myths about McCarthy, and it is completely false. It is a fact, said Buckley and Bozell in McCarthy and His Enemies, that from February 9, 1950, until January 1, 1953, Joe McCarthy publicly questioned the loyalty or reliability of a grand total of 46 persons, and particularly dramatized the cases of only 24 of the 46. We have just talked about three of the Senator's major targets, and Buckley and Bozell pointed out that McCarthy "never said anything more damaging about Lauchlin Currie, Gustavo Duran, Theodore Geiger, Mary Jane Keeney, Edward Posniak, Haldore Hanson, and John Carter Vincent, than that they are known to one or more responsible persons as having been members of the Communist Party, which is in each of these instances true." While McCarthy may have exaggerated the significance of the evidence against some other individuals, his record on the whole is extremely good. (This is also true of the 1953-54 period when he was chairman of a Senate committee and publicly exposed 114 persons, most of whom refused to answer questions about Communist or espionage activities on the ground that their answers might tend to incriminate them.) There were no innocent victims of McCarthyism. Those whom McCarthy accused had indeed collaborated in varying degrees with Communism and Communists, had shown no remorse for their actions, and thoroughly deserved whatever scorn was directed at them.
The West wasn't as superior as it seems. The Soviet destruction of the Japanese armies in Manchuria in 1945 is a good example of how good the Soviets really were.
A TRIBUTE TO I.F. STONE by Ralph Nader His name was I.F. Stone and his was the power of example for two generations of journalists. As a 14-year-old in the year 1921, he could wait no longer and started his own publication. At college he could not wait to graduate and went into daily journalism. When newspaper after newspaper failed his standards of accuracy, truth and importance, he started with his wife, Esther, the famous I.F. Stone Weekly in 1953 right out of his kitchen. Stone's inspiration for the weekly came in part from the newsletter In Fact, which George Seldes, the muckraking reporter, began in the forties. The Stones visited the Seldes family and spent several days learning the ways and means of surviving with one's own newsletter. Stone did more than survive. By the time he closed the weekly in 1968, due to failing health, he had a circulation of 70,000 worldwide. Albert Einstein was a subscriber; his $5 check was not cashed, but it was framed. What was so unique about "Izzy" Stone? First, he read the written record, carefully and indefatigably. Congressional hearings, Defense Department reports, and other documents, documents and documents. He never played the favorites of the insider journalist. He was the modern Tom Paine--as independent and incorruptible as they come. The result of his reading was that he knew what he was writing about. He knew what was important and what was fluff. And he tied these facts to a ferocious practice of the First Amendment. Stories about Stone are legendary in Washington. Notwithstanding poor eyesight and bad ears, he managed to see more and hear more than other journalists because he was curious and fresh with the capacity for both discovery and outrage every new day. He never was jaded at what official and corporate corruption or prevarication he located. He could be jovial and irascible--the latter reaction most likely addressed to erroneous writing. He wanted to hand his Weekly over to a young reporter but never found one who could meet his standards for consistency and stamina. So since 1968, he wrote articles, jolted many a budding journalist at conferences and delved deeply for the past 10 years in the original Greek archives relating to ancient Athens and especially the trial of Socrates and the crisis of free speech that it represented in ancient Athens (population of 45,000) which became a national best seller. What Stone never talked about was the effect he had on many reporters who, often without attribution, "lunched off" his scoops. He taught them courage and insistence without ever meeting them. For it was Stone who took on Joe McCarthy early and fearlessly. It was Stone who showed that the Pentagon- military contracting complex was a highly tiered boondoggle wrapping its wrongs with the flag. For over 50 years, I.F. Stone was both journalism's Gibraltar and its unwavering conscience. While others in his profession cowered, he stood tall to challenge the abusers of power no matter where they came from--right, middle or left. He did not have favorite perpetrators to let off. He was only concerned with the victims that the bullies pushed around or the dictators oppressed. He never allowed past acquaintances with influential power brokers to dictate any self-censorship. At one student journalism conference, he was introduced as an "investigative reporter." He promptly took his introducer to task, saying that such a description was redundant. All reporters should be investigative, he declared. Through the originality and significance of his writings and addresses, Stone became a one man media--free, penetrating and, oh, so democratic in spirit. On Sunday June 17, 1989, he passed away at the age of 81 in a Boston hospital after a heart attack. If I.F. Stone had been born in ancient Athens over 2000 years ago, there would now be statues of him in front of major newspaper buildings.
Wow!!!!!!! Ralph Nader has changed my opinion of Stone! Now I realize what a great man he was!
Is there more to the story than this?
Anyway, as regards Stone, I seem to recall a report about somebody turning up pay records concerning him in the Soviet archives back in the early 90s and I'm damned if I can remember where I saw it.Was hoping that some of the FR folks with better memeories than me might dredge it up.
Have read some of his screeds in years past and just flat couldn't stand the guy and would find his being a Soviet asset quite believable.
But then maybe that's just me :}
heh...heh...Izzy couldn't have been a Soviet agent! Eric Alterman went to the movies with him! Izzy knew Einstein!
(In one year the )KGB reported that they had funded or supported 70 books, 66 feature and documentary films, more than 100 television stations, 4,865 articles in magazines or newspapers, 300 conferences or exhibitions and 170,000 lectures around the world.Wasn't it amazing how little Izzy Stone, son of a poor immigrant fish monger from Russia, supported himself all those years putting out a newsletter? Is America great or what?
Former KGB Major General Oleg Danilovich Kalugin
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.