Free Republic

Both reports shown below (recently revised) are based, primarily, upon first-time released FBI documents and files.

I am very interested in receiving comments from persons who disagree with the FBI's judgments and statements as reflected in these reports.

In particular, WHY (from your perspective) did J. Edgar Hoover and his top subordinates get everything so completely wrong?

Send comments to: Ernie1241@aol.com

21-page Report on Dan Smoot:, http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/dansmoot%3Acasestudyofaconspiracyexpert

65-page Report on John Birch Society:, http://birchers.blogspot.com/

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT MY RESEARCH:

FBI Data on Extreme Right http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/home

Serious students of conspiracy theories are invited to join my new Yahoo group, AOCT = Analysis of Conspiracy Theories:

Click to join AOCT

AOCT is different from most Yahoo conspiracy groups in several ways:

1. Perhaps most unique of all, AOCT members will periodically be introduced to first-time released data from FBI files and documents. The moderator of AOCT has obtained more than 200,000 pages of FBI files and documents which pertain to right-wing conspiracy theories and the persons and organizations that disseminate them -- as well as FBI data on persons and organizations which are often discussed in conspiracy literature.

2. Personal insults and abusive language will not be tolerated. Ditto for religious or racial slurs.

3. Members should be prepared to substantiate assertions they make by answering questions and indicating sources used to document their statements and conclusions.

4. Members should understand the difference between opinion and fact. We all have personal opinions and political preferences. But it is often necessary to set aside our personal convictions and preferences in order to candidly acknowledge when inconvenient factual evidence exists that challenges our premises and conclusions.

5. Robust critiques and comments are welcome -- but let's try to learn from each other via civil conversation. Many conspiracy theory adherents seem to resent being challenged to substantiate their statements or they become hostile when questions are asked or criticisms made. This reveals an intellectual weakness in their position which, perhaps, they do not wish to acknowledge. AOCT believes such matters deserve candid discussion.

6. AOCT wishes to encourage research by serious conspiracy students. Consequently, AOCT will provide numerous links to resources that conspiracy students (pro and anti) may find useful for their research. Currently there are almost 100 such links and more will be routinely added.

WHAT IS IN THE FILES SECTION OF OUR GROUP?

(a) A 32-page list of FOIA requests that I have submitted to the FBI (and other government agencies). I will periodically update the list.

(b) A chart which will assist serious students who wish to pursue research into the private papers of prominent persons who have been involved with the Birch Society or within other right-wing conspiracy organizations.

(c) Coming in the future: a major listing of masters theses and doctoral dissertations pertaining to right-wing persons, organizations, and publications along with controversies in which conspiracy adherents played a major role.

WHAT IS IN THE DATABASE SECTION OF OUR GROUP?

(a) A list of FBI file numbers which are relevant to AOCT topics. This list will be periodically updated.

(b) Key Figures: A database to identify key figures who have been part of the conspiracy community in the U.S. since the 1920's. Most of these persons are now dead and often little remembered. However, many of them were key players in their communities, their state, or even nationally. Due to the amount of time required to find all my notes -- this section will be populated in a relatively slow fashion.

WHAT IS IN THE PHOTO SECTION OF OUR GROUP?

(a) Periodically I will attempt to scan interesting FBI documents and post them in this section.

WHAT IS IN THE POLLS SECTION OF OUR GROUP?

(a) Feel free to participate in the current question posted in the polls section. New poll questions will be added periodically so that everyone can give their judgments about interesting conspiracy-related matters.

I have read Eugene Lyons and I also have his FBI file. So what?

You also are boring and totally predictable. You never once refuted anything I presented nor did you offer an alternative interpretation.

Your "debate" technique is quite transparent, i.e. make sweeping derogatory assertions but refuse to be held accountable for what you write, and refuse to respond to specific contradictory evidence.

Goodbye to you!

How do I know? Because I have read numerous histories of the period.

"Very apparent that the vast majority of the press were communists" ??

HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?

1. Did you have conversations or correspondence with the "vast majority of the press"?

2. Have you obtained the FBI files of those individuals that you suspect of being Communists?

At this point, I am compelled to introduce the following article --- because so many of the "traits" discussed, apply to Spanalot:
http://www.lairdwilcox.com/news/hoaxerproject.html

Laird Wilcox on Extremist Traits

[The Hoaxer Project Report, pp. 39-41]

Robert F. Kennedy wrote:

"What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents."

In analyzing the rhetoric and propaganda of several hundred militant "fringe" political and social groups across the political spectrum, I have identified a number of specific traits or behaviors that tend to represent the extremist "style"...

1. CHARACTER ASSASSINATION.

Extremists often attack the character of an opponent rather than deal with the facts or issues raised. They will question motives, qualifications, past associations, alleged values, personality, looks, mental health, and so on as a diversion from the issues under consideration. Some of these matters are not entirely irrelevant , but they should not serve to avoid the real issues.

Extremists object strenuously when this is done to them, of course!

2. NAME-CALLING AND LABELING.

Extremists are quick to resort to epithets (racist, subversive, pervert, hate monger, nut, crackpot, degenerate, un-American, anti-semite, red, commie, nazi, kook, fink, liar, bigot, and so on) to label and condemn opponents in order to divert attention from their arguments and to discourage others from hearing them out. These epithets don't have to be proved to be effective; the mere fact that they have been said is often enough.

3. IRRESPONSIBLE SWEEPING GENERALIZATIONS.

Extremists tend to make sweeping claims or judgments on little or no evidence, and they have a tendency to confuse similarity with sameness. That is, they assume that because two (or more) things, events, or persons are alike in some respects, they must be alike in most respects. The sloppy use of analogy is a treacherous form of logic and has a high potential for false conclusions.

4. INADEQUATE PROOF FOR ASSERTIONS.

Extremists tend to be very fuzzy about what constitutes proof, and they also tend to get caught up in logical fallacies, such as post hoc ergo propter hoc (assuming that a prior event explains a subsequent occurrence simply because of their before and after relationship). They tend to project wished-for conclusions and to exaggerate the significance of information that confirms their beliefs while derogating or ignoring information that contradicts them. They tend to be motivated by feelings more than facts, by what they want to exist rather than what actually does exist. Extremists do a lot of wishful and fearful thinking.

5. ADVOCACY OF DOUBLE STANDARDS.

Extremists generally tend to judge themselves or their interest group in terms of their intentions, which they tend to view very generously, and others by their acts, which they tend to view very critically. They would like you to accept their assertions on faith, but they demand proof for yours. They tend to engage in special pleading on behalf of themselves or their interests, usually because of some alleged special status, past circumstances, or present disadvantage.

6. TENDENCY TO VIEW THEIR OPPONENTS AND CRITICS AS ESSENTIALLY EVIL.

To the extremist, opponents hold opposing positions because they are bad people, immoral, dishonest, unscrupulous, mean-spirited, hateful, cruel, or whatever, not merely because they simply disagree, see the matter differently, have competing interests, or are perhaps even mistaken.

7. MANICHAEAN WORLDVIEW.

Extremists have a tendency to see the world in terms of absolutes of good and evil, for them or against them, with no middle ground or intermediate positions. All issues are ultimately moral issues of right and wrong, with the "right" position coinciding with their interests. Their slogan is often "those who are not with me are against me."

8. ADVOCACY OF SOME DEGREE OF CENSORSHIP OR REPRESSION OF THEIR OPPONENTS AND/OR CRITICS.

This may include a very active campaign to keep opponents from media access and a public hearing, as in the case of blacklisting, banning or "quarantining" dissident spokespersons. They may actually lobby for legislation against speaking, writing, teaching, or instructing "subversive" or forbidden information or opinions. They may even attempt to keep offending books out of stores or off of library shelves, discourage advertising with threats of reprisals, and keep spokespersons for "offensive" views off the airwaves or certain columnists out of newspapers. In each case the goal is some kind of information control. Extremists would prefer that you listen only to them. They feel threatened when someone talks back or challenges their views.

9. TEND TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES IN TERMS OF WHO THEIR ENEMIES ARE: WHOM THEY HATE AND WHO HATES THEM.

Accordingly, extremists may become emotionally bound to their opponents, who are often competing extremists themselves. Because they tend to view their enemies as evil and powerful, they tend, perhaps subconsciously, to emulate them, adopting the same tactics to a certain degree. For example, anti-Communist and anti-Nazi groups often behave surprisingly like their opponents. Anti-Klan rallies often take on much of the character of the stereotype of Klan rallies themselves, including the orgy of emotion, bullying, screaming epithets, and even acts of violence. To behave the opposite of someone is to actually surrender your will to them, and "opposites" are often more like mirror images that, although they have "left" and "right" reversed, look and behave amazingly alike.

10. TENDENCY TOWARD ARGUMENT BY INTIMIDATION.

Extremists tend to frame their arguments in such a way as to intimidate others into accepting their premises and conclusions. To disagree with them is to "ally oneself with the devil," or to give aid and comfort to the enemy. They use a lot of moralizing and pontificating, and tend to be very judgmental. This shrill, harsh rhetorical style allows them to keep their opponents and critics on the defensive, cuts off troublesome lines of argument, and allows them to define the perimeters of debate.

11. USE OF SLOGANS, BUZZWORDS, AND THOUGHT-STOPPING CLICHES.

For many extremists shortcuts in thinking and in reasoning matters out seem to be necessary in order to avoid or evade awareness of troublesome facts and compelling counter-arguments. Extremists generally behave in ways that reinforce their prejudices and alter their own consciousness in a manner that bolsters their false confidence and sense of self-righteousness.

12. ASSUMPTION OF MORAL OR OTHER SUPERIORITY OVER OTHERS.

Most obvious would be claims of general racial or ethnic superiority--a master race, for example. Less obvious are claims of ennoblement because of alleged victimhood, a special relationship with God, membership in a special "elite" or "class," and a kind of aloof "highminded" snobbishness that accrues because of the weightiness of their preoccupations, their altruism, and their willingness to sacrifice themselves (and others) to their cause. After all, who can bear to deal with common people when one is trying to save the world! Extremists can show great indignation when one is "insensitive" enough to challenge these claims.

13. DOOMSDAY THINKING.

Extremists often predict dire or catastrophic consequences from a situation or from failure to follow a specific course, and they tend to exhibit a kind of "crisis-mindedness." It can be a Communist takeover, a Nazi revival, nuclear war, earthquakes, floods, or the wrath of God. Whatever it is, it's just around the corner unless we follow their program and listen to the special insight and wisdom, to which only the truly enlightened have access. For extremists, any setback or defeat is the "beginning of the end!"

14. BELIEF THAT IT'S OKAY TO DO BAD THINGS IN THE SERVICE OF A "GOOD" CAUSE.

Extremists may deliberately lie, distort, misquote, slander, defame, or libel their opponents and/or critics, engage in censorship or repression , or undertake violence in "special cases." This is done with little or no remorse as long as it's in the service of defeating the Communists or Fascists or whomever. Defeating an "enemy" becomes an all-encompassing goal to which other values are subordinate. With extremists, the end justifies the means.

15. EMPHASIS ON EMOTIONAL RESPONSES AND, CORRESPONDINGLY, LESS IMPORTANCE ATTACHED TO REASONING AND LOGICAL ANALYSIS.

Extremists have an unspoken reverence for propaganda, which they may call "education" or "consciousness-raising." Symbolism plays an exaggerated role in their thinking, and they tend to think imprecisely and metamorphically. Harold D. Lasswell, in his book, *Psychopathology and Politics*, says, "The essential mark of the agitator is the high value he places on the emotional response of the public." Effective extremists tend to be effective propagandists. Propaganda differs from education in that the former teaches one what to think, and the latter teaches one how to think.

16. HYPERSENSITIVITY AND VIGILANCE.

Extremists perceive hostile innuendo in even casual comments; imagine rejection and antagonism concealed in honest disagreement and dissent; see "latent" subversion, anti-semitism, perversion, racism, disloyalty, and so on in innocent gestures and ambiguous behaviors. Although few extremists are clinically paranoid, many of them adopt a paranoid style with its attendant hostility and distrust.

17. USE OF SUPERNATURAL RATIONALE FOR BELIEFS AND ACTIONS.

Some extremists, particularly those involved in "cults" or extreme religious movements, such as fundamentalist Christians, militant Zionist extremists, and members of mystical and metaphysical organizations, claim some kind of supernatural rationale for their beliefs and actions, and that their movement or cause is ordained by God. In this case, stark extremism may become reframed in a "religious" context, which can have a legitimizing effect for some people. It's surprising how many people are reluctant to challenge religiously motivated extremism because it represents "religious belief" or because of the sacred-cow status of some religions in our culture.

18. PROBLEMS TOLERATING AMBIGUITY AND UNCERTAINTY.

Indeed, the ideologies and belief systems to which extremists tend to attach themselves often represent grasping for certainty in an uncertain world, or an attempt to achieve absolute security in an environment that is naturally unpredictable or perhaps populated by people with interests opposed to their own. Extremists exhibit a kind of risk-aversiveness that compels them to engage in controlling and manipulative behavior, both on a personal level and in a political context, to protect themselves from the unforeseen and unknown. The more laws or "rules" there are that regulate the behavior of others--particular their "enemies"--the more secure extremists feel.

19. I NCLINATION TOWARD "GROUPTHINK."

Extremists, their organizations , and their subcultures are prone to a kind of inward-looking group cohesiveness that leads to what Irving Janis discussed in his excellent book Victims of Groupthink. "Groupthink" involves a tendency to conform to group norms and to preserve solidarity and concurrence at the expense of distorting members' observations of facts, conflicting evidence, and disquieting observations that would call into question the shared assumptions and beliefs of the group.

Right-wingers (or left-wingers), for example, talk only with one another, read material that reflects their own views, and can be almost phobic about the "propaganda" of the "other side." The result is a deterioration of reality-testing, rationality, and moral judgment. With groupthink, shared illusions of righteousness, superior morality, persecution, and so on remain intact, and those who challenge them are viewed with skepticism and hostility.

20. TENDENCY TO PERSONALIZE HOSTILITY.

Extremists often wish for the personal bad fortune of their "enemies," and celebrate when it occurs. When a critic or an adversary dies or has a serious illness, a bad accident, or personal legal problems, extremists often rejoice and chortle about how they "deserved" it. I recall seeing right-wing extremists celebrate the assassination of Martin Luther King and leftists agonizing because George Wallace survived an assassination attempt. In each instance their hatred was not only directed against ideas, but also against individual human beings.

21. EXTREMISTS OFTEN FEEL THAT THE SYSTEM IS NO GOOD UNLESS THEY WIN.

For example, if they lose an election, then it was "rigged." If public opinion turns against them, it was because of "brainwashing." If their followers become disillusioned, it's because of "sabotage." The test of the rightness or wrongness of the system is how it impacts upon them...

Apparently, it is YOU that needs to learn how to read.

As the article link you posted makes clear -- it is a discussion about WALTER DURANTY. The closing paragraph summarizes the purpose of the discussion as follows:

"This document not only brings to light Duranty’s shortcomings in his coverage of the Soviet Union during the 1930s, but also raises the question as to his journalistic integrity, for which in 1932, he was awarded the prestigious Pulitzer Prize."

MORE IMPORTANT: You obviously do not want to confront the specific articles I listed which eviscerate your argument.

As I stated previously:

The March 1949 speech by former Assistant Secretary of State Adolph A. Berle was given prominent coverage by the Times.

If the New York Times REALLY intended to "coverup" data about Soviet genocide -- is it likely that

(a) they would publish such an article in the first place?
(b) they would feature such an article prominently in the News section of their paper?
(c) they would welcome prominent exposure for comments made by a former senior government official (thus lending the aura of expert testimony to such comments)?

Furthermore, if as YOU claim,.....
"The US recognized the Soviet Genocide only in 1987. That amounts to 55 years of cover up if my cyphering is right"...

Then how does one explain the 1958 report by the Library of Congress Legislative Reference Service which I cited previously and repeated below? This is an official government publication whose very TITLE acknowledges Soviet genocide!! How much more obtuse can you possibly be?

The Soviet empire: prison house of nations and races;
a study in genocide, discrimination, and abuse of power.
Library of Congress., Legislative Reference Service.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1958

Furthermore, if as YOU claim, there has been a 55-year "coverup" then, by definition, we would have no knowledge about "Soviet genocide" from (a) newspaper articles (b) government hearings and reports and (c) scholarly works.

But as I have shown you through numerous examples, there is a wealth of such data available.

And, finally, I specifically mentioned several books which discuss "Soviet genocide" -- including Ukraine. I asked you if you had read any of them. I also asked you to explain how they are defective, based upon YOUR research.

Significantly, you chose not to answer me --- because if you HAVE read those books or Congressional reports, then you would have to admit that your basic premise is erroneous. And if you HAVE NOT read them, then you would be revealed as an ill-informed ideologue.

What all ideologues and political extremists (left or right) seem to have in common is the practice of taking evidence beyond what is reasonable, fair, and prudent.

In other words, they feel compelled to annihilate opponents, not merely triumph over them. Consequently, they are pre-disposed toward utilizing falsehoods, hoaxes, misrepresentations, half-truths, distortions, and gross exaggerations --- even though they could have made their case WITHOUT resorting to such tainted data.

Spanalot's messages wreak of this problem. For example, he says that the New York Times has never acknowledged Soviet genocide and the Times is complicit in an ongoing 55-year "coverup" of the truth.

As I have conclusively demonstrated in previous messages, by citing specific NYT articles since that 1940's, that accusation obviously is a falsehood. Yes, the Times initially published Walter Duranty's false depictions about Soviet life and the famine---largely because they did not want to antagonize a wartime ally.

But the bare truth is not good enough for ideologues.

See Washington Post article copied below for additional info re: the NYT and Walter Duranty.

Notice in particular the comments quoted in the article by the historian whom performed an independent study of this matter with respect to his perception of the attitude of the NYT itself regarding Duranty. The historian said about the NYT:

"There's no one there who disagrees with me. They acknowledged that his is some of the worst journalism they ever published."

Also significant: Duranty's 1932 Pulitzer is displayed with the notation: "Other writers in the Times and elsewhere have discredited this coverage."


THE TEXT OF THE POST ARTICLE:

"The executive editor of the New York Times said yesterday that the paper has no objection if the Pulitzer Prize board wants to revoke an award granted to one of its reporters 71 years ago.

Stepping into a simmering controversy over whether Walter Duranty deserved the prize for his largely favorable reporting on Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union, Bill Keller said the paper has notified the board that the Times considers Duranty's work 'pretty dreadful . . . . It was a parroting of propaganda.'

After a review conducted by a history professor, Keller said, the Times essentially told the board in a letter that 'it's up to you to decide whether to take it back. We can't unaward it. Here's our assessment of the guy's work: His work was clearly not prizeworthy.'

Columbia University professor Mark von Hagen said he found that the Moscow correspondent's 1931 work 'was a disgrace to the New York Times. There's no one there who disagrees with me. They acknowledged that his is some of the worst journalism they ever published.'

The Pulitzer board, which is based at Columbia, has been reviewing Duranty's 1932 award for months. Sig Gissler, the board's administrator, said that 'this is a confidential internal review and it's ongoing' but declined to elaborate.

Duranty has been posthumously under fire for years for whitewashing Stalin's murderous excesses. Von Hagen, confirming a report in the New York Sun, said he was 'appalled that the New York Times had a reporter like this who continued to write Stalinist justifications for what was going on there.'

The Times ordered the study soon after Howell Raines resigned as executive editor in June, in the wake of the Jayson Blair scandal. The paper had previously maintained that there was no point in revisiting ancient history.

Keller said the Times has long since stopped defending Duranty and posted a note next to his picture in the paper's Pulitzer hallway saying that many people had discredited his work.

But the board may face a dilemma. As Keller noted, the prize was awarded for Duranty's work in 1931, which was mostly about Stalin's economic plan and interviews with the Soviet leader. But Duranty is notorious in historical terms for grossly understating the massive famine that killed millions in the Ukraine in 1932-33, during the forced collectivization of Soviet farms.

A 1933 article by Duranty was headlined 'Famine Toll Heavy in Southern Russia.' The lead, however, said: 'The excellent harvest about to be gathered shows that any report of a famine in Russia today is an exaggeration or malignant propaganda.'

Said Keller: 'The stuff he wrote in '31 was awful. The stuff he wrote in '33 was shameful. If the Pulitzer board wants to say you can have your prize revoked for subsequent behavior, that's their right.' But he said other prize-winners might face similar complaints.

The Ukrainian Congress Committee of America, which has led the protests against Duranty's prize and likened it to the Blair saga, says that more than 15,000 postcards and letters have been sent to the board.

Von Hagen's study said Duranty's 1931 reporting was 'distorted' and displayed a 'lack of balance and uncritical acceptance of the Soviet self-justification for its cruel and wasteful regime.' The report added that 'several foreign correspondents fell under Stalin's spell to a certain extent, as Duranty clearly did, especially if they had been granted the privilege of an interview with the great man.'

The Pulitzer board decided to examine the Duranty case in April, before Blair's fabrications surfaced. The board looked at the matter once before, in 1990, after publication of 'Stalin's Apologist', a book by S.J. Taylor that accused Duranty of covering up for Stalin's brutal regime.

At the time, the board said in a statement, it gave 'extensive consideration to requests for revocation of the prize to Mr. Duranty -- which would have been unprecedented -- and decided unanimously against withdrawing a prize awarded in a different era and under different circumstances.'

Very silly (and irrelevant) reply Spanalot. We are not debating Duranty. He is ONE reporter from an institution that employed hundreds of reporters over the years.

We were discussing your broad, sweeping, derogatory generalizations which contain fundamental factual errors.
I posted SPECIFIC DETAILS (article titles, dates, and page numbers) to demonstrate the absurdity of what you wrote.

Your reply? -- CHANGE THE SUBJECT! As I said previously, you obviously have an agenda and the worst possible development, from your perspective, is that you might have to acknowledge that a portion of your dogma is false.

Notice that -- at no time during our discussion have you had the decency to acknowledge any of your errors even when I supplied specific details that demonstrated your statements were false or gross exaggerations.

If you are not capable of acknowledging relatively minor errors, then why should any of us believe that you are capable of acknowledging more serious errors that go to the heart of your assertions?

Your entire approach seems to be as follows:

1. Assume the worst possible motives about any critic
2. Ignore specific contradictory evidence
3. Refuse to acknowledge error
4. Be hostile and abusive

Once again: let's repeat your original falsehood along with your instantaneous ad hominem attack:

"The US recognized the Soviet Genocide only in 1987. That amounts to 55 years of cover up if my cyphering is right - and your friends in the Kremlin still deny it. Its better to be suspected of being a lackey than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt."

The New York Times is often described as the "paper of record" for the United States because so much of the public debate in our country originates from discussions arising from articles published in the Times--particularly those written by investigative reporters.

You can agree or disagree with those reports. But nobody has the right to fabricate such a monstrous falsehood as "there were no reports", or there was "a coverup", or the NYT "denied the existence" of Communist genocide.

If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, you need to restrain your rhetoric excesses so that people will know that you are an honest, reliable, trustworthy source of information. Right now, that is VERY questionable.

Sorry Wallace, I cannot agree with everything you wrote:

First: Yes--Hoover had an agenda. And, yes, to some extent, he micro-managed. But NO -- what the Bureau produced was not simply whatever reflected Hoover's outlook.

This is a VERY complex matter and I can't summarize it briefly. However, I suggest that you request some FBI file to see how information was presented. In particular, see the summary memos that were sent to other agencies and to Hoover's superiors or other components within the Justice Department.

More often than not, those summaries are good-faith reporting of all data received by the Bureau --- not some ideological crusade to match FBI reports to Hoover's personal opinions.

I think you over-simplify and over-estimate the importance of Hoover's opinions. When the Bureau received data from a Police Chief, County Sheriff, Police Dept Intelligence Unit, or from military intelligence or BATF or informants,
or whomever, --- that data was memoralized in FBI memos and incorporated into the file(s) pertaining to that subject. What difference would Hoover's opinion make with respect to processing that data?

When Hoover requested a "name check" on some prominent person, the resulting report summarized the data in their files irrespective of Hoover's opinion. And when Hoover sent summary memos to the AG, the White House, or when he testified before Congressional committes or gave speeches to civic organizations -- he often REFUTED arguments which circulated among his most enthusiastic admirers.

The uppermost quality revealed in Hoover memos and reports and speeches is his extreme reluctance to involve the Bureau openly in any political disputes -- because he feared embarrassment to the Bureau. Good example: Joe McCarthy. He initially very much liked McCarthy as a person. He ordered his subordinates to covertly provide McCarthy information. But when McCarthy became reckless in his charges, when the Bureau's relationship to McCarthy was suspected, Hoover broke off relations. In addition, Hoover confidants (such as Clint Murchison) told newspaper reporters about his conversations with Hoover in which Hoover expressed derogatory comments about McCarthy.

There are only TWO public comments by Hoover about the John Birch Society or Robert Welch --- neither of which is widely known because they are buried in sources that no one ever reads. Even within the FBI file on the JBS -- there are only 2 or 3 of explicit comments by Hoover on Welch or the JBS. So whatever misgivings Hoover had about the JBS---he was incredibly circumspect about venting his personal opinions. Instead, there are ambiguous and generalized references in his speeches about the danger that "extremists" on the right and the left pose.

Actually, Hoover DID routinely "mince words" about persons he despised. Public comments (such as he made about MLK Jr.) are EXTREMELY rare!

One addendum to my previous message:

Included in the list of articles above is the March 1949 article concerning comments made by Adolph A. Berle. Mr. Berle was a former Assistant Secretary of State.

If the New York Times REALLY intended to "coverup" data about Soviet genocide -- is it likely

(a) that they would publish such an article in the first place?
(b) that they would feature such an article prominently in the News section of their paper?
(c) that they would welcome prominent exposure for comments made by a former senior government official (thus lending the aura of expert testimony to such comments)?

As mentioned previously, Spanalot has an agenda and it is more important (in his mind) to propagandize for his agenda than it is to carefully present factual evidence for his point of view.

Let's discard everything that Spanalot has thus far written and just concentrate on just the following whopper by Spanalot!

The first major episode of Genocide was in Ukraine and it is something Russia and their Usefull Idiots still deny. This includes the NYTimes which was an agent of the cover up (and still is) as well as leftists in general.

Any literate person knows that the NY Times covered (and did not "cover up") Soviet genocide in general, and the Ukrainian episode in particular. For example, see the following NY Times articles.

One point about historical scholarship and reporting: initially there can be relatively few reports about some horrific matter simply because there are no credible eye-witness reports OR because whatever reports exist cannot be verified or they contain lots of contradictory information. On other occasions, release of credible data may compromise the identity of confidential sources and, therefore, put them and/or their families in physical jeopardy. So anyone can make sweeping derogatory generalizations about a time-line when "no reports" or false reports are published---but that often can easily be explained by circumstances -- not malignant motivation.

------------New York Times Articles-------------

ASSEMBLY WILL ACT ON GENOCIDE STUDY: Ukraine, Soviet Union Object to Inclusion on Agenda--Also Oppose Translating Classics, Nov 6, 1946, p19

UKRAINE GROUPS URGE U.N. CHECK ON SOVIET Nov 19, 1947. p. 18

GENOCIDE SURVEY URGED: Ukrainian Group Here Asks U.N. to Make Inquiry in Europe Nov 23, 1947, p21

BERLE SAYS REDS PRACTICE GENOCIDE: Charges Racial Extermination Exists Today in Ukraine and Baltic States Mar 9, 1949, p4

WEST, EAST FLING CHARGES ON LABOR: Briton in U. N. Cites Exodus of 10,000,000 Refugees From Soviet-Ruled Areas By SAM POPE BREWER, Oct 16, 1949, p26

To Outlaw Genocide: Adoption of Convention Is Urged in Citing Soviet Actions (Oct 24, 1949. p. 22

UKRAINE GENOCIDE BY SOVIET ALLEGED: Kremlin Seeks to End Hope of Resistance, Exile Says Here --U.N. Is Urged to Act New York Times Nov 11, 1951. p. 29

UKRAINIANS PRESSING DRIVE FOR FREEDOM Jul 5, 1952, p2

ACTION URGED ON GENOCIDE Jul 16, 52, page 24

IN ADDITION: the NY Times published lengthy favorable book reviews which discussed Soviet genocide in general and Ukrainian genocide in particular. For example:

Book Review: THE HARVEST OF SORROW By Craig R. Whitney. New York, N.Y.: Oct 26, 1986, p442

Book Review: THE GREAT TERROR A Reassessment. By Robert Conquest. 570 pp. New York: Oxford University Press. $24.95. By Norman Davies. New York Times: May 13, 1990. p. BR20

I need to correct one portion of my message which wasn't properly phrased.

Welch's proposal to form a JBS front group to protest the firing of Medford Evans was not related to his being fired by Dan Smoot at Facts Forum.

Welch was referring to Evans being fired in June 1959 from his position at Northwestern State College of Louisiana in Natchitoches.

Wallace:

Contrary to your second sentence, we DO have the story by Smoot's superior concerning the reason for the dispute (i.e. his SAC and the Inspector Gearty's 50+ page report). I summarized it in my Dan Smoot blog report. It is also available in exhaustive detail from Smoot's Personnel File.
Originally, I intended to copy extensive excerpts into my blog but I subsequently decided that it would be too boring to recount all the details....The bottom-line, however, is that Smoot lied about his status and he inflated his credentials so that his admirers would consider him as some sort of "expert" in internal security matters.

Yes, Smoot fired Medford Evans -- but not for any political or philosophical disagreements. Evans was fired for "financial irregularities". Evans had a history of being fired from his jobs. Sometimes for alcohol related problems. Prior to becoming a paid employee for the Birch Society and the Citizens Councils of America, Robert Welch suggested that Birchers form a front group to protest the firing of Evans. According to Welch, Evans was fired exclusively because of his "anti-communist" convictions. This, too, was a lie -- which even fellow Birch members acknowledged in private conversations.

With respect to this portion of your comments:

"Neither Hoover and his senior FBI staff nor Robert Welch, Dan Smoot, and their co-thinkers were entirely driven by a zeal for the truth. All were human and prone to their own particular conceits. Hoover may have been more realistic relative to the threat posed by the Communist Party, USA, and its network of sympathizers than was Welch. However, as former New Leftists turned conservatives like David Horowitz and Ronald Radosh have pointed out, the influence of Marxists in American society was not so much a case of robotic dupes taking orders from CPUSA headquarters or Moscow (or from some shadowy organization) but of well educated people with an agenda to transform society to their worldview successfully insinuating themselves into academia, the arts, etc., through networks of like minded people" ...

What most partisans don't seem to recognize is that Hoover's personal opinions, as recorded in handwritten comments on FBI memos, (while often colorful and caustic) were, nevertheless, largely irrelevant because the FBI functioned as a fact-finding INSTITUTION which received data from a huge assortment of independent sources --- including hundreds of informants located within subversive and legitimate organizations as well as local and state law enforcement agencies, state and national legislative committees, Army, Navy and Air Force intelligence, CIA, IRS, veterans organizations, friendly media, etc. etc.

With respect to McCarthy: Hoover initially ordered his subordinates to provide covert assistance to McCarthy but later rescinded this instruction because he thought McCarthy was reckless. In this regard, Hoover came to the same conclusion as Whittaker Chambers, whose letter to conservative book publisher Henry Regnery 1/14/54 summarized his concerns as follows:

"All of us, to one degree or another, have slowly come to question his judgment and to fear acutely that his flair for the sensational, his inaccuracies and distortions, his tendency to sacrifice the greater objective for the momentary effect, will lead him and us into trouble. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that we live in terror that Senator McCarthy will one day make some irreparable blunder which will play directly into the hands of our common enemy and discredit the whole anti-Communist effort for a long while to come."

FBI security informant Herbert Philbrick told a Boston newspaper reporter that:

"He [McCarthy] harmed the cause of anti-communism more than anybody I know."

And in 1952, Philbrick observed:

"According to the Communist leaders, McCarthy has helped them a great deal. McCarthy's kind of attacks add greatly to the confusion, putting up a smokescreen for the Party and making it more difficult than ever for people to discern who is a communist and who is not."

FBI Supervisor, Robert J. Lamphere, supervised the investigations of some of the biggest espionage cases of the cold war, including those of the Rosenbergs, Klaus Fuchs and Kim Philby plus he was intimately involved, in conjunction with Meredith Knox Gardner of the Army Security Agency, in using deciphered Soviet cables to build espionage cases.

Lamphere wrote in his personal memoir that:

"McCarthy's approach and tactics hurt the anti-Communist cause and turned many liberals against legitimate efforts to curtail Communist activities in the United States, particularly in regard to government employment of known Communists."

He also said: "McCarthy's star chamber proceedings, his lies and overstatements hurt our counterintelligence efforts."

With respect to your closing comment about Dan Smoot:

"However, these personal flaws cannot be conflated to presuming him a huckster or a patriot for profit."

As pointed out in my Smoot report, the Bureau concluded that Dan WAS a "professional anti-Communist" whose motives were self-promotion and lurid, sensational accounts of communist infiltration into government as a means of earning a living.

How would you know that I have no concept? What questions did you ask about me or my research?

When you refer to "lesser efforts you have cited" --- are you including the 1958 report that I cited? I list it here again for your benefit:

The Soviet empire: prison house of nations and races;
a study in genocide, discrimination, and abuse of power.
Library of Congress., Legislative Reference Service.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1958

HAVE YOU READ THIS REPORT? If you HAVE read it -- then how was it defective based upon your research?

Similarly, have you read: "Genocide in the USSR; studies in group destruction by Nikolai K Deker, 1958? If you HAVE read it -- then how was it defective based upon your research?

I also mentioned "The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression."

Have you read its discussion about the Ukraine---particularly on pages 94-98 and 225-230 where it describes "thousands massacred" and "hundreds of villages burned" and "extraordinary violence against the civilian population" and "massive executions" of peasants, as well as "mass deportations" etc?

From page 225, referring to Soviet brutality in Ukrainian gulags as the German Army advanced into Russia: "This was particularly the case in western Ukraine, where at the end of June 1941 the NKVD massacred 10,000 prisoners in Lviv, 1200 in the prison at Lutsk, 1500 in Stanislowow, and 500 in Dubno."

And the sources cited by the Black Book authors include such prominent historical works as: Daniel Pipes: "Russia Under The Bolshevik Regime" and Orlando Figes: "Peasant Russia, Civil War" -- both of which are documented with voluminous footnotes of material originating many decades before YOUR reference to 1988!

If you HAVE read these books --- how are they defective, based upon your research?

Incidentally, here is a link to a September 1960 article which refers to a "massacre of innocent prisoners" in Ukraine as reported in 1941 (!) by Swedish and Swiss newspapers.

http://www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/1960/1796011.shtml

Even though you limited the context of your original comments to refer only to "genocide" in Ukraine -- you have presented nothing thus far to indicate the accuracy of your 1988 threshold comment.

Obviously, you have an agenda. You posted your original message not because you genuinely had any interest in the subject matter I raised (i.e. Golitsyn vs contemporary conspiracy theorists).

Instead, you have an agenda and you want recognition of your self-proclaimed and allegedly indisputable status as an expert on this subject matter.

I repeat: you are playing word games. Whether one uses the term "genocide" or "mass murder" or "crimes against humanity" --- the United States has recognized Soviet barbarism since the 1920's --- so hijack somebody's else's posting to continue your "discussion".

For a FACTUAL discussion about Dan Smoot based, primarily, upon first-time released FBI files and documents, see:

http://dan-smoot.blogspot.com/

Smoot's alleged expertise about communism and internal security matters certainly must be considered suspect based upon the FBI documents discussed above.

More info available from: Ernie1241@aol.com

Not surprising you now disingenuously claim that you "don't understand my point"

This exchange started because of your comment in message #6 which was as follows:

"What does this have to do with the unprecedented scale and cover up of the Communist Genocide of the 20th Century?"

Notice---no reference to Ukraine. Notice, too, the context of this exchange, i.e. you responded to my message about contemporary conspiracy theory adherents who endorse Anatoli Golitsyn's arguments but, simultaneously, they ignore the inherent repudiation by Golitsyn of their fundamental premises!

Finally, notice that I responded with specific factual evidence which refutes your false contentions that
(1) there has been some sort of "coverup" of "Communist genocide" --and--
(2) "The US recognized the Soviet Genocide only in 1987."

Even when you changed the subject to limit your discussion to Ukraine --- you still can't get your facts straight. Contrary to your assertion that:

"...it was only in 1988 did the US recognize the Russian genocide in Ukraine "... I provided specific data which refutes that contention --and-- I repeat it below again.

Finally: MY "ad hominems" ??

YOU started this exchange by a despicable and shameful attempt to link me with Communists ["and your friends in the Kremlin still deny it."] ~~~~~ Look in the mirror for an indisputable example of someone who uses "ad hominem" attacks instead of engaging in a rational, amicable discussion and presenting factual evidence.

----- UKRAINE GENOCIDE ONLY RECOGNIZED IN 1988??? ------
Human rights and genocide in the Baltic States :
[a statement submitted to the delegations to the United Nations General Assembly, September 1950] /
Author: Kaelas, Aleksander.
Publication: Stockholm : Estonian Information Centre, 1950

Commission on the Ukraine Famine Act, CIS-NO: 85-H381-24, SOURCE: Committee on Foreign Affairs. House, DOC-TYPE: Hearing, DATE: Oct. 3, 1984, 37pp

Ukrainian Famine of 1932 and 1933, CIS-NO: 85-S381-5, SOURCE: Committee on Foreign Relations. Senate, DOC-TYPE: Hearing, DOC-NO: S. Hrg. 98-982, DATE: Aug. 1, 1984, 137pp

Collectivization and Its Impact on the Ukrainian Population and on Soviet Agricultural Productivity, CIS-NO: 84-S161-26, SOURCE: Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Senate, DOC-TYPE: Hearing, DOC-NO: S. Hrg. 98-959, DATE: Nov. 15, 1983, 124pp

And this was based upon 5-minutes of cursory research. If I took 30 minutes, I could cite numerous legislative hearings, reports, books, newspaper and magazine articles from the 1940's forward.

Interesting that you have now changed the subject from a generic discussion of "Soviet genocide" to your link to a specific instance (i.e. Ukraine). Apparently, you have difficulty with precision in your use of the English language.

However, as even your own link shows with respect to Ukraine, there was evidence presented BEFORE 1988 re: the Ukranian genocide.

With respect to your comment that I don't understand the difference between "murder" vs "genocide"

MURDER:
noun: unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being

GENOCIDE:
noun: systematic killing of a racial or cultural group

United States scholars, researchers, and politicians recognized Soviet GENOCIDE years and decades before 1988 -- so stop playing stupid word games or semantic parsing of terms.

I suggest you review some of the following documents for evidence and discussion about Soviet genocide.

I'm only listing a representative sample merely to indicate how absurd your comments thus far have been.

I won't even get into all of the anti-Communist organizations that published articles and booklets pertaining to Soviet genocide and murder and oppression -- but suffice it to say that such organizations have existed since the 1920's throughout the non-Communist world. In our country, for example, there were groups such as American Coalition of Patriotic Societies (founded in the 1920's) and The Council Against Communist Aggression founded in February 1951 headed by Arthur McDowell.

I also will not bother to list the scores of Congressional hearings and reports which dealt, in one way or another, with Soviet violations of human rights and mass murder, etc.

I will not respond further to your nonsense because you obviously have never done even the most cursory investigation into this subject matter.

---

See for example:

---

Genocide in the USSR; studies in group destruction by
Nikolai K Deker, 1958

The Soviet empire: prison house of nations and races;
a study in genocide, discrimination, and abuse of power.
Library of Congress., Legislative Reference Service.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1958

Human rights and genocide in the Baltic States :
[a statement submitted to the delegations to the United Nations General Assembly, September 1950] /
Author: Kaelas, Aleksander.
Publication: Stockholm : Estonian Information Centre, 1950

I accuse the Kremlin of genocide of my nation :
based on the secret documents of the Military persecutors and N.K.V.D. of the U.S.S.R. /
Author: Abramcyk, Mikola.
Publication: Toronto, Canada : Byelorussian Alliance in Canada, 1950

Genocide behind the iron curtain :
short history of repressions by the Soviet government, aimed at the extermination of pious Moslems in the Crimea and the destruction of djami, their houses of prayer /
Author: Akchura, Iskender.
Publication: New York : Rausen Bros., 1963

La Práctica del genocidio en el Soviet.
Publication: [S.l. : s.n., 1952-1959?
Document: Spanish : Book

Soviet policy of deportation : genocide or manifest destiny.
Author: Donnelley, Verne George. Publication: 1970

Soviet genocide in Lithuania by Joseph Pajaujis-Javis, 1980

The nation killers; the Soviet deportation of nationalities - by Robert Conquest, 1970

SOVIET GENOCIDE IN LITHUANIA
Author: SLAVENAS, JP; JOURNAL OF BALTIC STUDIES 13, no. 4 (1982): 368-370

THE POLICIES OF GENOCIDE - JEWS AND SOVIET PRISONERS OF WAR IN NAZI GERMANY - GELLATELY, R ; GERMAN STUDIES REVIEW 10, no. 2 (MAY 1987): 374-376

LETHAL POLITICS: SOVIET GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER SINCE 1917 - RUMMEL,RJ
HOLOCAUST AND GENOCIDE STUDIES 6, no. 4 (1991): 430-434

Commission on the Ukraine Famine Act, CIS-NO: 85-H381-24, SOURCE: Committee on Foreign Affairs. House, DOC-TYPE: Hearing, DATE: Oct. 3, 1984, 37pp

Ukrainian Famine of 1932 and 1933, CIS-NO: 85-S381-5, SOURCE: Committee on Foreign Relations. Senate, DOC-TYPE: Hearing, DOC-NO: S. Hrg. 98-982, DATE: Aug. 1, 1984, 137pp

Collectivization and Its Impact on the Ukrainian Population and on Soviet Agricultural Productivity, CIS-NO: 84-S161-26, SOURCE: Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Senate, DOC-TYPE: Hearing, DOC-NO: S. Hrg. 98-959, DATE: Nov. 15, 1983, 124pp

Human Rights, CIS-NO: 84-S381-8, SOURCE: Committee on Foreign Relations. Senate, DOC-TYPE: Hearing, DOC-NO: S. Hrg. 98-563, DATE: Nov. 9, 1983, 198pp

Executive Sessions of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (Historical Series). Vol. 2, CIS-NO: 76-S381-19, SOURCE: Committee on Foreign Relations. Senate, DOC-TYPE: Hearing, DATE: Jan. 14, Feb. 2, Mar. 11, Apr. 19, 1949, Jan. 31, Feb. 3, 7, 25, 27, Mar. 10, 21, Apr. 4, 12, May 23, June 6-8, 16, 19, 23, July 18, Aug. 1, 10, 11, Sept. 6, 1950, 840pp

Spanalot: "My friends" in the Kremlin? Is that the manner in which you engage in honest debate or discussion?

And what do you mean by the U.S. recognized Soviet genocide "only in 1987"?

I again refer you to the book I cited in my previous message. The bibliogaphy contains 62 pages of documentation. That documentation refers to books and articles about Soviet oppression and violations of human rights and murders and gulags, etc. starting with reports in the 1920's -- not 1987!

Much of the scholarship done in our country about Soviet genocide is based upon primary source documents archived at our colleges and universities -- such as the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

I suggest that you go to a library and do some research before making a fool of yourself by claiming that the U.S. never recognized the Soviet genocide until 1987. That is an insult not only to our intelligence but to the many brave and principled human beings who risked their lives and gave data about Soviet genocide to Western intelligence agencies as well as scholars and researchers.

Incidentally, I have in my possession copies of FBI documents from the 1940's and 1950's which summarize the data which YOU falsely claim was never even recognized until 1987. Voluminous amounts of Congressional hearings and reports documented it in painstaking detail.

Go peddle your b/s somewhere where only morons participate in discussions with you and, thus, will accept your falsehoods without question.

After I posted my first reply to your message, I decide to check the FBI's Security Index (SI) statistical reports for 1950 to compare McCarthy's assertions to FBI data.

The SI captured statistics regarding all known or suspected CPUSA members, sympathizers, and fellow-travellers, as well as members and sympathizers of other radical left groups such as Socialist Workers Party, Independent Socialist League, Proletarian Party of America.

During the early 1950's, the FBI's Security Index had a section entitled "Special Section". The Special Section captured SI statistics on the following specific categories:

* U.S. government employees
* Atomic Energy Program employees
* Foreign government employees
* United Nations employees
* Prominent persons
* Espionage subjects

The May 1950 edition of the FBI Security Index reflects that a total of 157 persons were listed in the "Special Section" -- which combines all of the above-referenced categories.

Obviously, Lloyd, from this data and the previous info summarized by John Haynes, McCarthy's numbers were grievously mistaken and misrepresented our actual internal security status.

I also have the FBI files on Gen. George C. Marshall and Dean Acheson. There is no derogatory information in their files with respect to disloyalty or sympathy with subversive organizations.

Honorable men and women can debate the policies which our nation implemented, as well as our failures, our defective understanding of historical events, etc. --- but it is morally wrong for us to convert our critics or opponents into evil, sinister, disloyal actors in a plot to eviscerate our very existence as a free country.

Incidentally, in later years, the Bureau revised its SI statistical report to include a column which specifically identified the number of U.S. government employees on the SI.

FYI: In the period from January 1956 thru February 1963, the largest number of known or suspected CPUSA and other radical left group members, sympathizers, and fellow travellers working in the U.S. Government was 22.

In the period from 1956 thru 1958 the total number was always in single-digits. [I haven't completed
reviewing the statistics from 1951 thru 1955 so can't give you specifics yet about that time period.]

Agere: FYI: As of January 11, 1956, the FBI's Security Index listed a total of 11,396 names in its "Communist" category.

The Security Index was the FBI's method of tracking all CPUSA members and sympathizers as well as other left-wing radicals whom the Bureau considered to be a potential security risk and eligible for detention during times of national emergency.

As of January 1, 1956, there were 2 persons (out of that 11,396) who worked, in some capacity, for the U.S. Government. [FBI file 100-358086, serial #2142.]

Senator Joseph McCarthy's Lists and Venona http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page62.html

by John Earl Haynes

January 2006

Note: bibliographic footnotes in [brackets] appear at end after "Security Risks" discussion.

Journalists and historians have often referred to Senator Joseph McCarthy's "list" as if it were a precisely defined entity. It was not, however. Certainly one would put his "numbered" list of eighty-one cases, given in a Senate speech of February 20, 1950, as the prime candidate for being McCarthy's "list." But McCarthy himself quickly added several dozen more names to this list in communications to a subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (commonly referred to in the press as the "Tydings Committee" from its chairman, Senator Millard Tydings). The Tydings subcommittee in its "State Department Employee Loyalty Investigation" inquired into Senator McCarthy's charges.

Most but not all of Senator McCarthy's numbered cases were drawn from the "Lee List" or "108 list" of unresolved DOS [Department of State] security cases compiled by the investigators for the House Appropriates Committee in 1947. Robert E. Lee was the committee's lead investigator and supervised preparation of the list. The Tydings subcommittee also obtained this list. The Lee list, also using numbers rather than names, was published in the proceeding of the subcommittee.[1]

Senator McCarthy furnished the Tydings Committee the real names attached to his numbered cases, and the Tydings Committee received the real names attached to the Lee list as well.[2] Over the years that followed all of the names became public one way or another.

Additionally, in a series of speeches McCarthy named others as secret Communists, spies, security risks, or participants in the Communist conspiracy. Below these various lists are recapitulated. Only those he named from 1950 through 1952 (prior to become chairman of the Senate Governmental Operations Committee) will be considered here. (All lists will be alphabetical.)

McCarthy's List (1)

McCarthy's 20 February Numbered List[3]

Real Name: McCarthy list #; Lee list #; Venona status; Non-Venona Evidence of Espionage

********************************************************************

Arndt, Ernest Theodore: McCarthy list # 14; Lee List # 10; Not identified in Venona

Barnett, Mrs. Robert Warren: McCarthy list # 49; Lee List # 59; Not identified in Venona

Barnett, Robert Warren: McCarthy list # 48; Lee List # 59; Not identified in Venona

Berman, Harold: McCarthy list # 70; Lee List # 85; Not identified in Venona

Brunauer, Esther Caukin: McCarthy list # 47; Lee List # 55; Not identified in Venona

Cameron, Gertrude: McCarthy list # 55; Lee List # 65; Not identified in Venona

Carlisle, Lois: McCarthy list # 58; Lee List # 68; Not identified in Venona

Carter, William D.: McCarthy list # 44; Lee List # 50; Not identified in Venona

Chipchin, Nelson: McCarthy list # 23; No on Lee List: Benign identification in Venona[4]

Clucas, Lowell M., Jr.: McCarthy list # 26; Not on Lee List; Not identified in Venona

Delgado, Mucio: McCarthy list # 21; Lee List # 28; Not identified in Venona

Demerjian, Alice: McCarthy list # 61; Lee List # 72; Not identified in Venona

Dubois, Cora: McCarthy list # 60; Lee List # 70; Not identified in Venona

Ferry, Frances: McCarthy list # 11; Lee List # 8; Not identified in Venona

Fierst, Herbert: McCarthy list # 1; Lee List # 51; Not identified in Venona

Fishback, Sam: McCarthy list # 43; Lee List # 49; Not identified in Venona

Ford, James T.: McCarthy list # 76; Lee List # 96; Not identified in Venona

Gordon, Stella: McCarthy list # 40; Lee List # 45; Not identified in Venona

Graze, Gerald: McCarthy list # 29; Lee List # 25; Not identified in Venona;[5] Identified as a Soviet Espionage Source in the Gorsky Memo[6]

Graze, Stanley: McCarthy list # 8; Lee List # 8; Not identified in Venona; Identified as a Soviet Espionage Source in the Gorsky Memo[7]

Grondahl, Tegnel Conrad: McCarthy list # 25; Not on Lee List; Not identified in Venona

Gross, Aaron Jack: McCarthy list # 68; Lee List # 83; Not identified in Venona

Harrison, Marcia Ruth: McCarthy list # 7; Lee List # 4; Not identified in Venona

Horwin, Leonard: McCarthy list # 73; Lee List # 91; Not identified in Venona

Hunt, Victor: McCarthy list # 65; Lee List # 79; Not identified in Venona

Ilyefalvi-Vites, Gizella: McCarthy list # 4; Lee List # 3; Not identified in Venona

Jankowski, Joseph T.: McCarthy list # 74; Lee List # 92; Not identified in Venona

Jessup, Philip: McCarthy list # 15; Not on Lee List; Not identified in Venona

Josephson, Joseph: McCarthy list # 30; Lee List # 28; Not identified in Venona

Kamarck, Andrew W.: McCarthy list # 78; Lee List # 100; Not identified in Venona

Katusich, Ivan: McCarthy list # 27; Not on Lee List; Not identified in Venona

Kaufman, Arthur Milton: McCarthy list # 38; Lee List # 43; Not identified in Venona

Kopelewish, Esther Less aka Mrs. Less: McCarthy list # 24; Not on Lee List; Not identified in Venona

Lansberg, Hans: McCarthy list # 28; Lee List # 21; Not identified in Venona

Lemon, Edythe J.: McCarthy list # 18; Lee List # 16; Not identified in Venona

Lewis, Mrs. Preston Keesling: McCarthy list # 75; Lee List # 93 Not identified in Venona

Lifantieff-Lee, Paul A.: McCarthy list # 56; Lee List # 66; Not identified in Venona

Lindsey, John Richard: McCarthy list # 67; Lee List # 81; Not identified in Venona

Lloyd, David Demarest: McCarthy list # 9; Lee List # 99; Not identified in Venona

Lorwin, Val R.: McCarthy list # 54; Lee List # 64; Not identified in Venona

Maguite, Sylvia: McCarthy list # 69; Lee List # 84; Not identified in Venona

Mann, Gottfried Thomas: McCarthy list # 42; Lee List # 47; Not identified in Venona

Margolies, Daniel F.: McCarthy list # 41; Lee List # 46; Not identified in Venona

Margolin, Arnold D.: McCarthy list # 72; Lee List # 90;[8] Not identified in Venona

Meigs, Peveril: McCarthy list # 3; Lee List # 2; Not identified in Venona

Miller, Robert T.: McCarthy list # 16; Lee List # 12; Not identified in Venona;[9] First Identified as a Soviet Espionage Source by Elizabeth Bentley in her 1945 FBI statement.[10]

Montague, Ella M.: McCarthy list # 34; Lee List # 32; Not identified in Venona

Neal, Fred Warner: McCarthy list # 57; Lee List # 67; Not identified in Venona

Ness, Norman T.: McCarthy list # 45; Lee List # 53; Not identified in Venona

Neumann, Franz Leopold: McCarthy list # 59; Lee List # 69; Not identified in Venona[11] Identified as a Soviet Espionage Source in Weinstein and Vassiliev's The Haunted Wood.[12]

Osnatch, Olga F.: McCarthy list # 37; Lee List # 42; Not identified in Venona

Parsons, Ruby A.: McCarthy list # 81; Lee List # 78; Not identified in Venona

Perkins, Isham W.: McCarthy list # 62; Lee List # 73; Not identified in Venona

Peter, Hollis W.: McCarthy list # 64; Lee List # 76; Not identified in Venona

Polyzoides, T. Achilles: McCarthy list # 79; Lee List # 105; Not identified in Venona

Posner, Marjorie S.: McCarthy list # 10; Lee List # 7; Not identified in Venona

Posniak, Edward G.: McCarthy list # 77; Not on Lee List; Not identified in Venona

Post, Richard: McCarthy list # 53; Lee List # 63; Not identified in Venona

Raine, Philip: McCarthy list # 52; Lee List # 62; Not identified in Venona

Randolph, David (aka Rosenberg): McCarthy list # 66; Lee List # 80; Not identified in Venona

Rapoport, Alexander: McCarthy list # 22; Not on Lee List; Not identified in Venona

Remington, William: McCarthy list # 19; Not on Lee List; Not identified in Venona. First Identified as a Soviet Source by Elizabeth Bentley in her 1945 FBI statement.[13]

Robinson, Jay: McCarthy list # 5; Lee List # 5; Not identified in Venona

Rommel, Rowena: McCarthy list # 51; Lee List # 61; Not identified in Venona

Ross, Lewis: McCarthy list # 31; Lee List # 29; Not identified in Venona

Ross, Robert: McCarthy list # 32; Lee List # 30; Not identified in Venona

Schimmel, Sylvia: McCarthy list # 50; Lee List # 60; Not identified in Venona

Shell, Melville: McCarthy list # 35; Lee List # 34; Not identified in Venona

Siegel, Herman: McCarthy list # 33; Lee List # 31; Not identified in Venona

Smith, S. Stevenson: McCarthy list # 20; Lee List # 20; Not identified in Venona

Smith (Schmidt), Frederick W.: McCarthy list # 36; Lee List # 40; Not identified in Venona

Stoinaoff, Stoian: McCarthy list # 71; Lee List # 87; Not identified in Venona

Stone, William T.: McCarthy list # 46; Lee List # 54; Not identified in Venona

Taylor, Jeanne E.: McCarthy list # 17; Lee List # 14; Not identified in Venona

Tuchscher, Frances M.: McCarthy list # 6; Lee List # 6; Not identified in Venona

Vincent, John Carter: McCarthy list # 2; Lee List # 52; Not identified in Venona

Volin, Maz A.: McCarthy list # 39; Lee List # 44; Not identified in Venona

Washburn, John T.: McCarthy list # 80; Lee List # 106; Not identified in Venona

Washburne, Carleton: McCarthy list # 13; Lee List # 9; Not identified in Venona

Wilcox, Stanley: McCarthy list # 63; Lee List # 75; Not identified in Venona

Yuhas, Helen: McCarthy list # 12; Lee List # 107; Not identified in Venona

***************************************************************

McCarthy's List (2)

Remaining Lee List Names

In as much as Senator McCarthy cited the Lee list as one the DOS was negligent in not pursuing, the Lee list names not already listed above are listed below.

Real Name: Lee list #; Venona status; Non-Venona Evidence of Espionage

***************************************************************

Alexander, Dorothy Helen: Lee List # 38; Not identified in Venona

Blaisdell, Donald C.: Lee List # 103; Not identified in Venona

Borton, Hugh: Lee List # 57; Not identified in Venona

Burlingame, Robert Sparks: Lee List # 108; Not identified in Venona

DeMoretz, Shirley T.: Lee List # 27; Not identified in Venona

Elinson, Marcelle D.: Lee List # 104; Not identified in Venona

Eminowicz, Halina D.: Lee List # 48; Not identified in Venona

Fine, Sherwood Monroe: Lee List # 23; Not identified in Venona

Fishburn, John Tipton: Lee List # 106; Not identified in Venona

Forno, Joseph T.: Lee List # 96; Not identified in Venona

Fournier, Norman L.: Lee List # 98; Not identified in Venona

Hankin, Robert: Lee List # 94; Not identified in Venona

Hughes, Henry Stuart: Lee List # 77; Not identified in Venona

Jackson, Malcolm Aage: Lee List # 15; Not identified in Venona

Kamarck, Andrew W.: Lee List # 100; Not identified in Venona

Lazarus, Theodore: Lee List # 26; Not identified in Venona

Lovell, Leander Bell: Lee List # 22; Not identified in Venona

Lunning, Just: Lee List # 11; Not identified in Venona

Magruder, John H., III: Lee List # 17; Not identified in Venona

Mallon, Dwight S.: Lee List # 89; Not identified in Venona

Martin, Shirley Mae: Lee List # 33; Not identified in Venona

Martingale, Rose Marie: Lee List # 37; Not identified in Venona

McDavid, Raven I., Jr.: Lee List # 19; Not identified in Venona

Moore, Leith Celestia: Lee List # 18; Not identified in Venona

Parker, Glen T.: Lee List # 95; Not identified in Venona

Pesto, Paula Pavedo: Lee List # 82; Not identified in Venona

Rennie, Leonard C.: Lee List # 13; Not identified in Venona

Rose, Ernest William: Lee List # 41; Not identified in Venona

Rosenthal, Albert H.: Lee List # 97; Not identified in Venona

Rothwell, George J.: Lee List # 7; Not identified in Venona

Royce, Edith M.: Lee List # 35; Not identified in Venona

Rudlin, Walter Arthur: Lee List # 56; Ambiguously identified in Venona[14]

Salmon, Thomas R.: Lee List # 39; Not identified in Venona

Shevlin, Lorraine Arnold: Lee List # 86; Not identified in Venona

Smothers, Frank Albert: Lee List # 102; Not identified in Venona

Thomson, Charles A.: Lee List # 58; Not identified in Venona

Thursz, Jonathan: Lee List # 74; Not identified in Venona

Toory, Dr. Frank P.: Lee List # 88; Not identified in Venona

Tuckerman, Gustavus: Lee List # 101; Not identified in Venona

Wilfert, Howard F.: Lee List # 36; Not identified in Venona

Wood, James E.: Lee List # 24; Not identified in Venona

****************************************************************

McCarthy's List (3)

Other Names Given to the Tydings Subcommittee

In addition to the above McCarthy numbered cases and Lee list, McCarthy also identified by name the following persons to the Tydings subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.[15]

Real Name: Venona status; Non-Venona Evidence of Espionage

*****************************************************************

Askwith, Edna Jerry: Not identified in Venona

Erdos, Arpad: Not identified in Venona

Grajdanzeve, Andrew aka Grade, Andrew: Not identified in Venona

Harris, Reed: Not identified in Venona Not identified in Venona

Henkin, Louis: Not identified in Venona

Hulten, Charles M.: Not identified in Venona

Ingram, George Mason: Not identified in Venona

Ludden, Raymond Paul: Not identified in Venona

Meeker, Leonard C.: Not identified in Venona

Nelson, Clarence J.: Not identified in Venona

Newbegin, Robert: Not identified in Venona

Ramon, Josephine: Not identified in Venona

Rowe, James W.: Not identified in Venona

Sanders, William: Not identified in Venona

Tate, Jack B.: Not identified in Venona

Zablodgwskei, David: Not identified in Venona

******************************************************************

McCarthy's List (4)

Buckley & Bozell List of Other McCarthy Names

Senator McCarthy in 1950, 1951 and 1952 identified other persons in speeches in the Senate and else where. For the date and place of Senator McCarthy's naming of these persons, see appendix D of William F. Buckley and L. Brent Bozell, McCarthy and His Enemies: The Record and Its Meaning (Chicago: H. Regnery Co., 1954).

Real Name: Venona status; Non-Venona Evidence of Espionage

*****************************************************************

Brunauer, Stephen: Not identified in Venona

Clubb, Oliver Edmund: Not identified in Venona

Currie, Lauchlin: Identified in Venona as a Soviet Espionage Source;[16] First Identified as a Soviet Source by Elizabeth Bentley in her 1945 FBI statement.[17]

Davies, John Paton: Not identified in Venona

Duran, Gustavo: Not identified in Venona

Geiger, Theodore: Not identified in Venona

Glasser, Harold: Identified in Venon as a Soviet Espionage Source;[18] First Identified as a Soviet Source by Elizabeth Bentley in her 1945 FBI statement.[19]

Hanson, Haldore: Not identified in Venona

Keeney, Mary Jane: Identified in Venona as a Soviet Espionage Source[20]

Kenyon, Dorothy: Not identified in Venona

Kerserling, Mary: Not identified in Venona

Keyserling, Leon: Not identified in Venona

Lattimore, Owen: Not identified in Venona

Nash, Philleo: Not identified in Venona

Schuman, Frederick: Not identified in Venona

Service, John Stewart: Not identified in Venona. Identified by FBI bugging in 1945 as having deliberately leaked DOS information to the pro-Communist journal Amerasia.[21]

Shapley, Harlow: Not identified in Venona

************************************************************

McCarthy's List (5)

June 14, 1951 "conspiracy of infamy so black" Speech

Senator McCarthy in a speech before the Senate on June 14, 1951, described, "a conspiracy on a scale so immense as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man. A conspiracy of infamy so black that, when it is finally exposed, its principals shall be forever deserving of the maledictions of all honest men."[22] The chief targets of the speech were Dean Acheson, President Truman's secretary of state, and George Marshall, Army chief of staff under President Roosevelt and secretary of state and secretary of defense under Truman. General Marshall was also the focus of Senator McCarthy's book America's Retreat from Victory: The Story of George Catlett Marshall:[23]

Real Name: Venona status; Non-Venona Evidence of Espionage

*****************************************************************

Acheson, Dean: Benign identification in Venona[24]

Marshall, George C.: Benign identification in Venona[25]

*****************************************************************

McCarthy's List (6)

Other McCarthy Speeches

Below are two additional names McCarthy identified in statement to the Senate on December 19, 1950.[26]

Real Name: Venona status; Non-Venona Evidence of Espionage

*****************************************************************

Karr, David: Identified in Venona as assisting Soviet Espionage[27]

Pearson, Drew: Benign Identification in Venona.[28]

*******************************************************************

McCarthy's List (7)

Lists 1-6 Combined

For convenience of reference, a combined list of all names above.

Real Name: Venona status; Non-Venona Evidence of Espionage

************************************************

Acheson, Dean: Benign identification in Venona[29]

Alexander, Dorothy Helen: Not identified in Venona

Arndt, Ernest Theodore: Not identified in Venona

Askwith, Edna Jerry: Not identified in Venona

Barnett, Mrs. Robert Warren: Not identified in Venona

Barnett, Robert Warren: Not identified in Venona

Berman, Harold: Not identified in Venona

Blaisdell, Donald C.: Not identified in Venona

Borton, Hugh: Not identified in Venona

Brunauer, Esther Caukin: Not identified in Venona

Brunauer, Stephen: Not identified in Venona

Burlingame, Robert Sparks: Not identified in Venona

Cameron, Gertrude: Not identified in Venona

Carlisle, Lois: Not identified in Venona

Carter, William D.: Not identified in Venona

Chipchin, Nelson: Benign identification in Venona[30]

Clubb, Oliver Edmund: Not identified in Venona

Clucas, Lowell M., Jr.: Not identified in Venona

Currie, Lauchlin: Identified in Venona as a Soviet Espionage Source;[31] First Identified as a Soviet Source by Elizabeth Bentley in her 1945 FBI statement.[32]

Davies, John Paton: Not identified in Venona

Delgado, Mucio: Not identified in Venona

Demerjian, Alice: Not identified in Venona

DeMoretz, Shirley T.: Not identified in Venona

Dubois, Cora: Not identified in Venona

Duran, Gustavo: Not identified in Venona

Elinson, Marcelle D.: Not identified in Venona

Eminowicz, Halina D.: Not identified in Venona

Ferry, Frances: Not identified in Venona

Fierst, Herbert: Not identified in Venona

Fine, Sherwood Monroe: Not identified in Venona

Fishback, Sam: Not identified in Venona

Fishburn, John Tipton: Not identified in Venona

Ford, James T.: Not identified in Venona

Forno, Joseph T.: Not identified in Venona

Fournier, Norman L.: Not identified in Venona

Geiger, Theodore: Not identified in Venona

Glasser, Harold: Identified in Venon as a Soviet Espionage Source;[33] First Identified as a Soviet Source by Elizabeth Bentley in her 1945 FBI statement.[34]

Gordon, Stella: Not identified in Venona

Grajdanzeve, Andrew aka Grade, Andrew: Not identified in Venona

Graze, Gerald: Not identified in Venona;[35]

Identified as a Soviet Espionage Source in the Gorsky Memo[36]

Graze, Stanley: Not identified in Venona; Identified as a Soviet Espionage Source in the Gorsky Memoo[37]

Grondahl, Tegnel Conrad: Not identified in Venona

Gross, Aaron Jack: Not identified in Venona

Hankin, Robert: Not identified in Venona

Hanson, Haldore: Not identified in Venona

Harris, Reed: Not identified in Venona Not identified in Venona

Harrison, Marcia Ruth: Not identified in Venona

Henkin, Louis: Not identified in Venona

Horwin, Leonard: Not identified in Venona

Hughes, Henry Stuart: Not identified in Venona

Hulten, Charles M.: Not identified in Venona

Hunt, Victor: Not identified in Venona

Ilyefalvi-Vites, Gizella: Not identified in Venona

Ingram, George Mason: Not identified in Venona

Jackson, Malcolm Aage: Not identified in Venona

Jankowski, Joseph T.: Not identified in Venona

Jessup, Philip: Not identified in Venona

Josephson, Joseph: Not identified in Venona

Kamarck, Andrew W.: Not identified in Venona

Kamarck, Andrew W.: Not identified in Venona

Karr, David: Identified in Venona as a Soviet Espionage Source[38]

Katusich, Ivan: Not identified in Venona

Kaufman, Arthur Milton: Not identified in Venona

Keeney, Mary Jane: Identified in Venona as a Soviet Espionage Source[39]

Kenyon, Dorothy: Not identified in Venona

Kerserling, Mary: Not identified in Venona

Keyserling, Leon: Not identified in Venona

Kopelewish, Esther Less aka Mrs. Less: Not identified in Venona

Lansberg, Hans: Not identified in Venona

Lattimore, Owen: Not identified in Venona

Lazarus, Theodore: Not identified in Venona

Lemon, Edythe J.: Not identified in Venona

Lewis, Mrs. Preston Keesling: Not identified in Venona

Lifantieff-Lee, Paul A.: Not identified in Venona

Lindsey, John Richard: Not identified in Venona

Lloyd, David Demarest: Not identified in Venona

Lorwin, Val R.: Not identified in Venona

Lovell, Leander Bell: Not identified in Venona

Ludden, Raymond Paul: Not identified in Venona

Lunning, Just: Not identified in Venona

Magruder, John H., III: Not identified in Venona

Maguite, Sylvia: Not identified in Venona

Mallon, Dwight S.: Not identified in Venona

Mann, Gottfried Thomas: Not identified in Venona

Margolies, Daniel F.: Not identified in Venona

Margolin, Arnold D.: [40] Not identified in Venona

Marshall, George C.: Benign identification in Venona[41]

Martin, Shirley Mae: Not identified in Venona

Martingale, Rose Marie: Not identified in Venona

McDavid, Raven I., Jr.: Not identified in Venona

Meeker, Leonard C.: Not identified in Venona

Meigs, Peveril: Not identified in Venona

Miller, Robert T.: Not identified in Venona;[42] First Identified as a Soviet Espionage Source by Elizabeth Bentley in her 1945 FBI statement.[43]

Montague, Ella M.: Not identified in Venona

Moore, Leith Celestia: Not identified in Venona

Nash, Philleo: Not identified in Venona

Neal, Fred Warner: Not identified in Venona

Nelson, Clarence J.: Not identified in Venona

Ness, Norman T.: Not identified in Venona

Neumann, Franz Leopold: Not identified in Venona[44] Identified as a Soviet Espionage Source in Weinstein and Vassiliev's The Haunted Wood.[45]

Newbegin, Robert: Not identified in Venona

Osnatch, Olga F.: Not identified in Venona

Parker, Glen T.: Not identified in Venona

Parsons, Ruby A.: Not identified in Venona

Perkins, Isham W.: Not identified in Venona

Pearson, Drew: Benign Identification in Venona.[46]

Pesto, Paula Pavedo: Not identified in Venona

Peter, Hollis W.: Not identified in Venona

Polyzoides, T. Achilles: Not identified in Venona

Posner, Marjorie: Not identified in Venona

Posniak, Edward G.: Not identified in Venona

Post, Richard: Not identified in Venona

Raine, Philip: Not identified in Venona

Ramon, Josephine: Not identified in Venona

Randolph, David (aka Rosenberg): Not identified in Venona

Rapoport, Alexander: Not identified in Venona

Remington, William: Not identified in Venona. First Identified as a Soviet Espionage Source by Elizabeth Bentley in her 1945 FBI statement.[47]

Rennie, Leonard C.: Not identified in Venona

Robinson, Jay: Not identified in Venona

Rommel, Rowena: Not identified in Venona

Rose, Ernest William: Not identified in Venona

Rosenthal, Albert H.: Not identified in Venona

Ross, Lewis: Not identified in Venona

Ross, Robert: Not identified in Venona

Rothwell, George J.: Not identified in Venona

Rowe, James W.: Not identified in Venona

Royce, Edith M.: Not identified in Venona

Rudlin, Walter Arthur: Ambiguously identified in Venona[48]

Salmon, Thomas R.: Not identified in Venona

Sanders, William: Not identified in Venona

Schimmel, Sylvia: Not identified in Venona

Schuman, Frederick: Not identified in Venona

Service, John Stewart: Not identified in Venona. Identified by FBI bugging in 1945 as having deliberately leaked DOS information to the pro-Communist journal Amerasia.[49]

Shapley, Harlow: Not identified in Venona

Shell, Melville: Not identified in Venona

Shevlin, Lorraine Arnold: Not identified in Venona

Siegel, Herman: Not identified in Venona

Smith, S. Stevenson: Not identified in Venona

Smith (Schmidt), Frederick W.: Not identified in Venona

Smothers, Frank Albert: Not identified in Venona

Stoinaoff, Stoian: Not identified in Venona

Stone, William T.: Not identified in Venona

Tate, Jack B.: Not identified in Venona

Taylor, Jeanne E.: Not identified in Venona

Thomson, Charles A.: Not identified in Venona

Thursz, Jonathan: Not identified in Venona

Toory, Dr. Frank P.: Not identified in Venona

Tuchscher, Frances M.: Not identified in Venona

Tuckerman, Gustavus: Not identified in Venona

Vincent, John Carter: Not identified in Venona

Volin, Maz A.: Not identified in Venona

Washburn, John T.: Not identified in Venona

Washburne, Carleton: Not identified in Venona

Wilcox, Stanley: Not identified in Venona

Wilfert, Howard F.: Not identified in Venona

Wood, James E.: Not identified in Venona

Yuhas, Helen: Not identified in Venona

Zablodgwskei, David: Not identified in Venona

***************************************************

Security Risks

Of the 159 persons listed above, there is substantial evidence that nine assisted Soviet espionage against the United States: Lauchlin Currie, Harold Glasser, Gerald Graze, Standley Graze, Many Jane Keeney, David Karr, Robert T. Miller, Franz Neumann, and William Remington.

Some of the others were security risks. To say that someone was a security risk is not to say that that person is a proven or even most likely a Soviet espionage source. It is only to say that in matters of national security "better safe than sorry" is a principle. Risks should be minimized by excluding those persons from employment in positions where they would have access to sensitive information.

Risk factors vary from the purely personal to the ideological. Entirely patriotic and loyal persons may have risk factors that make them a security risk. Someone with a history of financial irresponsibility (chronic gambling, bankruptcy) may be tempted by financial gain to betray secret without regard to their patriotism. Someone with close relatives living in a hostile foreign nation may be vulnerable to blackmail due to coercive threats against those family members.

And, of course, someone with ideological sympathy for a hostile foreign power may be tempted to betray by appeals to that ideology. Obviously, in the Cold War between the Communist bloc and the West, persons with Communist or pro-Communist ideological sympathies were security risks due to the possibility of ideological recruitment by Communist intelligence officers. Indeed, the great majority of American, several hundred, now known to have assisted Soviet espionage in the United States in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s were motivated by ideology and many were secret members of the CPUSA.[50]

Many, but certainly not all, of those in the above lists had in their background some ideological security risk factors. A few were established as having been members of the Communist Party, USA (CPUSA) or the Young Communist League. Many had belonged to a number of special purpose organizations, some closely, some not so closely, aligned with the CPUSA, were know to former co-workers as pro-Soviet, or had other signs of Communist sympathies. In some cases those affiliations were recent or ongoing. Frederick Schuman, for example, had a long and enduring history of intense Communist sympathies. With others, however, their affiliation with the Communist left were youthful and a decade or more in the past, and the person may have abandoned those views. Stephen Brunauer, for example, had been in the Young Communist League in the late 1920s but appears to have abandoned the movement by the early 1940s and in 1946 the U.S. government sent him to Hungary (he was Hungarian born) to assist in the escape of Hungarian scientists from Communist Hungary. There were also cases were some association legitimately raised security risk concerns but on inspection, the association appears to have been coincidental. For example McCarthy number case # 1 (Lee list # 51) Herbert Fierst, socialized with and was associated at work with several persons known to be linked to Soviet intelligence. But on examination, Fierst's association appeared to have been no more than that: social and related to his official duties. Among other points, he was a firm supporter of Zionism, an ideological attribute not merely distrusted but hated by Soviet intelligence.[51]

It would take an extensive review of each person separately to come to a firm view on each case, and in a number of cases the passage of time might make reaching a firm conclusion impossible. My own view is that a number of those on the lists above, perhaps a majority, likely were security risks, but others, a minority but a significant one, likely were not, and some, Drew Pearson, Dean Acheson, and George Marshall for example, certainly were not.

----------------------------------------------------------------

[1]. U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, State Department Employee Loyalty Investigations (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1950).

[2]. McCarthy to Tydings, 18 March 1950 with attached list.

[3]. Remarks of Senator Joseph McCarthy, Congressional Record, 20 February 1950.

[4]. A Soviet spy in the U.S. Army, Ilya Elliott Wolston, was a student in the Russian section of the U.S. Army intelligence school and provided the KGB with a list of his fellow students and instructors. Nelson Chipchin was one of those. There is nothing adverse about Chipchin in the reference to him in the two messages in which his name appears. Venona 777-781 KGB New York to Moscow, 26 May 1943; Venona 893 KGB New York to Moscow, 10 June 1943. On Wolston work for the KGB, see John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America (New Haven: Yale University Press [Nota Bene], 2000), 275–76.

[5]. Gerald Graze was not identified in Venona under his own name. Venona does contain a cryptonym, Arena, that FBI/NSA identified as that of Mary Price. Based on the 1948 Gorsky memo, likely this was in error and Arena was Gerald Graze. Anatoly Gorsky, "Failures in the U.S.A. (1938–1948)," memo, December 1948: in Alexander Vassiliev's Notes from the KGB Archive. Gerald Graze is the brother of Stanley Graze.

[6]. Gorsky, "Failures in the U.S.A. (1938–1948)."

[7]. Gorsky, "Failures in the U.S.A. (1938–1948)."

[8]. Arnold Margolin is cited by both Lee and McCarthy as an anti-Communist denied DOS employment.

[9]. Robert T. Miller is not identified in Venona under that name. However, Venona has a crytonym, Mirage, that is unidentified. The Gorsky memo identifies Mirage as Robert Miller. Gorsky, "Failures in the U.S.A. (1938–1948)". Miller is discussed in Haynes and Klehr, Venona [2000], 207, 228–29.

[10]. Elizabeth Bentley, "Elizabeth Bentley FBI Deposition of 30 November 1945," FBI file 65–14503.

[11]. Franz Neumann was not identified by FBI/NSA in Venona. However, Venona has an unidentified cryptonym, Ruff. Ruff is identified as Neumann in Gorsky, "Failures in the U.S.A. (1938–1948)"; and Allen Weinstein and Alexander Vassiliev, The Haunted Wood: Soviet Espionage in America--the Stalin Era (New York: Random House, 1999). Neumann is discussed in Haynes and Klehr, Venona [2000], 194–95, 220.

[12]. Weinstein and Vassiliev, The Haunted Wood.

[13]. Bentley, "Bentley Deposition". Remington in 1951 was convicted of perjury related to Bentley's charges and was murdered in prison. Also identified as a Soviet source in Gorsky, "Failures in the U.S.A. (1938–1948)".

[14]. Venona 1668 KGB New York to Moscow, 29 November 1944 is part three of a longer message, but the earlier parts were not deciphered at all and only part of this message was decoded. Walter Rudlin is referred to as the source of information about the relationship of the office he headed, the Economic Intelligence Section of the Foreign Economic Administration, with the DOS. However, from the contents of the cited remarks and the partial nature of the message it is not possible to determine if Rudlin is a direct KGB source or if an unidentified Soviet spy was simply passing along information the unidentified KGB source heard from Rudlin in a benign legitimate context. Rudlin's name is given in the clear without a cryptonym. While the KGB sometimes used real names for sources in Venona, more often cryptonyms were used.

[15]. "List of 25 Additional Names Given to Senate Foreign Relations Committee," document provided by M. Stanton Evans.

[16]. On Currie's assistance to the KGB, see Haynes and Klehr, Venona [2000], 145–49.

[17]. Elizabeth Bentley, "Elizabeth Bentley FBI Deposition, 30 November 19045, FBI File 65–14603" (1945).

[18]. Glasser's assistance to the KGB is discussed in Haynes and Klehr, Venona [2000], 125–28.

[19]. Bentley, "Bentley 1945 Deposition."

[20]. Many Jane Keeney and her husband Philip O. Keeney are identified as agents first of the GRU (Soviet Military Intelligence) and latter for the KGB. See Haynes and Klehr, Venona [2000], 178–80.

[21]. On Service's role see: Harvey Klehr and Ronald Radosh, The Amerasia Spy Case: Prelude to McCarthyism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996). Service was engaged in certainly unethical and probably illegal leaking of sensitive American diplomatic information to Amerasia in order to promote his preferred policy positions and undercut the policies of superiors in the Department of State and the White House who were pursuing policies he opposed. There is no indication that he believed he was in contact with Soviet intelligence or that Amerasia was a conduit for Soviet intelligence.

[22]. Joseph McCarthy speech, U.S. Senate, 14 June 14, 1951, Congressional Record, vol. 97, part 5, 6602.

[23]. Joseph Raymond McCarthy, America's Retreat from Victory: The Story of George Catlett Marshall (New York: Devin-Adair, 1951).

[24]. As a senior State Department official, Assistant Secretary of Sate in 1945, Acheson was mentioned in several Venona messages, but all were reports about him, not by him, and none indicated any relationship with Soviet intelligence.

[25]. As Army Chief of Staff, General Marshall was mentioned a number of times in Venona messages, but all were reports about him, not by him, and none indicated any relationship with Soviet intelligence.

[26]. Remarks of Senator Joseph McCarthy, 19 December 1950, Congressional Record.

[27]. Karr is discussed in Haynes and Klehr, Venona [2000], 244–47.

[28]. Pearson is identified in Venona as David Karr's employer and simply as a prominent American journalist. There is no indication of any Pearson cooperation with Soviet intelligence. See Haynes and Klehr, Venona [2000], 244–45.

[29]. As a senior State Department official, Assistant Secretary of State in 1945, Acheson was mentioned in several Venona messages, but all were reports about him, not by him, and none indicated any relationship with Soviet intelligence.

[30]. A Soviet spy in the U.S. Army, Ilya Elliott Wolston, was a student in the Russian section of the U.S. Army intelligence school and provided the KGB with a list of his fellow students and instructors. Nelson Chipchin was one of those. There is nothing adverse about Chipchin in the reference to him in the two messages in which his name appears. Venona 777-781 KGB New York to Moscow, 26 May 1943; Venona 893 KGB New York to Moscow, 10 June 1943. On Wolston work for the KGB, see Haynes and Klehr, Venona [2000], 275–76.

[31]. On Currie's assistance to the KGB, see Haynes and Klehr, Venona [2000], 145–49.

[32]. Bentley, "Bentley 1945 Deposition."

[33]. Glasser's assistance to the KGB is discussed in Haynes and Klehr, Venona [2000], 125–28.

[34]. Bentley, "Bentley 1945 Deposition."

[35]. Gerald Graze was not identified in Venona under his own name. Venona does contain a cryptonym, Arena, that FBI/NSA identified as that of Mary Price. Based on the 1948 Gorsky memo, likely this was in error and Arena was Gerald Graze. Gorsky, "Failures in the U.S.A. (1938–1948)". Gerald Graze is the brother of Stanley Graze.

[36]. Gorsky, "Failures in the U.S.A. (1938–1948)."

[37]. Gorsky, "Failures in the U.S.A. (1938–1948)."

[38]. Karr is discussed in Haynes and Klehr, Venona [2000], 244–47.

[39]. Many Jane Keeney and her husband Philip O. Keeney are identified as agents first of the GRU (Soviet Military Intelligence) and latter for the KGB. See Haynes and Klehr, Venona [2000], 178–80.

[40]. Arnold Margolin is cited by both Lee and McCarthy as an anti-Communist who was denied DOS employment.

[41]. As Army Chief of Staff, General Marshall was mentioned a number of times in Venona messages, but all were reports about him, not by him, and none indicated any relationship with Soviet intelligence.

[42]. Robert T. Miller is not identified in Venona under that name. However, Venona has a crytonym, Mirage, that is unidentified. The Gorsky memo identifies Mirage as Robert Miller. Gorsky, "Failures in the U.S.A. (1938–1948)". Miller is discussed in Haynes and Klehr, Venona [2000], 207, 228–29.

[43]. Bentley, "Bentley Deposition."

[44]. Franz Neumann was not identified by FBI/NSA in Venona. However, Venona has an unidentified cryptonym, Ruff. Ruff is identified as Neumann in Gorsky, "Failures in the U.S.A. (1938–1948)"; and Weinstein and Vassiliev, The Haunted Wood. Neumann is discussed in Haynes and Klehr, Venona [2000], 194–95, 220.

[45]. Weinstein and Vassiliev, The Haunted Wood.

[46]. Pearson is identified in Venona as David Karr's employer and simply as a prominent American journalist. There is no indication of any Pearson cooperation with Soviet intelligence. See Haynes and Klehr, Venona [2000], 244–45.

[47]. Bentley, "Bentley 1945 Deposition". Remington in 1951 was convicted of perjury related to Bentley's charges and was murdered in prison. Also identified as a Soviet source in Gorsky, "Failures in the U.S.A. (1938–1948)".

[48]. Venona 1668 KGB New York to Moscow, 29 November 1944 is part three of a longer message, but the earlier messages were not deciphered at all and only part of this message was decoded. Walter Rudlin is referred to as the source of information about relationship of the office he headed, the Economic Intelligence Section of the Foreign Economic Administration, with the DOS. However, from the contents of the cited remarks and the partial nature of the message it is not possible to determine if Rudlin is a direct KGB source or if an unidentified Soviet spy is simply passing along information the unidentified KGB source heard from Rudlin in a benign legitimate context. Rudlin's name is given in the clear without a cryptonym. While the KGB sometimes used real names for sources in Venona, more often cryptonyms were used.

[49]. On Service's role see: Klehr and Radosh, Amerasia Spy Case. Service was engaged in unethical and possibly illegal leaking of information to Amerasia in order to promote his preferred policy positions and undercut the position of superiors in the Department of State and the White House who were pursuing policies he opposed. There is no indication that he believed he was in contact with Soviet intelligence or that Amerasia was a conduit for Soviet intelligence.

[50]. The Communist affiliations of most of those identified as assisting Soviet espionage in Venona are discussed in Haynes and Klehr, Venona [2000].

[51]. The expressive KGB cryptonym for Zionists was "Rats."

"Cover up of the Communist Genocide"> -- you've got to be kidding!

Entire books and doctoral dissertations have been written about it for decades. Many of the original reports of Soviet gulags and human rights abuses originated with emigres from the Soviet Union who were interviewed by Western scholars and intelligence agencies.

You obviously have not done even the most cursory examination of the historical record and just have some sort of agenda you want to promote.

See, for example:

"The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression" originally published in Europe, then picked up by Harvard University Press in 1999. It was described in a New York Times review as:

"An 800-page compendium of the crimes of Communist regimes worldwide, recorded and analyzed in ghastly detail by a team of scholars. The "notes" section of the book consists of 62 pages of bibliographic citations to substantiate the assertions made in the book. This documentation relies upon previous scholarly works from the 1920's forward. So much for your falsehood about a "coverup".

Also see such journals as "American Communist History" and the massive bibliography and research guide on Communism and Anti-Communism at:

http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page94.html


http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page94.html