Talk:Harry Magdoff and espionage/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sources and POV

Let's start by trying to find some neutral language to set the stage. People who believe in the claims about Magdoff being tied to the KGB are "Believers" while those who are skeptical are "Skeptics."

I'm a Skeptic, but I have edited another page with similar issues, including Venona documents, and folks ended up writing a compromise text.

The Skeptics need to see that the Believers have real published cites that cannot be ignored or simply dismissed as right-wing propaganda.

The Believers need to see that the Skeptics have real published cites that cannot be ignored or simply dismissed as left-wing propaganda.

These are largely mutually exclusive positions, and it is unlikely that one side will convince the other.

So what is a fair and NPOV edit?

That's what we will discuss here.

To start, there is a language problem. There is a difference between witting and unwitting information sources used by the KGB. There are KGB case officers, KGB operatives, and KGB agents. In tradecraft lingo, the KGB agent is a witting non-KGB-employee information source. This can be a paid or unpaid position. But the witting aspect is important.

Then there is the issue that intelligence operatives often write material later found in intelligence agency files that is not, in fact, true; and which tends to be written in a way that advances their career. So people they talk to who are not aware that they are talking to KGB operatives are frequently converted in the files into witting agents. This is quite common. See the work of Frank Donner for verification.

Few people have actually read the Vanona files, and those that have often disagree over what they reveal. We need to represent the Belivers and Skeptics in this regard. Most readers of the files have viewed them from a highly POV perspective.

Finally, many people who testified before McCarthy era committees made "sworn" statements that were never verified. Much of their claims have been challenged in published works. Some witnesses later recanted. Some witnesses made claims that were later verified. This is part of the story as well.

So as we examine the credibility of the sources for this section of the text, all of these factors need to be discussed in a reasonable and careful way that assumes good faith.

I have a POV about this matter, but so does everyone else. Let's all step back and try to edit fairly. For a start. I am deleting my original opening comments on this page. They did not assume good faith. I apologize.--Cberlet 01:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet, your actions today in general have not assumed good faith. Nobs has indicated to me that he does not wish to respond here as this page is inherently POV and I agree with him. Move your comments to Talk:Harry Magdoff and we can discuss it. --TJive 02:05, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet, I agree here with your comments regarding the need to cool down and respect others' POV. However so far you have failed to understand why creating this page has been so far the worst thing towards achieving this. Not only do you admit to angrily creating a POV-laced fork, it forbids us from taking a look at differences between the material in the overall context of Magdoff. Certainly if there is any compromise whatsoever on the point of espionage it is not necessary whatsoever to have a separate article, so in effect you unilaterally created a sandbox to keep out info you personally dispute. It was inflammatory and only complicated matters.

Regarding what else you have written, it is mainly vaguely referenced problems with VENONA itself, and there is no mention of how this may or may not apply specifically to Harry Magdoff where the information is corroborated in other sources as well. Are you suggesting Magdoff is unwitting? That the agents lied? Where is your proof? What is a source that claims this at least besides Wiki editors? Otherwise that is the only thing original research, not anything written so far. --TJive 19:42, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I believe Cberlet has misread the significance of the Boardman memo; it is not the working papers of the Army Signals Intelligence Service, or FBI Counterintelligence investigators, trying to match code names to suspects. It is the end product of that effort. And the Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy, as well as the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive "Official History", and the Archivist of the National Security Agency (custodian of documents for the Signals Intelligence Service) all come to the same conclusion. Efforts to discredit Elizabeth Bentley no longer will hold up, nor any of the recycled arguements of the past half century from The Nation magazine. nobs 20:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Note to Cberlet: While I appreciate your contributions, and would like to work with you, I politiely request that you place your notes as footnotes, as other editors have done. Many of the issues these notes raise are valid, and many also are incomplete or could be balanced with other material. So as not to break the continuity, for now I request you follow the established format, and we can discuss particulars to these insertions. Please note, I do not adopt a method of beginning with a conclusionary premise, i.e. beginning a subject with a preordained conclusion in mind, then seek out the evidence to support that conclusion. Rather, I use the historical method of Contemporaneous corroboration, moving along a fixed timeline and seeking (as under Mosaic Law) corroboration for narrative. And where corroboration does not exist, then a clear identification of the witness in question along with attestations to credibilty. I beleive we can work together, but lets agree on method. Thank you so much. nobs 19:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Bentley

Elizabeth Bentley named over 80 supposed American spies, which if true means the KGB must have been one of the most incompetent spy organizations around. Most spy agencies wouldn't give their own case officers, people of their own nationality and who had been vetted, over 80 people to handle. If they defected it would be a disaster. But to let an American know of who over 80 spies are? It's preposterous. A cornerstone of spycraft is Need To Know. Yet the KGB let her know her - a foreigner, the identities of over 80 spies? This seems rather ridiculous. Only in an atmosphere of hysteria, a witch hunt, would the logical fallacies of this be apparent.

What is the evidence that Magdoff was a spy? "It was obvious to [her] that these people, including Abt, had been associated for some time and that they had been engaged in some sort of espionage for Earl Browder." OK, well why was that obvious? "There followed then a general discussion among all of us as to the type of information which these people, excepting Abt, would be able to furnish." I have seen this before in Red Scare cases. If a group of communists are sitting around, and one of them begins talking about his job, that becomes them discussing information that they're able to furnish. She didn't even say anyone furnished information, whatever that means, they just mentioned that they were able to furnish information, whatever that means. I should also mention that witnesses like Bentley were coached into what to say, which doesn't mean it's untrue, but the language of an innocent discussion of a day of work becomes transformed into a sinister communist plot. It should be recalled that the USSR was the US's ally during World War II also - these were not a bunch of former German-American Bund members talking about troop movements.

And I haven't even gotten into the stretching of what barely amounts to circumstantial evidence about Magdoff in Venona, being turned into proof that Magdoff was a Soviet spy.

And what came of all of this for Magdoff? Nothing. During the Red Scare people were thrown in jail, they were executed, why did nothing happen regarding all of this, if Magdoff was some kind of spy? Magdoff is still alive, and living in the New York City metropolitan area. If there's proof he's a spy, why hasn't he been arrested? Ruy Lopez 01:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

As I have pointed out to you before (and which you conveniently ignore), no less a source than Pavel Sudoplatov, a two-star general in the NKVD who ran the NKVD's "Administration for Special Tasks", says in his autobiography Special Tasks (pp. 217) that:

"For the FBI to utilize the disclosures by Guzenko, and later by Elizabeth Bentley, an American NKVD agent, to penetrate and destroy our agent networks was not an easy job."

thereby confirming that she really was an NKVD agent, and really did blow real agents/sources to the US authorities. If you won't believe a KGB two-star general (and note that Sudoplatov did not defect to the West, but stayed in Russia), exactly how good a source would it take to convince you she was for real?

To answer some of your other points, as for Most spy agencies wouldn't give their own case officers, people of their own nationality .. over 80 people to handle, this is simly untrue. Many defectors have blown hundreds of agents, e.g. Philip Agee and Vasili Mitrokhin; if I had time to look through my library I could dig up others who caused the same kind of damage.

Bentley knew so many agents/sources in part because she was a courier for Jacob Golos, and for others, for many years. Note, however, that she did not know the names for many of them - one famous example is Julius Rosenberg, whose name she did not know, but with whom she had had contact.

As to why Magdoff was never tried, I can only guess it was because he was a minor figure in the network, against whom the public evidence (remember, VENONA was secret - it wasn't used against the Rosenbergs) was thin, and by the time more evidence surfaced, the statute of limitations had run out. Noel (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Agee was a case officer - and he did not blow the cover of over 80 people that he had been a case officer of. Other people gave (and give) information to Agee, and he was and is simply the conduit for those people. He has not blown the cover of hundreds of people, he has been the conduit for hundreds of people's cover blown. As far as Vasili Mitrokhin, when he presented his services to the US, the US believed he was a red herring sent by Soviet intelligence, or perhaps BS'ing them for his own reasons, and told him to buzz off. So the CIA certainly seems to think what he had to say is garbage. In other words, your idea that Mitrokhin had real documents is not an opinion shared by the CIA, for one.

I'm not really sure what your point is about some NKVD guy saying she was a spy, wouldn't her saying she was a spy mean a lot more than that? And who ever disputed that she had said that?

Bentley was not a case officer, she was an American. I do not think the KGB would expose half their American spy network to some flaky Vassar girl. She walks into a room and says there is "a general discussion among all of us as to the type of information which these people, excepting Abt, would be able to furnish." I should point out she was coached in her vocabulary as to how to say this. What does this mean? A bunch of people sitting around in a room talking about their day at work could be presented as this. If she acted as a go-fer for Golos, she probably did run into a lot of people in the CP. But as you said, she had limited information. The proof from her that Magdoff was a spy is him and his friends were hanging out and he was talking about his day at work. That seems pretty weak to me. And what comes from Venona seems to be pretty weak to me as well. You are taking very, very scant circumstantial evidence and saying it is absolute proof Harry Magdoff was a Soviet spy. With a lot more evidence to this, if this was a basis for such things, I could prove that the Bush family and Bin Laden family collaborated to make 9/11 happen. I've read what Bentley said and I don't see anything there except she suspected he (and 80+ other people) were spies. It should be pointed out that J. Edgar Hoover objected to the use of Bentley, because he thought her stories were so weak that it would make him and the communist-hunters look bad. You have essentially nothing from her, and nothing from Venona, and you are trying to add 0 and 0 and make it equal 1 - that Magdoff was a spy. It does not add up. Ruy Lopez 02:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

(De-indenting) Well, I have now done what I should have done before - actually looked through some books, rather than try and cite instances from memory. So here we go with some people who did blow over 80 sources (if you are allowed to count agents of their own service, it gets really trivial to rack up really big numbers). I stopped at two, but I'm pretty sure there were more - just don't have time to keep looking for the exact cites.

• Vladimir Vetrov, aka Farewell, blew "slightly under a hundred case leads involving a slightly greater number of individuals" (Gordon Brook-Shepherd, The Storm Birds: Soviet Post-War Defectors, pp. 321).
• Stanislav Levchenko blew "the KGB's other local assets" in Japan, "some two hundred assorted Japanese 'assets'" (The Storm Birds, pp. 299-300).

As to your reply, I don't know much about Agee, simply remembered that he'd blown a lot of people; I shouldn't have relied on my memory.

As for Vasili Mitrokhin, and your ridiculous claim that the CIA certainly seems to think what he had to say is garbage and the idea that Mitrokhin had real documents is not an opinion shared by the CIA:

• In fact, he was turned away because CIA policy at that time (after the collapse of the Sovet Union) prohibited recruitment of Soviet/Russian intelligence officers, not because the CIA thought his information was "garbage": the CIA's Soviet/East European Division had decided that the KGB was no longer a threat and had instituted a controversial new policy that led CIA officers in the field to turn away many defectors. Paul Redmond, who was then the CIA's deputy chief of counterintelligence, said .. that he sought to take over the Mitrokhin case after other officials had failed to show interest, but by then Mitrokhin had turned to the British. - James Risen, New York Times News Service [1]
• The FBI called his archive "the most complete and extensive intelligence ever received from any source". [2]
• Mitrokhin's book is referenced in unclassified studies on the CIA's own website, e,g, here, which I kind of doubt they would do if they thought it was garbage.

So I think Mitrokhin's claims to have revealed "thousands of Soviet agents and intelligence officers in all parts of the globe" are fairly sound.

Ironically, your "no individual would know so many names" reasoning is an exact echo of the attempted debunking of Mitrokhin by a spokeswoman for the SVR, who said "Hundreds of people! That just doesn't happen! .. Any defector could get the name of one, two, perhaps three agents - but not hundreds!" [3] I got a good chuckle out that one.

As far as Bentley goes, and your I do not think the KGB would expose half their American spy network to some flaky Vassar girl comment, I seem to recall (don't have time to track down the citation now; IIRC correctly, it involved using Gold as a courier to both Fuchs and Greenglass) that there was a lot of aggro in the NKVD about tradecraft violations from the network she and Golos headed, so that may be part of the explanation. But as a courier, and a constant companion to the head of the network, it's not too surprising she'd met a lot of sources.

And for the 17th time, I did not say that Magdoff was a "spy", I said he was a "source" - they are very different. Noel (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Evidence/prosecution

It would seem the point requires particular emphasis that evidence was not forthcoming for a lack of prosecution rather than the other way around. --TJive 20:37, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Why no prosecution is stated here Belmont to Boardman, sec. IV. Prosecution, B. Disadvantages,

"...we do not know if the deciphered messages would be admitted into evidence... the defense attorney would immediately move that the messages be excluded, based on the hearsay ... neither the person who sent the message (Soviet official) nor the person who received it (Soviet official) was available to testify...it would be necessary to rely upon their admission through the use of expert testimony of those who intercepted the messages and those cryptographers who deciphered the messages. A question of law is involved herein. It is believed that the messages probably could be introduced in evidence on the basis of an exception to the hearsay evidence rule

"... the defense probably would be granted authority by the court to have private cryptographers hired by the defense examine the messages as well as the work sheets of the Government cryptographers. ... This would lead to the exposure of Government techniques and practices in the cryptography field to unauthorized persons and thus compromise the Government's efforts

The Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy reports the same conclusion. nobs 21:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Golos made contact with the Perlo group in November 1943 (Haynes & Klehr, chap. 5); Golos died the same month, November 27 1943. Bentley was put in charge of all Golos contacts then by Earl Browder; five days after Golos death Bentley met with a contact who put her in contact with Golos old Soviet contact. The Soviet's were immediately concerned about having a flaky Vassar girl in control of such a vital element. But the Soviet's had other problems too, the War, the disbanding of the Comintern created much confussion. Bentley had her first meeting with the Perlo group at the end of Feb or early Mar 1944, as referenced in detail in Magdoff article. I can show other Venona decrypts, how the Soviets wanted to take control of the Bentley's operations, but were prevented by Browder. But by the end of 1944, they did just that, they pushed her out of the way and took control. She know roughly 42 or 47 members by personal contact, dating back to 1938; other members she only knew through cut outs, like Harry Dexter White or William Henry Taylor. That is a big reason for her defection, having been removed from control, she knew she knew too much, and her life was in danger, seeing she was of no more use to the Soviets. And it was the FBI that pumped her for every scrape of information possible, including names of people she was recieving information from through cut outs. So it is the FBI that can rightly be criticized, for having to rely on second hand information from Bentley, cause they couldn't do their own job right (IMHO, criticism of Bentley is unfair in this regard, and should be placed on the FBI). The Gorsky Report is available at two places on line George Mason University History News Network and John Earl Haynes site [4]. you will see they are virtually identical, and list Harry Magdoff as a member of the Sound & Myrna groups (Golos & Bentley groups). nobs 02:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I should also add that Elizabeth Bentley lost a libel suit against one of the people she accused, William Remington Ruy Lopez 16:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that would be an excellent fact to mention in her article. Noel (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the endorsement, User:Nobs01 keeps removing it. Ruy Lopez 06:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

This turns out to be incorrect. The insurer of her co-defendant (NBC) settled because it was cheaper to do that than contest it - pissing off the producer of the NBC show, who was sure they could win. See Clever Girl, pp. 201. She refused to contribute any money to the settlement amount. It's worth noting that Remington later was convicted of perjury, and jailed, on exactly the same point he'd sued her on - whether he'd been involved in Communist activities. Noel (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Tags

Let's be serious about compromise and constructive editing here. Drop the delete. Drop the merge. If it gets merged back after we have talked for awhile, fine, but lets not start out by having a revert war. There is no point. --Cberlet 03:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet, there was an already an edit war over the article, and there was lots of pertinent discussion on the talk page, both of which you may find by a quick glance. That is part of why moving the content and attempting to start talk anew was inappropriate and seen as a bad faith affront. I am perfectly calm, however, but there is no reason to move the content and discussion here. --TJive 03:18, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Note that instead of waiting for the outcome of the VfD vote and Merge notice that TJive initiated, the material being debated was unilaterally merged back into the main article, where it now forms the largest block of text on a biography page. --Cberlet 12:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said there as well.

Cberlet, you are the one who unilaterally moved all of the text from the main article to a POV fork without consensus and without even asking anyone's thoughts; I was simply correcting this move. It was already the largest section (by text) on the page when you got there. The reason being the section was challenged factually so we backed it up in the most concise manner possible. Also, this page is not for the purpose of debating the merits of the claims but whether this page as it is should exist. --TJive 19:45, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of underlying documents

I have discovered shocking evidence that the claims on this page have misrepresented the underlying documentation cited.

According to an FBI memo dated May 15, 1950, Harry Magdoff was listed as one of a group of "individuals positively or tentatively identified" as part of a KGB set of assets, with the names agreeing with information "furnished me by Elizabeth Bentley."

But in a memo February 1, 1956 discussing in detail the problem of actually properly identifying people in the Venona material when cover names are used, there is a specific reference to the cover name "Magdoff-Kant" followed by the parenthetical phrase "(probably Harry Magdoff)"

So this identification of Harry Magdoff "tentively" and "probably" has been promoted into an actual positive identification. This assumption is periodically made throughout various government intelligence documents, but in the memo wrapping up the investigation and prosectuion based on this information (in which Magdoff was never indicted) the summary concludes that the identification of Harry Magdoff is still uncertain.--Cberlet 13:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The 1 February 1956 memo Belmont to Boardman (1) discusses in detail the problems of prosecution based on Venona material (not "actually identifying people", as misrepresented above); (2) the Belmont to Boardman memo refers to "Magdoff-Kant" as "probably Magdoff"; in the next paragraph it refers to "Kant" as "Magdoff" [5] (I know it's an old cliche to argue what "is" is, but "Magdoff-Kant" is a different spelling from "Kant"), as the memo reads, identification of "Kant" is postive as "Magdoff", and the identification of "Magdoff-Kant" is probable as "Magdoff". And the discussion following those two references sites this as corroboration of Elizabeth Bentley's depositition. nobs 15:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Preposterous.--Cberlet 16:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Please do not move my comments around. There is an ongoing vote regarding this page Please respect the democratic process.--Cberlet 16:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Boardman to Belmont

Text IV. PROSECUTION [6]:

"...It is also evident that a public disclosure of [xxxx](S) information would corroborate Elizabeth Bentley."

The Perlo group fits into the [xxxx](S) information when we examine the following message of 5/13/44:

"Mayor" (unidentified) in NYC personally prepared a report to MGB headquarters in Moscow advising that some unspecified action had been taken regarding "Good Girl" (Bentley) in accordance with instructions of "Helmsman" (Earl Browder). "Mayor" then made reference to winter and also to "Magdoff-'Kant' "(Probably Harry Magdoff). This latter reference was then followed by a statement that in "Good Girl's" opinion "they" are reliable. It was also mentioned that no one had interested himself in their possibilities.

The name "Storm" (unidentified) was mentioned and it was then reported that "Raider" (Victor Perlo), "Plumb" (Charles Kramer), "Ted" (Edward Fitzgerald) and "Kant" (Harry Magdoff) would take turns coming to NY every two weeks. "Mayor" said "Plumb" and "Ted" knew "Pal" (Nathan Gregory Silvermaster, whose cover name was later changed to "Robert").

With reference to the foregoing, it is to be recalled that Elizabeth Bentley advised that Jacob Golos informed her he had made contact with a group in Washington, D.C. through Earl Browder. After the death of Golos in 1943, two meetings were arranged with this group in 1944. The first meeting was arranged by Browder and is believed to have been held on 2/27/44. The meetings were held in the apartment of John Abt in NYC and Bentley was introduced to four individuals identified as Victor Perlo, Charles Kramer, Harry Magdoff and Edward Fitzgerald.

nobs 16:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The information provided by Elizabeth Bentley was considered so weak and questionable that even Hoover resisted attempts to use it in prosecutions of the alleged "spy ring." I do not dispute that from the perspective of the KGB they were in touch with people they considered to be sympathisers. At issue is what has been published regarding an analysis of the situation. There are two opposing camps looking at the same historic record and reaching different conclusions. The text about Harry Magdoff has been a highly POV one-sided rendition of the published material (plus original research) featuring government agents and militant anti-communists.--Cberlet 16:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems you have yet to read entire Belmont to Boardman 1 February 1956 memo (about 14 pages); that is absolutely necessary to gain any foundational grasp of the significance of Venona project materials. You will note, in Section II. WHO HAS KNOWLEDGE OF VENONA PROJECT INFORMATION?, J. Edgar Hoover did not have knowledge, so any reference to Hoover is insignificant. I appreciate very much your reading the two paragraphs on the Boardman memo that mentioned Magdoff's name, however the 57 year old arguements directed at Elizabeth Bentley's credibility will not stand up in light of a reading of the "historical record", as you so state. nobs 16:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Bentley: Stephen J. Spingarn, Attorney, U.S. Treasury Dept., 1934-41; Asst. to the Attorney General of the United States, 1937-38; Special Asst. to the Gen. Counsel, Treasury Dept., 1941-42; Asst. Gen. Counsel, Treasury Dept., 1946-49; Alternate Member, President's Temp. Comm. on Employee Loyalty, 1946-47; Asst. to the Special Counsel of the President, 1949-50; Administrative Asst. to the President, 1950 said of Bentley:

"I have no doubt that the main thrust of what Elizabeth Bentley says was correct—I mean I believe it—but on any given peripheral individual whom she didn't know but only heard about I would certainly want a lot more information";

(From the Truman Presidential Library Oral History Interview with Stephen J. Spingarn

Spingarn is questioning only persons Bentley did not meet; as the materials corroborated above demonstrate, Bentley met Magdoff face-to-face in clandestine meetings. nobs 17:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Point of clarification: I misspoke a moment ago in saying J. Edgar had no knowledge; this is incorrect. With reference to Cberlet claim "The information provided by Elizabeth Bentley was considered so weak and questionable that even Hoover resisted attempts to use it in prosecutions", that was indeed the position of the FBI and its Director, as again the Belmont to Boardman, sec. IV. Prosecution demonstrates. Bentley's testimony needed corroboration; the memo discusses the legal aspects of defendents rights, how a defense attorney would move to dispense Venona transcripts as "hearsay", how the cryptographers would then have to be called as expert witnessess, and thus compromise the program. The twist Cberlet puts on the decision not to prosecute is that Bentley's credibitly was in question; the Boardman memo is the actual source (weather Cberlet understands or not) of the FBI's decision not to prosecute (not J. Edgar, as Cberlet alleges), considering the information "weak". It was fear of compromising the Venona project why Magdoff was not prosecuted. And the Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy Report will likewise support this conclusion. nobs 17:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet said: The text about Harry Magdoff has been a highly POV one-sided rendition of the published material (plus original research)

Please elaborate on how the material is either POV or original research. --TJive 19:51, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

1). There are published sources that claim Magdoff was an agent of the KGB. Cite them here. It is not acceptable to have Wiki editors doing original research based on their reading of the Vanona documents. 2). Different people read the Vanona and other documents with a different perspective. It is clear that the KGB thought of Magdoff as a source of information. What is not clear is if there is sufficient evidence to say outright that Magdoff was a witting agent of the KGB. Most of the material on the page is actually original research based on a POV reading of the documents. A more skeptical reading produces a different perspective.--Cberlet 22:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet plenty of sources were provided (rather specifically) before you even moved the article. --TJive 01:05, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Published sources

• Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive, A Counterintelligence Reader, vol. 3, chap. 1, p. 31. (Official History of Counterintelligence Operations in the United States)
• Archives of the National Security Agency (custodian of documents for the Army Signals Intelligence Agency)
• Alexandre Feklisov, The Man Behind the Rosenbergs: Memoirs of the KGB Spymaster Who Also Controlled Klaus Fuchs and Helped Resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis (New York: Enigma, 2001). ISBN 1929631081
• Harvey Klehr, John Earl Haynes, Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999). ISBN 0300077718
• Harvey Klehr, John Earl Haynes, and Fridrikh Igorevich Firsov, The Secret World of American Communism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995); p. 312 (Document 90) reproduces a copy of the September 29, 1944 Fitin to Dimitrov memo (RTsKhIDNI 495-74-485). ISBN 0300068557
• Harvey Klehr, John Earl Haynes, and Kyrill Anderson, The Soviet World of American Communism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998). ISBN 0300071507
• Herbert Romerstein, The Venona Secrets: Exposing Soviet Espionage and America's Traitors (Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2000). ISBN 0895262754
• Herbert Romerstein, Stanislav Levchenko, The KGB Against the "Main Enemy": How the Soviet Intelligence Service Operates Against the United States (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1989). ISBN 0669112283
• Allen Weinstein and Alexander Vassiliev, The Haunted Wood: Soviet Espionage in America—the Stalin Era (New York: Random House, 1999). ISBN 0788164228
• Nigel West, Venona: The Greatest Secret of the Cold War (London: HarperCollins, 1999). ISBN 0006530710
• Elizabeth Bentley, Out of Bondage: The Story of Elizabeth Bentley, New York: Ivy Books, 1988. ISBN 0804101647
• Vladimir Pozniakov, A NKVD/NKGB Report to Stalin: A Glimpse into Soviet Intelligence in the United States in the 1940's

The above list contains no FBI files, which are available if needed.

Wow three Klehr/Haynes books, great.

Then we have that scholarly work with the scholarly title "The Venona Secrets: Exposing Soviet Espionage and America's Traitors". Let's look at the blurb from its inside flap - "New information that links Albert Einstein to Soviet intelligence and conclusive evidence showing that J. Robert Oppenheimer gave Moscow our atomic secrets". Hey, how come you haven't added Einstein and Oppenheimer to your list of Soviet stooges along with Stone and Magdoff? This is published by Regnery, a publisher which actually loses money every year, but is kept afloat by well-heeled conservative foundations so as to "get the message out". Here's some more scholarly works put out by this publisher last year:

• Reckless Disregard: How Liberal Democrats Undercut Our Military, Endanger Our Soldiers, and Jeopardize Our Security.
• Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left.
• In Defense of Internment: The Case for "Racial Profiling" in World War II and the War on Terror.
• Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry

Thanks for showing what your "scholarly" sources are. Ruy Lopez 01:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, as a matter of fact Oppie is mentioned in the Venona transcripts, and listed in Haynes & Klehr's Appendix D as being uncorroborated; on my timetable, I guesstimate sometime in the next two years I will be able to fully deal with that subject, once having completed the New York & Washington Rezidenturas. Then I will have time to deal exclusively with the KGB San Fransisco decrypts. Meantime, others are working on that. Oppie fits in with Isaac Folkoff. Also, as the evidence is uncovered there, the Rosenberg saga will probably have to be rewritten. Yes, they indeed were patsies and scapegoats and willingly went to the chair to coverup higher ups. Also, the 1953 Testimony of Paul Crouch released in 2003 before the PSI names Oppenhiemer pointedly as a member of the CPUSA. So if you feel the necesity to include Oppie's name on the list, by all means do so, just place an (*) after it to signify the source. As to Einstein, I know only vague references to that, but have heard a quote to the effect he regretted ever coming to America. I'm not sure what it's significance is. nobs 01:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Einstein was associated with several communist front groups but has never been shown to be involved in espionage. Are strawmen and ad hominems all you ever carry? --TJive 01:48, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Also, I do not recall citing that book in the article. It is merely mentioned for being a VENONA reference. --TJive 01:50, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

There is an active discussion going on at Talk:Robert_Oppenheimer#CPUSA. Letter from Boris Merkulov to Lavrenty Beria is of interest. nobs 01:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Note: Extraneous reference material inserted as a response to User:Ruy Lopez from Marquette University Libraries, Department of Special Collections and University Archives, FBI, "Series 6, Albert Einstein [7], who hold the FBI documents, quote from the introduciton:

"Physicist Albert Einstein was investigated by the FBI because of his affiliation with the Communist Party. Einstein was a member, sponsor, or affiliated with thirty-four Communist groups, and served as honorary chairmen of three Communist organizations."

Now, simply find the specific references to Harry Magdoff in the published material cited above, find a quote about Magdoff, cite it, and plunk it into the text to replace the material that gives the appaearance of being original document research.--Cberlet 12:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The only reference to Magdoff in "Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive, A Counterintelligence Reader, vol. 3, chap. 1, p. 31. (Official History of Counterintelligence Operations in the United States)" is a section listing the allegations of Elizabeth Bentley, so to claim that the U.S. government identified Magdoff as a spy by citing this document is a misrepresentation of the underlying document.--Cberlet 16:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

It is clear that many of the citations other than those traceable to Bentley do not support the claims that Magdoff was a witting intelligence agent for the KGB. See the notes I have added to the text. Unless there are cites provided to published sources--with quotes and page #s please--that claim that Magdoff was a witting KGB agent, the entire Venona section is original research of primary documents, and therefore should be deleted and replaced with a sentence that accurately reflects the published claims about Magdoff and the KGB.--Cberlet 20:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the challenge to Elizabeth Bentley's credibility,A Counterintelligence Reader, vol. 2, chap. 4:

"The VENONA decrypts were, however, to show the accuracy of Chambers' and Bentley's disclosures."

"Elizabeth Bentley was a controversial figure, and there were many who discounted her information. Ms. Bentley appears in the VENONA translations (covernames UMNITSA, GOOD GIRL, and MYRNA) as do dozens of KGB agents and officers whom she named to the FBI. VENONA confirms much of the information about Soviet espionage that Ms. Bentley provided the FBI." nobs 18:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Right, Bentley was controversial, and one U.S. spy agency report is quoted as saying "VENONA confirms much of the information about Soviet espionage that Ms. Bentley provided the FBI." Fine. We will report published quotes regarding both sides of that issue. Not a problem. Now what does this have to do with Harry Magdoff? "MUCH" information is not good enough. "Show the accuracy" is not good enough. Clearly there were KGB officers, operatives, and agents active in the U.S. during this period. More than many people on the left care to admit. Fine. Now there is more evidence. Agreed. Venona was a significant addition to the historic record. Agreed.

Where are there actual published quotes claiming Harry Magdoff was a spy? We know Bentley thought he was. We know people say he was close to the CPUSA. We know that the KGB wanted information about him from the Venona material, but that is (so far) original research. Your interpretation of how the Venona material--in your analysis--shows a connection to Harry Magdoff is fascinating. You should put up a website making your assertions. But none of that matters here. Where are the quotes from published material claiming Harry Magdoff was a KGB agent or witting information source for the KGB?--Cberlet 20:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I would be happy to respond, but truthfully it would be redundant of the material presented on this Talk page, and in the article. nobs 00:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet's original research

Cberlet, you are here yourself engaging in original research and yet you claim it is the work of others that violates this policy. For example:

Several historians and researchers claim that Harry Magdoff was among a number of Soviet intelligence sources within the U.S. government, but whether or not Magdoff was aware he was being used as an information source by the KGB is hotly contested and has never been proven.

Who says this is even an issue? Who has "contested" whether or not he witting? Besides Wiki editors?

document that from the KGB perspecitve, a number of persons were seen as information sources by the Soviet spy agency.

This is almost laughably pedantic. Who claims that Magdoff was not an information source?

Note: this includes a discussion of the difficulty of establishing that Harry Magdoff is the person being discussed in the Venona intercepts.

You are attempting to qualify an information source based on your own interpretation of it. Incidentally, the author of the single equivocation ("probably") pertaining to Magdoff is unclear, it is not repeated, and the memo goes on to say that this corroborates Elizabeth Bentley and that prosecution is undesirable because of the compromises involved in using the information.

Note: only ID of Harry Magdoff is that Elizabeth Bentley ID's him as member of "Perlo" group.

I like how in nearly every given reference you keep repeating "only"; "only" in fifteen separate instances is there a reference which describes Magdoff's involvement.

Note: No direct ID of Harry Magdoff as information source - only request for more information about him.

"No direct ID". Does every single reference require that, "Harry Magdoff provided us with XXXX information on YYYY date" or else you are going to qualify it as not meeting an arbitrary standard of yours in and of itself? The memo establishes a response in Moscow to information sent from New York where information is requested about members to complete their recruitment. "Magdoff, works on the WPB" is listed plain as day. Magdoff worked on the production board, and he was listed in very similar references from the earlier NY-Moscow cables.

"MAGDOFF - "KANT" [v]. GOOD GIRL's impressions: They are reliable FELLOWCOUNTRYMEN [ZEMLYaKI] [vi], politically highly mature; they want to help with information. They said that they had been neglected and no oone had taken any interest in their potentialities" Note: ID of "MAGDOFF - "KANT" is in context of discussing TWO people, not one person with the cover name "KANT." They are discussed as possible information sources by KGB agent. Not evident that they are aware that person is KGB agent. Note identifying "KANT" as Harry Magdoff is not in original transmission, and contradicts the text of the transmission.

These are completely the speculations of yourself and have no place in this article. I have no idea where your "two people" idea came from. As you should have noticed in the text there are "53 groups unrecoverable"; names of other people in this cable were not decrypted, and Magdoff comes at the end of the list. This singular identity is corroborated as far as other VENONA cables where the same "KANT" is mentioned as being on the WPB, and Magdoff is mentioned elsewhere. Also, the text is already cited.

Note: No direct mentions of Harry Magdoff in original communications

There is no single reference in these to "Harry Magdoff" no, but this doesn't matter.

Other problems:

Moving the Bentley stuff screws up the narrative and the footnotes. There is no reason for it.

Some claim the code name "Kant" in the Venona transcripts is Harry Magdoff.

This makes the section redundant.

Kant was identified by Arlington Hall cryptographers in the VENONA cables and by FBI counterintelligence investigators as being a Soviet information source described using the cover name "KANT" as of 1944.

Really? Kant was identified as Kant? No, the investigators identified Kant as Magdoff.

Note: reference to Magdoff is in this context: "All these documents are NMS ID and FCD Chiefs' requests for information related to Americans and naturalized American citizens working in various US Government agencies and private corporations, some of whom had been CPUSA members."

This is superfluous because the source is cited within the article.

Cberlet you have claimed a few times now that the work in the article is based on original research and our own look at the primary documents but we have cited multiple instances where government and independent researchers have come to the conclusion about Magdoff based upon their own look into primary sources. Yet to counter this you have given your own tendentious (and even simply erroneous) readings of the documents themselves with no citation to back that up; that is what constitutes original research. --TJive 20:32, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Please provide the quotes from published secondary sources (not primary documents where you have done original research) that claim that Harry Magdoff was a Soviet spy. So far there is one cite that has been provided that relies solely on Bentley. --Cberlet 20:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

This is incorrect. West is secondary (and he's a writer who specializes in this topic, too), and he is not relying on Bentley. And if you're referring to "The Secret World of American Communism" with your mention of one cite that .. relies solely on Bentley, it doesn't - see pp. 313-317. Noel (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? That's your only response? That you want direct quotes from the dozen publications listed here? Do you realize how long and redundant this article will be if we have to do that?

You are doing your own original research and so far you have yet to support the assertion on anyone else's part. --TJive 20:53, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

If there is so much of it, why is there a problem providing it? What I am trying to point out, is that most of the text on THIS page under discussion asserting Magdoff is a spy, is original research. If Romerstein or Klehr have made the assertion, by all means cite it. --Cberlet 20:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Chip there have already been numerous references given in the notes and published reference works. Even if you just follow the footnotes you will come up with examples like this one:

http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page44.html#_ftn41

Magdoff, an economist, was a source for Bentley’s Perlo network. He worked for the War Production Board in World War II and then for the Commerce Department. He appeared in 1944 Venona messages as a Soviet source under the cover name Kant. Tan appeared only once in the deciphered Venona traffic, in a 1945 message, and was unidentified; but the context was consistent with it being Magdoff. Tan, it appears, had replaced Kant as Magdoff’s cryptonym in 1945.

There are others given in the Talk:Harry Magdoff page from among the listed books. All this accomplishes is wasting everyone's time on a red herring to satisfy an objection that will quickly be replaced by another one on the morrow. --TJive 21:09, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

None of the above insertions were sourced, None. And this after the demand was made to footnote and source the material which was removed from the Harry Magdoff article. This is clearly, clearly an unfair burden being demanded. nobs 21:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Is it so difficult to understand my point? 90% of the text under discussion does not belong on the Harry Magdoff page. A handful of authors have read the primary documents and concluded Magdoff was in some way involved with providing information that turned up in KGB files. There are several indications that Magdoff was given a code name by the KGB. So what? "He appeared in 1944 Venona messages as a Soviet source under the cover name Kant." Good quote. Does not say Magdoff was a spy, does it? Try another one.--Cberlet 21:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow.

It does not say he was a "spy" because the term is imprecise and is not even being applied to Magdoff. Having "involvement in espionage" does not mean you are a "spy" in the traditional sense. Magdoff is being accused of supplying secret information to the Soviets, and thus a "source" having "involvement in espionage" on behalf of the Soviet Union. --TJive 21:25, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I should note that this, also, was discussed on the Harry Magdoff talk page a long time ago. --TJive 21:28, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Finally!!! Yes, but then why does it take up most of the Harry Magdoff article??? Here is what Victor Navasky concludes about the anticommunist interpretation of the Venona material:

In Appendix A to their book on Venona, Haynes and Klehr list 349 names (and code names) of people who they say "had a covert relationship with Soviet intelligence that is confirmed in the Venona traffic." They do not qualify the list, which includes everyone from Alger Hiss to Harry Magdoff, the former New Deal economist and Marxist editor of Monthly Review, and Walter Bernstein, the lefty screenwriter who reported on Tito for Yank magazine. It occurs to Haynes and Klehr to reprint ambiguous Venona material related to Magdoff and Bernstein but not to call up either of them (or any other living person on their list) to get their version of what did or didn't happen.

The reader is left with the implication--unfair and unproven--that every name on the list was involved in espionage, and as a result, otherwise careful historians and mainstream journalists now routinely refer to Venona as proof that many hundreds of Americans were part of the red spy network.

My own view is that thus far Venona has been used as much to distort as to expand our understanding of the cold war--not just because some researchers have misinterpreted these files but also because in the absence of hard supporting evidence, partially decrypted files in this world of espionage, where deception is the rule, are by definition potential time bombs of misinformation.[8]

Why do we believe documents from spys for any country?--Cberlet 21:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

How does Navasky know Klehr didn't call up Magdoff? Also, given that Magdoff took the 5th on this issue years ago, is there any reason to expect he'd talk about it now? Noel (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Victor Navasky is a partisan of the "Old Left" who has not actually given much thought to the documents in question. By the way I read that article long ago. It is basically a wishy-washy polemic which admits that there was espionage but insists that all these poor Stalinists were still being persecuted, still "patriotic" Americans interested in nothing but benign social change through the democratic process.

Yes, as the counterrevisionist scholars argue, Venona half-documents that some CP leaders knew about and may have been middlemen for the receipt of secrets, and perhaps they even recruited some spies. But missing from Venona is the experience of 99.9 percent of the million comrades who passed through the CPUSA during the 1930s and early '40s--stay-at-homes who contented themselves with reading (and sometimes shouting at) the Daily Worker, demonstrators who sang along with Peter Seeger and social activists who organized trade unions and rent strikes in the North and fought lynching and the poll tax in the South.

Such emotive writing has little relevance for facts being established here. However, I will support a reference to Victor Navasky believing that the evidence regarding Magdoff is ambiguous at best, if you really believe that helps the point. --TJive 21:35, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I suppose we are to take that as a procommunist interpretation of the material, which is guarded and defensive at best. But that much is evident in his own writing in the first place. --TJive 21:39, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for red-baiting me. It is too perfect. Actually I am not a fan of communism, and have published my criticisms of Leninism and Stalinism, which you can find on the web, if you actually bothered to do the research. Nor was I a fan of the Soviet union. And I am agnostic on the question of the actual relationship of Harry Magdoff to the KGB. I think the record is unclear. v. --Cberlet 22:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet, I never attacked you; in fact, I wasn't even talking about you. I simply inferred that Victor Navasky's interpretation was procommunist, as would also seem to be the implication of your own remarks. You seem to have attached a negative qualification to these researchers and historians being "anticommunist" as if that is either a character flaw or discredits the work. Certainly there are examples of the reverse, and yes Navasky is one of them. --TJive 22:14, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Here is the fully qualified text from Haynes & Klehr Appendix A, pg. 339 - 340; it was paraphrased on the Venona project page so as not to be copyvio.

APPENDIX A

Source Venona: Americans and U.S. Residents

Who Had Covert Relationships with Soviet

Intelligence Agencies

This annotated list of 349 names includes U.S. citizens, noncitizen immigrants, and permanent residents of the United States who had a covert relationship with Soviet intelligence that is confirmed in the Venona traffic. It does not include Soviet intelligence officers operating legally under diplomatic cover but does show four Soviet intelligence officers operating illegally and posing as immigrants.

Of these 349 persons, 171 are identified by true names and 178 are known only by a cover name found in the Venona cables. A great many cover names were never identified. Many of these, however, are not listed here because the context indicates that the cover names refer to Soviet personnel operating under legal cover or because no judgment about the status of the person behind the cover name is possible. Only unidentified cover names that probably refer to Americans are included here.

Because cover names were changed from time to time, it is possible that a few of the unidentified cover names refer to persons known by another cover name or to persons named in the clear in another message. Some of the persons behind these unidentified cover names are very likely to be identified in appendix B as Americans who had a compromising relationship with Soviet intelligence but are not known to be documented in the Venona decryptions.

The persons identified in appendixes A and B represent only a partial listing of the total number of Americans and others who provided assistance to Soviet espionage in the Stalin era. The National Security Agency {p.340} followed Soviet intelligence cable traffic only for a few years in World War II and decrypted only a small portion of that traffic.

Notes cite Venona messages regarding the person in question. Those persons whose activities are discussed in the text are provided with brief annotations, while those who are not are given fuller description. The Perlo and Silvermaster groups, to which some of these persons belonged, were founded as covert CPUSA networks but eventually were turned over to the KGB. Cover names are given in italic type, and true names are given in roman type.

Will be happy to provide preface to Appendix D, if necessary. nobs 21:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The weight of the evidence, when taken as a whole in context, including the evidence from Soviet archives, points to the conclusion similiar to what the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive records. It should be noted, nowhere in the ONCIX publications do the words "alleged", "allegation", "allegedly", "supposed", or "supposedly" occur in reference to Elizabeth Bentley naming the Perlo group or its members; (the word "allegation" occurs once with reference to Bentley and Hiss). Rather, the ONCIX describes Bentley's account with "accuracy" and "confirms". Further evidence can be aduced from references to the FBI, whose information regarding the Perlo group orginated with Bentley. nobs 21:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I have summarized the discussion. What is left is one sentence.--Cberlet 22:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I had assumed you made a mistake. That is not an appropriate form to leave this article in as it stands, especially when it is up for Vfd. I seriously hope you are not entertaining that this is all that gets put into the Magdoff article. --TJive 22:37, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

It accurately summarizes the discussion. Everything else is POV original research. What more is needed? A few cites. Go ahead and and a few. No problem.--Cberlet 22:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Right. That's about enough of that. The material isn't going down the memory hole just because you keep repeating something. --TJive 22:49, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite serious.--Cberlet 00:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Summary

In summation, once again we see the flaw of arguing a conclusionary premise, i.e. begining an arguement or investigation with a foreordained conclusion. This has the tendency to deny evidence which fails to support a preordained conclusion. The historical method requires contemporaneous corroboration, corroborative evidence gathered upon a timeline, which may not even seek to make a judgement, merely a collection of facts. Narrative provides the wherewithal to make sense of the facts. nobs 01:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

In summation, nobs and TJive believe that a biographical entry on Harry Magdof should consist primarily of their original document research into one disputed aspect of Magdoff's life. When asked to transform their huge block of text into something shorter, they refuse. When asked to replace their original research with concise material cited to published secondary sources, they refuse.

This next sentence summarizes the mountain of material they have repeatedly insisted is needed in the Magdoff text:

"Several historians and researchers claim that Harry Magdoff was among a number of Soviet intelligence sources within the U.S. government, but whether or not Magdoff was aware he was being used as an information source by the KGB is hotly contested and has never been proven."

That's 274 characters, with spaces.

The current material on the Magdoff page not related to this dispute consists of 5,323 characters.

The material concerning the allegations against Magdoff here under discussion currently consist of 13,353 characters.

Does this seem fair to anyone else? It does not seem fair to me.

How about 2400 characters laying out the case against Magdoff and cited to actual claims in published secondary sources such as Klehr or Romerstein or the published counterintelligence report; and then 2400 characters of rebutal cited to actual text in published secondary sources? That might be fair. But a 13,353 character attack on Magdoff based primarily on original research complete with illustrations is just absurd.--Cberlet 01:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry Cberlet came to this discussion late, and did not participate when a wikiclique began wholesale deletions of a balanced factual presentation on the Harry Magdoff article, absolutely denying the very existence of the evidence. It is curious, that the arguement now seems to be primary sources are not primary source material. I would have preferred a merge of the original two versions, but demands were made to support the claims, so this presentation is the result. No it appears too much. nobs 02:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, sorry but Wiki articles can be edited at any time by anyone. Life here is tough. What matters now is a fair and reasonable NPOV solution. I am not part of a wikiclique. I plan to keep on editing.--Cberlet 02:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet the original claim has always been there is not enough evidence cited to support the material and now that there is (and there can be plenty more given) it's that the evidence is too overwhelming?? Oh well, it was asked for, and it's certainly notable. As of yet you have not demonstrated how any of this is either POV or original research. You made a notable contribution (Navasky) and that's fine. But your own personal view doesn't give license to destroy material wholesale. --TJive 03:34, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't seek to destroy it, I sought to move this gigantic sidebar to its own page where it belongs if it is to stay on Wiki. I even suggested we rename it to be less POV. I did not start the VfD nor did I start the request to merge.--Cberlet 12:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

(De-indenting): FWIW, although I'm on the "Magdoff was a source" side of the fence, I agree (as y'all may have seen at the VfD) that this material is wayyyy too lengthy to put in the Magdoff article. As I keep saying, it was not a major part of his career; I think it plus the resulting impact on his career are worth two paragraphs - one for the activity itself, and one for the consequences.

The suggested text for the Magdoff article looks like a good start to me, although I differ with the Several historians and researchers claim part. First, it's not just "several historians and researchers", it's also the government (both signals intelligence and counter-intelligence people). Also, does anyone know of a contemporary historian of this area who disputes the stance that Magdoff was a source? The "several" has a tendency to make it sound like there are those who disagree, and I know of none. Second, the "claim" part is I think a bit too soft - there is considerable evidence, counting up the Comintern archives, etc, so it's not just speculation. And I'd drop the never been proven - it's duplicative (and in any event, some people think it is proved - because if Bentley's charge that he gave her "espionage material" is true, he had to have known where they were going).

Whether this page is encyclopaedic, well, I'm somewhat dubious - it's really a bit too detailed. Maybe the book list could get recycled in an article about the Soviet spy rings in the US in the 1940's, or something, but this is really devolving into a level of detail where it's more like a journal article on the issue at this point, giving all the original sources - not really encyclopaedic.

However, that brings us back all the way to the start of this problem, which is that if we briefly summarize contemporary secondary writings, they all say flatly that Magdoff was a source, e.g. he was a member[] of a new network (Nigel West, "Venona"). Sigh... Noel (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I totally agree that the main article should indicate that several published sources stat flatly that Magdoff was used as a source of information by the KGB, as long as there is also text that explores the dispute over what that actually means. For too long the large amount of text and illusrations were designed to imply that Magdoff was a Soviet spy. That was just unfair. I also was serious when I broke this text away from the main article as a sidebar--I just was too glib when I wrote the Title. My mistake, for which I have apologized and supported a renaming. --Cberlet 16:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Noel, provided these parameters are met: (1) there is no disputation or challenge to the conclusion of Magdoff's involvement, or the credibility and and intetrpretation of the evidence; (2) there is no questioning of the person, character or credibitlity of Elizabeth Bentley; (3) nowhere should the words "alleged", "allegedly", "allegation", "supposed", "supposedly", "McCarthy", "McCarthyism", or "Red Scare" appear; (4) Magdoff is placed in Category:Soviet spies. If we can agree on these parameters, I have no objection to paring it down to two paragraphs. I will attempt to make a full tentative proposal sometime today. nobs 17:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Let me in turn disagree with you somewhat! :-)

• First, I disagree fairly strongly with 4, because even if he was a witting source who handed over documents, that doesn't make him a "spy". There is no "bright line" between spies and non-spies, there's a long continuum from full-time intelligence officers to network heads to witting sources to unwitting sources, with fine gradations in between all the way up. I'd rather reserve the term "spy" for full-time officers, and people at that end of the spectrum.
• Second, I think 1) may be a bit stiff. For one, I want to see Bentley's exact testimony first - if she said "he handed me documents", fine, but the one quote I did see somewhere online here left it somewhat fuzzy (although Klehr states flatly that she said something of that nature). For another, without any evidence (that I know of) of what he handed over, I don't mind a few low-key "weasel words" - he certainly doesn't seem to have been a very major source.
• Third, while I am basically in agreement with 3), particularly insofar as references to "McCarthyism" go, it may go a bit far. There really isn't very much at all on Magdoff (which is part of the reason this is such a hot dispute), so a few mild "weasel words" may not be amiss.

Anyway, this whole blowup has had one good side-effect - I've been writing articles on various other people at a good clip as they get discussed - one reason I sometimes go silent for a day or so! :-) Noel (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Tentative proposal

(1) The Harry Magdoff article should be merged back to this version [9], which can include other subsequent, relevent biographical information; (2) "Conspiracy allegations about Harry Magdoff" moved to Harry Magdoff and espionage with a link from the bio page to this; (3) nowhere on either page is there to be a challenge to the conclusion or interpretation of the evidence; (4) the word's "alleged", "allegedly", "allegation", "supposed", "supposedly", "McCarthy", "McCarthyism", "Red Scare", "conspiracy", "traitor", or "treason" are to appear on neither page; (5) there is to be no challenge to the person, character or credibitlity of Elizabeth Bentley; (6) Harry Magdoff is to be placed in Category:Soviet spies; (7) in whatever subheading dealing with post WWII espionage and later life, I have no objection to whatever apologetics or explaination (however extensive) to justify a lifelong committment to an ideological cause, provided it does not challenge the interpretation of the underlying evidence. nobs 19:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

This is not a compromise. Bentley is widely considered a dubious source. It is outlandish to list Magdoff as a Soviety spy. A handful of people suggest that. Is it possible? Perhaps. Is it fair based on the record? No. Please make a more reasonable proposal.--Cberlet 20:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it's accurate to say that Bentley was widely considered a dubious source in the 60's - for a number of reasons, part of which was a reaction to McCarthyism, part of which was her tasteless autobiography, part of which was defensiveness on the left, part of which was the lack of convictions based on her evidence, etc. However, evidence which has come to light after her death - evidence she could have known nothing of, e.g. ComIntern archives, Venona, etc - has tended to corroborate her claims in all cases where her claims did intersect with the hard data in those other sources. This is key: with so much of what she said being confirmed, and little (or no - I don't know of any) contradiction, you have to rate her credibility fairly highly. I still apply the same degree of care with her evidence that I apply to any single account (the Rashomon effect), but in general I count it as pretty solid. Also, given how recent it was (she talked to the FBI in '45, when it was all pretty recent), there shouldn't be a lot of memory issues. Does anyone know of any claim of hers that has been debunked? Noel (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I would include, Bentley's testimony has always been divided into two groups (1) those she knew face-to-face and could not deny knowing her, and (2) those she never met, but recieved material through "cutouts". It is the second group which as always vigorously denied any association and questioned her credibility. Magdoff does not fall into this group. My tentative rewrite seeks a compromise by simply leaving Bentley out completely, and rests on the other fruits of investigation, which was already ongoing vis-a-vis Venona prior to her deposition, and commenced with the FBI afterward. As the Venona article states, no one person knew in the government in 1945 & 1946, there already were two investigations moving along separate tracks. nobs 22:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The alternative is merging the full weight of the evidence. nobs 20:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Here is a tentative merged rewrite User:Nobs01/Harry Magdoff/alt2; please note, the References could be cut down to what is necessary and relelvent. nobs 21:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I did most of the work on the major revision and checked through all the given sources, but I will support a trimmed down version so long as it generally goes by Nobs's proposal implicitly regarding weasel words or suggesting an equivalence between Navasky's polemics and the significant research of a dozen others. --TJive 23:12, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

From Neptune and Pluto

This is an example of why I am objecting to these claims. It is clear to me that you cannot see what I see as the constant misrepresentation and distortion of the underlying documents, but it is very clear to me. I have no doubt that you see me doing the same thing. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. We read the same documents and articles, and reach wildly different conclusions. I am not challenging your good faith. I am saying we are standing on different planets.

Here is your proposed summery:

Magdoff's complicity in espionage was corroborated by a message exhumed from the NKVD archives in Moscow in the 1990s. A message from the head of KGB foreign intelligence operations, Lt. General Pavel M. Fitin, to Secretary General of the Comintern Georgi Dimitrov dated 29 September 1944 requested information on Magdoff related to his recruitment into the espionage service of the Soviet Union. [10]

Let's look at the article and its footnote:

A NKVD/NKGB Report to Stalin: A Glimpse into Soviet Intelligence in the United States in the 1940's, by Vladimir Pozniakov [11]

By Pozniakov, Vladimir

The broader spectrum of tasks facing Soviet intelligence in the US required additional personnel, both Soviet and local. The pre-war staff of the NKGB and GRU rezidenturas was rather modest. For example, in the New York consulate and in Amtorg there were only 13 intelligence officers, most of them well known to the FBI.13 Also, because the USSR and the US had become wartime allies, both branches of Soviet intelligence had to limit their usage of the clandestine structures of the American Communist Party (CPUSA).14 The usage of local Communists was also limited by two other reasons: many of them were well known to the FBI, while many others were drafted after Pearl Harbor by the US Army and Navy15 or interned, as had happened to a number of CPUSA members of Japanese extraction on the West Coast.16

The lack of trained personnel in 1941 and early 1942 was soon supplemented by the growing flow of Soviet military and civilian specialists coming to the United States to work in the Soviet Purchasing Commission (SPC) and other agencies that mushroomed after the USSR became a part of the Lend-Lease program. According to Feklisov, by 1944 the staff of Amtorg and the SPC in New York City alone reached some 2,500, with an equal number of officials, engineers and other specialists serving at the SPC branch in Washington, DC.17 The majority of these people worked directly or indirectly either for the GRU or NKVD.18 Also, the limitations imposed on the usage of the CPUSA membership did not mean that Soviet intelligence ceased recruiting both Americans and non-Americans in America.19

Footnote:

19 Feklisov, pp. 65-105; M. Vorontsov, Capt. 1st rank, Chief Navy Main Staff, Intelligence Directorate, and Petrov, Military Commissar, NMS, ID to G. Dimitrov, 15 August 1942, No. 49253ss, typewritten original; G. Dimitrov to Pavel M. Fitin, 20 November 1942, No. 663, t/w copy; P. M. Fitin to G. Dimitrov, 14 July 1944, No. 1/3/10987, t/w copy; P. M. Fitin to G. Dimitrov, 29 September 1944, No. 1/3/16895, t/w copy. All these documents are NMS ID and FCD Chiefs' requests for information related to Americans and naturalized American citizens working in various US Government agencies and private corporations, some of whom had been CPUSA members. The last two are related to a certain Donald Wheeler (an OSS official), Charles Floto or Flato (who in 1943 worked for the "...Dept. of Economic Warfare"), and Harry Magdoff (War Production Board)-the request dated 29 Sept. 1944-and to Judith Coplon who according to the FCD information worked for the Dept. of Justice.-RTsKhIDNI, f. 495, op. 74, d. 478, l. 7; d. 484, l. 34; d. 485, l. 10, 14, 17, 31, 44.

Now let's trace the key document:

P. M. Fitin to G. Dimitrov, 29 September 1944, No. 1/3/16895 [12]

Please provide any information at your disposal on the following members of the Comparty of America:

1. Charles Floto / Flato /, in 1943 worked in the US Office of Economic Warfare

2. Donald Wheeler / Veeler /, works in the Office of Strategic Services.

3. Kramer / Kreimer, works in a government institution in Washington.

4. Edward Fitzgerald, works on the WPB [War Production Board].

5. Magdoff, works on the WPB.

6. Harold Glas[s]er, currently on assignment outside the US.

7. P[e]rlo, works on the WPB.

What is the result?

1. We know that Dimitrov thinks Magdoff is a member of the Communist Party USA
2. We know Dimitriv is asking for more information about Magdoff.
3. We know the KGB is busy trying to get members and friend of the CPUSA to provide information to the Soviet Union.
4. We know that if Magdoff is actually a member of the Communist Party USA
5. We do not know if Magdoff has been recruited as a KGB agent of informer
6. We do not know if Magdoff is aware that a member of the Perlo group is passing information to the KGB
7. We do not know that Dimitrov "requested information on Magdoff related to his recruitment into the espionage service of the Soviet Union" or if Magdoff was ever recruited.
8. We do not know that "Magdoff's complicity in espionage was corroborated."

So again, I ask for a compromise that recognizes that one of us is apparently from Neptune, and the other from Pluto.  :-) --Cberlet 22:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

That is indeed a valid point as you have argued the case. There could be inserted an extensive narrative on how an espionage organization vets the bona fidas of a source, how this is routine, how they do not accept any information that is purported to come from a high level government official, and how they go through an extenisve qualifying process to assure they are not being fed disinformation before relying on such material, etc. etc. etc. Not to be arguementative, but we are making progress. The word "complicity" could be watered down to "involvement", for example, still carries the same thought, yet less explosive. nobs 01:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

McCarthyite?

You want to ban the use of the term McCarthyism???

Isn't this you on the Ludwig von Mises Institue talk page:

This is not the first instance of the SPLC using McCarthyite smear tactics against anyone who questions thier research methods or thier motives. And I beleive that can be verified. nobs 03:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

oops.  :-) --Cberlet 22:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

"McCarthyism" (and associated neologisms) has connotations for which it is frequent in common, casual discourse. That is much different from the inference which comes from slipping it into an encyclopedia with no relevant cite and completely out of context from the known facts. --TJive 23:10, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Let's not get diverted from the issues under discussion. The above reference uses the term McCarthyism in its accepted sense of meaning, i.e. making a broad smear (neo-confederate, racist, white supremacist, holocaust denier) without evidence, to destroy an opponent. I would prefer at this point not to get too far afield of the ongoing discussion, because it is constructive. But the evidence will prove (1) Magdoff came under suspicion long before Joe McCarthy; (2) Joe McCarthy never subpeaned Magdoff before his committee; (3) Magdoff did testify before another Committee in 1953, the SISS, and plead the Fifth; (4) the underlying suspsicions of (a) CPUSA membership and (b) espionage have proven factual; (5) Magdoff, unlike Whittaker Chambers, Elizabeth Bentley, Louis Budenz, Nathaniel Weyl, et al, never broke with the Party and remains to this day unrepentent; (6) Magdoff evidentally was perfectly willing to allow others to be persecuted in a "witch hunt", and hide behind innocent persons, when he knew the facts. This speaks volumns about the man. But let's just not go there for now. Suffice it to say, Magdoff has no claim whatsoever to being a "victim" of Joseph McCarthy, McCarthyism, the Red Scare, or red baiting. nobs 01:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Overbearing

I disagree with Jnc that the article as originally extracted is too long or unencyclopedic--I think it should be merged back into the main article--but I do believe the generic VENONA comments (both pro and con) are entirely overloading the material. --TJive 02:05, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Simple choice: accept the compromise and save face, or merge the full weight of evidence, and any rebuttals likewise will be rebutted. nobs 02:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Outright falsifications

What's the difference?

Several historians and researchers, as well as several U.S. government intelligence agencies, have come to the conclusion that Harry Magdoff was among a number of Soviet intelligence sources within the U.S. government. What is disputed is the extent to which Magdoff was aware that information from him was being provided to the KGB. There is no published source that provides evidence that Magdoff was an espionage agent."

"The U.S. government, as well as several historians and researchers, have come to the conclusion that Harry Magdoff was among a number of Soviet intelligence sources within the U.S. government."

The first sentence is accurate and fair. The second sentence is an outright misrepresentaion and fabrication. The U.S. government has never issued a word about Magdoff. To claim that reports from a handful of U.S intelligence agencies represent the "U.S. government: is false. Flat out false. POV. Bad research. Does not belong on Wiki. And the phrase "among a number of Soviet intelligence sources within the U.S. government" leaves the impression that Magdoff was a spy. Not proven. A smear. And, yes, typical of McCarthyism. It is weasel language. Enough of this nonsense. Some people say in print that Magdoff was a spy or "intelligence source." Some people refute the claims based on their reluctance to make assumptions based on the record produce by any spy agency. Report both sides in an NPOV way. Stop this tiresome hypebole. --Cberlet 03:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I say U.S. government because it's not only "counterintelligence", it's published conclusions of the FBI, ONCIX, NSA, and a statutory Senate committee. You're just playing small time semantics in an attempt to water down the effect of the conclusion where the weight of claims stands on one side.

"Soviet intelligence sources" does not even say someone is a spy, it just says he was among Soviet intelligence sources; the impression doesn't have to be left in the reader because it is flat out stated by the primary and secondary sources.

Frankly you now look like you're just arguing for its own sake. --TJive 03:44, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Some people refute the claims based on their reluctance to make assumptions based on the record produce by any spy agency.

Where? It's been an open question for weeks and nothing has been brought to the table. --TJive 03:46, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Other views

The Nation (1) clearly has a conflict of interest here, two of thier correspondents are named in Venona decrypts; (2) The Nation states a falsehood on its face, attacking Haynes and Klehr for "not qualifying" thier list. Here are the "qualifiers" to thier list:

APPENDIX A Source Venona: Americans and U.S. Residents Who Had Covert Relationships with Soviet Intelligence Agencies

APPENDIX B Americans and U.S. Residents Who Had Covert Relationships with Soviet Intelligence Agencies but Were Not Identified in the Venona Cables

APPENDIX C Foreigners Temporarily in the United States Who Had Covert Relationships with Soviet Intelligence Agencies

APPENDIX D Americans and U.S. Residents Targeted as Potential Sources by Soviet Intelligence Agencies

APPENDIX E Biographical Sketches of Leading KGB Officers Involved in Soviet Espionage in theUnited States

This an attack which is false on its face by a source unqualified to offer an NPOV. It does not belong in this article. I should also say, it may not be advisable to make other attempts at insertions like this in this article, as there is nothing to prevent me from reinserting the information back into the Harry Magdoff article, which I will do if this occurs again. nobs 03:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Stop threatening and edit fairly. You folks fill the article with original research, and then delete my cited text from published material warning about the perils of research into the Venona papers. Totally POV, biased, and unfair. You act as if you own the page. The lead is biased and a misrepresentation as you left it. The "government" does not have an opinion on Magdoff. The Venona decrypts reveal who the KGB used or sought as information sources. That's how it should be written. --Cberlet 11:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, TJive, that was a constructive edit re: government agencies & researchers.--Cberlet 16:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet, you're welcome. I am fine with the lead in right now (as changed by both you and I), so long as it is clear that this is not a matter of the claims of one or two counterintelligence groups or individuals. However, nothing on the page is original research, and once again that has not been substantiated.

Nobs, a quote from another perspective does not have to be NPOV, a substantial refute, or even very accurate. The claim only becomes more notable because Nation editors are named in VENONA, but that obvious interest or errors should duly be pointed out in a manner similar to what you have said. It's worth quoting at a small length IMO, but it should not take up a huge block for the sake of reciprocity. --TJive 16:24, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Original Research

When editors post links to primary documwents and then draw conclusions from those documents, it is original research.

For example, this link: http://wikisource.org/wiki/Fitin_to_Dimitrov%2C_29_September_1944

is used to back up the original research claim that:

"Evidence was unearthed in the Comintern Archives in the late 1980s, Lt. General Pavel M. Fitin, the head of KGB foreign intelligence operations in Moscow, requested of Secretary General of the Comintern Georgi Dimitrov information to complete Magdoff's recruitment. [6] "

This is original research. And a glance at the document shows that it is biased original research. It misrepresents the content of the document.

What would not be original research, would be the published conclusions about Magdoff that it is claimed appear in:

"...a book by historians Harvey Klehr, John Earl Haynes, and Fridrikh Igorevich Firsov [7], and also in the memoirs of Alexandre Feklisov [8] (the Soviet Case Officer for Julius Rosenberg and Klaus Fuchs), published in 2001."

As I have requested repeatedly, please supply the actual language used by these published secondary sources to describe Magdoff.

_______________________________________________________ Fill in the blank.

If Magdoff only appears in a list and in copies of primary documents, then the only cite is to the language used to introduce the list or the primary documents.--Cberlet 19:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Please see [13] regarding citation of above material, photographically reproduced in original Russian, with English language translation, Harvey Klehr, John Earl Haynes, and Fridrikh Igorevich Firsov, The Secret World of American Communism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), Document 90, Another reference to the same Document [14]. I likewise have made a posting in regard to the same document citing page number & "photographically reproduced". Will be happy to do so again, if need be. nobs 20:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I have reviewed these documents and claims, and discover that once again you have extrapolated information not in the underlying documents in a way that favors your claims but actually misrepresentes the contents of the primary source materials and secondary source materials.--Cberlet 22:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Every time Ruy Lopez inserts text into this article, Nobs reverts it and adds more of his side of the debate. How is this constructive? I think this whole controvery could be summarized in the one paragraph I already proposed. I was serious. Most of the material on this page is original research. Vast and vague statements are cited to vast and opinionated documents. Few actual quotations specifically regarding Magdoff have been produced. What is the point? Some people suspect Magdoff was a spy, some say he was an "agent of influence," whatever that is supposed to mean, others say it is clear the KGB saw Magdoff as a source of information, but argue that should not imply he was a witting intelligence agent or informant. One paragraph. That's all it is worth. If folks want to put up a website devoted to reliving the McCarthy Period through the Venona papers, they should do so. They can have a special page on Magdoff. We should link to it. But most of this original research on the current page does not belong on Wiki.--Cberlet 14:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet you have had over a week to substantiate how any of this is original research and failed to do so. All of the claims in the article are based on secondary sources which have examined the primary documents in question; they are included because they are public domain and help to emphasize available evidence. Simply repeating yourself, much less inserting your own particular analysis of the cables, is not enough to countervail this. --TJive 21:40, August 5, 2005 (UTC)