Talk:Harry Magdoff/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

original research

Any attempt to reinstall McCarthyite conspiracy theories and rants into this article will be vigorously resisted. 172 | Talk 12:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Nobs's writings were sourced rather specifically. Ad hominems (and obscenities) are not a trump card, especially fifty years after the fact. --TJive 13:44, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
He is not using secondary sources. What he is doing is "original research," a nice way of writing saying spewing defamatory bullshit. 172 | Talk 15:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

172, you need to be a bit more clear in your charge. Were it true that he is "not using secondary sources", this would not itself constitute a violation of no original research. As the article states:

The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

Original research is research that creates primary sources or secondary sources. [The emphases are mine.]

I looked at the version which you challenged and changed; I have not been sufficiently moved to look through the entire history thus far. In that version of the article, he gave the following sources:

An Encyclopedia Britannica entry on the "International Brigades" in support of the claim that, "the Abraham Lincoln Brigade [was] a Comintern organization that fought in the Spanish Civil War." The entry is not fully available but the article states that, "the International Brigades were recruited, organized, and directed by the Comintern, with headquarters in Paris. The U.S. contingent called itself the Abraham Lincoln Batallion." The encylopedia is being used in this context as a secondary source, and his factual claim is thus not novel.

A 91 page FBI document for the claim that, "An FBI investigation later revealed that Magdoff made many false statements regarding his employment after graduation in order to obtain employment with the federal government." I have not read through the entire document to establish the veracity of this, and it does not appear to be word search compatible; this document, in the meantime, could be construed as either a primary document or a secondary one depending on how it is used.

An article which is purported by Nobs to be a "United States Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive" history, hosted on the website of the Federation of American Scientists. He cites page 31 to state that, "According to United States Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive (ONCIX) Official History, Magdoff was a member of the Perlo group of Soviet spies (See pg. 31)." The relevant text of page 31 is as follows:

The following were members of the Victor Perlo Network....Harry Magdoff: Statistical Division of WPB and Office of Emergency Management; Bureau of Research and Statistics, WTB; Tools Division, War Production Board; Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce Department.

The reference is being used as a secondary source in which the claim is being attributed to it.

A web page of historian John Earl Haynes on which it appears posted what purports to be notes on a KGB document analyzed by "Alexander Vassiliev, a former KGB officer". The link directs to the following text:

3. “Tan” – Harry Magdoff, former employee of the Commerce Department.[41]

Which refers to this annotation by John Earl Haynes:

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.

These sources (the document and the annotation) are provided for the claim:

Magdoff was identified by Arlington Hall cryptographers in the Venona project and FBI counterintelligence investigators as a Soviet source under the cover name "Kant" in 1944. Code name "Tan", which appears in the 1948 Gorsky Memo, and appears once in deciphered 1945 Venona traffic, according to researcher John Earl Haynes, is consistent with Magdoff. Code name "Tan", as the evidence suggests, replaced "Kant" as Magdoff’s cryptonym in 1945.

Part of which is attributed directly to Haynes, the rest of it is already suggested by him.

An article by Vladimir Pozniakov, "a Senior Researcher at the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow," published by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Cold War International History Project, apparently hosted by the Smithsonian Institute. Nobs's claim, in reference to this article, is that:

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 September 29, 1944 requested information on Magdoff related to his recruitment into the espionage service of the Soviet Union.

Magdoff's name appears within the 18th 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.

It is in reference to this passage (itself positioned after the previous footnote):

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.

Since this article itself attempts to correlate primary sources in interpreting data, it is a secondary source and the claim staked by Nobs seems to me a plain reading of what is written there.

"Allen Weinstein and Alexander Vassiliev, The Haunted Wood: Soviet Espionage in America—the Stalin Era (New York: Random House, 1999)", a book co-authored by the individual whose material is quoted as a primary document in another source given by Nobs. I do not see how this could be cited as a primary source.

"Harvey Klehr, John Earl Haynes, and Fridrikh Igorevich Firsov, The Secret World of American Communism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995)", the second of whom annotated the aforementioned primary document. I do not see how this could be cited as a primary source.

"Alexander Vassiliev, Untitled Notes on Anatoly Gorsky’s December 1948 Memo on the Failed American Networks (2003)", what would seem to be by now an obvious reference though I can not locate the source of this specific title.

"Feklisov, Alexandre, 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", which has no readily apparent relevance but would hardly seem to be a primary source.

Your suggestion that he is conducting inappropriate original research is quite baffling then, considering that every contentious analytical claim is referenced, quite explicitly, and typically attributed directly to that source. Unless he is one of the individuals cited in this article, then he is actually following what is officially encouraged policy:

[R]esearch that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is called source-based research, and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

I would politely suggest that you tone down the rancorous language and instead focus specifically on concerns you may have regarding the sources themselves or the presentation of information, rather than deleting content wholesale with nothing but personal attacks and vague threats. It is neither helpful in attempting to resolve such a dispute nor does it conform with expected policy and behavior. --TJive 17:18, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

We only have evidence here that he was hounded by the FBI during the McCarthy era, and hardly anything corroborating the claim that he was a Soviet spy by secondary sources. I do not regret my language. Wikipedia will not be used to turn the clock back to the McCarthy era. 172 | Talk 17:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
We only have evidence here that he was hounded by the FBI during the McCarthy era
I am not sure what this is in reference to. McCarthy was in control of the PSI not the FBI. I'm not sure what the date of the FBI report listed is from, but it does not concern the more specific references to documentation regarding his activities (rather the assertion that he lied in order to get a job); they come not only from counter-intelligence but research into KGB sources.
hardly anything corroborating the claim that he was a Soviet spy by secondary sources.
I just got through explaining in a bit of detail how the references were being used as secondary sources and in many instances were attributing the info and the claim directly to those sources. I am not sure what standard you are using here or that any would suffice.
Wikipedia will not be used to turn the clock back to the McCarthy era.
That is a rather anti-encylopedic and ahistorical attitude to correlating facts and valid information. Wikipedia is not supposed to be either an activist or agenda-driven tool. If evidence comes to light which calls for a revision of history then history should be revised. However, this article does not concern "the McCarthy era". It concerns Magdoff. I'm not sure if you are aware of VENONA or the research into Soviet archives after the collapse, much less the work of such as Weinstein, Vassiliev, Haynes, Klehr, and so forth. That is no excuse to deny that this all exists. And condescendingly referring to Nobs' gathering of this known and published information as "bullshit" and "detective work" is neither helpful or particularly relevant, as he is not going further than what the references say or violating policy in his work. --TJive 16:32, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for a very well studied presentation of the evidence. I might include, the source included within the text from the FAS website is a duplicate reprint of that available listed at the bottom the page from the Official History of the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive (ONCIX) edited by Frank J. Rafalko , entitled, A Counterintelligence Reader, vol. 3 chap. 1, pg. 31. The two are identical and are Open Source information. Nobs01 19:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

This isn't the place for your detective work, which is not adequately corroborated by secondary sources. 172 | Talk 19:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
OK, you want a secondary source, here's one: Nigel West, Venona: The Greatest Secret of the Cold War (HarperCollins, London, 1999), which describes Magdoff as a "member[] of a new network" (one containing Perlo and others). There's a bit more about him in this book, but I won't bother to type it in. Noel (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Oh, here's another secondary source (mentioned above, but here's what it says): it turns out I do have The Secret World of American Communism, which is about the contents of Comintern archives released to Western researchers in the 1990's, It's published by Yale University, hardly a source of disreputable, shadowy, works.
The Comintern memo (Document 90) of 28/29 September 1944 (no doubt a response to the Venona May messages given below, since it names the same list of people) which it provides includes the entry "5. Magadoff, works on the WPB." This book goes on to say:
Of the seven names in the message, Elizabeth Bentley named six of them ... Harry Mogadoff ... as sources from whom she received espionage material.
I know Elizabeth Bentley is something of a bête noire on the left, but alas for them, she's the real thing. Pavel Sudoplatov, a two-star general in the NKVD who ran the NKVD's "Administration for Special Tasks", says in his autobiography Special Tasks 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 (including Mogadoff) to the US authorities. Noel (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Note on FBI Silvermaster group file, pgs. 182-188 in original, will be found on pgs. 3-9 in PDF format. Nobs01 19:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Another secondary source: 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), pg. 108, lists Harry Magdoff as a member of the Perlo group. nobs 20:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Note on above source material cited by TJive: Allen Weinstein is currently the Archivist of the United States; see American Histrical Association, Allen Weinstein Becomes Ninth Archivist of the United States. nobs 20:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Reference to McCarthy

Reverted and placed here pending sourcing that Harry Magdoff ever testified before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

Magdoff became vulnerable during the McCarthy Era. nobs 23:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I would hope all issues can be resolved without an edit war. In regards to this issue, there definitely were "security concerns" regarding Magdoff. Those "security concerns" did not originate with charges by Joseph McCarthy. No evidence has been presented that Magdoff was a "victim" of McCarthy. Magdoff's security concerns have been well documented. I would very much like to complete a well rounded bio-page of Magdoff, entailling all aspects of what appears to be a very interesting life. Hiding facts, however, and invoking distortions, IMHO, will ultimatley serve no purpose and fail. I look forward to cooperation with any serious student of Magdoff. nobs 15:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Venona

Before I looked at this article Nobs01 states as historical fact that: Magdoff was a member of the Perlo group of Soviet spies. Magdoff appears in 1944 Venona messages as a Soviet source under the cover name "Kant".

OK, well first of all Google shows the words "magdoff", "kant" and "venona" appear on exactly four web pages ("hiss", "ales" and "venona" appear on over 700). One of these pages is Nobs01's Wikipedia entry, so it's really three entries. One is from a white supremacist site, which seems to be quoting from another source. One is from some far-right red-under-every-bed author, who basically accuses pretty much every known figure on the left, whether communist or not, of being a Soviet spy - Alger Hiss, Harry Magdoff, Harry Dexter White, even IF Stone for God's sake. The other is a memo referring to the original Venona message, and the speculations of those at the time, let's see what that was:

[53 groups unrecoverable] MAGDOFF - "KANT".

So US intelligence was not able to retrieve this whole sentence, just the last two words, Magdoff and Kant. Everything else is just a speculation. Now first of all, who is to say this is Harry Magdoff? There are Magdoff's living in California, Nevada, Louisiana, Vermont, Massachusetts. Why is is Harry Magdoff? More importantly, spies never have their name transmitted by the Soviets. Code names are always used. So if his name was transmitted, it actually would help his case.

Nobs01 is putting all of this wild speculation about Venona into Wikipedia as factual encyclopedia articles. In fact, I just looked and see IF Stone is being accused of being a Soviet spy as well. Why not just go edit the FDR and Truman articles and accuse them of "twenty years of treason" like McCarthy did? It's quite ridiculous we have to waste our time cleaning up after people putting in the kind of stuff the John Birch Society put out during the McCarthy era. Ruy Lopez 18:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

You should quote the entire 13 May message (text, image), not just two words:
"On HELMSMAN's instructions GOOD GIRL contacted through AMT a new group in CARTHAGE: [53 groups unrecoverable] MAGDOFF - "KANT". GOOD GIRL's impressions: They are reliable FELLOWCOUNTRYMEN, 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 [29 groups unrecoverable] "STORM". RAIDER, PLUMB, TED, and KANT will go to TYRE once every two weeks in turn. PLUMB and TED know PAL. We shall let you have identifying particulars later."
Note that the name Magdoff is completely spelled out (i.e. the assignment of KANT to Magdoff was not just detective/guesswork, but comes from a direct textual connection in a decrypt).
Shortly thereafter (as promised - We shall let you have identifying particulars later) there's this 30 May messsage (image, pg 1 image, pg 2 image, pg 3), which is a long list of the "[members] of [a] new group":
"The probationers of the new group have given the following personal histories of themselves:" ... "2. 'KANT' became a fellow COUNTRYMAN a long time ago, being [8 groups unrecovered], works in the Machine Tool Division of the DEPOT."
which states flat out that the Magdoff in question worked in the War Production Board, pretty much confirming that the Magdoff in question is this one.
Your statement that spies never have their name transmitted by the Soviets. Code names are always used. is incorrect, as you can see on page 2 of the second message, where Harold Glasser's name is given in full.
Please note that your use of the term "spies" is loose and imprecise; the NKVD (and is predecessors and successors) carefully distinguished between "agent" (someone who had a formal relationship with the NKVD, sometimes involving money), and "sources", a term which covered a wide range of people, some of whom might just be gossips, not witting helpers. There's a wide range in there, and just because some is named as a source of information, and is given a covername, doesn't mean they were "spies" (in the conventional meaning of the term).
Your ranting about the John Birch Society and the McCarthy era is absolutely out of place. If you have any facts to bring to the table, please produce them. Noel (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
You are still making quite a stretch to say that Harry Magdoff was definitely, in fact, a Soviet spy. First we have a sentence where only two word appear, Magdoff and Kant. For you, this is enough proof that Harry Magdoff is Kant. I wonder why if Magdoff is some kind of secret agent, why the names of everyone around his entry has a code name, but it wasn't seen fit to give him one.
It doesn't matter if everyone who has written about Venona (including Wise and Haynes) has made a mistake in linking Magdoff and KANT, because i) actual documents from Comintern archives, including one photographically reproduced in Secret World of American Communism refer to him by name, and ii) he was identified by name by Elizabeth Bentley as someone from whom she had gotten information for the Soviets - and Bentley's bona-fides as a real NKVD agent who blew real assets is vouched for by no less a person than a 2-star general of the MGB/MVD! (See above.) Noel (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Then you somehow look at the message "'KANT' became a fellow COUNTRYMAN a long time ago, being [8 groups unrecovered], works in the Machine Tool Division of the DEPOT." as being this "states flat out that the Magdoff in question worked in the War Production Board". Sorry, but I don't see this at all. At least five people are said by Nobs to be spies in the War Production Board. This message doesn't even connect Kant to the production board since 8 groups of the cipher missing between the mention of Kant and the code name which is supposed to represent the War Production Board. This would be like seeing something mentioned on one page of a book, flipping eight pages forward, seeing that someone works at a codename which they think is a board, and then saying there is a definitive connection. Even if there was a connection, which there isn't, Magdoff is not the only person who worked on the War Production Board. He worked in the Statistical Division of the WPB anyhow, Nobs is trying to list him as working at multiple divisions, which is absurd.
If you actually look at the page that text is from, you'll see that the sentence I quoted is one entry from a list of names, each of which is of the form "[Person] [what they do]" - so those missing 8 groups (i.e. at most 8 words) are all part of the description of KANT, to whom the latter part also applies. But as I point out above; this is all nit-pickings; Mogadoff was identified by name by both an NKVD agent and Comintern archives. Noel (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
The "facts" which "prove" Magdoff was a Soviet spy have more holes than a sponge. Enormous leaps of conclusions are made here. I should also mention that there is very little discussion on the Internet of the idea of Magdoff being a spy, aside from here, the white supremacist site and the 2 conspiracy sites. Ruy Lopez 21:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm a bit bemused by your reference to the white supremacist site and the 2 conspiracy sites. The sites I linked to were the NSA, and John Earl Haynes (owner of another site linked to) is a specialist in 20-th century US history at the Library of Congress, which is not exactly a wooden shack full of people dressed in white sheets. The reason that there's little about Mogadoff in the records is that he's a relatively minor figure in the 1940s Soviet intelligence network; just a minor source who provided some (probably not very important) information. Its not the most important fact about him, but it's worth noting, both in and of itself, and because when Bentley accused him, it had consequences for his career. Noel (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
He's referring to a particular search he seems to have put in to dismiss the importance of it which besides being a non sequitur ignores completely that the vast majority of the evidence for and characterizations of Magdoff in this context come from researchers published in respectable forums, ex-KGB officers, admitted spies, and government agencies. --TJive 00:02, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Please check out the absurdity of Magdoff's own words http://foia.fbi.gov/silversm/silversm2c.pdf (pgs. 4-5 in the PDF format),
"In a supplemental questionaire executed September 4, 1942, Magdoff stated that he was the father of two sons, aged three years and five months; that he was appointed "Chief of the Control Records Section of the War Production Board." His salary was indicated by him as $541.67 per month.
"In a questionaire executed by his employer, maintained by Local Board no. 3, Magdoff's employment was described as "Economimic Analyst, Chief, Current Business Analysis Unit," salary $6750 per annum, date entered present position, July 4, 1944. It was stated that Magdoff serves as an expert analyst and advisor to officials of the Department (War Production Board) upon the fundemental problems arising from mobilization of the nations's resources, inter-relationships of major segments of the economy under war strains - anticipation of major bottleneck and backward areas which retard national effort.
"In response to a questionaire completed by Harry Magdoff he listed the following employment:
1940 - 1942 - WPA Statisitcs Division, Senior Economic Statisitician,
July 4, 1944 to the date of questionaire (April 16, 1945) - Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Chief, Currect Job Analysis Unit.
It should be noted many, many of the persons working in government during WWII who had covert relationships with Soviet intelligence changed jobs several times, or in some cases they were "on loan" from one Department of the government to another. nobs 22:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Nobs already gave a reference to his WPB employment:
http://www.nacic.gov/history/CIReaderPlain/Vol3Chap1.pdf
Harry Magdoff: Statistical Division of WPB and Office of Emergency Management; Bureau of Research and Statistics, WTB; Tools Division, War Production Board; Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce Department.
Also reformatted the comments so they are directly attributed to users, hopefully avoiding confusion. --TJive 22:42, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Noel, excellent work and analysis. Yes indeed the term "spy" is applied too loosely too often; we are specifically refering to persons with covert relationship with Soviet intelligence, not the "unwitting type" which do occur, and I am working on a glossary of terminology which should help. For the record, here is more from Haynes and Klehr that references Magdoff:

Elizabeth Bentley told the FBI that on a rainy Sunday in March of 1944, at a meeting with the Perlo group, Harry Magdoff had been on sick leave recovering from an operation and was about to return to work at the War Production Board. The FBI checked and found that Magdoff had been on sick leave from January 10 to Marcy 7 1944 for a gall bladder operation, and that it had rained in New York on both Sunday February 27 and March 5, 1944.

Source: Elizabeth Bentley deposition, 30 November 1945, FBI file 65-14603; Elizabeth Bentley, Out of Bondage: The Story of Elizabeth Bentley, New York: Ivy Books, 1988), pgs. 163-165; New York FBI memo, 16 January 1947, FBI Silvermaster file (FBI file 65-56402), serial 1936. nobs 20:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not extremely knowledgeable on the specifics of the McCarthy era (other than how he was a bad dude -- learned that from my 8th grade ex-hippie teacher) but if sufficient evidence has been produced that Magdoff was a spy or some kind of intelligence asset, then we can retain the reference to McCarthyism in there without making him sound like a perfectly innocent victim. J. Parker Stone 05:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

"Forefront of leftist thought"

If this is true, I'd assume it'd have been in the '60s and '70s amongst the New Left. "Socialist" or "Marxist thought" would probably be more accurate, "leftist" strikes me as a little too broad for someone like Magdoff. Other than that, I just have to ask was he really a prominent figure (outside of this monthlyreview source, which naturally is gonna be complimentary) compared to others on the New Left? J. Parker Stone 05:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Sure - he was one of the Soviet Union's top spies! Ruy Lopez 05:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
har har. J. Parker Stone 06:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
The New Left did not pass from the scene after the 1970s. The Monthly Review, New Left Review, and Journal of World System Research still publish some influential academic books, particularly in sociology and political economy. If you're going to study history and politics, there's a chance that you might be assigned Duncan Green's Sielent Revolution, David Harvey's New Imperialism, or Michel Beaud's History of Capitalism in one course or another, which were published by Monthly Review. 172 | Talk 06:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
goddammit 172 why'd you have to inform me of this, i'm already worried enough about the pinko professors i'm gonna have to listen to. btw, for now i'm gonna be majoring in econ.

getting back to the issue, my point was that the New Left was at its most influential in the '60s and '70s, even if some of their material is still used in academia. also whether he's really a prominent leftist figure today compared to other folks in mags like The Nation, which as far as I can tell is the most popular leftist publication in the U.S. today. J. Parker Stone 06:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Haha. In that case, you might be relatively safe; sociology departments are usually teaming with the most pinkos, while economics departments usually have the least... I see your point now. I'll go ahead and insert "leftist" and "socialist." 172 | Talk 07:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
my dad had a communist professor in Econ, but that was at UCSC, so yeah. banana slugs. J. Parker Stone 07:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Monthly Review is considerably more influential outside the US than inside, in places like India and Africa. IIRC, there are/have been translations of it in various languages. By Monthly Review, I also mean the MR crowd: Sweezy, Huberman, Magdoff, and many of the writers they published. -- Viajero | Talk 17:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point to add to its pockets of influence in the U.S. in academia. Of course, there's also the influence in Russia, given that Magdoff has long been one of the Kremlin's top moles in the U.S. 172 | Talk 22:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't doubt that Marxist opinion in general is much more popular in certain third world countries, but I was making my comments based on the fact that Magdoff is a U.S. citizen and MR is based in the U.S. J. Parker Stone 04:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. But Wikipedia is an international project with readers from around the world. -- Viajero | Talk 09:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Well I have no major objections to how 172 changed the phrase. My only thought about the general article now is that it seems a little laudatory in certain spots since it's based on an article from the MR, but nothing horrendous. I ain't gonna get involved in the whole spy v. McCarthyite mess. J. Parker Stone 09:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Procedure

Let me first insert for the record, two terms I dislike and try to avoid are "spy" and "treason", while the first is sometimes unavoidable, the second is virtually non-existent in any of my wikipedia contributions, unless it occurs in a direct attributed quote, where the subject of the quote is something else.

That said, the proper proceedure is to (First) examine the credibility of the source, and (Second) examine the substance of source material. Any objections? nobs 17:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

By all means, and let's have the discussion on a seperate page while the claims are sorted out: Conspiracy allegations about Harry Magdoff--Cberlet 22:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Let's discuss the credibility of each source cited, then discuss substance. Agreed? nobs 00:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
OK, but it will make life easier to move the discussion over to the other page, and attempt to rewrite the section and then consider moving it all back. It's not like th charges have vanished. Please give me a few minutes to write a little something on the other page.--Cberlet 01:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Here is the page: Conspiracy allegations about Harry Magdoff The title is a bit POV :-) but I did edit the lead to be less confrontational.--Cberlet 01:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Cberlet:
  1. You need to stop moving large swaths of info to a non-NPOV page in order to discredit information by labeling it is a conspiracy theory, or "allegation". The info is a concise section that does not make Magdoff's bio large in and of itself.
  2. Please quit condescendingly alluding to anyone's work on these articles as being related to McCarthy or McCarthyism, and quit alleging original research until you have evidence to prove the assertion. 172 has already come in saying the same things you have and had no more proof than has been given so far.
  3. The discussion should continue here, not at the ridiculous POV page, and the page should be put up for Vfd. --TJive 01:39, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
I am trying to see that a constructive conversation takes place. Stop being so agressive and making demands. In my view the material is speculative POV that is way too large given the rest of the text on the page. I have started a reasonable conversation on the other page which is directly linked to this one. Feel free to rename it. But please start be entering into a real discussion there first. there are other editors on this page that think the accusations againt Magdoff are simply bogus.--Cberlet 03:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Saw you comment regarding misrepresentation. would be happy to discuss it. nobs 14:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
We are discussing it on the other page. You are welcome to join in.--Cberlet 15:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

References

PLEASE NOTE: The REFERENCE MATERIAL asked for was for the other page where there is a clear notice at the top that says: "You are welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank, merge, or move this article, or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress. For more information, read the Guide to Votes for Deletion.' That's where the reverences belong. Thanks for providing them there. Please stop violating clear Wiki policy by suggesting that I am reverting material improperly.--Cberlet 18:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Uh, I'm not really sure I understand what you are saying. There is no Wikipedia policy stating that references do not belong in an article. In fact, you are supposed to cite your sources. The status of Conspiracy allegations about Harry Magdoff shouldn't mean anything in regards to references being listed here. --18:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Because they are references to text that was moved to another page Conspiracy allegations about Harry Magdoff. The references to that text thus were moved to the other page. The references being discussed now have no connection whatsoever to the text remaining on this page, and the very nature of them as accurate in establishing the claims being made (on the other page, not on this page) are being challenged on that other page. Complicated, I know, but once there was a call for a vote for deletion, the text on that new page being voted on is covered by the statement noted above, "please do not blank, merge, or move this article, or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress." Based on current voting patterns, the text that can be verified, including the appropriate references, will be back here shortly.--Cberlet 18:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

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 believe 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)

Cberlet: Why do we have to keep going over the issue of Elizabeth Bentley's credibility. It is irrelevent to this article. All Bentley did was alert counterintelligence to an investigation, the evidence was gathered outside of her testimony in (1) Venona transcripts (2) Soviet Archives. The reasons for Bentley not testifying, and why Magdoff (et al) were never prosecuted is fully documented. Her credibility matters in none of those issues. You keep reinserting attempts to damage here credibility; what logic or purpose does this serve? that the FBI should not have begun its own investigation because she couldn't be believed, hence all the other evidence is to be ignored? It is purely an extraneous detraction from the issues under discussion, as any good defense attorney would seek to do. Yet it is wholey irrrelevent. If you insist on a path like this, then expect "Kremlin-directed Stalinist mouthpiece" directed at your "skeptics". As the Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy says of Hiss, the issue "seems" settled, so does the ONCIX "confirm" the "accuracy" of Elizabeth Bentley. It is 2005, not 1948 anymore. nobs 18:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Magdoff/Archive_1&oldid=95799036"