Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:40, 1 December 2005

It's interesting that this article and Whittaker Chambers draw very different conclusions about the Verona transcripts. Possibly the conclusions drawn from these transcripts should be described only in the VENONA project article, or given very short and very neutral mention in both Alger Hiss and Whittaker Chambers. --Saforrest 23:08, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

What do you think of new format

Ditto--Timoteo III 07:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Much improved format. Have re-added comment about Soviet memos being cash-for-documents. This is the point that Summers makes. If it is considered not worthwhile, then remove footnote - footnote was used to support info about Soviet memos, which was not why I put it in the first place. Perhaps someone (nobs?) can provide a footnote for them.--Jack Upland 02:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions for reformat

• Separate purely neutral biographical information from the spy/victim debate (It gives the text an uneven flow)
• Make a section dedicated exclusively to spy-or-not debate, with seperate pro + cons for each subsection.
• Remove either the Moynihan intro quote or the Moynihan Commission Quote, as they offer the exact same opinion from the same man. I suggest the Moynihan Commission quote go, because the purpose of the commission was clearly to advocate less government secrecy, not to ascertain the guilt of Hiss or the veracity of Verona report interpretation as is implied.

Comments and Suggestions?

In no way can they be considered quotes from the same man; the Commission Report is unanimous language voted upon by a bi-partisan statutory commission mandated by law to publish findings. The direct Moynihan quote is a personal eyewitness account of the commission proceeedings, and spoken unrestrained by the need for compromise language. The above proposal is simply another effort to bury facts and parse old arguements. nobs 02:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

And yet I fail to see where the quotes differ in actual content rather than, as you say, language. I am not suggesting a partisan slant, I am suggesting a redudancy that fails to add further information. It is silly to reiterate Moynihan once personally and again from committee if he's saying the same thing. If you think the Commission quote is better, then keep that instead. However, the point of the Committee was explicit: to determine whether the secrecy of government agencies was excessive and harmful, and to suggest reform. The mission of the Committee was NOT to determine the guilt of Mr Alger Hiss, it is used as a tangential example, with implict assumptions that he was a spy by Mr Moynihan's analysis. If the committee was never charged with determining the guilt or innocent of Alger Hiss, then no debate has occured. And disregarding numero 3 bullet, what do you think of #1 and #2?

Just drop Moynihan's name from the Commission, make it "Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy" —it's official name. That will eliminate redundancy and possible confusion. nobs 06:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

That's not the point. The content itself is redundant. What is this Commission offering in actual fact that's unique? It just suggests in about 3 sentences that ALES = HISS via Yalta through known information already found in this article. Moynihan believes Hiss was a spy and good for him, but the Moynihan and his Committee don't add any additional information; it's a judgment by Moynihan repeated once again for drama, not substance.

I agree. It's the format that's the problem. It's framed in such a way to make any genuine discussion of guilt impossible.--Jack Upland 02:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

What sourcing do you have to refute the published report of the Government Secrecy Commssion? nobs 02:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Bard

This statement,

"Bard College in Annandale New York has established the Alger Hiss Chair of Social Studies, currently filled by Joel Kovel who teaches that the United States is the "enemy of humanity"

doesn't seem to have a lot to do with Alger Hiss, and such a provocative quotation needs some referencing so we can judge context, it seems to me -- that is, if it wouldn't be better to simply delete it.

Ruy Lopez: They may have been accusations 50 years ago; archival research has born out the veracity of the material you reverted. it will be reinserted for historical accuracy. Nobs01 01:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Response to Anon 24.61.113.45: The problem we are discovering in light of Venona is that the Hiss case had little to do with "McCarthyism. Hiss had little to do with McCarthy in the historical context to begin with, seeing the Hiss case occurred in 1948, a few years before McCarthy made any such charges. Hiss, et al, have been able over the years to propagate a distortion that they somehow were "victims" of McCarthyism, when the two cases were never associated to begin with. What Venona has shown so far is, that while McCarthy began with a half truth, that American citizens in the State Department where working for Soviet intelligence, McCarthy went after the wrong crowd. Alger Hiss certainly does not fall into that category. Nobs01 21:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More Hiss

I expanded this article a little, based on my own knowledge, but by no means do I claim to adopt all of its conclusions as my own. It's been a while since I first read about the case. When I learned about it in the 1980s, I believed categorically that Hiss was guilty and an elitist traitor along the lines of Kim Philby. Back then I was rather more conservative than now, so I approached it from the Chambers/Nixon angles in Witness and Six Crises. While I haven't completely switched sides, these days I'm dubious. Chambers, if not evil, was definitely not stable. The ongoing revelations about Nixon now exceed anything even Hunter S. Thompson might have dreamed up in the Seventies--as far as I'm concerned, nothing emanating from Nixon can enjoy credibility any longer. The evidence from the former USSR archives is at best inconclusive. I am not completely convinced of Hiss's innocence, and I think it's quite possible that he exercised considerably poor, even reckless judgment, but now I think it more likely than not he was railroaded. --bamjd3d

I'm not sure Nixon or Chambers have anything to do with Hiss's guilt. If Hiss is guitly he could have done it without their help. it may be just another example of Eastern elitists in the media, academia and government caught in lie with thier pants down and steadfastly refuse to admit it (kinda like Pete Rose). Watergate may have been nothing more than a vendetta stemming from this case by all those who had a vested interest in maintaining the lie and demonizing Nixon.Nobs01 05:52, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Still More Hiss

As stated above, I'm no apologist for Alger Hiss. If he did in fact betray his country, whatever his motives, that was wrong and he should have been punished for it. There are some lines one doesn't cross, no matter what one believes. However, believing that as I do, at the same time I do not subscribe to the right-wing notion that anybody with even pronounced leftist, anti-capitalist or anti-"system" views is tantamount to a treasonous Communist. When passing judgment on Hiss (and I do think we have the right to do so), one should always bear the context in mind. It was the Thirties, and today it's easy to forget a) the magnitude of the Depression; b) the fact that the era was actually more freewheeling than the relatively uptight (to use a Sixties word) one of the Fifties. Today, we worry about gas going up twenty or thirty cents (when the real price is actually about the same as in 1980), or whether we can afford a second vacation or whatnot. When the unemployment rate goes up from, say 5.6% to 5.8% we get nervous. Back then, perhaps a third of the population was going hungry; unemployment was approaching 25%, more, if you count part-time work and starvation wages, especially in the South. Combine that with the dustbowl and the sheer duration of it--more than 12 years, for as late as 1941 unemployment was over 15%--and it's understandable why well-educated people like Hiss worried about the state of things and were casting about for alternatives. Many, many people back then looked around and concluded that some form of Socialism was the answer. Racism gave the Communists a great opportunity to exploit. In the Fifties, people were being pilloried for what they had done in the Thirties, and that was really unfair, for the climate of the Thirties was entirely different. (Certainly it would have been another thing altogether to become a Communist in the Fifties). There was no Cold War in theThirties--Hitler was the threat then. And the Soviets seemed--seemed--to be conquering unemployment, eliminating barbarous working conditions and poverty, and so forth. Even if you don't believe in the welfare state, it goes much too far to say that anyone who talks about those things is a traitor. In sum, I wouldn't blame Hiss for being involved in a Marxist study group, even clandestinely, but if he did in fact pass documents to the Soviets, that would have been crossing the line, and he no longer would have deserved the confidence of the Government. But merely having leftist or utopian views, no matter how divergent from what was politically correct (!), does not make Hiss an evil Northeast establishment stooge. --bamjd3d

Interesting comments. Fortunately I wasn't around to recall the scandels of 1948 when this story broke and only know of it from second hand information, and having been reading about it now for 37 years, truthfully I can't claim any proficiency or authority on the subject. I am curious, however, to hear the arguement connecting the dots between unemployment problems of the 1930's with foreign policy activities of men like Hiss, Harry Dexter White, et al, during World War II (Harry Dexter White, for example, being in a supreme position of trust, passing stolen templates to counterfeit American dollars in 1948 about the sametime SMERSH was burying Hitler's charred corpse under garbage cans doesnt pass the anti-fascist test). This discussion, especially among Hiss defenders, always comes back to ideological grounds. And it seems the judgement of history is, the various Communist entities these people were associated with were not only un-democratic, but anti-democratic; and the arguement that Hiss and others didnt see it that I beleive is pure fantasy. Nobs01 18:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not the unemployment problems per se. Again, this needs to be put into a larger context. Remember that all of this was taking place in the wake of the First World War and the Russian Revolution, both of which destroyed the late Victorian Western European order and the concomitant faith in classical liberal progress. In the Twenties and Thirties many intellectuals and elites--naively and foolishly, granted--were so disillusioned and pessimistic that they saw Communism as the wave of the future. Beware the historian's fallacy of imputing to them the knowledge of Stalin, the Great Purges and so forth that we have today. The USSR in the Thirties, it seemed to many in the West, was the wave of the future: it had managed to elude the devastating economic crisis of the West, and its economy was growing at a fantastic rate. Of course, this was attributable to the forced industrialization program, the starvation of millions, terror and so on, phenomena that many turned a blind eye towards. But it's not farfetched to say that men like Hiss honestly believed they were somehow working for, in his words, "a better world," although in hindsight we know that to have been a delusion. bamjd3d

Cynically put, one could say Hitler, in his eyes, was working for "a better world" too. As to my own interest in the subject, I've always been more interested in the effect of their conduct (Julius Rosenberg, Alger Hiss) more than their personal motives. Personally I beleive, that if the Soviet Union didnt recieve the help of these people (fellow American citizens), it still would be a Third World nation; that essentially is what it is today, a Third World Power with nuclear weapons. Brazil surpassed the Soviet Union in GDP a decade and a half ago, and Russian per capita income is equal or below Mexico. So in retrospect it seems, the entire Cold War was the product of your fellow American citizens, not Soviet ambitions. (Just a personal view). Nobs01 20:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Corroboration from Soviet archives

I do not understand this sentence:

Alger Hiss’s known cryptonyms were "Lawyer" ("Advocate" or "Advokat") in the mid-1930s and "Ales" in 1945. "Leonard" did not occur as a cover name in the World War II deciphered Venona traffic and may be a later (or possibly earlier) cryptonym.

If the association of these to Hiss derive from Venona, then they are not "known" and the argument appears to be circular. If from elsewhere, the source from which it is 'known" should be given. --John Z 04:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

John Z: I will properly source the above material in question, and I thank you for bringing it to my attention. It may be a day or, please, if you will be patient with me. Thank you so much for bringing to my attention. nobs 18:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

John Z: The Hiss reference was gathered from this source, John Earl Haynes; much the same language is used in Joyn Earl Haynes & Harvey Klehr Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America, Yale University Press (1999) ISBN 0300084625 and could be cited as to page number if necessary. Also, much the same information is available from other sources. Is the first reference sufficient? Thank you. nobs 21:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

But it does not seem to be corroboration from Soviet archives, rather footnotes and comments based on Venona used to interpret Soviet material. This is using Venona to support Venona, and the way it is written now, the argument seems to be circular. No time at all to explore it futher now, would appreciate an explanation if this impression is wrong. --John Z 04:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

They are not sourced from Venona, reading of Soviet ciphers did not begin until 1942. Lawyer or Advocate (Advokat) are sourced from Allen Weinstein (sitting Archivist of the United States 1999 book Haunted Wood, based on material from KGB Archives. nobs 21:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Alex & Ales come from Venona. Lawyer & Advocate come from KGB Archives . Leonard comes from the Gorsky Report another Soviet Archive, it was a 1948 internal KI report written by Anatoly Gorsky (who had served in the US during WWII), regarding the compromised American networks, i.e. "failed" Soviet networks. The link to John Earl Haynes site is not "Venona" (the actual decrypts will be used to source Venona). John Earl Haynes is a researcher currently in the Manuscripts Division of the Library of Congress. The subhead of this section is entitled, "Corroboration from Soviet Archives", two sources are given, (1) Haunted Wood, (2) Gorsky Report, both originating in Soviet Archives. One reference is made to Venona, and it already is redundant to the full articles text. Does this answer your concern? nobs 21:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

A book review on a personal website is not a Soviet Archive, so having a link to it where one would expect a link to something about Soviet Archives is quite misleading. Where does even this review say that some cryptonyms "come from soviet archives" anyway?

The book and the Gorsky report however, as far as I can tell, do not support what you see to be saying, that these cryptonyms' association with Hiss is corroborated by Soviet archives. The only one they seem to support is the one that you mention last and least, "Leonard" - under "failures" in Gorsky, the title thus making its inclusion rather misleading Unless you explain further, this seems to be mostly naughty original research and illogical reasoning. Maybe it is right there, staring me in the face in the sources you've cited, but I cannot find it, I would not mind being called stupid or lazy if you can do the following:

I would like specific sentences from reasonable sources that say what the article says - that "Soviet archives show Alger Hiss’s known cryptonyms were "Lawyer" ("Advocate" or "Advokat") in the mid-1930s and "Ales" in 1945" . I am sure you know a lot more about this stuff than me. However, you don't seem to be explaining it in a way I or perhaps anyone else, can understand, and as far as I can tell, your references do not say what you want them to say. What you have right now appears to be the statement:/ "Alger Hiss’s known cryptonyms were Lawyer (or Advocate) in the mid-1930s and Ales in 1945." appears as a footnote written by Haynes to notes from Soviet Archives. / (which I assumed came from Venona, at least the first does.) --John Z 22:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The paragraphs do need to be rewritten for clarity. I will do so first thing Monday AM. Let me make one clarification. The names "Lawyer", "Advocate", and "Leonard" all come from Soviet archives. As to sources: Allen Weinstein and Alexander Vassiliev collaborated on a book together, The Haunted Wood: Soviet Espionage in America--the Stalin Era (New York: Random House, 1999). Vassiliev is a native speaker of Russian and former KGB Officer. When researching the book, Vassiliev was granted access to KGB Archives. The KGB would not allow Vassiliev to photgraph or remove documents. He was allowed however to make extensive notes. Weinstein is now the sitting Archivist of the United States. Haunted Wood is the primary source for Soviet Archives. As to Haynes, he is a longtime researcher of the subject, and his material is the sum total collected from all valid sources.

I appologize for not understanding the question. There is perhaps some confusion as what is Venona material and what is Soviet archive material. I will clarify this. nobs 01:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Western Betryal

There was a sentance which indicated that Churchil and Stalin had divided up Eastern Europe between them without an American presence. Churchil's memoires make it clear that his intent was to clarify *operational influence* (e.g. *someone* has to be in charge, lets sort out who and where) for the period prior to the Yalta conference when matters would be properly and permanently decided.

Toby Douglass 12:25, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Soviet Archives

Your take on this is again biased and wrong, if not dishonest. Provide me with a quote and source where Volkogonov says he only spent two days on his search, and provide a cite for this spurious quote, "John Lowenthal pushed me to say things of which I was not fully convinced." I've spent a great deal of time reseaching this case and have never found this anyhwere.

The archives Volkogonov searched were: the Archive of the Government of the Russian Federation (Roskomarchiv);the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (successor agency to the KGB); the Russian Ministry of Security; the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the Russian Center for the for the Preservation and Study of Documents of Modern History (which houses former Central Party and Comintern archives); the Russian Ministry of Defense and Soviet Army Archives (successor agency to the GRU). To claim he took two days to search this is absurd.

What the man did say was this: "Mr. Hiss has never and nowhere been recruited as an agent of the USSR. Not a single document, and a great amount of material has been studied, substantiates the allegation." In conversation with Lowenthal, he further stated that he could not give a 100% guarentee "that something wasn't destroyed . . . if was a spy I believe positively I would have found a reflection in various files." (New York Times, Oct. 29, 1992)

Then several weeks later later, Volkogonov said that he had "not been properly understood," that if such evidence did exist "there's no guarantee that it was not destroyed, that it was not in other channels." (New York Times, Dec. 7, 1992). But he did not retract his orginal statement, and has not since. In fact, in the 13 years since no such document has ever surfaced, neither it might be added has the name of Whittaker Chambers ever been found in the archives, which is not exactly support for your claims.

What evidence suggests Hiss started working for GRU in 1934? You're simply assuming Ales is Hiss and cramming Venona #1822 where it can't fit. GRU was military intelligence; Hiss was never accused of supplying military intelligence, only State Department material. To not note these problems is dishonest. If Weyl coroborates this, then I suggest you quote him to that fact, instead of merely asserting it.

"Some say he precipitated the Western betrayal of Eastern Europe," Excuse me, but you think this washes? Who may I ask are "some"? You couldn't get away with this in freshman english. And how in God's name could Hiss have "precipitated" anything at Yalta? He was junior to about everybody and had no authority on anything. Hiss did indeed oppose the extra UN seats for the USSR, but you better check the number, I believe they were pushing for less than 15. Hiss played no role in the ultimate outcome of this, and was sorely disappointed that the Soviets got the two they did. You make it seem like he played a role in the USSR gaining the two, which is wrong. Again, who are these "some" who keep saying things? What you should do there is point out that Hiss was always, throughout his State Department career, a conservative on international affairs, solely concerned for American interests. Such as, his strong support for Chiang Kai-shek.

You quote Moynihan's assertion that Ales could only be Hiss, but not Lowethal's carefully reasoned argument to the contrary. Why?

Again, if Weyl testified that Hiss was what Chambers said he was, then quote him to the effect, then quote the rebuttal.

The pumpkin papers were not microfilm, they were 35mm.

--Griffin FarielloGrifross 02:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly; "some" is what Wikipedians call a "weasal word". Critics should always, always be cited by name. nobs 02:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Grif: I suggest you put Yalta Conference and Western betrayal on your to do list, I would be interested in hearing your comments. nobs 02:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Venona and Alger Hiss

I just added this section, without deleting anything of anybody elses, I might add. I believe it adds a clear voice to the other side of the discussion, and an important one as well. Any questions I will do my best to answer.

And, thanks nobs, I'll take a look at them. --Grif FarielloGrifross 04:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Grif:What is the basis for this statement,

a GRU (military intelligence) agent who obtained military intelligence

other than an assumption that GRU does not consider political intelligence to be military intelligence, which premise can be defeated. nobs 04:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

: Paragraph one of VENONA cable 1822 identifies Ales as working with SOSEDI from 1935 Para. 3 states "The group and Ales himself work on obtaining military information only. Materials on the BANK interest the NEIGHBORS very little and he does not produce them regularly." To my lights political material could be military as well, but the cable states clearly they weren't very interested in State Department material, which is the only materials our boy Alger was accused of stealing.--GrifGrifross 05:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Venona # 1822 here . So

"Materials on the State Department interest the GRU very little and he does not produce them regularly."

refers to a one person with access to State Department and militiary information. nobs 17:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and what are you exactly trying to say?? The cable states that Ales was the head of a small group, as the head of the group HE would produce the material, whether he swiped it himself or not. Hiss was accused of stealing State Department materials, and only that, never military. Ales specialized in Military, and only rarely State. The GRU was not very interested in State. The man who accused Hiss, and was allegedly his one and only courier to the Party, Whittaker Chambers, never once accused Hiss on military materials. Nor did the FBI, nor was it raised it either of the two trials. Now, are you trying to go beyond the facts of the case, and effectively create suppositions that something might've happened that no one has ever mentioned before?! Are we talking Alice in Wonderland here, or what? This of course is the problem in trying to prove a negative, even when the facts presented are countered, the conspiratorial mind always finds another angle, no matter what. That is why, since the days of the Magna Carta, we've evolved to a system where the accused stands innocent until the prosecution can prove the case beyond a shadow of doubt. Hiss was tried for perjury, but efffectively ever since, the charge has been espionage, too bad he never gets the same assumptions afforded any common criminal in the dock,--GrifGrifross 20:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Grif: I'm gonna ask for patience today cause I forgot my glasses and I got a minor edit war on hand, but I am carefully reading all your edits. Thanks. nobs 20:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Lowenthal

Some of the more obvious problems with the Lowenthal material:

• "Ales was said in the message to have been active for 11 years, 1935 through the date of the message, 1945; Alger Hiss was accused of spying in the mid-30's and not later than 1938.
  • (1934-1945 fits Hiss)

• • • How may I ask does this work? No one has ever accused Hiss of being a spy from 1934 to 1945, not even Chambers or Joe McCarthy. I beleive the idea is to report history, not make it up as you go along.
      • Why are we having this discussion if "no one ever accused Hiss of being a spy from 1934 to 1945"?
    • Whittaker Chambers knowledge only went up 1938; as stated, this clearly is a deliberate distortion of the evidence.

• • Perhaps so, but are you now arguing that Hiss continued to be a spy after (if anyone is to believe Chambers) Chambers threatened to his face to expose him, went to the gov't and denounced him. There are not even allegations by anyone that Hiss was a spy through 1945, not even by his worst enemies.
    • As Bentley was told, "no one ever leaves this service".

• "Ales was said to be the leader of a small group of espionage agents; Hiss was accused of having acted alone, aside from his wife as a typist and Chambers as courier.
  • Again, the decrypt reads "small group of relatives"; the "was accused" again is a reference to Chambers, not Venona material

• • Fine put in "small group of relatives," but seeing as the entire case against Hiss rests on Chamber's accusations and none other, then it might behoove one to compare Chamber's allegations with the description of Ales, as that is who Hiss is accused of being.

• "Ales was a GRU (military intelligence) agent who obtained military intelligence, and only rarely provided State Department material; Alger Hiss was accused of obtaining only non-military information and the papers used against him were non-military State Department materials that he allegedly produced on a regular basis.
  • Again, confusing Chambers testimony with Venona materials. All this clearly is a deliberate distortion and in dire need of either

(1) rewrite (at which point it cannot be attributed to Lowenthal anymore),

(2) clarification (again, then would go unsourced and may be considered original research),

(3) removal of the Venona subhead, because this material does not refute Venona evidence. nobs 19:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Your criticism is nonsensical. It is not "confusing" anything, it is a comparision of Chambers' allegations with the allegation that Ales is indeed Hiss. There is no Venona cable that states Hiss to be Ales, only a surmise by Lamphere, so to tally the historical charges against Hiss with what #1822 tells us of Ales only makes sense.

Let's examine the following:

• • • "Ales was a GRU (military intelligence) agent who obtained military intelligence"
      • as decrypt # 1822 attests in 1945, i.e. at the tail end of WW II.

• • • "and only rarely provided State Department material";
      • as decrypt # 1822 attests in 1945, i.e. at the tail end of WW II.

• • • "Hiss was accused of obtaining only non-military information and the papers used against him were non-military State Department materials"
      • according to Chambers testimony regarding events prior to 1938

• • • "that he allegedly produced on a regular basis".
      • according to Chambers testimony regarding events prior to 1938, put in a context referring to decrypt # 1822 in 1945; c'mon Griff, you can do better than that.

Eduard Mark, Who Was 'Venona's' 'Ales'? Cryptanalysis and the Hiss Case, Intelligence and National Security 18, no. 3 (Autumn 2003): 45-72, effectively refutes Lowenthal's reading of Venona Cable No. 1822 and suggests that Cable No. 195 Moscow to New York 3 March 1945 (Illegal Iskhak Akhmerov and Greg Silvermaster to gather info on UN Conferance in San Francisco) adds further support to the case against Hiss. nobs 01:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Oh really, and where may I ask do you quote Venona #195?! What does it say? How does it add further support? Again, you rely on assertion and mistake it for scholarship.

All this Lownethal material was disposed of years ago. Do we have to repeat all the arguements here? nobs 05:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Funny, I and many others believe the charges against Hiss are absurd to the extreme and not supported by any iota of verifiable evidence, yet somehow we still argue over the case, so, yes, we do indeed need to repeat Lowenthal's arguments.

The sarcasm in the line about 'a nifty arguement(sic)' seems unprofessional and needlessly POV. Can the Lowenthal section be trimmed until such time as the disputes here related are resolved? Nae'blis 20:41:19, 2005-08-30 (UTC)

Go ahead, trim it to whatever may be relevent; keep in mind the intent of the Lowenthal rebuttal is to slander the reputations of the persons who traveled to Moscow with Hiss after Yalta. There is absolutely no basis for this defamation to continue. nobs 21:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not particularly interested in your POV in the matter; there is some dispute on the matter at hand, so it should stay in the article, as fully cited as possible. Not being an expert, I'm limiting myself to removing the snark. Nae'blis 21:03:34, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

Sourcing on cryptonyms

• Advokat (Lawyer) = Hiss, Alger
• Advocate (Lawyer) = Hiss, Alger
• Ales = Hiss, Alger (KGB U.S. line)
• Ales = Hiss, Alger
• Ales = Hiss, Alger
• Hiss, Alger = Lawyer in 1936
• Hiss, Alger = Leonard

More nonsense

Since the Lowenthal band-aid confuses events prior to 1938 with events in spring of 1945, perhaps some clarification is in order. Between 1938 and 1945 much happened, namely, World War II (it was in all the newspapers). In 1938 the

• United States had the 16th largest standing military in the World, just behind Bulgaria, at number 15
• United States had 400 tanks
• the Soviet Union had been producing 22 tanks daily for several years

In 1945

• the United States had 3,000,000 men of fighting age in uniform, overseas
• 90% the United States GDP was devoted to war effort

Now, the confusion seems to lie in Hiss suppling State Department documents to the USSR (which Chambers attested to) prior to 1938, and Venona decrypt #1822 of March 1945 which says ALES provides military information, and only rarely State Department information. One must consider, being that

(a) Chambers didn't have contact with Hiss for the duration of WWII, and

(b) World War II occurred, i.e.

(i) the Soviet Union was invaded

(ii) the Soviet Union was a recipient of Lend lease

(iii) a multitude of other factors,

that GRU interest and priorities between 1938 and 1945 probably shifted. nobs 03:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

footnote display problem

For some reason, the footnotes at the end are showing up as a number followed by a box, as if the number is being followed by some character that my browser can't understand. Is it possible to fix this here, or is it a bug in the wiki software? Ben Standeven 03:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Biased

The article as it stands is biased. It does not give a neutral point of view. Attacks on Hiss are cited with approval continuously even if they have nothing of substance to say (as in the intro). The way it is written makes it impossible to coherently insert any evidence that supports Hiss's innocence.--Jack Upland 02:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Upland: Sir, please note it is 2005 now, not 1948. The arguements to Mr. Hiss's innocence from 1948, that persisted throughout the decades upto about 10 years ago, have been thoroughly discredited. Also note, approximately 2 week ago a Russian language version of of Venone #1822 was released, and initial reaction to it thus far has driven more nails into Mr. Hiss's coffin. Here's a link. Also, Mr. Jack Taber, another internationally recognized expert in cryptolinguistics, has made comments a few days ago here Talk:VENONA project/Archive1#Alger Hiss and his alleged codename. Thank you. nobs 02:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of the truth of the issue to write in such a polemic style ('slamming shut doors' etc) violates the supposed neutrality of the article. You can report facts but not editorialise about them - do this on your own website!

And by the way, that link you kindly gave me actually states there is a controversy about Hiss's guilt - so why not let Misplaced Pages reflect that?--Jack Upland 03:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I read what Schindler says to say the evidence of guilt comes other sources more damning, and Venona just corroborates it. And that seems to be the concensus among current scholarship, with probably less than three informed scholars who have given up parsing. nobs 04:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

This page has a ridiculiously hardline conservative bias against Alger Hiss, which seems be the result of a one-man crusade by a certain poster. "Incontrovertible evidence," my ass. The point of Misplaced Pages is to present the strengths and weakness of BOTH sides of the agrument, and then let the reader decide for himself. Hiding the opposition and relevant counterpoints (see http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/ for examples) is inappropriate. If a certain someone cannot stop this marlarkey, I'm tagging it with NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.236.22 (talk • contribs)

It should be noted, some of the scholarly discussion groups have now implemented bans against "All Hiss, All the Time", being that the question is settled, yet the two or three defenders keep attempting to parse each new piece of information. Discussion has moved on to who was agent Zamistal; KWANT (QUANTUM) appears to be Bruno Pontecorvo, and Leas theory on Fogel-Pers also is being discussed. nobs 20:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, what in God's name are you talking about. Could you at least name these "scholarly groups," that you subscribe to? There are a number of books (old and recent) asserting Alger Hiss's innocence, just as there are for the opposition. That is what makes it a controversy. --Timoteo III 00:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

New format

Mr Upland: Here's a problem with your new format: under "Case for Hiss's innocence, you have confused both the perjury charges with espionage charges; this is just recycled POV parsing. The case is not that ambiguous, and this is simply an attemtpt to insert ambiguity. nobs 02:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, I was the one who implemented the new format. I believe Upland added some sections afterwords. Anyway, back to your main point. First of all Nobs, this is a page about Alger Hiss and the man entire; naturally it should present evidence of judicial misconduct if it demonstrates the possiblity of a false conviction on perjury. Whether or not Alger was a spy, Nixon bent and in some cases broke the law to wrangle out a conviction. The trial was clearly dirty. Since the perjury charges directly arose from the espionage allegations, innocence in the first suggests innocence in the second. Please do not complain about a disscusion of facts simply because they do not support your predetermined conclusions--Timoteo III 00:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, let me stop you right there,

Nixon bent and in some cases broke the law to wrangle out a conviction.

Give me a source page number & citation from a primary source document that Richard Nixon, member of the Legislative Branch, constitutionally had the power to prosecute anyone, a power reserved solely to the Executive Branch. (See separation of powers doctrine).

Now, until you can explain this unconstitutional phenomenon, (including the fact that the Executive Branch at the time itself was controlled by a Party in opposition to the Party that Nixon belonged to), I'll assume the statement is POV. Thank you. nobs 00:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. I missed the part where I said Nixon was the prosecutor instead of Tom Murphy, but who can resist a good strawman in the absense of real rebuttal? Perhaps you believe Nixon had nothing to do with the outcome of the trial? Funny, because Nixon doesn't seem to have gotten that memo.

"We won the Hiss case in the papers"

"I had Hiss convicted before he got to the grand jury....I no longer have the energy, a son of a bitch who will work his butt off and do it dishonorably" See also the "Nixon-Hiss Seesaw" at CrimeLibrary

Wow! It's almost like Nixon himself believed he got Alger Hiss convicted! Crazy!

In all honesty Nob, I am going to assume you have no sane objections so we can stop this nonsense now

So what's the point? The U.S. Justice Department under President Truman was corrupt? or just plain incompetent? I'm having trouble following this reasoning. nobs 19:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll explain it very slowly for you. Most of the evidence used to convict Hiss came from the work of Nixon and his subcommittee. The role of the prosection is to prosecute when there is evidence of wrongdoing, and that is what Murphy did. Information from the FBI files, the later Watergate scandals, and other sources cast doubt on the actual veracity of evidence that was passed to the prosecution. If the evidence was wrong, then the conviction was wrong and thus the case for Hiss's innocence is bolstered. QED. I am not asking you to agree with the conclusion, but to merely allow a fair representation of the other sides' arguement. I for one think most of the arguments you provide are ridiculious, but I at least allow them to stand to represent the thinking of people like you :)--Timoteo III 23:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I also want to talk about the spat of recent edits you've been making to the article. I'm concerned that you have missed the entire point of the reformat. Practically every single one of your edits is an attempt to fanatically paint Hiss as an evil pinko spy, which is all well and good IF YOU DO IT IN THE SECTION I SPECIFICALLY OUTLINED FOR YOU. Any discussion of whether or not Hiss was a spy will regress into POV wankery, which is why it needs to be isolated and identified as such in the last two sections. If you want to launch a point againt against Hiss, do it there, where it belongs. The other posters and I have worked hard to keep the Wiki neutral, so please be a constructive editor instead a deunce.--Timoteo III 23:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, truthfully, the trial business & associated press coverage ingterests me very little, as does Nixon's relationship to it also. Personally, my interest in Alger Hiss relates to the period of time he was in government service (and, as published reports now conclude, Soviet service). nobs 17:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Recent Edits

A place to discuss the "contributions" from our most prolific poster.

• "Both Under Secretary Welles and Sayre..." I have not yet read a single book about Hiss that claims the Baltimore Documents/Pumpkin Papers had anything to do with cryptography codes. This is delibrately misleading if it is not outright false to begin with, being completely unsourced.
• "cash-for-documents" ==> "cash-for-publication right's" This is goes against the author's wording and the point being made; the high $$$ attached to finding the right "facts." The rewording isnt even true as the author only gained access, the memos were never published and made available to other historians. I may move it to the other section however as misc critisism.

Cash-for-documents is false and misleading; no documents were allowed to be removed or photographed from the Archive.

I think that's flipped flopped. "publication right's" obviously implies Random House would attempt to publish the contents of archives, which is not true as we know. cash-for documents is concise and true to the author, and the context of the wording makes it obvious what happened, IMO.

Would "cash-for-documents access rights" be preferable?

The Welles, Sumner & Purifeouy testimony is in the HUAC record, 7 December 1948. Both Welles & Sumner testified that the four foot high stack of documents would enable a foreign government to decipher "the most secret codes" (there was no CIA or OSS in 1938; State Department would be using what would be considered "the most secret codes" at that time). Undersecretary Sayre testified,

Sayre: ...not only because of the substance of the cables, but because some of them were in the highly confidential codes; ... And for these telegrams to get out at the time they did meant that other governments could crack our codes and that, I think, is indescribably horrible.

Rankin: In other words, if they got the documents, if they were absolutely insignificant from the point of view of international importance, they could crack the codes without trouble.

Sayre: The other point is that some of the these cables reveal sources from which information was obtained, sources planted in foreign countries. Now you make a cable of this kind known, you cut off that source of information from another country, and you kill what you have been working on for years. nobs 17:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

After closer review, I've determined that this information is further off-base than I suspected. I am 99.9% certain you are culling this information online from a Douglass Reed work, which is a poor source indeed (http://www.douglasreedbooks.com/far.html) Reading it however makes it clear that, if these comments were even spoken, they are inapprioately attributed here, as the Sayre testimony was private and sealed (hence the difficulty in finding them). This seems to be from in fact off-the-cuff remarks at an impromtu press conference, and you seem to have arbitarily sliced in some Rankin comments for no apparent reason. Rankin is one of the more infamous figures of HUAC, whom the 'great' Allen Weinstein described as a blatant racist, "who spiked most hearings with Negrophobic, anti-Catholic, and anti-Semitic tirades…." This, along with the other historical inaccuracies I've pointed out, means this bit has got to go.

We are in fact talking about the Pumpkin/Baltimore Papers, correct? First off, please tell me where you found the testimony as I googled both Sayre and his actual wording, and came up with nothing save a Douglas Reed site (which for obvious reasons is a bit untrustworthy - I would prefer something much more mainstream, and not linked to Zionist world conspiracy theorists.) Let us assume though that Sayre and Rankin did say this. The important question would be is it actually true? No authors, and I'm including the Hiss detractors that I know of, ever allege to my knowledge that the Baltimore Documents would be crytography code breakers. We know now that the documents were exaggerated in importance during the trial, and the actual contents were in fact quite mundane trade regulations. So why deliberately imply what is easily disproven with modern day evidence?

The Sayre, Welles & Purifouy testimony was given 7 December 1948 in a HUAC hearing. What they testify to is, that despite the contents of the messages, the fact that Soviets could intercept a coded version, then had the decoded version, would provide the key to breaking a cipher code.

I was actually asking about the source where you yourself found the transcipt (I know what the actual event being transcribed was; it's not helping me find the transcript), since I couldnt' find a copy anywhere online. Is a copy available from a book?

The point is neither Sayre and Welles are experts on cryptography and it would seem that CIA (later), NSA, FBI (who are all nearly uniformly against Hiss) would have further substantiated this idea if it had merit, since they know intelligence and codes better than anybody else. Mr Moniyhan never writes about this :). I think it would be a sorry state of affairs if any low-level secret document could be stolen and thus break a whole system of encryption. Simple transposition cryptography, the kind used by Caesar, could of course easily be broken if you had the orginal and the encryption. But in this time, machines were used to generate the keys and encrypt the messages. Having one key particular to a document would not work as the same key to another document. Different levels of documents would probably have completely different algorithms on the top as well. And this is all assuming that the Soviets had their own version of the VENONA project to get the encryptions in the first place, which I don't think ever happened.

Ralph de Toledano and Victor Lasky, Seeds of Treason, Los Angeles, Western Islands, 1965 references Welles, Sayre & Purifouy testimony; also, I believe Weinstein's Perjury does also, and other sources. I appologize I haven't had time to bring more evidence in. As to their "expertise", pardon me for saying so, but criticizing them seems to be just original research speculation, and U.S. government use of ciphers and classified materials in the 1930s really was not very sophisticated, nor does it seem to be even much of a priority or concern, which is a factor that allowed for the wholesale infiltration that took place. Looking back, it easy to impose a Cold War view of espionage and tradecraft on American practices, which really didn't become a vital concern either among Washington policy makers, legislators, or the public, until after the 1947 passage of the National Security Act. nobs 17:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It is not "orginal research" to point out that these people have zero background in intelligence or cyptrography, something that might be important if you're trying to posture them as words of authority on code-breaking. Nixon in his hyperboles made the Pumpkin papers seem akin to the secret to the atomic bomb, and it was only later we found out how pathetically benign the contents were (Thank you Freedom of Information act.) The point is there needs to be some sort historical backup to show that this testimony was in fact believable, because plenty of people attested to things (Nixon) that didn't hold up to the light of day with modern evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org/Enigma_machine is an example of cyptography tech that was widely available to both government and commericial sectors in the early 1920s! I doubt the State Department was a decade behind in tech, and I have yet to see evidence that the Soviets could even intercept wires from the State Department either!

In Citing Enigma, you choose a poor example. Rather, I'd encourage you to review the State Departments Black Chamber, which was shut down in 1927, to get some idea of the priority of intelligence work in the United States government prio to the wartime creation of the OSS. nobs 02:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Au contraire, mon frere. In citing Enigma, I demonstrated that the State Department would have had to been lagging behind encyrption technology that was already decades old by the 1930's. In citing Black Chamber, you demonstrated that you don't read your own links. Black Chamber was a cryptanalytic outfit, meaning that its raison d'etre was to break other countries codes, not fiddle with America's. The founder Herbert Yardly had earlier written the Solution of American Diplomatic Codes, which profoundly impacted American cyprtograpgy and led to many improvements. But this was in 1917, far from where we are concerned. Black Chamber shut down in 1929 (off by two years), primarily because Stiminson did not think it was 'gentlemanly' to read the secrets of neutral nations like Japan. He did not, to my knowledge, decide to roll back the United States own encyrption technology by decades like you seem to suggest. That would be rather insane. Not believing in snooping is far different from not believing in the merits of confidentiality.

Half right and half wrong. Enigma was not shared technology. It was a huge advance by the Germans, nevertheless it was broken by Brits with the help of Polish refugees after the War started (post 1939), again demonstrating the low priority the US put on both Intelligence, intelligence technology, and counterintelligence circa 1938. As to the Black Chamber, yes Wiki says 1929; my off hand memory says 1927. I don't know which is correct. But I will rely upon my memory first, before citing that article as authoritive. nobs 06:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Well that's not true at all. The Enigma machine was not a state secret. It was commericially available during the Wiemer republic and was adopted by a number of nations besides Germany. Enigma was a specific variant of electro-mechanical rotor machines, which were independently invented by a number of people, including an American, a Dutchman, a Swede, and of course a German, all around 1917. Enigma is much more famous than either American or British rotor machines simply because it was actually cracked, whereas the Allies' tech was not. The Germans actually added a number of convienence features to Enigma that made the rotor settings much more predictable, hardly an 'advance' in tech. I'm still not sure why you believe Americans were drooling incompetents in cyptography in the 1930s. America has more often than not been on the winning side of the encyrption wars from the 20th century onward.

I can accept that on good faith, but would like to see cites. Anyway, it doesn't refute the basic premise that the US did not regard Intelligence work as a very high priority (witness, closure of Black Chamber, and the fact the US didn't wasn't using Enigma; besides, even if evidence could be unearthed that it did, your premise how it was commercial available, etc., would reinforce my premise that the US didn't regard security of encryptions as a high priority, neither did it attempt to craft encryption systems better than Enigma, which is regarded as state of the art at the time.

Incidentally, here is Vassiliev’s own English language translation of KGB file 43173 vol.2 (v) pp. 49-55. nobs 19:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, this is a bit much: "This memo incontrovertibly identifies Alger Hiss as a longtime Soviet agent who worked at the U.S. State Department" Is this memo viewable via the internet or some well-known book? I think you should elaborate on what the memo says instead of just saying its incontrovertible evidence, and leaving it as an article of faith. - Timoteo

The Gorsky memo lists "Alger Hiss, former employee of the State Department", number 3 behind Whittaker Chamber & Col Bukov. This is a KI document. It references the "Karl group" which was a GRU group. According to Dr. Svetlana Chervonnaya, the current head of the Department of Domestic Policy Studies at the Insitute of USA and Canada in the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow, Soviet Case Officers listed names chronologically; Chambers was listed #1; Col. Bukov, the GRU Case Officer is #2; Alger Hiss is #3. There are 12 names on the list. The list is entitled "Failures in the U.S.A. (1938-48)". "Leonard", the codename for Hiss on the list, is apparently his GRU code name. Also, it should be noted, Hiss worked with the Illegal GRU line, not the Legal GRU Rezidentura. Dr. Eduard Mark explains how the MGB code name "Ales" occurred in Venona traffic; "Ales" was not an MGB ( or KGB, as is what is most often used by modern authors) operative. "Ales", as #1822 Venona states, was "working with the military neighbors", i.e. GRU. Pavel Fitin had instructed his operatives to find out quickly whatever they could about the upcoming UN Charter Conference. Hence, a breach of security occured, and lines were crossed, that is to say, an MGB operative openly contacted a GRU agent, Alger Hiss. MGB assigned its own code name for Hiss, i.e. Ales, which differs from the code GRU used. That is how Hiss, i.e. "Ales" appears in Venona traffic, because of a one time breach of security by the MGB.

Yet it never states Alger was a spy; that jump in logic must be supplied by an already biased reader. Many of the people listed in that memo were simply people of interest to Soviet intelligence, some were definitely not spys or communists. You should not act like merely having a codename is proof of guilt. Both Churchill and Roosevelt were given Soviet codenames, but it doesn't make them spies. Also it should be noted that this note arrived into public domain from a failed libel suit against David Lowenthal by Vassilev. Vassilev gave it to Allen Weinstein as a coauthor for Haunted Wood, but Allen CURIOUSLY never included it in his case against Hiss. The obvious reason is that it tramatically undermines the condition that Alger could be ALES, since Gobsky would have known of this. Far from strenghtening the case against Hiss, it practically exonerates him from being ALES.

(1) I assume you are referring to the Gorsky memo (2) Roosevelt and Churchill are not listed in the Gorsky memo (3) title of the Gorsky memo is "Compromised American sources and networks" (4) "sources and networks" are by definition spies (5) again, "ALES" is a MGB (or KGB) code name (6) Hiss didn't work for KGB (7) Hiss worked for "the military neighbors", i.e. GRU (8) MGB (or KGB) and GRU did not share code names (9) there are other instances of MGB (or KGB) refering to GRU sources, and in some instances, MGB (or KGB) assigning its own KGB code name (10) there are several instances of GRU refering to MGB (or KGB) sources, and in some instances, GRU assigning its own GRU code name (11) the assertion, "Gorsky would have known of this" is original research, as is the speculation regarding the current Archivist of the United States not referencing the Gorsky memo in Haunted Wood (12) both MGB (or KGB), and GRU practices are admitted to by various past MGB (or KGB) Case Officers, defectors, and retired high level personal (13) MGB (or KGB), and GRU practices are known among Counterintelligence services worldwide, and been published.

I hope this sheds light on some of the issues you've raised. nobs 02:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted, that Hiss, as an operative for the GRU Illegal network does not occur in Legal recovered GRU decyrptions. Again, because the lines do not cross between the GRU Rezidentura, which sent coded messages routinely to Moscow, and the GRU Illegal apparatus, operating under deep cover, which had no contact with Official Soviet Missions, where encrypted ciphers communications were sent to Moscow. The courier communications are handled by other means. nobs 20:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Added a bit about Samuel Krieger.

This quote,

successfully sued Weinstein for libel damages in 1979. Weinstein settled out of court

you can't have it both ways; Krieger either won the case in court or out of court. This is bit much overweighted in one direction. nobs 20:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

the first sentence might imply it came down to a court verdict. Point duly noted. Fixed sentence.

Vassiliev

"The Rosenbergs, Theodore Hall and Alger Hiss did spy for the Soviets, and I saw their real names in the documents, their code names, a lot of documents about that. How you judge them is up to you. To me they're heroes."

Let me deconstruct this quote. Vassilev believes Rosenbergs, Theodore Hall and Alger Hiss were spies. He saw documents, and "like, their names, man, their names". And then he tells us how much he loves those wascally spies. La-dee-frickin-da. We already know what Vassilev believes about Hiss. We already know about those documents. This quote is vapid and void of anything informative. And more importantly, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CRITIQUE OF CRITICS. I make these sections for a reason, nobs.

Yes, the hit job on Weinstein & Vassiliev is obvious POV, ignoring the balance the two men brought to their investigation. Facts are, as properly cited, Vassiliev is not motivated to smear Hiss, on the contrary, Vassiliev views Hiss as a hero for his service to the Soviet Union. This is an extremely relevent NPOV point. nobs 19:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

No, it's a non sequitur quote that has nothing to do with anything. Where exactly does the section try to surmise the motives of either Weinstein or Vassiliev? It only illustrates the irrefutable facts that point to the problems in their scholarship. You are laboring under the false impression that merely because the section tries to represent the facts supporting a particular POV, it is somehow POV itself. Under that philosophy, I could remove the VENONA project and pretty much everything in this article beyond the biographical bit. This wiki tries to fairly represent both sides, and I will remind you once again that you have your own section to attack Hiss from. However, this quote is still meaningless. Both Weinstein and Vassiliev are on the same Hiss-Is-A-Spy boat, and are equally biased. Weinstein may think being a Soviet spy is a bad thing and Vassiliev a good thing, but it doesn't change their willingness to see Hiss as a spy either way. I would still recommend you keep editorializing about the authors' actual motives to yourself, as I do.

Well, your losing me. Facts are Vassiliev thinks Hiss, the Rosenbergs, and a few hundred other Americans, are heroes because of what they did to aid the Soviet Union. Vassiliev and Wienstein teamed up to write a book. That team in and of itself created "balance". Trying to make Vassiliev the villian won't amount to anything.

My appologies, the facts of the real world are all we have to work with. nobs 02:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me employ a metaphor for how several of your arguments appear to me. You are like a prosecutor in a murder trial who hems and haws about the "smoking gun", and then produces a banana as Exhibit A. I honestly fail to see how the quote supports anything you wrote about. I honestly fail to see how your reply addressed anything I wrote above. Now if I was a cynic, I might think that you don't have any justification for this quote, and it's merely a driveby throw-away line designed to put pathos hatred on Alger Hiss vis-a-vis the references to other notorious Americans through Mr. Vassiliev's words. I will continue though, in the hopes that you are a genuinely confused individual in need of enlightenment. Since you had so much trouble responding to the actual content of my post last time, I will use bullets to illustrate the problems.

(1) Your idea of "balance" lies in the fact that Weinstein is an American and Vassiliev is a Russian & former Soviet

(2) This "balance" does not excuse shoddy scholarship

(3) This "balance" does not explain why Weinstein was sued by his own sources, and forced to apologize and pay up

(4) This "balance" does not make it okay to use uncheckable sources

(5) This "balance" does not mean Vassiliev was any less eager to "prove" Hiss's guilt than the next Hiss detractor (He sounds postively giddy in fact)

(6) This "balance" is not one of opposing schools of thought, but the same (Hiss = spy) with arbitrary differences

(7) This "balance" is miles apart from a proper NPOV.

(8) "Trying to make Vassiliev the villian won't amount to anything" Quote me, kind sir, where I ever implied villiany for dear Vassiliev. I suspect you can't. The only one editorializing here is you. I know reality can be an inconvenience, but I find it to be the only proper basis to work from.--168.122.236.22 07:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, you're losing me. I don't see the point in restating what I've posted already. You're objection seems to be (a) Sayre is not a reliable source Are you saying you were one of the Congressman who actually heard what Sayre said at his testimony, or do you have psysic powers to know what no one else who was not present at that private hearing does(b) PBS is not a reliable source. I'll add more cites (try actual justification for revelancy, bud) then (incidentally, never heard of Douglas Reed, nor after an extremely cursory review, have see any reason to examine further, nor pass judgement). nobs 19:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I find your lack of faith in your own cause disturbing. You apparently are afraid of an honest presentation, and must parrot the same drek long after I correct you. I HAVE NEVER QUESTIONED THAT VASSILIEV SAID THESE WORDS. I HAVE POINTED OUT THAT YOU CANNOT ILLUSTRATE IT HAS ANY REVELANCE TO THE SECTION AT HAND, OR ANY MEANINGFUL INFORMATIONAL VALUE. YOU ANSWERED NONE OF THE BULLETS. YOU HAVE NOTHING TO SAY. The Sayre quote is even more of a train wreck, being that the only website with the exact wording you used is from a crackpot, and he even disagrees with half of what you wrote.

How's this for timely research on the cutting edge:

• Donald H.J. Hermann, Deception and Betrayal: The Tragedy of Alger Hiss, Paper delivered to the Chicago Literary Club, 14 November 2005;

"The statute of limitations for espionage of ten years, protected Hiss against the charge of having passed secret material from State Department files to Chambers, of having placed in the hands of agents of the Soviet Union documents which enabled the Soviet Union to break important secret codes used by the United States." nobs 21:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Eduard Mark

Dr. Eduard Mark of the United States Air Academy point-by-point rebuttal of the theory of the the late John Lownethal has been accepted in the scholarly community; there was one other attempt to rebut #1822 Venona by another scholar, and that has been disposed of as well. I could post a link to both rebuttals, but I doubt if it would do any good. If the insistence is to give readers of Misplaced Pages outdated & stale disinformation, so be it. nobs 17:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Well go ahead and post it. If it's a novel just provide a link, if it's a reasonable length you can put it as a new section under the case against Hiss" part. - Timoteo

It is a point by point rebuttal to the parsing of every word and comma. Eduard mark is also fluent in Russian. It is quite lengthy, and a summary is is probably 25% of the length of this article already. What's more, the Mark demonstrates Lowenthal (and others) arguements are moot. nobs 18:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Daladier

What about French Premiere Edouard Daladier? Should we add that he told American officials in 1939 that the Hiss brothers were Soviet agents? nobs 04:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe you mean should we add what William C. Bullitt said about what supposedly Edouard Daladier said about what supposedly the French Intelligence said, or in other words three-tier hearsay? The answer here would be no. The chain of dialogue is so long that we don't know for certain what the French Intelligence actually believed, and not even hint of what sort of evidence led them to believe it. Furthermore, Bullit is closely associated with the excesses of the anti-Communist movement and the rise of McCarthyism, hardly the font of untainted information. He defamed a great many people (esp. New Dealers) besides Hiss, some of which turned out to be innocent, and yet nevertheless had their lives ruined (quick search reveals one Lattimore). He is noted for personally ruining the career of Welles by doggedly trying to expose his homosexuality. FDR viewed him in such high esteem that he said: "Bill Bullitt, you have defamed the name of a man who toiled for his fellow men, and you can go to hell.' And that's what I tell you to do now." Rah rah. http://www.gutenberg-e.org/osc01/osc08.html--Timoteo III 05:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yah but Misplaced Pages is an international effort; surely we can input now from French sources. nobs 06:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Mon dieu! Bullitt is not a Frenchman! Bullit is not Edouard Daladier! Bullit is not the French Intelligence Angency! Bullit is a American whose conduct is questionable, and who is a bit of a human turd in FDR's view. You're citing Bullit as if he were the French intelligence agency giving a direct statement about Hiss. That is an American pretending to be a French source. It's what we here call hearsay, and it has as much weight as dirt. Find an actual release or document by the French Intelligence Agency supporting this view, not just storytime by Mr Sunshine here.

Au contraire mi ammie; we know the story from American sources. I am proposing investigating French sources now. Presumably, counterintelligence files on Comintern operatives were well preserved thru the Vichy period. nobs 17:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

"American sources." Very interesting. Pray tell who is the other source besides Bullit?

Really? Do you suppose Bullitt was source of Bullitts information? nobs 21:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)