|
|
|
Referring to Francis Sempa's look back at Whittaker Chambers, we have the following interesting exchange of views: The argument over Whittaker Chambers has always been whether he was really a Communist and whether he was part of some reactionary right wing movement. The salient question should have always been whether he was a false defector. The Venona transcripts should tell the tale. The idea that a field agent would report to the KGB that Alger Hiss was one of their agents, if it were true, is absurd. How could anyone imagine that this would not already be known to the KGB command? It is a maxim of intelligence that any communication may be compromised by the opposition. There is no way that a field agent knowledgeable enough to know about such a high level agent would have in anyway referred to him. The reference to Harry Hopkins is so questionable that the author acknowledges doubt of its truth. If the author doubts Harry Hopkins was an agent, how would he explain the report. Richard Nixon, in his Memoirs, states that he concluded that Chambers conversion was more emotional than intellectual. Creating "red scares" has long been a part of Communist Party theory and practice. It is inherent in the first line of the Communist Manifesto "A spectre hangs over Europe, the spectre of Communism." The Communist Party has a long history of framing anti-communists as Communists. The French Ambassador Foccart being one of the foremost examples. Alger Hiss never defended himself as a Communist would. Hiss did not counter-attack. He blamed no specific conspiracy for his problems. He argued his defense systematically with no coherent propaganda line. Hiss was a classic liberal until the day he died. In The Witness, Chambers always rebuts the reasons he advances for leaving the Communist Party. Chambers describes the skill of Communists in murdering without detection. Then he describes the murder of an ex-communist who joined his local church. The idea that Chambers could openly attend a local church and defend himself against the retaliation of the Communist Party by carrying a pistol is absurd on its face. That Chambers was a well practiced liar has been proven over and over again. Chambers fits exactly the model of the false defector—the most dangerous tool in espionage. The Chambers/Hiss affair destroyed the Liberal intellectual resistance to the Communist Party, divided America, and destroyed American belief in intellectual integrity. "Conservatives" gloat over the idea that liberal intellectuals could be infiltrated by Communists. The same "conservatives" never consider the far easier possibility of Communists infiltrating the conservative movement. As an example, Herb Klein (Nixon's Director of Communications) undoubtedly both organized the Watergate Burglaries and served as Deep Throat. Herb Klein set up the Kitchen Debates between Khrushchev and Nixon. Klein sabotaged Nixon's 1960 presidential campaign and sabotaged Nixon's 1962 campaign for Governor of California. Common sense would conclude that Klein graduated USC in 1940 as a Communist missioned to infiltrate the Republican Party. The article on Klein in Current Biographies is instructive. A couple of decades ago, a high level KGB agent "defected" to the CIA. A couple of years later he returned to the USSR complaining that he was only allowed to talk to low level CIA agents. With all their expertise, the CIA leadership did not trust themselves to talk with a potential false defector. The conservatives, however, never even questioned whether Chambers was a false defector but, rather, made endless excuses for his frequently exposed lies. Conservatives love to support Chambers because they believe in doing so they warn America about Communist infiltration. This objective would be far better realized if the conservatives, themselves, would recognize that they themselves had been so thoroughly deceived. "Ronn S. Pickard" <fsm@gte.net> Ronn Picard is not the first to argue that Chambers was a "false defector." Hiss partisans have throughout the years sought to creatively explain why a well paid Time editor would endanger his career and reputation by admitting to spying for the Soviets and naming a well respected former governmental official, among others, as having been a Soviet agent (information, by the way, that he had previously provided to the State Department and the FBI). Let me address Mr. Picard's letter point by point. Picard cannot believe that Soviet field agents would refer to Hiss or any other agents in communications with Moscow. He writes, "It is a maxim of intelligence that any communication may be compromised by the opposition." Sure. That is why intelligence services use codes to communicate. But, as we and the British proved during the Second World War, codes can be broken, sometimes with spectacular results. Just as we broke the German and Japanese codes during World War II, so too did we break Soviet codes—that is the story of Venona. I invite Mr. Picard to read the books about Venona that I cited in the article, or to visit the NSA's website to read the Venona cables. He will be amazed how often Soviet agents (such as the Rosenbergs) are referred to (by code) in the cables. Neither Hiss nor Harry Hopkins are mentioned by name in the Venona intercepts. Hiss was assigned the code name "ALES." The authors of The Venona Secrets conclude, based on circumstantial evidence and information from a former KGB officer (who attended a lecture in the 1960s during which veteran Soviet intelligence agent Iskhak Akhmerov called Hopkins "the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in the United States") that Hopkins was agent "19" referred to in the Venona intercepts. By the way, Hiss did not work for the KGB (it was then called the NKVD), but for the GRU (Soviet military intelligence). Picard writes that Hiss "never defended himself as a Communist would.... [he] did not counter-attack." Perhaps Mr. Picard is unfamiliar with the smear campaign—what Hilton Kramer called "the frightful campaign of vilification"—that the Hiss forces launched against Chambers. Hiss counter-attacked precisely as a communist would—by attempting to destroy Chambers by lies, rumors and innuendo. Picard writes that the Hiss/Chambers affair "destroyed the Liberal intellectual resistance to the Communist Party, divided America and destroyed American belief in intellectual integrity." These apparently were Chambers' goals as a "false defector." But none of those claims is true. Many liberals continued to be anti-communist after the Hiss/ Chambers Affair: Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Sidney Hook, Norman Podhoretz, James Burnham (who was still at that time a liberal), Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Henry M. Jackson, Arthur Koestler, etc. It was the Vietnam War, not Hiss-Chambers, that shattered the Cold War anti-communist consensus. "America" was not divided by Hiss-Chambers. From the 1950s to the mid-to-late 1960s America as a whole remained anti-communist. Finally, Hiss-Chambers did not destroy American belief in intellectual integrity. Instead, it exposed the fact that some far-Left intellectuals were willing to sacrifice integrity for the cause of communism. The evidence of Hiss' guilt is overwhelming. I suggest that Mr. Picard read Weinstein's Perjury and Tanenhaus' Whittaker Chambers: A Biography. Weinstein and Tanenhaus are liberals, not conservatives. Yet they amass overwhelming evidence of Hiss' guilt. Their works are examples of intellectual integrity at its finest. I will not address Mr. Picard's claim that Herb Klein was "undoubtedly" deep throat and the organizer of the Watergate burglaries, other than to say that his certainty about this is not justified by anything else in his letter. Whittaker Chambers was not a "false defector" who infiltrated the conservative movement. Chambers often was critical of Joe McCarthy and other conservatives. He at first resisted efforts by William F. Buckley to get him to join National Review. He described himself not as a conservative, but as a "man of the Right." He was above all else a witness to the truth, and deserves to be so remembered. Francis P. Sempa |
|||
|
Dear Mr. Mattox, Thanks very much for publishing my presentation at the Duke Conference on humanitarian intervention. In your editorial, you asked about the origin of the term "humanitarian intervention." In my 1996 book entitled Humanitarian Intervention: The United Nations in an Evolving World Order I noted on page 11 that the term was used at least as early as 1910 by the French scholar Antoine Rougier in his article "La Theorie de l'Intervention d'Humanite". Many scholars used it thereafter, but I found no earlier reference. All the best, Sean D. Murphy Sean D. Murphy |
|||
|
Good Morning, I recently read an article titled "A Glimpse of India" By Carl Fritz. In this article Mr. Fritz mentions my grandfather, Horace Holmes, a Point IV man. My grandfather passed away in April and I would like to know if Mr. Fritz has any other memories of my Grandfather that he would be willing to share. My brother, cousins and I would love to hear stories from someone that knew him or encounter him durring his years abroad. Thank you. Holly (Holmes) Blackstock Dear Holly, I'm delighted to get a message from a granddaughter of Horace Holmes. I'm sorry to hear about his death, but I'm sure he was old enough. He also lived a full life. I'm not so young myself. In fact, our journal is produced mainly by a bunch of retired foreign service types. I knew Horace quite well, and was at his house in New Delhi a number of times. Though I was a program planner, I tended to specialize in agriculture and therefore worked in close cooperation with Horace until he left India and was replaced by Frank Parker. It was Horace who took me to the Ministry of Agriculture the first time, and introduced me to high officials there. I'm trying to place my memory in perspective. I can recall Horace visiting East Africa during the mid 1960s when I was there. I was employed on a regional basis at that time, and believe I was in Kampala at the home of a friend of mine (Bryant Kearl) from the University of Wisconsin when Horace popped in. They apparently knew each other. My memory, perhaps wrongly, tells me that Horace was living in Florida at that time. Bryant died a few years ago in Wisconsin. I'll try to think some more on the subject, and will be in touch. Incidentally, I live in Chapel Hill, so we may meet at some time. I was in Charlotte recently on a CH Senior Center sponsored train trip. Regards, |
|||
|
The following exchange has been shared with us by Professor Kirstein. We publish it here as a research item that may be of interest to our readers. Dear Professor Kirstein; Please permit me to introduce myself. My name is Robert Farny and I am collecting background material for an author working on a 20th Century retrospective. I am trying to find a particular scientist who worked on the Manhattan Project. Unfortunately, I don't have much to go on, or even his name. What I know is from a brief excerpt of an interview with a source for the book about having met one of the Alamogordos scientists. The source is no longer living, so I can't go back to him for more information. So I am left with seeing if I can find the scientist by other avenues. The information I have is that the man was an assistant professor at the University of California at Berkeley and that he was an atomic physicist who worked on the Manhattan Project. The source stated that this professor developed a "molecularizer and broke the gas and fuel down into mlolecules" (possibly a reference to Professor Earnst Lawrence's cycletron, perhaps? ) and that he developed the trigger for the atomic bomb. The source also noted that this professor was fired by Nixon in the 1950s. The latter reference could mean that he was one of the nuclear scientists who protested using atomic weapons and lost their security clearances. That seems most likely to me. If he is still living, I am interested in finding this man and talking to him about the administration's reaction to the nuclear scientists' anti-war protest. Professor Earnst Lawrence seems to fit this description, except for losing his job over the anti-war protest. I don't think he ever lost his job. Possibly this person was an assistant on his staff or something. All of this brings me to my question. Do you have either a list of Manhattan Project personnel or the 171 scientists who protested the use of atomic weapons? I figure that if I can cross check those lists with Berkeley's faculty list I might be able to narrow down the identiy of this professor. If you have either of these lists—or any leads at all—it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance for whatever information you are able to give me. Sincerely, Dear Robert Farny, 1) Yes I do have the names of the scientists who signed the various petitions. I would not use the word "protest" as you do in that my thesis is that these scientists barely deviated from Truman Administration policy and were indeed 'false dissenters.' But be it as it may, and one does not have to accept my thesis, I do have the names of every scientist who signed the petition except for Szilard's first July 3 petition; yet I understand most signed both with additional signatures appearing only the latter one of July 17. 2)If you were to check Gene Dannen's website, see URL in my footnote 31,you would have access to many of the names. While his list is not quite as complete as mine, and contains a few minor errors, it is, nonetheless, accurate enough for your work. He does not take e-mails due to family-health issues but his Leo Szilard website is accessible and you will be able to locate many of the Chicago and Clinton petitions. 3)The Nixon reference probably refers to his pre-VP days as a House member on HUAC or his two years as a red-baiting proMcCarthyite Senator. You might want to check Wang's book on this. See my footnote 46. 4) The reference to the Alamogordos (sic) scientists is somewhat inaccurate even though frequently used. There was no facility at Alamogordo. I reference this in an article in Art in America in 1989. The test site at Trinity was in the middle of the desert and Alamogordo was the nearest town about 40 miles away. I have dropped the reference to Alamogordo. Actually, the bomb was assembled at Los Alamos and transported due south to the Trinity test-site for the July 16 aborning of the nuclear age. 5) If you assume he or she signed the petition, that would make your work easier. Lawrence did not sign it nor does he fit the description; he was part of the dreaded Scientific Advisory Panel of the Interim Committee along with Arthur Holly Compton, Robert Oppenheimer and Fermi that demanded "no acceptable alternative to direct military use." Ken Bainbridge, Glenn Seaborg (a Berkeley chemist) did not sign it (Arthur Wahl-a Berkely chemist) did not. 6) Also Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb, while anecdotal, and looked down upon from elitist academic historians, does explore amply the components of the bomb and the architects of the fateful weapon. I don't have the mother lode for you as it were but maybe some of my comments above might prove to be of assistance. I will send this to the editor Henry Mattox. Maybe if he prints it some reader might respond with the knowledge of your "mystery scientist." I am curious what project you are working on and who the author is; obviously I would anticipate some acknowledgment if my response is of merit in your research for the lucky author. Peter Dear Peter, He fits all but one element of the description I was given. He was an engineer and nuclear physicist and held an assistant professorship at UC Berkeley before the War. His cyclotron work at Berkeley in 1939 led to the discovery of tritium, for which he is credited as the co-discoverer. He worked on the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos as the chief engineer of the Ordnance Division and was, thus, intimately involved in the development of the trigger for one or the other of the two designs. (His obituary doesn’t note which of the two branches of the Ordnance Division he worked in once the two lines of research into bomb design split into separate projects.) I also have him placed at a November 15, 1945 meeting of Cal Tech’s short-lived chapter of the Federation of Atomic Scientists. The source who described him was also at this meeting, so I have them together. It is with attention to the final element that I am coming back to you with, hopefully, my last question. The source described the scientist he met as having been “fired by Nixon in the 50s.” Nixon only took public credit for “firing” one atomic scientist that I can. That is when he, as Vice President, caused Edward Condon to be denied a security clearance due to his left-leaning politics early in his career. Condon was ultimately exonerated of any wrong-doing, but the incident was very destructive and Nixon used it to get as much political mileage as he could. (I may be a life-long Republican, but I have no respect for that scoundrel). In any event, do your records indicate whether Robert Cornog was ever investigated by the HUAC, the AEC, or during Nixon’s tenure as Vice President? His involvement with an FAS chapter very likely resulted in such an investigation or censure, but I don’t have this documented and it is my final little piece of string. The information I can find on him ignores this time period. Thank you, again, for all your help. Sincerely, Robert, Sounds you have found the person. I am pretty sure Seth Neddermeyer was the physicist who did at least the initial trigger development for the implosion plutonium bomb that was tested at Trinity and used at Nagasaki on August 9. This does not mean Robert Cornog was not involved in the Plutonium bomb but might have been more active in the gun-assembly device utilized in the Uranium Little Boy device that was not even field tested at Trinity. I do not know a grat deal about Cornog but Jessica Wang's book might help you if he was part of the hit list of the HUAC etc. If I come across him in my work, which is primarily on Metlab at the University of Chicago, I will so inform. Glad you found "your man" and feel free to contact me in the future. Regards, Dear Peter, Thanks. I don't know which of the two teams he worked on. The records only indicate Ordnance Division and since he wasn't the team leader of either of the two groups, I can only guess—although I my sense is that he was on the Uranium team. I found Jessica Wang's book to be very helpful. She is also sending me some documents on Cornog. Anyway, thanks very much for your helpful pointers and insight. I relayed my gratitude for your assistance to the author. Robert From: Bill Smith Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 10:52:51 -0500 Subject: Re: New American Diplomacy Posting Dear Editor and Publisher, I couldn't read the Spanish piece[Un nuevo tipo de intervención para Colombia], but I did read the China article [China Warfare]. I found it interesting to learn the long history of Chinese military thinking, tactical and strategic, and to see some parallels to what is happening today with Taiwan. It was quite interesting. I really like reading the articles you post. I have learned something from nearly all of the one's I have read, and I have read most of the recent ones. Keep up the good work. Yours, Dear Mr. Smith, Thank you for your message of support for American Diplomacy. It is our constant hope that readers will find the articles and features that we publish both edifying and interesting. Thus letters such as yours are most gratifying. I am glad that you agree that Mr. Sawyer's piece on Chinese warfare is particularly timely and relevant. I hope that you will revisit Sr. Valdivieso's essay on Colombia. We published it in Spanish, but you will see that there is an accompanying version in English available at a click of a mouse. We have in preparation, soon to go up on our website, an article by a Department of State historian on US-French interaction at the time of the Cuban missile crisis. I think you will enjoy it; we will let you know when it is posted. Once again, thank you for writing. Sincerely, The following exchange of correspondence pertains to Peter Kirstein's article "False Dissenters: Manhattan Project Scientists and the use of the Atomic Bomb" now available to readers on "American Diplomacy." If you have comments on this or other articles, you may address them to <editor@americandiplomacy.org>. From: Walter Cox Dear Professor Kirstein, My stepfather, Sherman Fried, was a chemist with the Manhattan Project from 1942 through 1946. He always maintained that he did NOT sign the Szilard Petition of July 17, 1945, however a casual Internet search revealed his name on a list of signatories. I wonder if you might provide a reference to actual copies of the signed documents, rather than a compiled list. That way we could verify what was signed and what was not. Perhaps he meant only that he never signed the initial July 3, 1945 Szilard Petition and was persuaded to sign the final July 17, 1945 version. Our family would like to clarify this point, and we welcome any help you might provide. Sincerely, From: "Peter Kirstein" <kirstein@sxu.edu> Dear Walter, I received your e-mail and can assure you that Sherman Fried signed the July 17, 1945 petition. I am 100% certain. On a composite list he was discribed as "Chemist, Physics and Metallurgy Division and Chemistry Division." His actual signature that I also possess was on a list with 13 other signers (14total). William Karush, Ethaline Hartge Cortelyou, Alfred Pfanstiehl, Katherine Way, Mary Burke, Mildred Ginsburg, Robert L. Platzman, Hoylande Young, L. A. Ohlinger, J. Ernest Wilkins Jr., Wilfred Rall, George R. Carlson. There were three columns and Sherman Fried was in the center second under Platzman and before Young. Two ways to get this: I will be out of town and would not be able to act on this until midJune or so. However, you can rest assured that your stepfather signed the petition, that I saw the signature on a microfilm copy at the National Archives in Chicago. Maybe, Fried was referring to Szilard's first petition but I am doing more work on that and could not confirm or deny whether he signed it or not. I just don't know. Hope this was helpful. |
||||
|
Why is everyone so surprised that the United Nations Economic and Social Council voted not to reelect the United States to the Council of the Human Rights Commission? Other countries are clearly frustrated with what they view as a unilateralist approach by the U. S. to major international issues. The U. S. Congress has refused to ratify several major treaties relating to human rights. The U. S. Senate won*t even bring to a vote the ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) although it was signed in 1979 and numerous hearings have been held. All countries except the United States and Somalia have ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, a treaty that enumerates standards for improving children*s lives through access to health care, education and strengthening family structures. The United States withdrew from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) sixteen years ago and has not rejoined in spite of the growing importance of the agency to world cooperation. How can the United States fully participate in global planning for the improvement of human rights if it is not a member of this important international organization? Other countries are also frustrated that the U. S., which is one of the world*s greatest contributors to environmental pollution, refuses to participate in the Kyoto Convention on Global Climate. Member states are also upset with the payment of UN contributions either late in the year in which they are due or not paying all of the assessments. Since 1982, the United States has paid its assessments eleven months late every year. In addition, the US is dragging its feet in paying its large indebtedness to the UN despite an impressive record of reform at the United Nations during the past decade. The U. S. House of Representatives International Relations Committee has refused to hold hearings on the Helms-Biden bill that authorizes partial payment of the UN arrears. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has not yet appointed a UN Ambassador. When the vote was taken on membership on the Human Rights Commission no one was there to provide leadership for the United States. The vote not to reelect the United States to this important commission indicates a deep and widespread frustration with the uncooperative attitude of US leaders and key congressmen toward the United Nations. William Luers, the President of the United Nations Association of the USA (UNA-USA) has stated that this is the first time since Eleanor Roosevelt led the charge to create the Human Rights Commission in 1946 that the United States will not have a seat. Given America*s history of leadership on the Commission and its commitment to the promotion of human rights, its absence is sure to damage the Commission*s credibility and effectiveness. It's alarming but not surprising that UN member nations have become so frustrated with the lack of US support of the global initiatives of the UN that they have voted the United States off of this important council. Isaac T. Littleton Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 20:24:59 +0200 I'm from Lithuania. I would like to get info about USA relations with Baltic states. Thank you.I was much interested in Ambassador Brenda Schoonover's advice to young students regarding the Foreign Service. I'm sure her advice to the students will be most useful. I note that AMB. Schoonover served in a couple of countries where I spent some time. I was in Sri Lanka when we began our aid program there in 1956, and had some very useful experiences. I also had something to do with starting Teachers for East Africa; in fact it was my idea and became quite a big program starting 1963. Then we started Teacher Education for East Africa. Earlier I was in a Technical Assistance Study Group in Washington, DC, and we made a grant to send a man around the world to study and determine the feasibility of a Peace Corps. He got half way around the world when he was recalled to attend the ceremony at the White House which initiated the Peace Corps. Regards, The statement that the American Secretary of State Colin Powell made to a congressional committee that Fidel Castro has "done good things for his people'' and that "he's no longer the threat he once was'' must be qualified. After all, we must adjust them to the facts we have all lived and go on living today. First, Secretary Powell should have pointed out that "his people" refers to the Cuban State Security, the top levels of the Cuban Communist Party, and the entrepreneurs that have invested in Castro's Cuba. Perhaps there are others, but these are "his people" for Castro. Secondly, outside of his intervention in the 1962 October crisis, Castro has not been, was not, and will not be an offensive military power against the US. However, he may still be a danger in terms of chemical and biological warfare to South Florida, indeed an important part of the United States. Furthermore, it is imperative to recognize that the greatest danger of Castro is his influence in financial, commercial, journalistic, and political circles. The risks and dangers of survival with Castro in our vicinity cannot be underestimated and need to be recognized by someone in the State Department and the Bush Administration, less we all succumb to ignorance, deceit, and terror. Antonio Gordon |
||||
 American Diplomacy Copyright © 2001 American Diplomacy Publishers Chapel Hill NC www.americandiplomacy.org |
||||
|
Please send your letters to our editor at editor@americandiplomacy.org. |
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Support |
||||
| Search the American Diplomacy website
|
||||
|
||
Return to top
