Talk:Wilfred Burchett

message: A lot of "ink" has been spent in the preceding discussion about these two documents (they amount to three pages in the original Russian). Anyone can now read a careful and reliable English translation of the original, posted on the Bukovsky Archives website.Bukovsky Archives online, 25 October 1957, Request from KGB for financial assistance for Wilfred Burchett (5 pp). See also Russian Presidential Archives, File b2/128gs. 
There is little doubt about the authenticity of these classified texts: many of the documents that Vladimir Bukovsky copied have since been obtained in other ways. Nor is there a serious suggestion that Bukovsky did not copy them in the manner stated. The name of Wilfred Burchett, furthermore, meant nothing to him. It was only when translation of the archive documents into English resumed that someone recognised the significance of this document. This accounts for the delay between Romerstein's 2001 paraphrase and Manne's update of 2013.
That is the publication history, as it were. It leaves untouched the bigger question of what these documents actually mean and what they say about Burchett. When Manne wrote his original 2008 "reappraisal" of Burchett he used a quite specific term in the title "Agent of Influence". 
Since the Fall of Soviet Communism accusations in other countries that some famous public figure, politician or journalist was a Soviet "agent" have resulted in defamation suits, court cases, and heavy costs for the accuser. So it is crucial to note in any serious discussion and assessment (see Krotkov's other prominent named "agents") that the KGB themselves distinguished between: (a) agents, who were following orders and on the payroll; (b) "agents of influence" who were cultivated as a useful means of promoting views that favoured the interests of the USSR; and (c) "confidential contacts" who were ready to meet and chat, thereby facilitating a two-way flow of information. Obviously, an individual might with time move up or down this list, becoming more or less closely involved with the Soviet security services. 
Given Burchett's long and extraordinary career and apparent shift in allegiance from one regime to another there remains a real question as to what information about him remains to be found in Chinese and Vietnamese archives. John Crowfoot (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of your motives, if you take money from a foreign government to write or publish what they want - to achieve that government’s policy objectives- you are an agent. This article needs to be rewritten 2600:8805:3804:F500:DC0D:9AAB:19E1:3E38 (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Agent of influence is a term thrown around by America and it allies. Are there any sources which show Soviet intelligence using this term? I haven't seen any reputable commentary on these documents. Robert Manne has changed his opinion too many times to be authoritative. With regard to shifting allegiances, I think people have got this wrong. Burchett accepted the denunciation of Stalin; however, he seems to have taken the Chinese side in the Sino-Soviet split. This can't be explained by regime loyalty, as China rejected de-Stalinisation. He strongly and consistently supported the Vietnamese Communists, and as a consequence eventually broke off ties with China and Norodom Sihanouk. He seems to have been operating from conviction and concern. He seems to have based his political positions on the developments that he observed (mainly in Asia), rather than by blind allegiance or awareness of the real geopolitics.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

text: But is there a Soviet document that uses the term??? There seems no evidence that Sorsa was an "agent of influence", and certainly that document doesn't say he was.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 1957 Central Committee documents and agent status 

message: :Agent of influence is a term thrown around by America and it allies. Are there any sources which show Soviet intelligence using this term? I haven't seen any reputable commentary on these documents. Robert Manne has changed his opinion too many times to be authoritative. With regard to shifting allegiances, I think people have got this wrong. Burchett accepted the denunciation of Stalin; however, he seems to have taken the Chinese side in the Sino-Soviet split. This can't be explained by regime loyalty, as China rejected de-Stalinisation. He strongly and consistently supported the Vietnamese Communists, and as a consequence eventually broke off ties with China and Norodom Sihanouk. He seems to have been operating from conviction and concern. He seems to have based his political positions on the developments that he observed (mainly in Asia), rather than by blind allegiance or awareness of the real geopolitics.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: But is there a Soviet document that uses the term??? There seems no evidence that Sorsa was an "agent of influence", and certainly that document doesn't say he was.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Does the term "agent of influence" really exist?

message: An updated translation of the Russian text (together with facsimile copies of the latter) can now be found in the upgraded version of the Bukovsky Archives online.
The request from the KGB to the CPSU Central Committee for permission to pay Burchett a one-off grant and a regular montly addition to whatever money he received from the US National Guardian is made in a document marked Top Secret. The resolution by the Central Committee has a yet higher classification, Special File. 
As the original documents and the revised translation show, neither the KGB nor the Central Committee would trust their typists with the identity of their "confidential contact" Wilfred Burchett. The words Burchett, National Guardian and US Progressive Party were all added later by hand, evidently by someone with a higher security clearance.
This secrecy is one reason I expressed curiosity in an earlier contribution to the Talk page concerning the possible existence of comparable documents about Burchett in Chinese and Vietnamese archives.
John Crowfoot (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that seems to have been edited in a biased way. The document says that he joined the Communist Party of Australia (CPA) in 1936, but had no organisational links with it after he left Australia. The footnote asserts that he was a covert member, which is the opposite. Strangely, the document refers to the "Australian Communist Party", which is a mistake that also occurs in ASIO files. I don't think we should use primary sources like this, particularly those presented in a politically inspired blog.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The classified Soviet documents about Burchett 

message: I have reverted a recent edit.
#It removed text that had a citation. Tibor Meray is an anti-Communist who wrote a book criticising Burchett. This should not be removed just because it contradicts an editor's opinion.
#The text was very opinionated, and not neutral. For example: "Camps like these, if they ever existed, no doubt housed POWs who agreed to collaborate with Burchett and their other captors." It is an extreme claim to suggest that Burchett was running the POW camps. Most people do not make such a claim. The claim that he wore a Chinese uniform has also been dismissed by historians. Claims like these should be sourced to a particular person, if included at all. If there is a contradiction, the article should note that Meray says one thing, and O'Neill says another.
#The citations given were not correct. The source used is older than most of the sources used (published in 1985). It cannot be taken as a final word.
I don't object to the reinsertion of the text if these problems are deal with.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now checked O'Neill's book. He says virtually nothing that was inserted here. Also, he is a bit hard to cite as he conveys the information indirectly, i.e, quoting POWs rather than saying what he thinks himself.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korean War