Talk:Soviet espionage in the United States

message: Anybody have biographical information on General Ilichev, head of GRU during WWII. nobs 20:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Ilichev 

message: The above corrections to this article were posted by--Griffin FarielloGrifross 01:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forgot to sign-off 

message: Might as well call this "How I support the CPUSA!
"American policy dealing with this rapidly changing scene was often confused, naive, slow to respond, and contradictory".
Umm, No!! Greece, Turkey, Korea, Berlin airlift?! More success than failure if you ask me. If anything the soviets bumbling into afganistan and poland (after there revolution) was naive! 
IDIOTS! 
So if that commie pinko who ranted a while back!
(24.75.194.50 19:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More left wing garbage! 

message: I don't know about you guys, but this looks a bit POV to me. Comments?
Gradually it became apparent that the objectives of World War II for which the United States and others made tremendous sacrifices were not fully realized, and there remained in the world a force presenting even greater dangers to world peace than the Nazi militarists and Japanese warlords. Consequently, the United States made the decision in the Spring of 1947 to assist Greece and Turkey with a view to protecting their sovereignties, which were threatened by direct or instigated activities of the Soviet Union.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DabMachine (talk • contribs) 17:54, 17 February 2006   (UTC) 
:I've removed follwing para for POV language "gradually became apparent", "had been widespread and pervasive", "more sophisticated and determined than": apparent to who, pervasive where, and in what way and how more so?  The subsequent paragraphs to do not substantiate the paragraph's allegations. During the 1950s, it gradually became apparent that the Soviet intelligence activities directed at the U.S. government and military/economic institutions had been widespread and pervasive, and that Soviet intelligence was much more sophisticated and determined than the prewar and wartime efforts of Nazi Germany and militarist Japan.
DJ Silverfish 21:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this NPOV? 

message: Does this not come under the military history wiki project?--SGGH 11:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  military history 

message: Passage as follows:
By the mid to late 1920s, there were three elements of Soviet power operating in the United States, despite the absence of formal diplomatic relations: the Comintern, military intelligence or GRU, and the forerunner of the KGB, the GPU. The Comintern was the dominant arm, though it was not unusual for officers and agents to switch from one service to another.
During the 1920s, Soviet intelligence focused on military and industrial espionage in the United States, specifically aircraft and munitions industries, and penetrating the mainline federal government bureaucracies, such as the Department of State and War Department. A front organization was created in 1928 for the infiltration and placement of scientists into industry and government: the Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists, and Technicians (FAECT). 
Formal diplomatic recognition was granted to the USSR on 16 November 1933, a condition of which was a pledge to refrain "from interfering in any manner in the internal affairs of the United States."  In fact, Soviet intelligence greatly expanded their US espionage efforts, now operated under "legal" cover through embassy and consulates. That same year, several Comintern affiliate organizations were established: the American League Against War and Fascism, followed by the American Youth Congress in 1934; the League of American Writers in 1935; and the National Negro Congress in 1936. In 1937 the American League Against War and Fascism changed its name to the American League for Peace and Democracy. Between 1937 and 1938 the Abraham Lincoln Brigade was established with numerous affiliates and sent hundreds of non-governmental combatants to Spain despite the League of Nations' Non-Intervention Committee ban on foreign "volunteers". In 1939, the American Congress for Democracy and Intellectual Freedom and numerous other Comintern affiliate organizations were created.
What are the sources for these allegations?  Abe Froman 00:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will the sources be added?  The passage is unsupported at this time.  Abe Froman 18:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "First Efforts" Passage

message: Passage as follows:
As in any target country, the Soviet NKVD (later MGB and KGB) and GRU ran parallel "legal" and "illegal" operations groups. "Legal" networks were run by Soviet case officers holding legal visas, usually working in diplomatic missions and official trade organizations. The operational station was called a "rezidency" headed by a station chief, or "rezident". The "illegal" networks were headed by an "illegal rezident", usually a Soviet national operating under deep cover with no apparent connection to Soviet organizations. Thus, if diplomatic relations are broken, an espionage organization remains in place, dispensing the the need to begin anew (which could take decades).
One chief aim was the infiltration, placement, and subversion of American political life at all levels of society. Earl Browder, General Secretary of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA), served as a agent recruiter himself on behalf of Soviet intelligence. .Sudoplatov, Pavel Anatoli, Schecter, Jerrold L., and Schecter, Leona P., Special Tasks: The Memoirs of an Unwanted Witness - A Soviet Spymaster, Little Brown, Boston (1994) 
What page numbers in the two books described in refs 7 and 8 contain these allegations?  I find the claim hard to verify.  Abe Froman 00:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: pg 217 in Special Tasks and page 42-44 in The Secret World of American Communism deals with Browder. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The passages in question, pg 42-44  and pg 217 mention Browder's role in Asian, and eventually American CPUSA activities.  It is silent on the other allegations contained in the passage.  Are there additional sources that could anchor these claims?  At this time, only the allegations about Bowlder in Asia and the American CPUSA are actually cited.  Abe Froman 01:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Following today's edits, the citations in the Browder section still lack page numbers.  These are large books, the citations should carry the page number(s) of the passage that supports the claim.  Abe Froman 16:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Will the sources be added?  The passage is unsupported at this time.  Abe Froman 18:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Browder and Golos networks" passage

message: What page numbers in refs 11 and 12 describe the allegations contained in the referenced passage?  Ref 11 seems to be irrelevent, given it is 56 years old.  Abe Froman 00:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will the sources be added?  The passage is unsupported at this time.  Abe Froman 18:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Secret Apparatus" passage

message: What page numbers in refs 14 and 15 describe the allegations contained therein?  Abe Froman 00:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will the sources be added?  The passage is unsupported at this time.  Abe Froman 18:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Soble Spy Ring" passage"

message: Yet another ref in ref 16 that has no page number.  Just an offline book.  On which page does the book referenced refer to the allegations in the passage?  Abe Froman 00:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will the sources be added?  The passage is unsupported at this time.  Abe Froman 18:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Wartime Espionage" passage

message: Not a single reference.  What is the authority for this passage?  Abe Froman 00:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will the sources be added?  The passage is unsupported at this time.  Abe Froman 18:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Atomic Bomb Secrets" passage

message: Not a single reference.  What is the authority for this passage?  Abe Froman 00:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will the sources be added?  The passage is unsupported at this time.  Abe Froman 18:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "OSS and State Department Espionage" passage

message: What page numbers in refs 18, 19, and 21 refer to this alleged network?  I find the claims impossible to verify.  Abe Froman 00:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "The Silvermaster Spy Ring" passage

message: Not a single reference.  What is the authority for this passage?  Abe Froman 00:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will the sources be added?  The passage is unsupported at this time.  Abe Froman 18:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "United Nations Infiltration" passage

message: What page number in Moynihan's report is referenced?  The report runs into hundreds of pages.  Abe Froman 00:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will the page numbers be added?  The passage is unsupported at this time.  Abe Froman 18:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Abe, do you really believe the sections you removed are untrue, or would you agree they are probably true but lack complete sources.  I don't think there is any harm in giving TDC a few more days to develop and add the refs.  A lot of us have real lives to attend to from time to time.  Thanks.  Thatcher131 02:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aftermath

message: I have banned Ruy Lopez from editing the article for 5 days for disruptive editing, but that is just the start of the problems.
First off, while the anon may or may not have been Nobs, reverting the article was just wrong.  The version reverted to is patently inferior in style alone, and while the supposed Nobs version doesn't source the Golos section very well, reverting removed 7 sources from the Silvermaster section.  Next we have TDC, who is also on parole and may be blocked for reverting an article more than once per day, and has already used up his one revert for today. 
Abe, try placing  at places you want better citations for.  Adding  even once to an article with 20 or more references just plain looks bad; adding it multiple times verges on disrupting wikipedia to make a point.  Be selective.
Please discuss disputed information on the talk page.  If version A and B are both defective, the answer is not to flip back and forth between them, but to collaborate on version C, D or E.  If I read this right, one of the concerns is that the "Nobs" version takes citations for A, D, F, H, and M and weaves them into ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOP.  I certainly don't know this field, but I know it is possible to fix this, and no version of the article is so good that it should be the basis for a blind reversion rather than repair.  Note that Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources states "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source."  That means that while you might describe the contents of a Venona transcript, for example, you can not interpret it or say what it means.  You must find a reliable secondary source that you can quote. If different historians have differing views about what a particular set of documents means, report them both.  If no reliable secondary source agrees with your personal view of the meaning of a document, then you are out of luck.
Try and explain your concerns; that specific passages aren't cited; that specific statements are an editor's conclusion rather than reportage of third party sources; and so on.  I can't say enough that reverting is bad—not only is it disrespectful of other editor's good faith efforts that are simply destoyed, it fixes in amber other mistakes and deficiencies.  If there are specific problems, fix them individually, after talking about it here.  If necessary, ask for a third opinion or RFC to get some more outside opinion. Thatcher131 01:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I've added fact tags and explained problems with the passages in this discussion page.  An issue I have with the current citations is the lack of page numbers.  I do not think a proper citation should lack the page number(s) where a claim is supported.  The lack of page numbers in the citations can encourage obscurantism in editing.  Abe Froman 15:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So after getting your head handed to you on the FSLN article, you resort to adding 53  tags in this article? This is a gross violation of POINT. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please refrain from personal attacks.  The statements made about the citations are true, they are either missing, or lack page numbers.  As the stakeholder in these edits, please address the concerns in the passages above.  Abe Froman 15:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the time being, see how many can be easily fixed.  Then you might think about whether there are one or two sources that support multiple sections, and use the cite.php method to simplify the citations.  Then discuss if some can be removed.  A few days won't hurt if many of these can be easily addressed. Thatcher131 15:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems 

message: Quick question... Why does this article finish in the 1950's? I know of a few cases of KGB agents in the FBI going right into the 1990's. Can I add that material, or there some reason why I shouldn't? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 23:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add away. Fred Bauder 22:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My research paper is on KGB activity in the U.S. from '68-'82 (while Andropov was Chairman), and so once I write it, I'll add those sourced facts. -Fsotrain09 23:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: quick answer... because it takes a lot of work and nobody is getting payed for it. Decora (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does it stop in the 1950s? 

message: The fact tagged sections stood for nearly a week, then were reverted.  TDC replaced them, without the requested refs.  This is not how Wikipedia works.  Either support the material with verifiable refs, or let it die a deserving death.  This is not the place to discuss specific fact tags, see above in this talk page for the individual passages being challenged.  Abe Froman 21:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You want me to come up with 53 citations in four days? Are you kidding me? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not the editor who added 53 unsupported statements.  Cite before you click "save".  Abe Froman 21:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You know just as well as I do that the bulk of the statements are supported by referenced material, and asking me to come up with 53 citations, many of them placed in bad faith, in four days is excessive. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not know that, TDC.  Trust, but verify.  It is impossible to verify this article, given the paucity of citations.  If the allegations are not cited, they are not ready for prime-time.  Uncited allegations in this article are a classic case of "Ready.  Fire.  Aim..."  Remove them until a time when they can be cited, with page numbers.  Abe Froman 21:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is very petty and the definition of WP:POINT, and I assure you that if someone else weighs in on this, they will not agree with you. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not petty to point out an article contains 53 uncited claims.  The citations that are included even lack page numbers.  This is sloppy work.  Abe Froman 21:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You use of the fact tags to disrupt the article is completely unnecessary, reeks of bad faith and is wholly inappropriate. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  TDC is attacking me, which rather admits the 53 unverified claims are indeed a problem.  Resorting to Ad hominem attacks will not cover up this sloppy article.  Abe Froman 21:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Abe, do you really believe the sections you removed are untrue, or would you agree they are probably true but lack complete sources. I don't think there is any harm in giving TDC a few more days to develop and add the refs. A lot of us have real lives to attend to from time to time. Thanks. Thatcher131 02:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This bothers me too, although I have not looked this all up. It does not grate which the history I know, although it is quite incomplete. Fred Bauder 19:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not believe the sweeping generalizations present in the uncited passages are true (see above to specific passage headings for the passages I am concerned about).  I think they are confabulations.  I would love to be proven wrong.  All it takes is a citation with page numbers so the broad allegations raised in the uncited passages may be verified.  Abe Froman 21:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A friend of TDC's has restored his version, sans fact tags.  This is altogether too cute an omission.  This talk page attests to a dispute over sourcing.  Until this is resolved, unsourced material should not be readded to the article.  Respond to the individual disputed passage headings above so we can actually start resolving this.  Abe Froman 19:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact Tags

message: There isn't an article for US espionage in the Soviet Union/Russia? Hires an editor (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counter-part article? 

message: This article reads like a piece of trash. The Earl Browder allegations are perhaps the finest example of what it is that merits this article a NPOV warning until this is rewritten in a neutral and objective style.
Take a look:
:"One chief aim was the infiltration, placement, and subversion of American political life at all levels of society. Earl Browder, General Secretary of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA), served as an agent recruiter himself on behalf of Soviet intelligence.[5] [1]"
::According to whom? Two sources? With neither one having page numbers given for the reference? I didn't realize it was customary to cite an entire book for such revealing claims.
:"Browder later stated that 'by the mid-thirties, the Party was not putting its principal emphasis on recruiting members.' Left unstated was his intent to use party members for espionage work, where suitable."
::Wondeful interpretation skills -- thanks for that. And no citation...
:"Browder advocated the use of a United Front involving other members of the left, both to strengthen advocacy of pro-Soviet policy and to enlarge the pool of potential recruits for espionage work."
::Oh, he didn't advocate the United Front to support the more progressive parts of the New Deal, gain mainstream support against fascism abroad, and get all of the left aboard during World War II? Of course not.
:"One early Soviet spy ring was headed by Jacob Golos. Jake Golos (birth name Jacob Rasin or Raisen) was a Ukrainian-born Bolshevik revolutionary and Soviet secret police (NKVD) operative in the USSR. He was also a longtime senior official of the CPUSA involved in covert work and cooperation with Soviet intelligence agencies. He took over an existing network of agents and intelligence sources from Earl Browder."
::Source? Is all of this from the same work? Are we too lazy to cite our material? Is it too much to be bothered to give page numbers for big-time shockers?
:"Golos established a company called World Tourists with money from Earl Browder, the General Secretary."
::From Browder himself? Source?
:"Sometime in November 1943, Golos met in New York City with key figures of the Perlo group, a group working in several government departments and agencies in Washington, D.C. The group was already in the service of Browder."
::Source?
:By the end of 1936 at least four mid-level State Department officials were delivering information to Soviet intelligence: Alger Hiss, assistant to Assistant Secretary of State Francis Sayre; Julian Wadleigh, economist in the Trade Agreements Section; Laurence Duggan, Latin American division; and Noel Field, West European division.
::No source. Again. Looking at the Hiss article itself, we get to learn that Hiss himself denied any involvement. As for what is now known since his death,Although a variety of evidence has been added to the debate since his conviction, the question of Hiss's guilt or innocence remains controversial.[2]
Looking at the whole article, every other line or every other paragraph is written in this sloppy manner. Was this stuff written by a 16-year-old Cold War buff? An agenda-driven member of the John Birch Society?
Seeing how all of this was already brought up back in 2006, I strongly support simply removing this BS already to the extent that it can't be counterbalanced. When will the citations be forthcoming?
166.217.146.168 (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality issues 

message: Why no mention of this key figure in 1930s Soviet espionage in the USA?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.252.154 (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: No mention of[[ J. Peters]]

message: network of agents and sources included two key figures at the Department of Treasury, Nathan Gregory Silvermaster and Harry Dexter White.   This needs to be rewritten.  White was clearly a key figure at Treasury, Silvermaster was most certainly not.  White was at Treasury from 1935 until approx 1946.  Silvermaster did 6 months at Treasury, July 1944 until January 1945. DEddy (talk) 02:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Silvermaster's status is somewhat ambiguous; while he did work in the Treasury Dept. building, he was "on loan" from the Agricultural Dept. Silvermaster's entry states, "On 16 July 1942 the U.S. Civil Service Commission recommended "Cancel eligibilities...and bar him for the duration of the National Emergency,"  but HDW intervened to bring him into Treasury offices without a formal transfer between departments.  And the 162 volumes of FBI Silvermaster files  makes him a key figure.  nobs (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Silvermaster was certainly a "key figure" but not at Treasury, where obviously he had at best a minor role.  DEddy (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In this decrypt,  Silvermaster is being considered by HDW to take Harold Glasser's position in Treasury.  Glasser at this time was Vice-Chairman of the War Production Board, U.S. Treasury representative to the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, and Treasury representative to the Allied High Commission in Italy, and later considered to head up the Marshall Plan. Silvermaster was next in line.  nobs (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  re: VENONA 18 Jan 1945.  Surely you jest.  You are aware that the Vassiliev notes say White told Silvermaster to pound sand here.  The Vassiliev notes make it quite clear that White was never under [as they loved to say in McCarthy era] "control" by Moscow Center. http://www.documentstalk.com/wp/harry-dexter-white-in-alexander-vassilievs-notes-on-kgb-foreign-intelligence-files  DEddy (talk) 03:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  two key figures? 

message: Although Russia is the main successor of the Soviet Union, Soviet Union is the Soviet Union, Russia is Russia, How about split this article into "Soviet Union espionage in the United States" and "Russian espionage in the United States"?--MacArthur1945 (talk) 07:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:   split into "[[Soviet Union espionage in the United States]]" and "[[Russian espionage in the United States]]"