Talk:Venona project/Archive 1

message: He's referenced as being either "ALES" or as "GISS"- I assume only one of these would be accurate. Good luck! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.136 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 31 May 2004
: one part of article says Alger Hiss WAS IDENTIFIED. another part says it's UNCERTAIN. which? 64.165.203.195 08:16, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know, but one possibility tbat springs to mind is that Alger Hiss was identified as an agent, but it's uncertain exactly whether "ALES" was his codename; maybe? Hmm...However, the "Alger Hiss" article suggests that not everyone agrees he was certainly a spy, so maybe it does indeed need to be altered for NPOV. — Matt Crypto 00:59, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: It appears many of the code names were translitered audibly, i.e. one Soviet Case Officer heard the name rather than referenced a written spelling of it, transforming it into a homophone.  We see this in the various spelling of the code name for Joel Barr = Metre = Metr = Meter.  Numerous other examples can cited.  ALES (pronounced Al-ess) & ALEX are homophones to a non-native speaker of English. nobs 17:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the interest. Native readers of English read "Ales" something like "ails"; this in incorrect. "Ales" is more properly like "Alice" (Al-es), which is softer and less gutteral (i.e. epiglotteral) than "Aleks" ("Alex").  Here's another example Jacob Epstein = Harry = Garri (KGB U.S. and Mexico City line). nobs 17:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Thank you. No. 5, "Recently ALES and his whole group were awarded Soviet medals" certainly provides the corroboration to the Soviet Archive evidence in Weinstein & Vasileiv also.  See Harold Glasser.  Thanks again.  nobs 01:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alger Hiss and his alleged codename 

message: Why is VENONA in all caps?  Is it an acronym? Gamaliel 03:11, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a codename. It is conventional to write codenames in all caps. Securiger 12:06, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  all caps 

message: I have reverted a block deletion of the entire Australian section, and made some comments on the reasons why at Lacrimosus' talk page. Securiger 12:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Block deletion of Australian material 

message: The way that I heard the duplicate one-time pads explained was that one of the printers in Moscow "didn't get the concept" and reused a bunch of printing plates when printing one-time pads. This presumably because under stress of war and need to meet production schedules. I have no references for this. linas 18:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplicate one-time pads

message: Can someone who knows how download the image from this site Coe, Adler & Strong. It related to Venona, Frank Coe, Solomon Adler and Anna Louise Strong, all confirmed Soviet spies in the Venona project. Thanks. Nobs01 03:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Does right clicking the image in your web browser and selecting the "Save Picture/Image" option work? — Matt Crypto 14:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yah, but I don't know how to upload it or check for copyright permisssion, etc. Thx.Nobs01 14:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Coe, Adler & Strong

message: The tacit decision to keep the translated messages secret carried a political and social price for the country. Debates over the extent of Soviet espionage...
The whole paragraph is a bit too much interpretation and conclusion in my view. It tries to judge as to why the decision too keep it secret from a lot of people was the correct thing to do. Already the introduction alluding to a price already bear certain prejudice, because only a person aware of the decision could actually pay that price. In my view that whole paragraph should just be dropped --Ebralph 14:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair criticism; it does not seek to justify, excuse, or criticize.  It is in the subhead ==Significance==, and seeks to simply do just that, explain the significance, which, one can assume, will spawn a debate over whether the decision was the correct decision or not. Also, the decision had big consequences.  Also, the people who made the decision were neither elected legislators nor political appointees in the executive branch.  They were career military and FBI.  The language is simply an attempt to bring these facts out in the open, then allow public discussion whereever appropriate. nobs 17:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case it might be better to say it more explicit and less justifying - at least that is the feel that passage makes on me. Debates over the extent of Soviet espionage in the United States were polarized in the dearth of reliable information then in the public domain. Anti-Communists suspected that some spies—perhaps including a few who were known to the US Government—remained at large. Those who criticized the government's loyalty campaign as an overreaction, on the other hand, wondered if some defendants were being scapegoated; is something which is pretty much value-free. What follows is guessing as to what people at the time sensed and that can be difficult to argument for. I would also suggest to either reformulate or drop the following sentence: Given the dangerous international situation and what was known by the government at that time, however, continued secrecy was not illogical. It might be ok to say that the government considered the international situation dangerous, but far more divsive is the claim to say that is *was* dangerous. The same thing goes for the last sentence in the paragraph. I wouldn't say that war with the Soviet Union was a possiblity but maybe more that the decision makers considered it a real possibility. That way one does not have to defend a view of that situation but still makes the reasons why people  decided as they did understandable. I would also suggest to point out the fact more explicitly, that the decisions were made by career people, not elected legislators, etc. It clarifies the motivation of the author and other people to debate the point. --Ebralph 10:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

text: That's all true and a well reasoned presentation of the facts.  As to "Given the dangerous international situation and what was known by the government at that time, however, continued secrecy was not illogical", I am working right now, and for the next day or two, on a description of the dangerous situation, which is actually intended for another article (I have shied away from it for some time, cause a discription of China is gonna be a Pandora's Box of POV's); so to get into the details of the international situation in 1949-1950 may not be appropriate for this page, other than a passing reference.  The business of career bureaucrats, however, is extrememly important and does need to be clarified in the main article. nobs 16:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree that the whole issue would provide a article in itself. There is an article on the Red Scare which is dedicated to the hysteria associated with the subject. As you can imagine it has become a battle ground over how much hysteria and truth was actually there. That might also provide a useful link in that connection. --Ebralph 23:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

text: The narrative overview of the dangerous situation is at McCarthyism#Tensions_of_the_times. nobs 01:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe a bit too much View? 

message: Published sources citing 349 who had covert relationships
*Social Democrats, USA, Spring 200
*The Terrible Secret
*Navy War College, The Venona Progeny
*New York Times Librarian Awards
*American Diplomacy, Spring 2000
*Counterintelligence Center
*Zianet.com
*History Cooperative, Reading the Rosenbergs After Venona
*Timelines Today in History
*Eleggua.com
*Metro Magazine
*McCarthyism: No Longer a Dirty Word
*Security Focus
*Real News Special Report
*R  A  L  P  H The Review of Arts, Literature, Philosophy and the Humanities  Spring, 2001
*New York Times Review of Books, May 11 2001
All cite 349 Americans who had covert relationships with Soviet intelligence, i.e. "confirmed".  Could bring up a few published sources if necessary.
====I repeat the same question--again====
Here is my proposed text.  How would you edit it?--Cberlet 02:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "The decrypts include code names for 349 individuals for whom the Soviet intelligence services assigned code names, and for whom some researchers have assigned an identity. It is not clear that all of these people were aware that information from them was being passed to the KGB, although in some cases this appears probable. Based on the documents decrypted it is likely that there were hundreds of participants in Soviet... "--Cberlet 02:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Two questions: (1) what is the source for "it is not clear"; the second question I will reserve.  Thank you. nobs 18:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: See also Talk:Harry_Magdoff#Shooting_down_Navasky. nobs 23:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

text: That is a very interesting proposal.  I would suggest it gets well into the suject of cryptography and counterintelligence, and the marraige of those two.  Such a study may not be limited to just Venona, but have some very modern day applications. nobs 01:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for "349"

message: Here is my proposed text.  How would you edit it?--Cberlet 02:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "The decrypts include code names for 349 individuals for whom the Soviet intelligence services assigned code names, and for whom some researchers have assigned an identity. It is not clear that all of these people were aware that information from them was being passed to the KGB, although in some cases this appears probable. Based on the documents decrypted it is likely that there were hundreds of participants in Soviet... "--Cberlet 02:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Two questions: (1) what is the source for "it is not clear"; the second question I will reserve.  Thank you. nobs 18:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I repeat the same question--again

message: Some points of clarity are in order. The 349 codenames are persons who "had a covert relationship with Soviet intelligence that is confirmed in the Venona traffic" drawn from Haynes & Klehr Venona Appendix A, i.e. confirmed "witting" consensual relationships.  Appendix B consists of evidence of a covert relationship of 139 persons from sources otherthan Venona.  Appendix D consists of candidates for recruitment, where evidence of consensual contact took place, but remains uncorroborated as to the recruitment being consumated.  Lets refer to them this way,
*Appendix A: known operatives
*Appendix B: known operatives from evidence outside Venona
*Appendix D: uncorroborated
There is no wiggle room for "unwitting" within 349 identified in Appendix A, or the 139 identified outside Venona (Appendix B).  
Of the 349 identified in Appendix A, 171 have been identifed by true name.  178 are identified only by codename. Of the 178 confirmed witting consensual codenames, it is known that some codenames were changed from time to time.  So that of the 178 unidentifed codenames, some may be unknown codenames for persons already identifed in Appendix A, Appendix B, or Appendix D.
*If one of the 178 unidentified codenames is later found to match a true name already in Appendix A, it is simply more evidence.  
*If one of the 178 unidentified codenames is found to match a true name already in Appendix B, that person is moved out of the otherthan category and placed within known witting contacts who had a covert relationship with Soviet intelligence as confirmed in the Venona materials.  
*If one of the 178 unidentified codenames is found to match a true name already in Appendix D, that is corroborative evidence that confirms a covert relationship took place, i.e. their recruitment was consumated.  
Hence, among the figure of 178 unidentifed codenames of known, confirmed, witting, consenual covert relationships, some people may actually be counted twice, so both the actual numbers of 349 known covert relationships, and 178 unidentified codenames, may actually be lower. nobs 20:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Talk:Harry_Magdoff#Shooting_down_Navasky. nobs 23:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I would like to bring the issue with the names to a conclusion, if we can. My personal feeling is that Nobs has portrayed very well why these names are not just a mass list but a verified list from peer reviewed material. I have already expressed this view, but I would like to find a way not to loose all the questions and controvery that were brought up here. Some of these questions and answers were very interesting and educating. My suggestion therefore would be to create an article - How the names of the VENONA Papers were identified - and discuss all those things and link to it from this page with a text saying something to the fact that some scholars dissent on the final conclusions. --Ebralph 21:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a very interesting proposal.  I would suggest it gets well into the suject of cryptography and counterintelligence, and the marraige of those two.  Such a study may not be limited to just Venona, but have some very modern day applications. nobs 01:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lets find resolve the 349 Names issue 

message: Some understanding of structure of Soviet intelligence operations may be in order 
(see Talk:History_of_Soviet_espionage_in_the_United_States#Outline).
In any given country, there are essentially two twin Soviet intelligence agencies operating, KGB and GRU, each under its own Rezident, analgous to CIA Station Chief.  Both KGB & GRU then likewise have twin Illegal organizations, each under its own Illegal Rezident.  The legal apparatuses are made up of legal persons, i.e., Soviet operatives resident on valid visas, and even registered under the FARA Act (Foreign Agents Registration Act).  The Illegal apparatuses are created essentially if a break in diplomatic relations occurs, they don't have to start over, they have an organization in place.  These persons opperate under "deep cover", they are what we describe today as "sleepers", remember there was a long period of training and cooperation between Soviet intelligence agencies and various Islamic radical groups during the Cold War were this method and structure was taught to various Islamic terrorists groups.
The Illegal appartatus operatives have one primary function, avoid detection.  They may, however, be called upon from time to time, to engage in some active operation that for some reason the legal Rezidenturas are not fit to handle.  And various elements of the Illegal apparatus are not always in "sleeper mode", i.e., some may still canvas for targets, and make recruitment etc, into their Illegal operation.  Also, the Illegals can be made up of both foreign nationals and legal residents of the country they are operating in.
What makes the Communist operation so complex from 1921 to sometime in the late 1940s is, in addition to these four basic Soviet operations, the CPUSA functioned the same way, that is, it had its own twin network of Illegals, or underground secret apparatus, that was closely analagous to both KGB & GRU Illegal apparatuses.  And in most cases, these Americans worked directly for the Legal KGB & GRU Rezidenturas.  As well as, some individuals floated back and forth between various apparatuses.  Add to that, during wartime, GRU also had a minute "GRU Naval" Rezidentura.  
Please be patient, I know this probably adds more confusion than clarity, but for those interested, stay tuned.  nobs 20:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes on Soviet methods

message: Due to the interst in this article and discussion of persons named etc., please see Talk:Significance of Venona. I propose, for now, removing names from the text of this article of persons identified in the Venona transcripts with the exception of the List of Americans named in Venona.  This would entail I beleive removing two paragraphs from the "Significance" subhead relating to Philby, Fuchs & few others, and removing the entire "Hiss" subhead and section.  The new article Significance of Venona, is essentially created from these paragraphs.  Also, Anon 67.120.98.144 who signed his name Mr. Griffin Fariello, contributions to the main article which were reverted have been retrieved and placed on the Talk page for discussion. nobs 20:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note to Cberlet: There is a good faith effort underway to depoliticize the controversies around release of Venona materials and return this wiki article page to the practicianers of the cryptographic arts.  All names of persons referred to in Venona transcripts have been removed from this main page article, and the two sections Significance of Venona, and List of Americans in the Venona papers have been spun off into separate articles.  Someone forgot to remove the dispute tag on this page.  I would request that you remove the dissenting opinion Navasky material from this page to where you may deem it more appropriate (I hope we cooperate and get a feel for the structural contents of where all this material will be placed without an unneccessary edit war.  Feel free to contact me with you sentiments once you have caught up on what has transpired over the past two weeks).  As always, I remain trustfully dedicated to the relentless pursuit of truth, justice, & a persons God-given right to believe whatever lies they so choose.  Thank you. nobs 17:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: Although I still cannot see how you guys are going to get from A to Z in this fashion -- particularly with the resources and references you appear to be so heavily relying upon, this indeed is Wikipedia, a cooperative effort, as you say. I'm not quite sure how any other voices get into this mix, but I'll be putting my two cents in. 
Like now:
Why there is an insistence on listing the names I do not understand at all. One should consider the moral responsibility of the act. It is impossible, at this late date, when we have no clear idea how and why each and every one of those names got into the files, to determine who actually cooperated with the Soviets and who didn't, or if they did to what extent, or how knowingly. Thus, to list these names, and to claim they all were soviet agents essentially becomes the same game that was played during the Red Scare when thousands of Americans found their names smeared on one blacklist or another and were forced into the impossible task of trying to prove their innocence. That most of those listed are quite likely dead by now saves you from a lawsuit, but I do not believe it relieves you (and here I use the editorial you) of the heavy burden of proof, and of basic decency. The work of Klehr and Haynes is not well thought of outside right-wing circles, and their insistence on these names has not gained them any respect. It is poor history, to put it mildly, and to further their efforts in this regard does Wikipedia no credit. To smear the memory of a dead man is no morally different than to smear that of the living. How can you and the other editors ever be sure you are not doing just that?--Grif Fariello67.120.98.144 07:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Grif.  I don't suppose we can discuss everything that needs to be discussed in just a few postings, and what you specifically cite is valid and needs discussion.  Somewhere either in the Moynihan Report or Moynihan's book it says it took a generation to get the documents out and probably will take another generation to understand its meaning.  I can't possibly seek to justify everything here in this short posting, and there are numerous issues to be considered.  There are the conclusions regarding government secrecy in the Moynihan Report, there is the historical significance, the cryptographical & espionage lessons to be learned, there is the matter of completing well rounded biographical scetches, very importantly as you stated the moral questions.  This work needs to be done, and this is merely the starting point.  Things can be moved, merged, checked, rechecked, analyized and so on for accuracy.  This is a review, in many respects, of FBI & NSA's work over a 40 year period.  For now, I think we've set a good tone, and I very much hope to continue a cooperative effort & discussion.  Thank you. nobs 20:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alright nobs, you got me. 

message: 187 names, taking up 187 lines of alleged spies are in this article.  On Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Significance of Venona, TJive and others have said this article is too long.  So I have moved the list of names to List of American names and code names in VENONA. Having 187 people listed one to a line in this 559 line article is quite silly.  Thus, as they moved the discussion of the significance to to its own article, so I am moving the names from this section. Ruy Lopez 16:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense. — Matt Crypto 16:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Are you guys making changes just to annoy each other? Just asking. Mirror Vax 17:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

text: You moved the section you wanted out, I moved the section I wanted out.  This article was approx. 3,848 words (559 lines) before I moved it out.  The new article has 187 entries (one to a line) and approx. 1734 words.  If this is the time to move out sections, we should move them both out, and then see what happens.  And of course, it is within your power to VFD the new article. Ruy Lopez 18:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Thank you Matt.  The problem (1) is the title of that article, it is unqualified to begin with because it contains no code names. And there are other issues invloved, (2) the lack of good faith editing on the part of User:Ruy Lopez.  I would very much like to give this page back to the crpytographers, for their use, but you may not be aware of what Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said "it may take a generation to understand [Venona project's] meaning". I've outlined a proposal below to cut sometime off that. nobs 23:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your second reason I reject outright; on Wikipedia we don't just undo a good change simply because we don't get on with someone or think they're doing it in bad faith. Your first reason also makes little sense; the best remedy is move the list to a new name, not to undo the spinning out of the list in the first place. — Matt Crypto 11:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  moving the names