This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Harry Dexter White article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The claim that Harry Dexter White was "an active agent of Soviet espionage.[1]" is illustrated with a link to "The Morgenthau Plan for Policy Perversion", by Anthony Kubek, published by the Institute for Historical Review. A closer read of the link shows that it was attributed to J. Edgar Hoover, during the notorious House Unamerican Activities Committee.
"Also, J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI charged that White was an active agent of Soviet espionage, and despite the fact he had sent five reports to the White House warning the President of White's activities, Truman promoted him to a position at the United Nations. When the shocking story of White's service as a Soviet agent was first revealed by Attorney General Herbert Brownell in a Chicago speech, it created quite a stir of public charges and counter-charges by then retired Harry Truman."
This is what the Southern Poverty Law Center has to say about Mark Weber and his Institute for Historical Review:
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/mark-weber MrSativa ( talk) 02:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
This is what Alexander Cockburn has to say about the Southern Poverty Law Center: counterpunch.org/2009/05/15/king-of-the-hate-business/ 192.40.24.4 ( talk) 14:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Shandafurde
He did not confess nor was he convicted so Category:American spies for the Soviet Union is not appropriate. To leave him out of any spy category would be egregious, he belongs in Category:Accused American spies for the Soviet Union. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 18:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
For the McCarthy/Cold Warriors PROOF of White's alleged espionage activities was his being found in the VENONA cables. By that reasoning, FDR & Winston Churchill should be included as accused spies since they were also mentioned in VENONA.
The above two sentences are ludicrous. "PROOF" is not merely being mentioned, but flows from the information contained in VENONA about the individual in question. Added by MEO 4/15/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.34.238 ( talk) 04:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
By the time McCarthy paranoia dominated Washington it had been forgotten that in the 1930s & 1940s astute observers knew war was coming & if Germany were to be defeated, the Russians would have to do the bulk of the dying (their 20-30 million to our 400,000). Since it took us 3 years to get into the European war, clearly something had to be done to keep Stalin from pulling a 2nd Brest-Litovsk.
Knowing how FDR worked ("my left hand often does not know what my right hand is doing...") it is not outside the realm of possibility that White was given broad, ill defined, & NEVER written down, encouragement to feed information to the Soviets. It is not outside the realm of possibility that White observed how FDR juggled conflicting objectives & took it upon himself to pass encouraging information to the Soviets.
A spy "under party control?" Not a chance. Notice there has never been a word about where/when White "converted" to being a Stalin lackey.
Recent updates... Haynes, Klehr & Vassiliev have just published (June 2009) a new book, entitled "Spies" based on the notebooks of Vassiliev. At the Woodrow Wilson Center event in May 20-21, 2009, Bruce Craig (White's biographer) wondered to John Haynes why, if White were such an influential spy, he (White) at least in the Vassiliev notebooks the Soviets were trying to figure out who he was. DEddy ( talk) 20:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
This whole section upon the supposed Soviet spying activities of Harry White is disgusting. So now Wikipedia uses McCarthy era FBI allegations as fact. What a load of crap. Wikipedia is crap. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canuckistani ( talk • contribs) 22:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
There's a large section added in the 03:56, 17 December 2009 edit by 70.129.141.180 relying on a book by Emanuel Josephson, whose credibility is questionable at best. The Rockefeller-Soviet conspiracy which Josephson alleges is presented in these passages as fact. Josephson's opinions may be worth noting, but a fringe historian/conspiracy theorist's analysis ought not be given an unqualified 5 paragraphs of material. 76.27.140.208 ( talk) 17:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Strong agreement on deletion. Bruce Craig, author of "Treasonable Doubt" told me he'd never heard of Josephson. DEddy ( talk) 20:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Here's an interesting extract from Vassiliev white notebook #1, pg 44, left notation pg 95 "However, when we too had the idea of separating “Jurist” [Harry Dexter White] from “Pal’s” [Silvermaster] group and taking him over for direct communications, it turned out that he is not only not our probationer, but we hardly know anything about him at all, and “Sound” also knows very little about him and has a very fuzzy concept of the nature of his contact with “Pal’s” group."
After a series of earlier references in this notebook about how important White is & deserves a dedicated contact... suddenly it turns out the KGB doesn't seem to know much about him. Odd. DEddy ( talk) 00:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing "odd" about it at all. On page 38 of White Notebook #1, the following appears:
According to information we have received, “Jurist” at one time was a probationer for the neighbors. We will communicate detailed information about him separately. He should, at last, be properly recruited for work and taken on for direct communications. In view of Jurist’s” value and the necessity of adhering to the rules of covert work, we consider it advisable to assign a special illegal to work with him. You should have a better notion of how best to approach the implementation of this task. Wire us your suggestions.
The KGB doesn't know much about him because he is working for the GRU, not the KGB. Added by MEO 4/15/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.34.238 ( talk) 05:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Those introductory 3 lines are going to have to be modified.
At best White is an accused spy, and to the best of my knowledge the VENONA cables prove nothing other than White was talking to the Soviets which was, after all, part of his job. The most seemingly incriminating cable (1119-1122) of 4 August 1944, was with a Russian banker (a fact that didn't surface until maybe 2000). That meeting was shortly after the Bretton Woods conference where the Russian (Kolt'sov in the cable) was an accredited attendee. Rather than a clandestine meeting, a far more realistic interpretation would be that White was continuing to sell the Soviets on the wisdom of joining the IMF. DEddy ( talk) 03:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
"A number of sources from the FBI and Soviet archives, and messages decoded by the Venona project, implicated him in the passing of government documents to the Soviet Union prior to World War II."
You're going to have to get a firmer grip on your timeframes here. What precise documents "prior to WWII" do you mean? There is the single offering of the "Baltimore papers" from Whittaker Chambers, who described White as his "least productive asset." For this document (a collection of 3 documents?) to the best of my knowledge there is no evidence White gave it to Chambers. Certainly it cannot be VENONA since those were only cables beginning in 1943. My knowledge of Soviet archives is less solid... references please. Please do not include "Sacred Secrets" as a source. The chapter on White lists 20% of the footnotes as "Soviet Intelligence Archives". This is classic TIME/LIFE making up facts to fit the story. "Sacred Secrets" is NOT a credible reference.
Are you aware of White's official interest in Russian gold production?
I duly notice you say "government documents" rather than "secret government documents." Is there a difference, or is it assumed a government document is by definition, secret ? DEddy ( talk) 19:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Removed the assertion that the goal of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank was to promote capitalism. The article early on states that White was a Keynesian, and also 'dominated' the Bretton Woods Conference with John Maynard Keynes himself. Keynes could hardly be considered a capitalist in any sense of the word. He was a prominent member of the Fabian Society, and argued for strict monetary control by governments. He is considered the antithesis of the laissez-faire capitalists. To suggest that White and Keynes were interested in spreading capitalism through their work at Bretton Woods in 1944 is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meshmonk ( talk • contribs) 05:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Keynes was never a member of the Fabian Society.-- 76.14.64.98 ( talk) 07:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
You have missed Craig's repeated statement that White was a spy. Evidently I have. I would be most surprised if Craig's book "repeatedly" said White was a spy. Can you provide page references, please. My Google full text search isn't working at the moment. DEddy ( talk) 21:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The sequence of events in the last sentence in the opening paragraph is totally jumbled. Please do some homework & correct.
The testimony of Elizabeth Bentley, the VENONA intercepts, and the Mitrokhin archives show that Harry Dexter White was very likely a soviet agent, acting under the code name "Jurist".
Clearly this is a highly controversial, loaded sentence.
Here is a clip from the Haynes/Klehr/Vassiliev "Spies"
[my emphasis added to new course]
pg 259
pg 260
The most interesting part of this passage—from VENONA 1119-1121—is the Spies footnote #118 which emphasizes how White, who died in 1948, is supporting a Soviet policy that didn't appear until 1954.
Much more likely in context here, new course likely refers to the post War IMF/IBRD effort, since the Bretton Woods conference establishing these institutions ended two weeks previous.
Also, the referenced VENONA cables 1388-1389 primarily discuss Silvermaster being upset at someone else approaching White. There is NOTHING about "new course" or Soviet foreign policy goals. Unless, of course there are additional versions of these cables that Haynes/Klehr/Vassiliev have access to.
I observe at least two serious distortions/errors/mistakes here: #1 the interpretation of new course and #2 the seemingly damning reference to the Silvermaster cable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DEddy ( talk • contribs) 19:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, DEddy. If one click on "about this site", it will take to the page [2] which show that the this particular site is a personal website of Ms Chervonnaya.
In earlier time of wikipedia, people with rather fringe view used these type minor websites as soapbox to push their view. Then the consensus emerged in wikipedia that only materials which has gone through peer review and/or editorial oversight should be cited. [3] So citation from academic paper, media reporting, statistics from government agency, etc are fine. [4] On the other hand, an entry from the personal website of a Nobel prize winner is not o.k. Without this rule, wikipedia article on, say, "Holocaust" or "UFO" or "Climate Change" would be littered by citation from denial or conspiracy sources. Of course, it does not mean that wikipedia takes anything from media or government as fact. If you can find a citation from media or books published by reputable publishing house which cast doubt on FBI finding, then you are free to add that contents to wikipedia. Then it would be up to readers to examine these conflicting materials and draw their own conclusion. Vapour ( talk) 06:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Rather speculating about what is reliable, just read the policy and guideline about the question: WP:SOURCES, WP:IRS. FurrySings ( talk) 14:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
To both Vapour & FurrySprings... those "references" to Wikipedia policy/guidelines are both circular & highly ambiguous.
One thing I'd like to know, which I don't remember seeing is those polices... what is a "personal website?" What is the substantive difference between a "personal website" and a vanity press publication like "Sacred Secrets" (and many others in this domain)? What makes www.documentstalk.com a "personal website?" DEddy ( talk) 19:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Seems a bit rash to exclude he commentary. She is a professional academic and journalist and had a position at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. It may be her 'personal website', but that doesnt seem much different than if she made a speech at a conference or something saying the same things, and was quoted in a newspaper. Decora ( talk) 14:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
The recent book "Operation Snow: How a Soviet Mole in FDR's White House Triggered Pearl Harbor", by John Koster" takes the position that White was not only a spy, but was responsible for the US side of the negotiations that induced Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. The point of the book was that if the US didn't enter WWII, the USSR was going to lose. So efforts were made to get the US into WWII. -- John Nagle ( talk) 22:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
An observation about the Koster book... while there is an impressive looking bibliography, there is not a single footnote in the entire book. The author even quotes one person—who I happened to know personally—in the body of the text and there is no bibliographic reference to this person. If memory serves me, Koster justifies the absence of footnotes by saying footnotes would slow the reader down. Plenty of imagination. Questionable facts. DEddy ( talk) 21:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Rjenson - could we have a page reference for the recent (1998) Spies allegation, please. It's a big book, covers a lot of ground & has jumbled to dead wrong facts, specifically about White. DEddy ( talk) 21:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
pages=259–60
Who pray tell is (was?) this Charles Morse who seems to not exist? www.charlesmorse.com DEddy ( talk) 15:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
to: Rjensen - much better edit on main page. Thank you.
Heads up here. That reference to "Spies" is a fatally flawed reference. Published in 2005 it still references Koltsov(VENONA cover name)/Checulin (real name) as a KGB "agent" when in fact Chechulin was the Deputy Chairman of the Russian Central Bank & the head of the Russian delegation to the Bretton Woods conference.
Who would you expect White to be speaking with? Chechulin's secretary?
White was still trying to get the Soviets to sign on to the Bretton Woods agreements.
You can remove that line or I will. DEddy ( talk) 18:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
If you think other scholars disagree with Steil by all means include them. But please don't try to cover up statements from those you disagree with!
Steil's book has been called “the gold standard on its topic” by the New York Times, “a triumph of economic and diplomatic history” by the Financial Times, and “a superb history” by the Wall Street Journal.
It seems you have a different opinion regarding the scholarly consensus from Steil. Please don't silence Steil, just include other opinions regarding the scholarly consensus. Jimjilin ( talk) 14:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
173.66.83.12 (
talk) 03:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC) Steil is quoted in the text, as it stands at this time (Dec. 2017), in a way that is misleading. It makes it sound half-way as if he is denying White's guilt. In fact Steil is very firm in asserting White's guilt. Please fix this. Thanks, Ira Straus
173.66.83.12 (
talk) 03:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC) To correct the confusion, the question of White's guilt for spying and acting as an agent of Soviet influence needs to be distinguished clearly from the problem of White's lack of sense of guilt or treachery. Steil discusses the latter problem, too, and seems to explain it by the point that White's views were not too far outside of the mainstream of the New Deal as he understood it, meaning its leftward half if not majority and its cutting edge tendency. My interpretation of his point would be that White and others viewed, not the formal US Government, but the cause of the New Deal -- understood as its left side and inclusive of the Soviet Union as one of its international complements -- as the truest and most legitimate locus for the loyalty of a good citizen, the thing to which one is supposed to look up to as the bearer of one's conscience, and that one is not supposed to betray. This overlap with a factional, "cause" loyalty that pervaded much of the Administration, and no doubt the mass media of the time as well, is essential for understanding how White was able to survive in positions of power from which he was able to do tremendous damage, despite being identified as a spy. It apparently affected the mentality even of some such as Truman, who did not really believe consciously in the left as the bearer of his conscience, yet needed some time to shake free of its hold. Ira Straus
173.66.83.12 (
talk) 03:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC) Many of the denials of White's guilt are logically dependent on the premise ascribed above to White, namely, that the left factional cause of the New Deal is the proper primary locus of loyalty, not the formal US Government. As such, it might be more accurate to describe some of them as a corollary to that ideological premise and a rewording of it, rather than as an independent attestation of conviction that he was not guilty before the formal US Government and its laws. Best regards, Ira Straus
173.66.83.12 (
talk) 03:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC) The discussion of whether White's spying did much damage misses the point of why that spying matters. Steil went to some length, in his Foreign Affairs article on White, to detail the several damaging actions White took on behalf of Communist interests, giving totals of direct costs to the U.S. that probably would be many billions of dollars in today's terms. His tally does not count the indirect costs, such as White's considerable help in undermining the friendly Nationalist government in China and bringing the Communists to power there. This gives him a share, hard to put an exact number on but substantial, of the costs of the Korean War, of any future Korean conflict, and of any future conflict with China. It was understood already by White's critics in the 1950s that this was where he did his real damage. What makes the spying important is that it confirms his willingness to commit formal treachery against the formal, lawful government of the U.S. on behalf of Soviet Communism. When taken together with the damage he did in his foreign policy actions, it establishes the legally guilty motivation for those actions and renders the damage treasonous, on a scale probably exceeding that of any other traitor in US history. Regards, Ira Straus, 12.28.17
173.66.83.12 (
talk) 03:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Steil showed that the Soviets, despite their fanatical love of control, were aware that White was not very controllable and would be mostly useful to them as an autonomous operator serving their interests. Regards, Ira Straus, 12.28.17
173.66.83.12 (
talk) 03:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Re: " Benn Steil suggests the Morgenthau Plan "may well have extended the war and inflated Allied casualties."
Duly note that at the January 1943 Casablanca conference FDR—to Churchill's annoyance—announced "unconditional surrender" for Germany… which also stiffened German resolve & gave Goebbels propaganda fodder. This is year & a half before Morgenthau Plan. DEddy ( talk) 02:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
At what point did Steil become White's biographer? Is Steil's Bretton Woods book a biography? DEddy ( talk) 17:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Do any of the folks here who so vehmently proclaim that White was without any question a spy, have any idea what his job was?
involvement lifted from another source—without either attribution or the source having ANY footnotes—is not what Wikipedia is about... is it? Do look at Koster's book. Not a single footnote. Steil's book is about Bretton Woods. Gratuitous slurs about White's alleged Pearl Harbor footnote. "They would confuse the reader" was his explanation. DEddy ( talk) 21:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
DEddy, since Steil brings up White's role regarding Pearl Harbor the book is obviously about this subject too! Jimjilin ( talk) 23:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Rjensen, if you feel other scholars disagree with Steil go ahead and mention them in the article, but let's not cover up Steil's view okay? Jimjilin ( talk) 23:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
DEddy, Steil's book devotes much more than 5 lines to the matter of White and Pearl Harbor. Koster discusses his sources with great specificity. Underlings have been known to exert enormous influence. Steil's book contains many footnotes. Jimjilin ( talk) 21:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Rjensen, we've been through this before. If you'd like to include other sources that disagree with Steil go ahead, but Steil is a great source who shouldn't be ignored. Jimjilin ( talk) 21:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Some disagree with Steil but not all! As I've pointed out Steil's book received great reviews. Moreover I have another source: Koster. Some documents according to some historians might be dodgy, I don't know why you feel those were crucial to Steil's opinion. And why do you believe the task force could not have been recalled after Nov. 26? If you can find a good source that disagrees with Steil I encourage you to add it. Let's not cover up the debate, let's give Wikipedia readers both sides and let them make up their own minds. Jimjilin ( talk) 21:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Rjensen you have yet to provide evidence Steil's opinion was based "on a popular Russian book that is not based on serious research and includes forge documents." Your insistence on inserting your own opinion into this article is completely inappropriate. Reviewers have praised Steil's book which includes the Pearl Harbor matter. Jimjilin ( talk) 22:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The Journal of Economic History merely states that Steil has sparked an active debate. That is no reason to censor Steil! Should we suppress either side in a debate? Yes or no? Jimjilin ( talk) 15:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Great reviews and awards for Steil: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9925.html Jimjilin ( talk) 15:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Another source regarding White and Pearl Harbor: Communism at Pearl Harbor, How the Communists Helped to Bring on Pearl Harbor and Open up Asia to Communinization, Dr. Anthony Kubek Jimjilin ( talk) 16:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Binksternet, I agree both sides should be presented. Jimjilin ( talk) 16:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Xcuref1endx your belief that Steil and Koster are fringe figures is based on what? Steil's book received great reviews from prestigious sources. Jimjilin ( talk) 22:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
1)Steil is a great source used elsewhere in the article. 2)Steil's book received great reviews: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9925.html 3)No evidence Steil's opinion was based on fake documents. 4)Soviet spymaster Vladimir Karpov: “The war in the Pacific could have been avoided,” wrote retired GRU military intelligence colonel and World War II “Hero of the Soviet Union” Vladimir Karpov in 2000, nearly sixty years after Pearl Harbor. “Stalin was the real initiator of the ultimatum to Japan,” he insisted. 5)Koster discusses his sources with great specificity. Time magazine article by Koster: http://nation.time.com/2012/12/07/pearl-harbor-2-0/ These are not fringe theories! Jimjilin ( talk) 22:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Go ahead and quote Langer and Gleason Rjensen! I have no problem with a quote from even this antediluvian source. Can you answer my question: Should we suppress either side in a debate? Yes or no? Jimjilin ( talk) 22:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
As a compromise I suggest we quote the opinions of Steil and Rauchway. Jimjilin ( talk) 22:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
He wrote: https://books.google.com/books?id=Se71H73MUOcC&pg=PA53&dq=Steil+%22Pearl+harbor%22+Dexter&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2KKzVIKmM4q9yQTs04GgBw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Steil%20%22Pearl%20harbor%22%20Dexter&f=false Jimjilin ( talk) 14:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Your claim Rjensen about "hundreds of historians" is just your personal opinion and not backed up by any data. Whether a book is popular or not is irrelevant and the Soviet spymasters certainly knew a lot about White and his activities in bringing about conflict. Rauchway claims Steil relied on fake documents, but this is his opinion and he offers no proof that Steil relied significantly on said documents. I continue to find Steil's argument convincing. Jimjilin ( talk) 18:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
ch, please check this out: Wikipedia:No original research Jimjilin ( talk) 18:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
This is an article on Harry Dexter White, not on Steil. Any coverage of White's activities in 1941 have to be based on the standard scholarly sources-- in this case the famous study by Langer and Gleason, the undeclared war. What we Need is a statement of what White actually did in 1940. What we do not want is a Commentary on what he did, without explaining what it was. We especially do not want a French commentary that has never been accepted by any serious historian, such as the revisionist conspiracy theory to the effect that Franklin Roosevelt started the war with Japan and did so by following White's advice that had been planted by Soviet spies. Rjensen ( talk) 19:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
It is my understanding that Chambers complained that White turned over what he wanted to rather than what was asked for. Does Tannenhaus say something different? Can someone connect the dots from their own knowledge of this topic and deduce WHAT White wanted from the Soviets? Am I going to have to dig into—yawn—Blum for a page reference? DEddy ( talk) 21:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Under the "Bretton Woods Conference" section, first paragraph second sentence -- the author(s) state that White's positions on the Bretton Woods system differed from John Maynard Keynes (true so far), and then added "economic historian Brad Delong" thinks Keynes was right on each and every issue (no mention of many many other viewpoints that differ from Delong).
Just because Wikipedia, and many of its editors, are based around San Francisco CA and the Berkley campus -- that does not mean that Berkley's extreme left wing political viewpoints represent the views of all US citizens, or all economists, never mind a "neutral point of view" WP:NPV that wikipedia is supposed to take.
Many economists think the entire Bretton Woods system was doomed from the start -- the record of central economic planning (not just BW) has been a disaster. Still other economists think the BW system worked fine for decades, and it was Keynesian fiscal policy in Washington DC that caused Bretton Woods to collapse.
Why is the Berkley / Brad Delong viewpoint the only view included? Why is this one single economist's opinion treated as though it were fact (which it is not)? Other49states ( talk) 01:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Harry Dexter White. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
"The Archival Evidence on Harry Dexter White", a summary of references to Harry White found in the Venona decryptions
Is there provenance for this document? Where's it from? Who wrote it? Who posted it? DEddy ( talk) 12:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on Harry Dexter White. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewpdf.cfm?article_id=10726When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Harry Dexter White. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
can we put his actual job titles at Treasury in the article somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwray ( talk • contribs) 16:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
86.191.95.230 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) Is there a reason you continue to insist that his cause of death is mentioned in the lede? This is your opportunity to reach consensus. Chris Troutman ( talk) 14:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
There are 3 versions of White's death that I'm aware of: 1) heart attack, 2) suicide & 3) the KGB eliminated him. 2) & 3), of course, make far better headlines & stories, particularly in that period of rapidly rising Cold War paranoia.
He'd already had several heart issues. Plus... during WWII, he was on something like 40 committees. My guess would be he was a tad overworked. Any questions? DEddy ( talk) 00:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
..."It is this chasm between what is known publicly of White's economic and political views, on the one hand, and his clandestine behavior on behalf of the Soviets, on the other, that accounts for the plethora of unpersuasive profiles of the man that have emerged."
Anyone want to ponder this one... HOW did the Soviets pay for the five-year plans in the 1930s (after repudiating Western debt)?
Anyone consider that White possibly gave something (we really don't know what, since "classified information" is a massively overblown & titillating term in DC) in order to (hopefully? possibly?) GET something in return?
Do remember, as a Keynesian (see: "Economic Consequences of the Peace", 1919), White was well aware another war was coming. Our first venture into the European war is 60,000 troop into North Africa, 18 months AFTER Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union. To some it was very clear it was necessary to keep the Soviets in the war while we got our war industry going. DEddy ( talk) 01:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Harry Dexter White article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The claim that Harry Dexter White was "an active agent of Soviet espionage.[1]" is illustrated with a link to "The Morgenthau Plan for Policy Perversion", by Anthony Kubek, published by the Institute for Historical Review. A closer read of the link shows that it was attributed to J. Edgar Hoover, during the notorious House Unamerican Activities Committee.
"Also, J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI charged that White was an active agent of Soviet espionage, and despite the fact he had sent five reports to the White House warning the President of White's activities, Truman promoted him to a position at the United Nations. When the shocking story of White's service as a Soviet agent was first revealed by Attorney General Herbert Brownell in a Chicago speech, it created quite a stir of public charges and counter-charges by then retired Harry Truman."
This is what the Southern Poverty Law Center has to say about Mark Weber and his Institute for Historical Review:
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/mark-weber MrSativa ( talk) 02:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
This is what Alexander Cockburn has to say about the Southern Poverty Law Center: counterpunch.org/2009/05/15/king-of-the-hate-business/ 192.40.24.4 ( talk) 14:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Shandafurde
He did not confess nor was he convicted so Category:American spies for the Soviet Union is not appropriate. To leave him out of any spy category would be egregious, he belongs in Category:Accused American spies for the Soviet Union. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 18:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
For the McCarthy/Cold Warriors PROOF of White's alleged espionage activities was his being found in the VENONA cables. By that reasoning, FDR & Winston Churchill should be included as accused spies since they were also mentioned in VENONA.
The above two sentences are ludicrous. "PROOF" is not merely being mentioned, but flows from the information contained in VENONA about the individual in question. Added by MEO 4/15/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.34.238 ( talk) 04:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
By the time McCarthy paranoia dominated Washington it had been forgotten that in the 1930s & 1940s astute observers knew war was coming & if Germany were to be defeated, the Russians would have to do the bulk of the dying (their 20-30 million to our 400,000). Since it took us 3 years to get into the European war, clearly something had to be done to keep Stalin from pulling a 2nd Brest-Litovsk.
Knowing how FDR worked ("my left hand often does not know what my right hand is doing...") it is not outside the realm of possibility that White was given broad, ill defined, & NEVER written down, encouragement to feed information to the Soviets. It is not outside the realm of possibility that White observed how FDR juggled conflicting objectives & took it upon himself to pass encouraging information to the Soviets.
A spy "under party control?" Not a chance. Notice there has never been a word about where/when White "converted" to being a Stalin lackey.
Recent updates... Haynes, Klehr & Vassiliev have just published (June 2009) a new book, entitled "Spies" based on the notebooks of Vassiliev. At the Woodrow Wilson Center event in May 20-21, 2009, Bruce Craig (White's biographer) wondered to John Haynes why, if White were such an influential spy, he (White) at least in the Vassiliev notebooks the Soviets were trying to figure out who he was. DEddy ( talk) 20:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
This whole section upon the supposed Soviet spying activities of Harry White is disgusting. So now Wikipedia uses McCarthy era FBI allegations as fact. What a load of crap. Wikipedia is crap. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canuckistani ( talk • contribs) 22:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
There's a large section added in the 03:56, 17 December 2009 edit by 70.129.141.180 relying on a book by Emanuel Josephson, whose credibility is questionable at best. The Rockefeller-Soviet conspiracy which Josephson alleges is presented in these passages as fact. Josephson's opinions may be worth noting, but a fringe historian/conspiracy theorist's analysis ought not be given an unqualified 5 paragraphs of material. 76.27.140.208 ( talk) 17:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Strong agreement on deletion. Bruce Craig, author of "Treasonable Doubt" told me he'd never heard of Josephson. DEddy ( talk) 20:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Here's an interesting extract from Vassiliev white notebook #1, pg 44, left notation pg 95 "However, when we too had the idea of separating “Jurist” [Harry Dexter White] from “Pal’s” [Silvermaster] group and taking him over for direct communications, it turned out that he is not only not our probationer, but we hardly know anything about him at all, and “Sound” also knows very little about him and has a very fuzzy concept of the nature of his contact with “Pal’s” group."
After a series of earlier references in this notebook about how important White is & deserves a dedicated contact... suddenly it turns out the KGB doesn't seem to know much about him. Odd. DEddy ( talk) 00:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing "odd" about it at all. On page 38 of White Notebook #1, the following appears:
According to information we have received, “Jurist” at one time was a probationer for the neighbors. We will communicate detailed information about him separately. He should, at last, be properly recruited for work and taken on for direct communications. In view of Jurist’s” value and the necessity of adhering to the rules of covert work, we consider it advisable to assign a special illegal to work with him. You should have a better notion of how best to approach the implementation of this task. Wire us your suggestions.
The KGB doesn't know much about him because he is working for the GRU, not the KGB. Added by MEO 4/15/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.34.238 ( talk) 05:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Those introductory 3 lines are going to have to be modified.
At best White is an accused spy, and to the best of my knowledge the VENONA cables prove nothing other than White was talking to the Soviets which was, after all, part of his job. The most seemingly incriminating cable (1119-1122) of 4 August 1944, was with a Russian banker (a fact that didn't surface until maybe 2000). That meeting was shortly after the Bretton Woods conference where the Russian (Kolt'sov in the cable) was an accredited attendee. Rather than a clandestine meeting, a far more realistic interpretation would be that White was continuing to sell the Soviets on the wisdom of joining the IMF. DEddy ( talk) 03:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
"A number of sources from the FBI and Soviet archives, and messages decoded by the Venona project, implicated him in the passing of government documents to the Soviet Union prior to World War II."
You're going to have to get a firmer grip on your timeframes here. What precise documents "prior to WWII" do you mean? There is the single offering of the "Baltimore papers" from Whittaker Chambers, who described White as his "least productive asset." For this document (a collection of 3 documents?) to the best of my knowledge there is no evidence White gave it to Chambers. Certainly it cannot be VENONA since those were only cables beginning in 1943. My knowledge of Soviet archives is less solid... references please. Please do not include "Sacred Secrets" as a source. The chapter on White lists 20% of the footnotes as "Soviet Intelligence Archives". This is classic TIME/LIFE making up facts to fit the story. "Sacred Secrets" is NOT a credible reference.
Are you aware of White's official interest in Russian gold production?
I duly notice you say "government documents" rather than "secret government documents." Is there a difference, or is it assumed a government document is by definition, secret ? DEddy ( talk) 19:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Removed the assertion that the goal of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank was to promote capitalism. The article early on states that White was a Keynesian, and also 'dominated' the Bretton Woods Conference with John Maynard Keynes himself. Keynes could hardly be considered a capitalist in any sense of the word. He was a prominent member of the Fabian Society, and argued for strict monetary control by governments. He is considered the antithesis of the laissez-faire capitalists. To suggest that White and Keynes were interested in spreading capitalism through their work at Bretton Woods in 1944 is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meshmonk ( talk • contribs) 05:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Keynes was never a member of the Fabian Society.-- 76.14.64.98 ( talk) 07:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
You have missed Craig's repeated statement that White was a spy. Evidently I have. I would be most surprised if Craig's book "repeatedly" said White was a spy. Can you provide page references, please. My Google full text search isn't working at the moment. DEddy ( talk) 21:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The sequence of events in the last sentence in the opening paragraph is totally jumbled. Please do some homework & correct.
The testimony of Elizabeth Bentley, the VENONA intercepts, and the Mitrokhin archives show that Harry Dexter White was very likely a soviet agent, acting under the code name "Jurist".
Clearly this is a highly controversial, loaded sentence.
Here is a clip from the Haynes/Klehr/Vassiliev "Spies"
[my emphasis added to new course]
pg 259
pg 260
The most interesting part of this passage—from VENONA 1119-1121—is the Spies footnote #118 which emphasizes how White, who died in 1948, is supporting a Soviet policy that didn't appear until 1954.
Much more likely in context here, new course likely refers to the post War IMF/IBRD effort, since the Bretton Woods conference establishing these institutions ended two weeks previous.
Also, the referenced VENONA cables 1388-1389 primarily discuss Silvermaster being upset at someone else approaching White. There is NOTHING about "new course" or Soviet foreign policy goals. Unless, of course there are additional versions of these cables that Haynes/Klehr/Vassiliev have access to.
I observe at least two serious distortions/errors/mistakes here: #1 the interpretation of new course and #2 the seemingly damning reference to the Silvermaster cable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DEddy ( talk • contribs) 19:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, DEddy. If one click on "about this site", it will take to the page [2] which show that the this particular site is a personal website of Ms Chervonnaya.
In earlier time of wikipedia, people with rather fringe view used these type minor websites as soapbox to push their view. Then the consensus emerged in wikipedia that only materials which has gone through peer review and/or editorial oversight should be cited. [3] So citation from academic paper, media reporting, statistics from government agency, etc are fine. [4] On the other hand, an entry from the personal website of a Nobel prize winner is not o.k. Without this rule, wikipedia article on, say, "Holocaust" or "UFO" or "Climate Change" would be littered by citation from denial or conspiracy sources. Of course, it does not mean that wikipedia takes anything from media or government as fact. If you can find a citation from media or books published by reputable publishing house which cast doubt on FBI finding, then you are free to add that contents to wikipedia. Then it would be up to readers to examine these conflicting materials and draw their own conclusion. Vapour ( talk) 06:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Rather speculating about what is reliable, just read the policy and guideline about the question: WP:SOURCES, WP:IRS. FurrySings ( talk) 14:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
To both Vapour & FurrySprings... those "references" to Wikipedia policy/guidelines are both circular & highly ambiguous.
One thing I'd like to know, which I don't remember seeing is those polices... what is a "personal website?" What is the substantive difference between a "personal website" and a vanity press publication like "Sacred Secrets" (and many others in this domain)? What makes www.documentstalk.com a "personal website?" DEddy ( talk) 19:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Seems a bit rash to exclude he commentary. She is a professional academic and journalist and had a position at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. It may be her 'personal website', but that doesnt seem much different than if she made a speech at a conference or something saying the same things, and was quoted in a newspaper. Decora ( talk) 14:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
The recent book "Operation Snow: How a Soviet Mole in FDR's White House Triggered Pearl Harbor", by John Koster" takes the position that White was not only a spy, but was responsible for the US side of the negotiations that induced Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. The point of the book was that if the US didn't enter WWII, the USSR was going to lose. So efforts were made to get the US into WWII. -- John Nagle ( talk) 22:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
An observation about the Koster book... while there is an impressive looking bibliography, there is not a single footnote in the entire book. The author even quotes one person—who I happened to know personally—in the body of the text and there is no bibliographic reference to this person. If memory serves me, Koster justifies the absence of footnotes by saying footnotes would slow the reader down. Plenty of imagination. Questionable facts. DEddy ( talk) 21:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Rjenson - could we have a page reference for the recent (1998) Spies allegation, please. It's a big book, covers a lot of ground & has jumbled to dead wrong facts, specifically about White. DEddy ( talk) 21:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
pages=259–60
Who pray tell is (was?) this Charles Morse who seems to not exist? www.charlesmorse.com DEddy ( talk) 15:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
to: Rjensen - much better edit on main page. Thank you.
Heads up here. That reference to "Spies" is a fatally flawed reference. Published in 2005 it still references Koltsov(VENONA cover name)/Checulin (real name) as a KGB "agent" when in fact Chechulin was the Deputy Chairman of the Russian Central Bank & the head of the Russian delegation to the Bretton Woods conference.
Who would you expect White to be speaking with? Chechulin's secretary?
White was still trying to get the Soviets to sign on to the Bretton Woods agreements.
You can remove that line or I will. DEddy ( talk) 18:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
If you think other scholars disagree with Steil by all means include them. But please don't try to cover up statements from those you disagree with!
Steil's book has been called “the gold standard on its topic” by the New York Times, “a triumph of economic and diplomatic history” by the Financial Times, and “a superb history” by the Wall Street Journal.
It seems you have a different opinion regarding the scholarly consensus from Steil. Please don't silence Steil, just include other opinions regarding the scholarly consensus. Jimjilin ( talk) 14:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
173.66.83.12 (
talk) 03:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC) Steil is quoted in the text, as it stands at this time (Dec. 2017), in a way that is misleading. It makes it sound half-way as if he is denying White's guilt. In fact Steil is very firm in asserting White's guilt. Please fix this. Thanks, Ira Straus
173.66.83.12 (
talk) 03:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC) To correct the confusion, the question of White's guilt for spying and acting as an agent of Soviet influence needs to be distinguished clearly from the problem of White's lack of sense of guilt or treachery. Steil discusses the latter problem, too, and seems to explain it by the point that White's views were not too far outside of the mainstream of the New Deal as he understood it, meaning its leftward half if not majority and its cutting edge tendency. My interpretation of his point would be that White and others viewed, not the formal US Government, but the cause of the New Deal -- understood as its left side and inclusive of the Soviet Union as one of its international complements -- as the truest and most legitimate locus for the loyalty of a good citizen, the thing to which one is supposed to look up to as the bearer of one's conscience, and that one is not supposed to betray. This overlap with a factional, "cause" loyalty that pervaded much of the Administration, and no doubt the mass media of the time as well, is essential for understanding how White was able to survive in positions of power from which he was able to do tremendous damage, despite being identified as a spy. It apparently affected the mentality even of some such as Truman, who did not really believe consciously in the left as the bearer of his conscience, yet needed some time to shake free of its hold. Ira Straus
173.66.83.12 (
talk) 03:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC) Many of the denials of White's guilt are logically dependent on the premise ascribed above to White, namely, that the left factional cause of the New Deal is the proper primary locus of loyalty, not the formal US Government. As such, it might be more accurate to describe some of them as a corollary to that ideological premise and a rewording of it, rather than as an independent attestation of conviction that he was not guilty before the formal US Government and its laws. Best regards, Ira Straus
173.66.83.12 (
talk) 03:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC) The discussion of whether White's spying did much damage misses the point of why that spying matters. Steil went to some length, in his Foreign Affairs article on White, to detail the several damaging actions White took on behalf of Communist interests, giving totals of direct costs to the U.S. that probably would be many billions of dollars in today's terms. His tally does not count the indirect costs, such as White's considerable help in undermining the friendly Nationalist government in China and bringing the Communists to power there. This gives him a share, hard to put an exact number on but substantial, of the costs of the Korean War, of any future Korean conflict, and of any future conflict with China. It was understood already by White's critics in the 1950s that this was where he did his real damage. What makes the spying important is that it confirms his willingness to commit formal treachery against the formal, lawful government of the U.S. on behalf of Soviet Communism. When taken together with the damage he did in his foreign policy actions, it establishes the legally guilty motivation for those actions and renders the damage treasonous, on a scale probably exceeding that of any other traitor in US history. Regards, Ira Straus, 12.28.17
173.66.83.12 (
talk) 03:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Steil showed that the Soviets, despite their fanatical love of control, were aware that White was not very controllable and would be mostly useful to them as an autonomous operator serving their interests. Regards, Ira Straus, 12.28.17
173.66.83.12 (
talk) 03:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Re: " Benn Steil suggests the Morgenthau Plan "may well have extended the war and inflated Allied casualties."
Duly note that at the January 1943 Casablanca conference FDR—to Churchill's annoyance—announced "unconditional surrender" for Germany… which also stiffened German resolve & gave Goebbels propaganda fodder. This is year & a half before Morgenthau Plan. DEddy ( talk) 02:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
At what point did Steil become White's biographer? Is Steil's Bretton Woods book a biography? DEddy ( talk) 17:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Do any of the folks here who so vehmently proclaim that White was without any question a spy, have any idea what his job was?
involvement lifted from another source—without either attribution or the source having ANY footnotes—is not what Wikipedia is about... is it? Do look at Koster's book. Not a single footnote. Steil's book is about Bretton Woods. Gratuitous slurs about White's alleged Pearl Harbor footnote. "They would confuse the reader" was his explanation. DEddy ( talk) 21:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
DEddy, since Steil brings up White's role regarding Pearl Harbor the book is obviously about this subject too! Jimjilin ( talk) 23:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Rjensen, if you feel other scholars disagree with Steil go ahead and mention them in the article, but let's not cover up Steil's view okay? Jimjilin ( talk) 23:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
DEddy, Steil's book devotes much more than 5 lines to the matter of White and Pearl Harbor. Koster discusses his sources with great specificity. Underlings have been known to exert enormous influence. Steil's book contains many footnotes. Jimjilin ( talk) 21:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Rjensen, we've been through this before. If you'd like to include other sources that disagree with Steil go ahead, but Steil is a great source who shouldn't be ignored. Jimjilin ( talk) 21:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Some disagree with Steil but not all! As I've pointed out Steil's book received great reviews. Moreover I have another source: Koster. Some documents according to some historians might be dodgy, I don't know why you feel those were crucial to Steil's opinion. And why do you believe the task force could not have been recalled after Nov. 26? If you can find a good source that disagrees with Steil I encourage you to add it. Let's not cover up the debate, let's give Wikipedia readers both sides and let them make up their own minds. Jimjilin ( talk) 21:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Rjensen you have yet to provide evidence Steil's opinion was based "on a popular Russian book that is not based on serious research and includes forge documents." Your insistence on inserting your own opinion into this article is completely inappropriate. Reviewers have praised Steil's book which includes the Pearl Harbor matter. Jimjilin ( talk) 22:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The Journal of Economic History merely states that Steil has sparked an active debate. That is no reason to censor Steil! Should we suppress either side in a debate? Yes or no? Jimjilin ( talk) 15:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Great reviews and awards for Steil: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9925.html Jimjilin ( talk) 15:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Another source regarding White and Pearl Harbor: Communism at Pearl Harbor, How the Communists Helped to Bring on Pearl Harbor and Open up Asia to Communinization, Dr. Anthony Kubek Jimjilin ( talk) 16:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Binksternet, I agree both sides should be presented. Jimjilin ( talk) 16:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Xcuref1endx your belief that Steil and Koster are fringe figures is based on what? Steil's book received great reviews from prestigious sources. Jimjilin ( talk) 22:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
1)Steil is a great source used elsewhere in the article. 2)Steil's book received great reviews: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9925.html 3)No evidence Steil's opinion was based on fake documents. 4)Soviet spymaster Vladimir Karpov: “The war in the Pacific could have been avoided,” wrote retired GRU military intelligence colonel and World War II “Hero of the Soviet Union” Vladimir Karpov in 2000, nearly sixty years after Pearl Harbor. “Stalin was the real initiator of the ultimatum to Japan,” he insisted. 5)Koster discusses his sources with great specificity. Time magazine article by Koster: http://nation.time.com/2012/12/07/pearl-harbor-2-0/ These are not fringe theories! Jimjilin ( talk) 22:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Go ahead and quote Langer and Gleason Rjensen! I have no problem with a quote from even this antediluvian source. Can you answer my question: Should we suppress either side in a debate? Yes or no? Jimjilin ( talk) 22:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
As a compromise I suggest we quote the opinions of Steil and Rauchway. Jimjilin ( talk) 22:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
He wrote: https://books.google.com/books?id=Se71H73MUOcC&pg=PA53&dq=Steil+%22Pearl+harbor%22+Dexter&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2KKzVIKmM4q9yQTs04GgBw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Steil%20%22Pearl%20harbor%22%20Dexter&f=false Jimjilin ( talk) 14:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Your claim Rjensen about "hundreds of historians" is just your personal opinion and not backed up by any data. Whether a book is popular or not is irrelevant and the Soviet spymasters certainly knew a lot about White and his activities in bringing about conflict. Rauchway claims Steil relied on fake documents, but this is his opinion and he offers no proof that Steil relied significantly on said documents. I continue to find Steil's argument convincing. Jimjilin ( talk) 18:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
ch, please check this out: Wikipedia:No original research Jimjilin ( talk) 18:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
This is an article on Harry Dexter White, not on Steil. Any coverage of White's activities in 1941 have to be based on the standard scholarly sources-- in this case the famous study by Langer and Gleason, the undeclared war. What we Need is a statement of what White actually did in 1940. What we do not want is a Commentary on what he did, without explaining what it was. We especially do not want a French commentary that has never been accepted by any serious historian, such as the revisionist conspiracy theory to the effect that Franklin Roosevelt started the war with Japan and did so by following White's advice that had been planted by Soviet spies. Rjensen ( talk) 19:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
It is my understanding that Chambers complained that White turned over what he wanted to rather than what was asked for. Does Tannenhaus say something different? Can someone connect the dots from their own knowledge of this topic and deduce WHAT White wanted from the Soviets? Am I going to have to dig into—yawn—Blum for a page reference? DEddy ( talk) 21:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Under the "Bretton Woods Conference" section, first paragraph second sentence -- the author(s) state that White's positions on the Bretton Woods system differed from John Maynard Keynes (true so far), and then added "economic historian Brad Delong" thinks Keynes was right on each and every issue (no mention of many many other viewpoints that differ from Delong).
Just because Wikipedia, and many of its editors, are based around San Francisco CA and the Berkley campus -- that does not mean that Berkley's extreme left wing political viewpoints represent the views of all US citizens, or all economists, never mind a "neutral point of view" WP:NPV that wikipedia is supposed to take.
Many economists think the entire Bretton Woods system was doomed from the start -- the record of central economic planning (not just BW) has been a disaster. Still other economists think the BW system worked fine for decades, and it was Keynesian fiscal policy in Washington DC that caused Bretton Woods to collapse.
Why is the Berkley / Brad Delong viewpoint the only view included? Why is this one single economist's opinion treated as though it were fact (which it is not)? Other49states ( talk) 01:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Harry Dexter White. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
"The Archival Evidence on Harry Dexter White", a summary of references to Harry White found in the Venona decryptions
Is there provenance for this document? Where's it from? Who wrote it? Who posted it? DEddy ( talk) 12:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on Harry Dexter White. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewpdf.cfm?article_id=10726When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Harry Dexter White. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
can we put his actual job titles at Treasury in the article somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwray ( talk • contribs) 16:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
86.191.95.230 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) Is there a reason you continue to insist that his cause of death is mentioned in the lede? This is your opportunity to reach consensus. Chris Troutman ( talk) 14:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
There are 3 versions of White's death that I'm aware of: 1) heart attack, 2) suicide & 3) the KGB eliminated him. 2) & 3), of course, make far better headlines & stories, particularly in that period of rapidly rising Cold War paranoia.
He'd already had several heart issues. Plus... during WWII, he was on something like 40 committees. My guess would be he was a tad overworked. Any questions? DEddy ( talk) 00:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
..."It is this chasm between what is known publicly of White's economic and political views, on the one hand, and his clandestine behavior on behalf of the Soviets, on the other, that accounts for the plethora of unpersuasive profiles of the man that have emerged."
Anyone want to ponder this one... HOW did the Soviets pay for the five-year plans in the 1930s (after repudiating Western debt)?
Anyone consider that White possibly gave something (we really don't know what, since "classified information" is a massively overblown & titillating term in DC) in order to (hopefully? possibly?) GET something in return?
Do remember, as a Keynesian (see: "Economic Consequences of the Peace", 1919), White was well aware another war was coming. Our first venture into the European war is 60,000 troop into North Africa, 18 months AFTER Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union. To some it was very clear it was necessary to keep the Soviets in the war while we got our war industry going. DEddy ( talk) 01:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)