FDR's Lend-Lease....or Stalin's?

[jwoodie]

I tend to give Soviet sympathizers of the 1930's a pass, based on their idealistic ignorance at the time. By the 1950's, however, this amounted to treason.

"... idealistic ignorance..."

Not so.

The folks in question were lap-dogs of Soviet policy, taking orders from Moscow.

1. Even at their peak, in the ‘30’s, the Communist Party of the United States never had more than 100 thousand members: so deception of the ‘dupes’ was critical.

a. The archives tell a tale of plans and schemes between the CPUSA and the Communist International in Moscow, to dupe progressives and liberals: “go to rallies,” “don’t let them know you are a communist!,” “If anyone reveals that you are a communist, claim it is red-baiting,” “yell ‘McCarthyism!”


2. The Commintern, the Communist International, was founded in Moscow in March, 1919. Not far behind it, the Communist Party, USA (CPUSA) was founded in Chicago in September, 1919.
While the archives are rich with their literature, they are rarely studied, as most academic historians are on the left and have little interest in revealing or discussing the revelations or machinations therein. Further, Yeltsin had declassified many documents in the 1990’s which proved that everything the anti-communists said, was true!

a. In 1919, Executive Sec’y of CPUSA, Charles Ruthenberg, wrote the following to Moscow: “Hail to the dictatorship of the proletariat. Long live the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic. Long live the Communist International.” A loyal Soviet patriot, his ashes are buried in the wall of the Kremlin.
So, is this ‘just another political party’? idealistic ignorance?

b. From the November 24, 1919 application of the CPUSA to the Commintern: “The final struggle of the communist proletariat will be waged in the United States. Our conquest of power alone assuring the world Soviet Republic! Realizing all of this, the Communist Party prepares for the struggle. Long live the Communist International, long live the world revolution!’
Just like any other political party? idealistic ignorance?

The above based on Dr. Paul Kengor, Hoover Institution, Stanford, book “DUPES: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century”

Good information. I was under the impression that many viewed the excesses of Soviet communism in the 1930's to be a necessary, if distasteful, transitional period towards a workers paradise. By the 1950's, all but the most strident were aware this was an illusion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I tend to give Soviet sympathizers of the 1930's a pass, based on their idealistic ignorance at the time. By the 1950's, however, this amounted to treason.

"... idealistic ignorance..."

Not so.

The folks in question were lap-dogs of Soviet policy, taking orders from Moscow.

1. Even at their peak, in the ‘30’s, the Communist Party of the United States never had more than 100 thousand members: so deception of the ‘dupes’ was critical.

a. The archives tell a tale of plans and schemes between the CPUSA and the Communist International in Moscow, to dupe progressives and liberals: “go to rallies,” “don’t let them know you are a communist!,” “If anyone reveals that you are a communist, claim it is red-baiting,” “yell ‘McCarthyism!”


2. The Commintern, the Communist International, was founded in Moscow in March, 1919. Not far behind it, the Communist Party, USA (CPUSA) was founded in Chicago in September, 1919.
While the archives are rich with their literature, they are rarely studied, as most academic historians are on the left and have little interest in revealing or discussing the revelations or machinations therein. Further, Yeltsin had declassified many documents in the 1990’s which proved that everything the anti-communists said, was true!

a. In 1919, Executive Sec’y of CPUSA, Charles Ruthenberg, wrote the following to Moscow: “Hail to the dictatorship of the proletariat. Long live the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic. Long live the Communist International.” A loyal Soviet patriot, his ashes are buried in the wall of the Kremlin.
So, is this ‘just another political party’? idealistic ignorance?

b. From the November 24, 1919 application of the CPUSA to the Commintern: “The final struggle of the communist proletariat will be waged in the United States. Our conquest of power alone assuring the world Soviet Republic! Realizing all of this, the Communist Party prepares for the struggle. Long live the Communist International, long live the world revolution!’
Just like any other political party? idealistic ignorance?

The above based on Dr. Paul Kengor, Hoover Institution, Stanford, book “DUPES: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century”

Good information. I was under the impression that many viewed the excesses of Soviet communism in the 1930's to be a necessary, if distasteful, transitional period towards a workers paradise. By the 1950's, all but the most strident were aware this was an illusion.

If you get a chance, check out John V. Fleming's "The Anti-Communist Manifestos: Four Books That Shaped the Cold War"


And....best of all, Diana West's "American Betrayal."
It's the bomb!

 

[Toronado3800]

Let me suggest that there was more to Lend-Lease than you seem to be aware of. (Did I just end a sentence with a preposition??)

Harry Hopkins,- FDR's alter ego, co-president, or Rasputin, "...the closest and most influential adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II, was a Soviet agent." and “the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in the United States.”
The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins


"His reports back to Roosevelt helped justify the U.S. Lend-Lease program which he briefly directed."
WWII Behind Closed Doors: Stalin, the Nazis and the West . Biographies . Harry Hopkins | PBS

BTW, Lend-Lease to Russia amounted to $300 billion in today's dollars.
Albert L. Weeks, "Russia's Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II" p.25


Get this:
"...nothing will stop us from sharing with you [the Soviet Union] all that we have and all that we are."
Quoted in "From Major's Jordan's Diaries," by George Racey Jordan and Richard L. Stokes

Could the allies have won the war in Europe without the Russians, and if it was possible to win, how long would it have taken and what would the final cost have been to America?
Butter indeed.

OK, let's continue our game of 'I provide facts, you bloviate.'


1. It was not Lend-Lease that opened the Eastern Front, it was Operation Barbarossa.
Hitler attacked Russia.

2. At the behest of the Commintern, as the archives reveals, the American Peace Mobilization committee was formed in April of ’41. It’s function was to support the Soviet line, bring progressives aboard, protest against the lend-lease program to aid Britain…they paraded in front of the White House, chanting “FDR is a fascist, …he’s starting a war!’ They managed to dupe the easiest group to dupe: progressive pastors. The NYTimes article at the time said “Clergyman Group Opposes War Aid!’

a. In mid-protest, on June 22, 1941, they became pro-war! The Germans had broken their agreement with the Soviets, and invaded Russia! Suddenly the group was for lend-lease, and FDR wasn’t a fascist…and they changed their name to American People’s Mobilization.

b. The HUAC had exposed this group as “…one of the most seditious and subversive front groups.”


Again?
You've succumbed to the propaganda, i.e., that we bribed Stalin into fighting Hitler.
Stalin needed America, and had made a peace treaty with Hitler already: The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact

Stick with the facts and less name calling. You can make points here talking about how behind the times our intelligence community was in the 30's. The rest of this just seems like excuses or dancing around the fact you wanted us to declare war on Germany, Russia and Japan. If that is it do not be shy, just pick a point of view that makes sense and quit having such clear cut heros and villans in your life when reality is shades of grey.

 

[Toronado3800]

That last statement on the pact just puts a frown of disappointment on my face. Either you do not understand or are trying to mislead

 

[PoliticalChic]

Could the allies have won the war in Europe without the Russians, and if it was possible to win, how long would it have taken and what would the final cost have been to America?
Butter indeed.

OK, let's continue our game of 'I provide facts, you bloviate.'


1. It was not Lend-Lease that opened the Eastern Front, it was Operation Barbarossa.
Hitler attacked Russia.

2. At the behest of the Commintern, as the archives reveals, the American Peace Mobilization committee was formed in April of ’41. It’s function was to support the Soviet line, bring progressives aboard, protest against the lend-lease program to aid Britain…they paraded in front of the White House, chanting “FDR is a fascist, …he’s starting a war!’ They managed to dupe the easiest group to dupe: progressive pastors. The NYTimes article at the time said “Clergyman Group Opposes War Aid!’

a. In mid-protest, on June 22, 1941, they became pro-war! The Germans had broken their agreement with the Soviets, and invaded Russia! Suddenly the group was for lend-lease, and FDR wasn’t a fascist…and they changed their name to American People’s Mobilization.

b. The HUAC had exposed this group as “…one of the most seditious and subversive front groups.”


Again?
You've succumbed to the propaganda, i.e., that we bribed Stalin into fighting Hitler.
Stalin needed America, and had made a peace treaty with Hitler already: The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact

Stick with the facts and less name calling. You can make points here talking about how behind the times our intelligence community was in the 30's. The rest of this just seems like excuses or dancing around If that is it do not be shy, just pick a point of view that makes sense and quit having such clear cut heros and villans in your life when reality is shades of grey.

1. "Stick with the facts and less name calling."
Why?
You don't like it, ya' big dummy?




2. " our intelligence community was in the 30's"
Wrong.....it was the Democrat assault on the intelligence community, the Pike Committee, and the Church Committee that destroyed our ability...and led to 9/11.

In the wake of the September 11th terror attack, some legislators are now proclaiming their commitment to unleashing the CIA and rebuilding its human “assets.” Just a short while ago these same legislators were leading the charge to curtail the agency. One such convert is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joseph Biden. The Delaware Democrat was one of seventeen Senators who voted in 1974 to ban all covert operations, and proudly noted during his 1988 campaign for president that he had threatened to “go public” with covert action plans by the Reagan administration, causing them to cancel the operations. Hopefully Senator Biden, and other congressional converts, are undergoing a genuine epiphany. Perhaps they now realize, as Henry Kissinger once observed about the Church Committee, that it is an illusion that “tranquility can be achieved by an abstract purity of motive for which history offers no example.” It is precisely this illusion which has prevailed in congressional circles since the heyday of Frank Church and Otis Pike. As Church himself once argued, the United States should not “fight fire with fire . . . evil with evil.”
History News Network



3. "...the fact you wanted us to declare war on Germany, Russia and Japan."
Hey....you really are a big dummy.


4. "... heros (sic) and villans (sic) ..."

Dummy isn't the half of it. Don't you have 'spell check'?


5. "...when reality is shades of grey."
The sign of an uneducated Liberal: moral relativism and postmodernism.
Look 'em up....maybe you'll cease being a dummy.

 

[regent]

OK, let's continue our game of 'I provide facts, you bloviate.'


1. It was not Lend-Lease that opened the Eastern Front, it was Operation Barbarossa.
Hitler attacked Russia.

2. At the behest of the Commintern, as the archives reveals, the American Peace Mobilization committee was formed in April of ’41. It’s function was to support the Soviet line, bring progressives aboard, protest against the lend-lease program to aid Britain…they paraded in front of the White House, chanting “FDR is a fascist, …he’s starting a war!’ They managed to dupe the easiest group to dupe: progressive pastors. The NYTimes article at the time said “Clergyman Group Opposes War Aid!’

a. In mid-protest, on June 22, 1941, they became pro-war! The Germans had broken their agreement with the Soviets, and invaded Russia! Suddenly the group was for lend-lease, and FDR wasn’t a fascist…and they changed their name to American People’s Mobilization.

b. The HUAC had exposed this group as “…one of the most seditious and subversive front groups.”


Again?
You've succumbed to the propaganda, i.e., that we bribed Stalin into fighting Hitler.
Stalin needed America, and had made a peace treaty with Hitler already: The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact

Stick with the facts and less name calling. You can make points here talking about how behind the times our intelligence community was in the 30's. The rest of this just seems like excuses or dancing around If that is it do not be shy, just pick a point of view that makes sense and quit having such clear cut heros and villans in your life when reality is shades of grey.

1. "Stick with the facts and less name calling."
Why?
You don't like it, ya' big dummy?




2. " our intelligence community was in the 30's"
Wrong.....it was the Democrat assault on the intelligence community, the Pike Committee, and the Church Committee that destroyed our ability...and led to 9/11.

In the wake of the September 11th terror attack, some legislators are now proclaiming their commitment to unleashing the CIA and rebuilding its human “assets.” Just a short while ago these same legislators were leading the charge to curtail the agency. One such convert is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joseph Biden. The Delaware Democrat was one of seventeen Senators who voted in 1974 to ban all covert operations, and proudly noted during his 1988 campaign for president that he had threatened to “go public” with covert action plans by the Reagan administration, causing them to cancel the operations. Hopefully Senator Biden, and other congressional converts, are undergoing a genuine epiphany. Perhaps they now realize, as Henry Kissinger once observed about the Church Committee, that it is an illusion that “tranquility can be achieved by an abstract purity of motive for which history offers no example.” It is precisely this illusion which has prevailed in congressional circles since the heyday of Frank Church and Otis Pike. As Church himself once argued, the United States should not “fight fire with fire . . . evil with evil.”
History News Network



3. "...the fact you wanted us to declare war on Germany, Russia and Japan."
Hey....you really are a big dummy.


4. "... heros (sic) and villans (sic) ..."

Dummy isn't the half of it. Don't you have 'spell check'?


5. "...when reality is shades of grey."
The sign of an uneducated Liberal: moral relativism and postmodernism.
Look 'em up....maybe you'll cease being a dummy.

Hell of a dance, but let's go back to, could the allies have beaten Germany without Russia and if so what would it have cost America? When Germany declared war on America should we have responded? Germany had no navy, so an invasion of the US was dim but what if Britain surrendered then perhaps Germany would have a navy. Or what would happen to Europe and perhaps much of the world with no resistance to Hitler?
It is all well and good to sit at our computers and revise history and make light of real problems just to put FDR into some kind of a bag. But FDR is still number one even with all the historical revisions, and number one by historians.

 

[Auteur]

Hell of a dance, but let's go back to, could the allies have beaten Germany without Russia and if so what would it have cost America? When Germany declared war on America should we have responded? Germany had no navy, so an invasion of the US was dim but what if Britain surrendered then perhaps Germany would have a navy. Or what would happen to Europe and perhaps much of the world with no resistance to Hitler?
It is all well and good to sit at our computers and revise history and make light of real problems just to put FDR into some kind of a bag. But FDR is still number one even with all the historical revisions, and number one by historians.

Indeed. It was realpolitik, something we are no stranger to today. Vietnam was a mortal foe of the US (they would be coming ashore in California, AK 47s loaded, as one poster here has put it). Now, you get your t-shirts from them.

China is communist, notionally anyway, certianly non-democratic, and has made threatening noises towards the US, but- they are propping up the sale of US treasury bills, and providing all manner of trade and investment opportunities. Even George Bush 2, the poster boy of corporate feudalism, was mute on the ethics of such a relationship. And today, the US is not threatened in any realistic way. In 1940, it was- big time. It is immense hypocracy to accept the world today, and then condemn FDR for supporting the Soviets in the war.

FDR was actually a master communicator, who could see history, and economics, in a clearer light than most Americans at the time. His dilemma was in how to educate the populace in a way they could accept, and embrace.

 

[Unkotare]

The scumbag FDR was the closest thing we've ever had to a dictator, and we were lucky to survive him still as a Democratic Republic. He had no respect of the Constitution or loyal Americans, prolonged the Great Depression, and Stalin couldn't have asked for a better dupe to be occupying the White House at the time.

 

[oldfart]

Normally I just try to ignore your inane posts, but your flight of fancy is so outrageous it deserves debunking.

Harry Hopkins,- FDR's alter ego, co-president, or Rasputin, "...the closest and most influential adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II, was a Soviet agent." and “the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in the United States.”

There is no evidence for this slander and it has been repeatedly disproven. The only actual evidence you present is the hackneyed claim of Major George Racey Jordan, a disgruntled hack who never met Hopkins in his life.

Get this: "...nothing will stop us from sharing with you [the Soviet Union] all that we have and all that we are." Quoted in "From Major's Jordan's Diaries," by George Racey Jordan and Richard L. Stokes

But his allegations were sufficient to be addressed in a Congressional investigation. Jordan's specific allegation was that Hopkins passed atomic plans to the Soviets. Apparently the website you lifted the slander from failed to mention the hearings that exonerated Hopkins.

"Soviet-Atomic Espionage". Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (US Congress): 184–192. April 1951.

In 1990 the issue was revisited when a Soviet defector decided the story could help him sell a book.

A Soviet Agent? Harry Hopkins?

The former K.G.B. agent Oleg Gordievsky seems intent on making the same muddle of history that Kremlin planners have made of the economy. He has captured headlines by claiming that Harry L. Hopkins, Franklin D. Roosevelt's trusted friend and adviser, was an "agent of major significance" of the Soviet Union.

What is infuriating is how the Western press is aiding Mr. Gordievsky's efforts to craft a best-seller. In the excerpts of his book, "KGB: The Inside Story," I have seen, he never calls Mr. Hopkins a spy. Yet headline writers do. The book says, "Hopkins was an American patriot with no admiration for either the principle or the practice of the Communist state." Absurdly, the author also says, "Hopkins had been an unconscious rather than a conscious agent."

What deeds did Mr. Hopkins commit that may, in the popular mind, attach the monicker "spy" to him? According to Mr. Gordievsky, who was in knickers when Mr. Hopkins died in 1946, the former social worker advocated positions favored by Moscow. Under this definition, King George VI and Ronald Reagan could be considered Soviet agents.

More specifically, Mr. Hopkins is accused of influencing the U.S. to accept Soviet control over Poland, the Baltic states and Romania. I hope Mr. Gordievsky provided more accurate information than this to British intelligence during the two decades he was allegedly a double agent.

As Mr. Gordievsky hits the book promotion trail, perhaps he can explain why he did not identify Winston Churchill as a Soviet agent. After all, Mr. Churchill entered into the highly secret, ill-advised "percentages" agreement with Stalin in October 1944, conceding major portions of Central and Eastern Europe to Soviet domination. Such cynical "spheres of influence" were anathema to Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Hopkins.

Mr. Hopkins refused to allow the White House to dispatch a cable to Mr. Churchill -- drafted by the Joint Chiefs and approved by the President -- out of fear that it might be construed as American approval for Churchill to enter into such arrangements with Stalin. In May 1945, Mr. Hopkins warned Stalin to his face that "the entire structure of world cooperation and relations with the Soviet Union would be destroyed" if he would not allow a free Poland to emerge from the ashes of war, as he had promised to do at Yalta.

Mr. Gordievsky indicts Mr. Hopkins for a post-Yalta euphoria. But as Sir John Martin, Mr. Churchill's principal private secretary, who was there told me, everyone, British and American alike, believed in the immediate aftermath of Yalta that they had just fashioned an enduring blueprint for peace and freedom. After five years of war, maybe they were entitled to a moment of euphoria.

Mr. Gordievsky is continuing the crusade started by Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin: half truths, innuendo, distortions, third-hand information -- all fused into a grand name-smearing indictment.

Like Senator McCarthy, if Mr. Gordievsky is to prosper he must make news. But the other revelations in his long-awaited book are rather thin gruel. He "solves" the insipid hunt for the so-called fifth man in the Kim Philby, Donald Maclean, Guy Burgess and Anthony Blunt spy circle by offering up an individual who confessed to being a Soviet agent nearly 25 years ago. And his salutation to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg as "dedicated and courageous Soviet agents" merely echoes the more authoritative voice of Nikita S. Khruschev.

Gen. George C. Marshall predicted that Mr. Hopkins's enormous contributions to his country would never be appreciated. But then, as that renowned savant Senator McCarthy warned us, General Marshall was always in Stalin's hip pocket.

Verne W. Newton wrote and co-produced the documentary film "Harry Hopkins: At F.D.R.'s Side" and is the author of "FDR and the Holocaust".

In a 1998 article, historian Eduard Mark noted that no writer discussing Hopkins has identified any secrets disclosed, nor any decision in which he distorted American priorities in order to help Communism. [Eduard Mark, "Venona's Source '19' and the 'Trident' Conference of May 1943: Diplomacy or Espionage?" Intelligence & National Security, Apr 1998, Vol. 13 Issue 2, p 20]

Harry Hopkins was FDR's main diplomatic contact and laison with the Soviets in general and Stalin in particular. His job was to persuade Stalin that Roosevelt was not abandoning him, a daunting task when the Second Front kept being pushed back from 1942 to 1943, and then to 1944. Roosevelt understood that Stalin might not survive more military bad news and that Stalin or his successor might well negotiate a separate peace with Hitler. Such a peace would have doomed the Allies in Europe and America could not have been on the winning side of the war.

What makes your slander more despicable is that Hopkins was diagnosed with stomach cancer in 1939 and told he had four weeks to live. He died in January 1946. One of the great patriots of WWII was dying a long, slow, painful death while he struggled to keep Russia in the war.

I would ask if you have no shame, but we all know the answer to that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Stick with the facts and less name calling. You can make points here talking about how behind the times our intelligence community was in the 30's. The rest of this just seems like excuses or dancing around If that is it do not be shy, just pick a point of view that makes sense and quit having such clear cut heros and villans in your life when reality is shades of grey.

1. "Stick with the facts and less name calling."
Why?
You don't like it, ya' big dummy?




2. " our intelligence community was in the 30's"
Wrong.....it was the Democrat assault on the intelligence community, the Pike Committee, and the Church Committee that destroyed our ability...and led to 9/11.

In the wake of the September 11th terror attack, some legislators are now proclaiming their commitment to unleashing the CIA and rebuilding its human “assets.” Just a short while ago these same legislators were leading the charge to curtail the agency. One such convert is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joseph Biden. The Delaware Democrat was one of seventeen Senators who voted in 1974 to ban all covert operations, and proudly noted during his 1988 campaign for president that he had threatened to “go public” with covert action plans by the Reagan administration, causing them to cancel the operations. Hopefully Senator Biden, and other congressional converts, are undergoing a genuine epiphany. Perhaps they now realize, as Henry Kissinger once observed about the Church Committee, that it is an illusion that “tranquility can be achieved by an abstract purity of motive for which history offers no example.” It is precisely this illusion which has prevailed in congressional circles since the heyday of Frank Church and Otis Pike. As Church himself once argued, the United States should not “fight fire with fire . . . evil with evil.”
History News Network



3. "...the fact you wanted us to declare war on Germany, Russia and Japan."
Hey....you really are a big dummy.


4. "... heros (sic) and villans (sic) ..."

Dummy isn't the half of it. Don't you have 'spell check'?


5. "...when reality is shades of grey."
The sign of an uneducated Liberal: moral relativism and postmodernism.
Look 'em up....maybe you'll cease being a dummy.

Hell of a dance, but let's go back to, could the allies have beaten Germany without Russia and if so what would it have cost America? When Germany declared war on America should we have responded? Germany had no navy, so an invasion of the US was dim but what if Britain surrendered then perhaps Germany would have a navy. Or what would happen to Europe and perhaps much of the world with no resistance to Hitler?
It is all well and good to sit at our computers and revise history and make light of real problems just to put FDR into some kind of a bag. But FDR is still number one even with all the historical revisions, and number one by historians.

"The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression" Jean-Louis Panné (Author), Andrzej Paczkowski (Author), Karel Bartosek (Author), Jean-Louis Margolin (Author), Nicolas Werth (Author), Stéphane Courtois (Author), Mark Kramer (Editor, Translator), Jonathan Murphy (Translator)

Already famous throughout Europe, this international bestseller plumbs recently opened archives in the former Soviet bloc to reveal the actual, practical accomplishments of Communism around the world: terror, torture, famine, mass deportations, and massacres. Astonishing in the sheer detail it amasses, the book is the first comprehensive attempt to catalogue and analyze the crimes of Communism over seventy years.

"Revolutions, like trees, must be judged by their fruit," Ignazio Silone wrote, and this is the standard the authors apply to the Communist experience—in the China of "the Great Helmsman," Kim Il Sung's Korea, Vietnam under "Uncle Ho" and Cuba under Castro, Ethiopia under Mengistu, Angola under Neto, and Afghanistan under Najibullah. The authors, all distinguished scholars based in Europe, document Communist crimes against humanity, but also crimes against national and universal culture, from Stalin's destruction of hundreds of churches in Moscow to Ceausescu's leveling of the historic heart of Bucharest to the widescale devastation visited on Chinese culture by Mao's Red Guards.
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0674076087]The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression: Jean-Louis Panné, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartosek, Jean-Louis Margolin, Nicolas Werth, Stéphane Courtois, Mark Kramer, Jonathan Murphy: 9780674076082: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]



Brought to you by your favorite Sovietophile, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Normally I just try to ignore your inane posts, but your flight of fancy is so outrageous it deserves debunking.

Harry Hopkins,- FDR's alter ego, co-president, or Rasputin, "...the closest and most influential adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II, was a Soviet agent." and “the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in the United States.”

There is no evidence for this slander and it has been repeatedly disproven. The only actual evidence you present is the hackneyed claim of Major George Racey Jordan, a disgruntled hack who never met Hopkins in his life.

Get this: "...nothing will stop us from sharing with you [the Soviet Union] all that we have and all that we are." Quoted in "From Major's Jordan's Diaries," by George Racey Jordan and Richard L. Stokes

But his allegations were sufficient to be addressed in a Congressional investigation. Jordan's specific allegation was that Hopkins passed atomic plans to the Soviets. Apparently the website you lifted the slander from failed to mention the hearings that exonerated Hopkins.

"Soviet-Atomic Espionage". Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (US Congress): 184–192. April 1951.

In 1990 the issue was revisited when a Soviet defector decided the story could help him sell a book.

A Soviet Agent? Harry Hopkins?

The former K.G.B. agent Oleg Gordievsky seems intent on making the same muddle of history that Kremlin planners have made of the economy. He has captured headlines by claiming that Harry L. Hopkins, Franklin D. Roosevelt's trusted friend and adviser, was an "agent of major significance" of the Soviet Union.

What is infuriating is how the Western press is aiding Mr. Gordievsky's efforts to craft a best-seller. In the excerpts of his book, "KGB: The Inside Story," I have seen, he never calls Mr. Hopkins a spy. Yet headline writers do. The book says, "Hopkins was an American patriot with no admiration for either the principle or the practice of the Communist state." Absurdly, the author also says, "Hopkins had been an unconscious rather than a conscious agent."

What deeds did Mr. Hopkins commit that may, in the popular mind, attach the monicker "spy" to him? According to Mr. Gordievsky, who was in knickers when Mr. Hopkins died in 1946, the former social worker advocated positions favored by Moscow. Under this definition, King George VI and Ronald Reagan could be considered Soviet agents.

More specifically, Mr. Hopkins is accused of influencing the U.S. to accept Soviet control over Poland, the Baltic states and Romania. I hope Mr. Gordievsky provided more accurate information than this to British intelligence during the two decades he was allegedly a double agent.

As Mr. Gordievsky hits the book promotion trail, perhaps he can explain why he did not identify Winston Churchill as a Soviet agent. After all, Mr. Churchill entered into the highly secret, ill-advised "percentages" agreement with Stalin in October 1944, conceding major portions of Central and Eastern Europe to Soviet domination. Such cynical "spheres of influence" were anathema to Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Hopkins.

Mr. Hopkins refused to allow the White House to dispatch a cable to Mr. Churchill -- drafted by the Joint Chiefs and approved by the President -- out of fear that it might be construed as American approval for Churchill to enter into such arrangements with Stalin. In May 1945, Mr. Hopkins warned Stalin to his face that "the entire structure of world cooperation and relations with the Soviet Union would be destroyed" if he would not allow a free Poland to emerge from the ashes of war, as he had promised to do at Yalta.

Mr. Gordievsky indicts Mr. Hopkins for a post-Yalta euphoria. But as Sir John Martin, Mr. Churchill's principal private secretary, who was there told me, everyone, British and American alike, believed in the immediate aftermath of Yalta that they had just fashioned an enduring blueprint for peace and freedom. After five years of war, maybe they were entitled to a moment of euphoria.

Mr. Gordievsky is continuing the crusade started by Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin: half truths, innuendo, distortions, third-hand information -- all fused into a grand name-smearing indictment.

Like Senator McCarthy, if Mr. Gordievsky is to prosper he must make news. But the other revelations in his long-awaited book are rather thin gruel. He "solves" the insipid hunt for the so-called fifth man in the Kim Philby, Donald Maclean, Guy Burgess and Anthony Blunt spy circle by offering up an individual who confessed to being a Soviet agent nearly 25 years ago. And his salutation to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg as "dedicated and courageous Soviet agents" merely echoes the more authoritative voice of Nikita S. Khruschev.

Gen. George C. Marshall predicted that Mr. Hopkins's enormous contributions to his country would never be appreciated. But then, as that renowned savant Senator McCarthy warned us, General Marshall was always in Stalin's hip pocket.

Verne W. Newton wrote and co-produced the documentary film "Harry Hopkins: At F.D.R.'s Side" and is the author of "FDR and the Holocaust".

In a 1998 article, historian Eduard Mark noted that no writer discussing Hopkins has identified any secrets disclosed, nor any decision in which he distorted American priorities in order to help Communism. [Eduard Mark, "Venona's Source '19' and the 'Trident' Conference of May 1943: Diplomacy or Espionage?" Intelligence & National Security, Apr 1998, Vol. 13 Issue 2, p 20]

Harry Hopkins was FDR's main diplomatic contact and laison with the Soviets in general and Stalin in particular. His job was to persuade Stalin that Roosevelt was not abandoning him, a daunting task when the Second Front kept being pushed back from 1942 to 1943, and then to 1944. Roosevelt understood that Stalin might not survive more military bad news and that Stalin or his successor might well negotiate a separate peace with Hitler. Such a peace would have doomed the Allies in Europe and America could not have been on the winning side of the war.

What makes your slander more despicable is that Hopkins was diagnosed with stomach cancer in 1939 and told he had four weeks to live. He died in January 1946. One of the great patriots of WWII was dying a long, slow, painful death while he struggled to keep Russia in the war.

I would ask if you have no shame, but we all know the answer to that.

Breaking your promise???

I knew you couldn't stay away.

And I love how you provide the NYTimes as 'proof.'

"What is infuriating is how the Western press is aiding Mr. Gordievsky's efforts to craft a best-seller."
Certainly a more respectable reason for the tome than the NYTimes' efforts to undermine America.
Don't you agree?




Have you read "The Sword and the Shield"? This top archives was described by the FBI as “the most complete and extensive intelligence ever achieved from any source.”




"A new book titled The Sword and the Shield has attracted considerable media attention, because it is based on copies of KGB documents that were smuggled out of the Soviet Union six years ago. Vasily Mitrokhin a KGB archivist had painstakingly copied KGB files for many years.

New evidence that proves that Harry Hopkins, the closest and most influential adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II, was a Soviet agent. Andrew had reported this in a book he had written in 1990 based on information provided by Oleg Gordievsky, a high-level KGB officer who had also been smuggled out of the Soviet Union by British intelligence. Gordievsky reported that Iskhak Ahkmerov, the KGB officer who controlled the illegal Soviet agents in the U.S. during the war, had said that Hopkins was “the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in the United States.”
[url]http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/the-treachery-of-harry-hopkins/


Hard to imagine that after Haynes, Klehr, Venona, Mitrokhin, Bentley, Chambers, et al.....there are still dolts like you ready and more than willing to lick the boots of spies, traitors, collaborators.....


But have no fears....if you ask nicely, I'll post more of the remedial that you so sorely require.

 

[regent]

Maybe its time we let the news media in on this information, they'll go nuts when they hear about Hopkins.
Then again, can we trust the news media? And what of the Republicans that supported Lend-Lease, and supported the war? Commies all. I often think that Senator McCarthy was suspect he had all those names and never gave them to anybody just waved them around. And what about J. Edgar Hoover, and Stalin were they commies too? It seems to be coming down to, who in the United States is not a communist spy or simple commie?

 

[jwoodie]

The scumbag FDR was the closest thing we've ever had to a dictator, and we were lucky to survive him still as a Democratic Republic. He had no respect of the Constitution or loyal Americans, prolonged the Great Depression, and Stalin couldn't have asked for a better dupe to be occupying the White House at the time.

I nominate BHO as his spiritual successor.

 

[konradv]

"A new book titled The Sword and the Shield has attracted considerable media attention, because it is based on copies of KGB documents that were smuggled out of the Soviet Union six years ago. Vasily Mitrokhin a KGB archivist had painstakingly copied KGB files for many years.

New evidence that proves that Harry Hopkins, the closest and most influential adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II, was a Soviet agent. Andrew had reported this in a book he had written in 1990 based on information provided by Oleg Gordievsky, a high-level KGB officer who had also been smuggled out of the Soviet Union by British intelligence. Gordievsky reported that Iskhak Ahkmerov, the KGB officer who controlled the illegal Soviet agents in the U.S. during the war, had said that Hopkins was “the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in the United States.”
The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins

Hard to imagine that after Haynes, Klehr, Venona, Mitrokhin, Bentley, Chambers, et al.....there are still dolts like you ready and more than willing to lick the boots of spies, traitors, collaborators.

The book is being pushed by Accuracy in Media. I find it laughable that you'd deride the NYT's credentials, but swallow whole AIM's position, despite their well known penchant for conspiracy theories.

Accuracy in Media - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

"A new book titled The Sword and the Shield has attracted considerable media attention, because it is based on copies of KGB documents that were smuggled out of the Soviet Union six years ago. Vasily Mitrokhin a KGB archivist had painstakingly copied KGB files for many years.

New evidence that proves that Harry Hopkins, the closest and most influential adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II, was a Soviet agent. Andrew had reported this in a book he had written in 1990 based on information provided by Oleg Gordievsky, a high-level KGB officer who had also been smuggled out of the Soviet Union by British intelligence. Gordievsky reported that Iskhak Ahkmerov, the KGB officer who controlled the illegal Soviet agents in the U.S. during the war, had said that Hopkins was “the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in the United States.”
The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins

Hard to imagine that after Haynes, Klehr, Venona, Mitrokhin, Bentley, Chambers, et al.....there are still dolts like you ready and more than willing to lick the boots of spies, traitors, collaborators.

The book is being pushed by Accuracy in Media. I find it laughable that you'd deride the NYT's credentials, but swallow whole AIM's position, despite their well known penchant for conspiracy theories.

Accuracy in Media - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually, I rarely deride sources.
But I do compare them.


In this case I'm going to suggest that you know you are losing, as you pretend that I'm relying on Accuracy in Media.

I read "The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB" and that is what the Harry Hopkins indictment is based on.

No doubt you haven't....have you?


Now...a challenge: if you write a brief summary of your support for Hopkins, and allow me to quote you by name, I'll post an OP on Harry Hopkins, Soviet agent.....and you can try to attack it.



Ready when you are.

 

[Toronado3800]

OK, let's continue our game of 'I provide facts, you bloviate.'


1. It was not Lend-Lease that opened the Eastern Front, it was Operation Barbarossa.
Hitler attacked Russia.

2. At the behest of the Commintern, as the archives reveals, the American Peace Mobilization committee was formed in April of ’41. It’s function was to support the Soviet line, bring progressives aboard, protest against the lend-lease program to aid Britain…they paraded in front of the White House, chanting “FDR is a fascist, …he’s starting a war!’ They managed to dupe the easiest group to dupe: progressive pastors. The NYTimes article at the time said “Clergyman Group Opposes War Aid!’

a. In mid-protest, on June 22, 1941, they became pro-war! The Germans had broken their agreement with the Soviets, and invaded Russia! Suddenly the group was for lend-lease, and FDR wasn’t a fascist…and they changed their name to American People’s Mobilization.

b. The HUAC had exposed this group as “…one of the most seditious and subversive front groups.”


Again?
You've succumbed to the propaganda, i.e., that we bribed Stalin into fighting Hitler.
Stalin needed America, and had made a peace treaty with Hitler already: The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact

Stick with the facts and less name calling. You can make points here talking about how behind the times our intelligence community was in the 30's. The rest of this just seems like excuses or dancing around If that is it do not be shy, just pick a point of view that makes sense and quit having such clear cut heros and villans in your life when reality is shades of grey.

1. "Stick with the facts and less name calling."
Why?
You don't like it, ya' big dummy?




2. " our intelligence community was in the 30's"
Wrong.....it was the Democrat assault on the intelligence community, the Pike Committee, and the Church Committee that destroyed our ability...and led to 9/11.

In the wake of the September 11th terror attack, some legislators are now proclaiming their commitment to unleashing the CIA and rebuilding its human “assets.” Just a short while ago these same legislators were leading the charge to curtail the agency. One such convert is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joseph Biden. The Delaware Democrat was one of seventeen Senators who voted in 1974 to ban all covert operations, and proudly noted during his 1988 campaign for president that he had threatened to “go public” with covert action plans by the Reagan administration, causing them to cancel the operations. Hopefully Senator Biden, and other congressional converts, are undergoing a genuine epiphany. Perhaps they now realize, as Henry Kissinger once observed about the Church Committee, that it is an illusion that “tranquility can be achieved by an abstract purity of motive for which history offers no example.” It is precisely this illusion which has prevailed in congressional circles since the heyday of Frank Church and Otis Pike. As Church himself once argued, the United States should not “fight fire with fire . . . evil with evil.”
History News Network



3. "...the fact you wanted us to declare war on Germany, Russia and Japan."
Hey....you really are a big dummy.


4. "... heros (sic) and villans (sic) ..."

Dummy isn't the half of it. Don't you have 'spell check'?


5. "...when reality is shades of grey."
The sign of an uneducated Liberal: moral relativism and postmodernism.
Look 'em up....maybe you'll cease being a dummy.

In regards to 2:

Work on the reading comprehension. I was leading you to talk more about the poor state or undeveloped state of our intelligence community in the thirties.

Difficult as it is for you to believe I was leading you towards a point YOU should be making as part of your arguement.

Oh, and yeah I don't have spell check on the cell. Lets just say I frequent the board while sitting on the throne on whatever device is handy. Sorry not to perform to your standards

 

[eagle1462010]

The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend.................................

WWII we aided a known enemy of our Ideology, and our Way of Life, to defeat the bigger threat of Germany and Japan. We could not let Russia fall as the massive ground battles in Russia were draining German Troops which could have been used to the West instead of the East. Had Russia fallen, we'd have had a hell of a lot harder time retaking Europe.

So the lend lease act wasn't a bad thing, as our ultimate goal was the defeat of Germany.

The real problem was the aftermath of Germany's fall. As now the Enemy of our Enemy is now the MAIN ENEMY OF THE U.S. and basically FREEDOM. Which led to the Cold War and our countries fighting by proxy around the globe. The USSR finally fell via it's own sword. Financially, and from the people themselves who rebelled against the failed policies of Socialism itself.

Which is now why they have turned to Capitalism over Socialism as the later is eventually an utter failure.

Back to FDR. Churchill warned him not to play into Stalin's hands in the battle for Berlin but was ignored. He tried to remind FDR of the consequences of allowing Stalin to have more territory at the end of the War, but it fell on Deaf and Dumb ears, otherwise he would have pushed our fronts further east to avoid a divided Germany at the end of the War. A divide that lasted nearly 4 decades.

 

[editec]

Thank GOD FDR supplied the Soveit Union.

Had we not I suspect Hitler might have beaten Russia and then England, too.

Incidently my 91 year old father still has a limp that he got while helping supply those ruskies back in WWII.

You're welcome, citizens.

 

[eagle1462010]

Riddle me this.........................

What would have happened had we demanded that Russia turn over the rest of Germany and Poland at the end of WWII. aka OR ELSE.

Would it have led to another year or two of War?

And finally would it have ended the Cold War before it began?

Point being history shows that not finishing a War leads to more wars or problems in the future, because you don't finish it.

WWII happened because the world didn't finish WWI.
The Cold War happened because we didn't finish WWII.
North Korea is a thorn because we didn't finish the Korean War.
Iraq happened because we didn't finish it the First time.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend.................................

WWII we aided a known enemy of our Ideology, and our Way of Life, to defeat the bigger threat of Germany and Japan. We could not let Russia fall as the massive ground battles in Russia were draining German Troops which could have been used to the West instead of the East. Had Russia fallen, we'd have had a hell of a lot harder time retaking Europe.

So the lend lease act wasn't a bad thing, as our ultimate goal was the defeat of Germany.

The real problem was the aftermath of Germany's fall. As now the Enemy of our Enemy is now the MAIN ENEMY OF THE U.S. and basically FREEDOM. Which led to the Cold War and our countries fighting by proxy around the globe. The USSR finally fell via it's own sword. Financially, and from the people themselves who rebelled against the failed policies of Socialism itself.

Which is now why they have turned to Capitalism over Socialism as the later is eventually an utter failure.

Back to FDR. Churchill warned him not to play into Stalin's hands in the battle for Berlin but was ignored. He tried to remind FDR of the consequences of allowing Stalin to have more territory at the end of the War, but it fell on Deaf and Dumb ears, otherwise he would have pushed our fronts further east to avoid a divided Germany at the end of the War. A divide that lasted nearly 4 decades.

The view above is one that obfuscates the emphasis of the Lend-Lease program.

You claim it was because of a need to keep Russia from falling.
First, they couldn't have made a separate peace with Germany....Operation Barbarossa proved that.
Second, I can easily explode the idea that the program was simply to prevent the Russians from being defeated:

Army Maj. George Racey Jordan was an 'expediter' who kept careful records of what was sent to Russia....and when.


Victory in Europe Day—known as V-E Day or VE Day—was the public holiday celebrated on 8 May 1945 (in Commonwealth countries, 7 May 1945) to mark the date when the World War II Allies formally accepted the unconditional surrender of the armed forces of Nazi Germany


According to Jordan, shipments to the USSR via Lend-Lease continued until 1949.
And, they included the material used to build Russia's atomic bomb.