Harry Hopkins....Soviet Spy

[Camp]

o

Ha, Ha, Martin Dies started a committee to investigate communist. Ya, it was the Committee on Un-American Activities. The idiot couldn't be trusted, and he was for sure an idiot. He put Shirley Temple on one of his list of potential communist or at the very least a communist supporter. Shirley had sent a greeting card to a newspaper in France. The newspaper happened to be owned by communist. Shirley probably didn't know about the newspapers communist connection. Most 10 year old children don't think about those kinds of things. That is right, this asshole Congressman Dies put 10 year old Shirley Temple on a list of potential enemies of the USA because she sent a newspaper a hello card as part of a promotion for one of her films. So when Congressman Dies came to the FDR administration for assistance to further investigate alleged potential enemies of the USA, Harry Hopkins told him to go fuck himself.

You're pedaling faster than Ed Begley, Jr., trying to make himself a piece of toast!
I can see why you're attempting to change the subject.
Because it is dispositive.


Hopkins tried to prevent the hearings.


Why?

Because there was no communist influence that was damaging the nation?

Why? You want to know why Harry Hopkins told a politician willing to interfere and jeapordize the secrets and strategies of the nation to fuck off? You think Martin Dies committee was anything but a witch hunt? You think a guy who put a 10 year old kid on a "need to be investigated list" because she sent a newspaper a greeting card should be trusted to investigate and have access to top secret classified information? The guy was on a publicity seeking witch hunt. Harry Hopkins stood up to him and told him to fuck off.
Harry Hopkins was dealing with saving the world in the real sense of the term. FDR and guys like Hopkins were dealing with threats that could put an end to the United States. Guys like Dies were insignificant pest looking for a piece of the action in the form of political power at the exspense of the security of the nation. Dies was a Democrat, a member of FDR's party, but that didn't prevent Hopkins from kicking him to the curb.

 

[whitehall]

Another thing to consider is that there was no American "intelligence" network during FDR's time. The Country was pretty much run by a virtual king who would not step down until he died. The fawning media was pretty much a part of the administration and anything the king decided including the incarceration of American citizens without due process was fine. The Supreme Court was either in FDR's back pocket or they were afraid of the administration. The US was so grossly unprepared for war in the Pacific that it bordered on criminal negligence. Wild Bill Donovan's fledgling OSS was a laughable attempt at espionage and counter espionage by a bunch of rank amateurs and the scant information they gleaned had nowhere to go. J. Edgar Hoover's G Men were too busy delving into the sex lives of politicians to worry about international intrigue. FDR could have joined the communist party and it would not have resonated in government or the media and if it did the media would have no doubt justified it so Hopkins' relationship with the USSR is pretty much a moot point.

You are wrong about just about everything due to you lack of knowledge about the subjects you are attempting to address. Your evaluation of the OSS is totally off base. It is obvious you have little if any knowledge about the functions and history the OSS carried out during WWII. A real and genuine insult to those who served and those who gave their lives in the defense of our nation. All due to your lack of understanding and knowledge about how espionage and intelligence gathering were conducted by various units, both civilian and military during this period of our history.
The Bureau of Navel Intelligence became operational in 1882. Military Intelligence Division (MID-US ARMY) has been operational since the same time. In addition joint operations between the military and othe US agencyies like the State Department, Secret Service, Dept. of Justice, etc. have been created at various times. This would include "Black Chamber" aka US Cipher Bureau which was the forerunner of NSA and shared intel with various other agencies and groups as needed.
It may have been a poorly organized system, but it certainly wasn't non-existent.

I said no "American intelligence system". I should have said no "National Intelligence system". The sad state of affairs was that the fragmented "intelligence" systems were competing against each other and the fledgling OSS. The Brits were horrified that American "intelligence" was such a mess. The courts had to finally decide which agency would take the lead in espionage and counter espionage and they decided on the FBI but the FBI had little or no experience in international affairs and when they caught a spy they tried and executed him without trying to turn him around. When the freaking head of the German navy, Admiral Canaris tried to contact the Americans late in the war he was ignored.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"I'm planning to construct a post explaining the real relationship between Churchill, Stalin....and Hopkins".

I don't think I can be faulted for assuming you were about to turn your peripatetic, malevolent gaze upon Churchill. Assaulting another great man with churlish, wanton abandon would not surprise any of us who know your loathsome script so well.

I fully expected you to start with the "Coventry story" which you could attack with the same venom you applied to FDR's and HH's wartime calculus. Whether the story was true or not would not enter into your odious conscience. Although you having a conscience of any sort does enter into my thoughts.

Anyway, listen, I want to thank you for the last few days, I've taken the opportunity to go back and look at some history I haven't visited for quite a while and that's a definite plus. Dealing with your incorrigible and obstinate disregard for the truth has only been a minor inconvenience, like the buzzing of a gnat just out of reach.

I love debate. However debating an unarmed, ill-prepared opponent does soon become tiresome. I have revealed the real Harry Hopkins as was my goal. You have revealed your historical buffoonery which I don't imagine was your goal. So although at times it's been fun toying with your inflated ego, until you come up with something other than your standard lightweight drivel I'll leave you with "Don't call me, I'll call you."

Be honest....I've ripped your absurd support for the Soviet spy, Harry Hopkins, to shreds.


And it ain't over.....



12. . Averell Harriman was special envoy of FDR.

"At the Tehran Conference in late 1943 Harriman was tasked with placating a suspicious Churchill while Roosevelt attempted to gain the confidence of Stalin."
W. Averell Harriman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Harriman made this interesting observation: "When Stalin saw him [Hopkins] enter the conference room [Tehran]he got up, walked across the room and shook hands with him. I never saw him do that to anybody, even Roosevelt. He was the only man I ever saw Stalin show personal emotion for."
Encounter Magazine interview, 1981.



"Harry Hopkins was a true patriot who labored through the period in question sick with cancer but tirelessly for America and the World. He actually worked himself to death for America. You and your sniveling yapping back-stabbing ilk are not fit to lick his boots."

Did you write that....or did Joseph Stalin?


Smugly....you can run but you can't hide.

 

[PoliticalChic]

o

Ha, Ha, Martin Dies started a committee to investigate communist. Ya, it was the Committee on Un-American Activities. The idiot couldn't be trusted, and he was for sure an idiot. He put Shirley Temple on one of his list of potential communist or at the very least a communist supporter. Shirley had sent a greeting card to a newspaper in France. The newspaper happened to be owned by communist. Shirley probably didn't know about the newspapers communist connection. Most 10 year old children don't think about those kinds of things. That is right, this asshole Congressman Dies put 10 year old Shirley Temple on a list of potential enemies of the USA because she sent a newspaper a hello card as part of a promotion for one of her films. So when Congressman Dies came to the FDR administration for assistance to further investigate alleged potential enemies of the USA, Harry Hopkins told him to go fuck himself.

You're pedaling faster than Ed Begley, Jr., trying to make himself a piece of toast!
I can see why you're attempting to change the subject.
Because it is dispositive.


Hopkins tried to prevent the hearings.


Why?

Because there was no communist influence that was damaging the nation?

Why? You want to know why Harry Hopkins told a politician willing to interfere and jeapordize the secrets and strategies of the nation to fuck off? You think Martin Dies committee was anything but a witch hunt? You think a guy who put a 10 year old kid on a "need to be investigated list" because she sent a newspaper a greeting card should be trusted to investigate and have access to top secret classified information? The guy was on a publicity seeking witch hunt. Harry Hopkins stood up to him and told him to fuck off.
Harry Hopkins was dealing with saving the world in the real sense of the term. FDR and guys like Hopkins were dealing with threats that could put an end to the United States. Guys like Dies were insignificant pest looking for a piece of the action in the form of political power at the exspense of the security of the nation. Dies was a Democrat, a member of FDR's party, but that didn't prevent Hopkins from kicking him to the curb.

So.....Hopkins, Roosevelt....and you.....wanted to put every roadblock possible in front of those who wanted to investigate Soviet communist influence?

That says it all, doesn't it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Never having been as wrong a Smugly and his pals, never having been raised, as they say, like 'mushrooms: kept in the dark and fed...garbage'....it is hard for me to be empathetic.

But, truth is truth....and that is what I provide.



So...here's but one more of the dozen indicia I've provided to show that Harry Hopkins was far from a 'patriotic American'.....he was a dyed-in-the-wool Soviet collaborator.



13. General Philip Faymonville was the US Lend-Lease officer in Moscow. Not only was his position provided by Harry Hopkins, but, prior to his Hopkins-secured promotion to general, he was known as the pro-Soviet "Red Colonel." Army intelligence had tagged him as a security risk.
West, "American Betrayal," p.183.


a. "Brigadier General Philip Faymonville is a controversial figure in the history of World War II. His services were highly valued by Roosevelt and Harry Hopkins ... but he was still the target of accusations of communist sympathy and even working for the Soviets as their agent." https://digital.library.txstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10877/4183/THOMPSON-THESIS.pdf?sequence=1


b. In 1939, the Army had seen to a recall of Faymonville from Moscow. What was FDR's response? He rebuffed Army intelligence by "publicly receiving Faymonville at the White House and going on a private fishing trip with him..."
Dennis Dunn, " Caught between Roosevelt and Stalin: America's Ambassadors to Moscow," p. 93.

Hopkins's response? He got Faymonville right back as administrator of Lend-Lease, in Moscow, over War Department and State Department objections!

 

[Camp]

Never having been as wrong a Smugly and his pals, never having been raised, as they say, like 'mushrooms: kept in the dark and fed...garbage'....it is hard for me to be empathetic.

But, truth is truth....and that is what I provide.



So...here's but one more of the dozen indicia I've provided to show that Harry Hopkins was far from a 'patriotic American'.....he was a dyed-in-the-wool Soviet collaborator.



13. General Philip Faymonville was the US Lend-Lease officer in Moscow. Not only was his position provided by Harry Hopkins, but, prior to his Hopkins-secured promotion to general, he was known as the pro-Soviet "Red Colonel." Army intelligence had tagged him as a security risk.
West, "American Betrayal," p.183.


a. "Brigadier General Philip Faymonville is a controversial figure in the history of World War II. His services were highly valued by Roosevelt and Harry Hopkins ... but he was still the target of accusations of communist sympathy and even working for the Soviets as their agent." https://digital.library.txstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10877/4183/THOMPSON-THESIS.pdf?sequence=1

Maybe I am wrong about my interpretation of sources being misused, distorted, unreliable and unable to stand up to accepted standards.
In this case the root source is a Thesis presented by a Steven Thompson, B.A. for a master of arts degree at Texas State-San Marcos, May 2012. This is PC's source for making her point.

Here are some quotes by the source in his conlusions in regards to Faymonville's service and dedication to fullfilling the orders he was given:

"Additionally, this seems to have been such obsessive devotion for him that everything else became secondary: he felt he had to go out of his way to personally cultivate good relations with the Soviet Union on the basis that the United States would need relations some day."

Now look at what the author of the thesis, the source being used to revise and distort history had to say at the conclusion of his thesis:

"Phillip Faymonville was not by any stretch of imagination a spy for the Soviets nor a member of the communist party."

Don't take my word. Download the Thesis like I did and read page 81 in the guys conclusion of his thesis.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"I'm planning to construct a post explaining the real relationship between Churchill, Stalin....and Hopkins".

I don't think I can be faulted for assuming you were about to turn your peripatetic, malevolent gaze upon Churchill. Assaulting another great man with churlish, wanton abandon would not surprise any of us who know your loathsome script so well.

I fully expected you to start with the "Coventry story" which you could attack with the same venom you applied to FDR's and HH's wartime calculus. Whether the story was true or not would not enter into your odious conscience. Although you having a conscience of any sort does enter into my thoughts.

Anyway, listen, I want to thank you for the last few days, I've taken the opportunity to go back and look at some history I haven't visited for quite a while and that's a definite plus. Dealing with your incorrigible and obstinate disregard for the truth has only been a minor inconvenience, like the buzzing of a gnat just out of reach.

I love debate. However debating an unarmed, ill-prepared opponent does soon become tiresome. I have revealed the real Harry Hopkins as was my goal. You have revealed your historical buffoonery which I don't imagine was your goal. So although at times it's been fun toying with your inflated ego, until you come up with something other than your standard lightweight drivel I'll leave you with "Don't call me, I'll call you."

Be honest....I've ripped your absurd support for the Soviet spy, Harry Hopkins, to shreds.


And it ain't over.....



12. . Averell Harriman was special envoy of FDR.

"At the Tehran Conference in late 1943 Harriman was tasked with placating a suspicious Churchill while Roosevelt attempted to gain the confidence of Stalin."
W. Averell Harriman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Harriman made this interesting observation: "When Stalin saw him [Hopkins] enter the conference room [Tehran]he got up, walked across the room and shook hands with him. I never saw him do that to anybody, even Roosevelt. He was the only man I ever saw Stalin show personal emotion for."
Encounter Magazine interview, 1981.



"Harry Hopkins was a true patriot who labored through the period in question sick with cancer but tirelessly for America and the World. He actually worked himself to death for America. You and your sniveling yapping back-stabbing ilk are not fit to lick his boots."

Did you write that....or did Joseph Stalin?


Smugly....you can run but you can't hide.

Harry Hopkins, a true patriot for Josef Stalin

Smugly, the Stalinist bootlicker

 

[PoliticalChic]

Never having been as wrong a Smugly and his pals, never having been raised, as they say, like 'mushrooms: kept in the dark and fed...garbage'....it is hard for me to be empathetic.

But, truth is truth....and that is what I provide.



So...here's but one more of the dozen indicia I've provided to show that Harry Hopkins was far from a 'patriotic American'.....he was a dyed-in-the-wool Soviet collaborator.



13. General Philip Faymonville was the US Lend-Lease officer in Moscow. Not only was his position provided by Harry Hopkins, but, prior to his Hopkins-secured promotion to general, he was known as the pro-Soviet "Red Colonel." Army intelligence had tagged him as a security risk.
West, "American Betrayal," p.183.


a. "Brigadier General Philip Faymonville is a controversial figure in the history of World War II. His services were highly valued by Roosevelt and Harry Hopkins ... but he was still the target of accusations of communist sympathy and even working for the Soviets as their agent." https://digital.library.txstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10877/4183/THOMPSON-THESIS.pdf?sequence=1

Maybe I am wrong about my interpretation of sources being misused, distorted, unreliable and unable to stand up to accepted standards.
In this case the root source is a Thesis presented by a Steven Thompson, B.A. for a master of arts degree at Texas State-San Marcos, May 2012. This is PC's source for making her point.

Here are some quotes by the source in his conlusions in regards to Faymonville's service and dedication to fullfilling the orders he was given:

"Additionally, this seems to have been such obsessive devotion for him that everything else became secondary: he felt he had to go out of his way to personally cultivate good relations with the Soviet Union on the basis that the United States would need relations some day."

Now look at what the author of the thesis, the source being used to revise and distort history had to say at the conclusion of his thesis:

"Phillip Faymonville was not by any stretch of imagination a spy for the Soviets nor a member of the communist party."

Don't take my word. Download the Thesis like I did and read page 81 in the guys conclusion of his thesis.

I actually like this post.


It is one of the first, I believe, in which you have attempted to provide an alternative view.....

....your usual mode is the Liberal attack on the person making the charge.



As usual, of course, you are wrong.



In February 18, 1949, when the "People's Daily World," an official communist organ, wrote a glowing article about Brigadier General Faymonville, it quoted his views. In his paean to the Bolshevik tyranny he declared that "there is no such thing in the Soviet Union as hostility to other nations, or a desire for their conquest."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 97.


So....the same question arises with Faymonville as with Franklin Roosevelt: was he a dupe, or was he a communist enabler?


The question does not have to be applied to Harry Hopkins, the one who positioned Faymonville in Moscow, in charge of the buffet known as Lend-Lease, and who saw to the promotion of the Red Colonel, ....

...since I have documented that Hopkins was Stalin's spy.

 

[Camp]

Never having been as wrong a Smugly and his pals, never having been raised, as they say, like 'mushrooms: kept in the dark and fed...garbage'....it is hard for me to be empathetic.

But, truth is truth....and that is what I provide.



So...here's but one more of the dozen indicia I've provided to show that Harry Hopkins was far from a 'patriotic American'.....he was a dyed-in-the-wool Soviet collaborator.



13. General Philip Faymonville was the US Lend-Lease officer in Moscow. Not only was his position provided by Harry Hopkins, but, prior to his Hopkins-secured promotion to general, he was known as the pro-Soviet "Red Colonel." Army intelligence had tagged him as a security risk.
West, "American Betrayal," p.183.


a. "Brigadier General Philip Faymonville is a controversial figure in the history of World War II. His services were highly valued by Roosevelt and Harry Hopkins ... but he was still the target of accusations of communist sympathy and even working for the Soviets as their agent." https://digital.library.txstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10877/4183/THOMPSON-THESIS.pdf?sequence=1

Maybe I am wrong about my interpretation of sources being misused, distorted, unreliable and unable to stand up to accepted standards.
In this case the root source is a Thesis presented by a Steven Thompson, B.A. for a master of arts degree at Texas State-San Marcos, May 2012. This is PC's source for making her point.

Here are some quotes by the source in his conlusions in regards to Faymonville's service and dedication to fullfilling the orders he was given:

"Additionally, this seems to have been such obsessive devotion for him that everything else became secondary: he felt he had to go out of his way to personally cultivate good relations with the Soviet Union on the basis that the United States would need relations some day."

Now look at what the author of the thesis, the source being used to revise and distort history had to say at the conclusion of his thesis:

"Phillip Faymonville was not by any stretch of imagination a spy for the Soviets nor a member of the communist party."

Don't take my word. Download the Thesis like I did and read page 81 in the guys conclusion of his thesis.

I actually like this post.


It is one of the first, I believe, in which you have attempted to provide an alternative view.....

....your usual mode is the Liberal attack on the person making the charge.



As usual, of course, you are wrong.



In February 18, 1949, when the "People's Daily World," an official communist organ, wrote a glowing article about Brigadier General Faymonville, it quoted his views. In his paean to the Bolshevik tyranny he declared that "there is no such thing in the Soviet Union as hostility to other nations, or a desire for their conquest."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 97.


So....the same question arises with Faymonville as with Franklin Roosevelt: was he a dupe, or was he a communist enabler?


The question does not have to be applied to Harry Hopkins, the one who positioned Faymonville in Moscow, in charge of the buffet known as Lend-Lease, and who saw to the promotion of the Red Colonel, ....

...since I have documented that Hopkins was Stalin's spy.

I believe in a thing called spinicitus. It's a word I use to refer to what happens when people begin believing spins to the point that they form opinions and come to conclusions on spin. Spin being based on some degree or level of false and exaggerated or distorted data creates false conclusions and twisted opinions based on crap data.
This makes the kind of sources used to promote revisionist histories and conspiracy theories useless.

When dealing with a topic like espionage and the gathering of intelligence, misleading data, misinterpreted data, etc. is particularly dangerous and misleading due to the very nature of espionage and intelligence gathering. How do you determine with certainty that an individual is not using infiltration and manipulation of contacts to ascertain "loose lips" type of intel. When an undercover cop infiltrates a gang, how many minor crimes might he or she have to comit to convince the bad guys he or she can be trusted? With the methods used by revisionist and conspiracy theorist, virtually any and every cop that has ever worked undercover could be made to appear dirty. Even with the relevation that he or she was working undercover, arguments could be made that the undercover cop "went to far" and "turned".

It is even more difficult for foriegn intelligence operatives. They rarely get the oppurtunity to speak of their missions. At least the undercover cop can have the expectation of testifying in some court and or ending the undercover status and return to wearing a uniform or carrying a badge. Foriegn intelligence gathering more ofter than not requires silence forever to protect "methods" and other operatives and especially with foriegn service in a place like the USSR, the families of operatives.

Civilians that serve in danger for the benifit of the security of their nation are rarely given recognition. They are easy targets for the conspiacy theorist and revisionist.
I happen to reject the types of sources so often used to promote revisionist histories and conspiracy theories. For me, a foriegn operative attempting to project himself as a cooperative friend that is understanding of the foriegn countries culture, politics and traditions would be expected to say kind and cooperative things to the government controlled newspaper.
I also reject writings by policial pundits and commentators that have political agenda's and have no reason to follow scholarly methods or even methods that would be expected to be used for writing a college thesis. At least the writer of the thesis has a set of standards to follow. Not so with the pundit and commentators. They can say what they want, get it published by anyone they want and puff.....it becomes a source.
This does not mean I do not value some writing of pundits and commentators. Some of them use and list legitimate sources. Unfortunitly, those types are not the types seen on these pages.
I honestly don't see why it is unreasonalble for a person to insist on highly reliable and provable data when debating history. Part of the study of history, for me anyhow, is the fun in researching the research and tracking sources. Sometimes you find cool stuff you didn't know and sometimes you find bullshit. Both are rewarding to find. That is how I see it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Maybe I am wrong about my interpretation of sources being misused, distorted, unreliable and unable to stand up to accepted standards.
In this case the root source is a Thesis presented by a Steven Thompson, B.A. for a master of arts degree at Texas State-San Marcos, May 2012. This is PC's source for making her point.

Here are some quotes by the source in his conlusions in regards to Faymonville's service and dedication to fullfilling the orders he was given:

"Additionally, this seems to have been such obsessive devotion for him that everything else became secondary: he felt he had to go out of his way to personally cultivate good relations with the Soviet Union on the basis that the United States would need relations some day."

Now look at what the author of the thesis, the source being used to revise and distort history had to say at the conclusion of his thesis:

"Phillip Faymonville was not by any stretch of imagination a spy for the Soviets nor a member of the communist party."

Don't take my word. Download the Thesis like I did and read page 81 in the guys conclusion of his thesis.

I actually like this post.


It is one of the first, I believe, in which you have attempted to provide an alternative view.....

....your usual mode is the Liberal attack on the person making the charge.



As usual, of course, you are wrong.



In February 18, 1949, when the "People's Daily World," an official communist organ, wrote a glowing article about Brigadier General Faymonville, it quoted his views. In his paean to the Bolshevik tyranny he declared that "there is no such thing in the Soviet Union as hostility to other nations, or a desire for their conquest."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 97.


So....the same question arises with Faymonville as with Franklin Roosevelt: was he a dupe, or was he a communist enabler?


The question does not have to be applied to Harry Hopkins, the one who positioned Faymonville in Moscow, in charge of the buffet known as Lend-Lease, and who saw to the promotion of the Red Colonel, ....

...since I have documented that Hopkins was Stalin's spy.

I believe in a thing called spinicitus. It's a word I use to refer to what happens when people begin believing spins to the point that they form opinions and come to conclusions on spin. Spin being based on some degree or level of false and exaggerated or distorted data creates false conclusions and twisted opinions based on crap data.
This makes the kind of sources used to promote revisionist histories and conspiracy theories useless.

When dealing with a topic like espionage and the gathering of intelligence, misleading data, misinterpreted data, etc. is particularly dangerous and misleading due to the very nature of espionage and intelligence gathering. How do you determine with certainty that an individual is not using infiltration and manipulation of contacts to ascertain "loose lips" type of intel. When an undercover cop infiltrates a gang, how many minor crimes might he or she have to comit to convince the bad guys he or she can be trusted? With the methods used by revisionist and conspiracy theorist, virtually any and every cop that has ever worked undercover could be made to appear dirty. Even with the relevation that he or she was working undercover, arguments could be made that the undercover cop "went to far" and "turned".

It is even more difficult for foriegn intelligence operatives. They rarely get the oppurtunity to speak of their missions. At least the undercover cop can have the expectation of testifying in some court and or ending the undercover status and return to wearing a uniform or carrying a badge. Foriegn intelligence gathering more ofter than not requires silence forever to protect "methods" and other operatives and especially with foriegn service in a place like the USSR, the families of operatives.

Civilians that serve in danger for the benifit of the security of their nation are rarely given recognition. They are easy targets for the conspiacy theorist and revisionist.
I happen to reject the types of sources so often used to promote revisionist histories and conspiracy theories. For me, a foriegn operative attempting to project himself as a cooperative friend that is understanding of the foriegn countries culture, politics and traditions would be expected to say kind and cooperative things to the government controlled newspaper.
I also reject writings by policial pundits and commentators that have political agenda's and have no reason to follow scholarly methods or even methods that would be expected to be used for writing a college thesis. At least the writer of the thesis has a set of standards to follow. Not so with the pundit and commentators. They can say what they want, get it published by anyone they want and puff.....it becomes a source.
This does not mean I do not value some writing of pundits and commentators. Some of them use and list legitimate sources. Unfortunitly, those types are not the types seen on these pages.
I honestly don't see why it is unreasonalble for a person to insist on highly reliable and provable data when debating history. Part of the study of history, for me anyhow, is the fun in researching the research and tracking sources. Sometimes you find cool stuff you didn't know and sometimes you find bullshit. Both are rewarding to find. That is how I see it.

What you mean is that your mind is closed, and even facing the events that can only flow from the premise of this thread, you cannot bring yourself to admit that, at it's very foundations, your understanding of politics and geopolitics is flawed.


Look at the stated aims of the the communist party from the 1930's, and note that they have, in fact, been imposed upon this nation, and accept that the results stems, largely, from the indoctrinated.....folks like you.

 

[regent]

I actually like this post.


It is one of the first, I believe, in which you have attempted to provide an alternative view.....

....your usual mode is the Liberal attack on the person making the charge.



As usual, of course, you are wrong.



In February 18, 1949, when the "People's Daily World," an official communist organ, wrote a glowing article about Brigadier General Faymonville, it quoted his views. In his paean to the Bolshevik tyranny he declared that "there is no such thing in the Soviet Union as hostility to other nations, or a desire for their conquest."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 97.


So....the same question arises with Faymonville as with Franklin Roosevelt: was he a dupe, or was he a communist enabler?


The question does not have to be applied to Harry Hopkins, the one who positioned Faymonville in Moscow, in charge of the buffet known as Lend-Lease, and who saw to the promotion of the Red Colonel, ....

...since I have documented that Hopkins was Stalin's spy.

I believe in a thing called spinicitus. It's a word I use to refer to what happens when people begin believing spins to the point that they form opinions and come to conclusions on spin. Spin being based on some degree or level of false and exaggerated or distorted data creates false conclusions and twisted opinions based on crap data.
This makes the kind of sources used to promote revisionist histories and conspiracy theories useless.

When dealing with a topic like espionage and the gathering of intelligence, misleading data, misinterpreted data, etc. is particularly dangerous and misleading due to the very nature of espionage and intelligence gathering. How do you determine with certainty that an individual is not using infiltration and manipulation of contacts to ascertain "loose lips" type of intel. When an undercover cop infiltrates a gang, how many minor crimes might he or she have to comit to convince the bad guys he or she can be trusted? With the methods used by revisionist and conspiracy theorist, virtually any and every cop that has ever worked undercover could be made to appear dirty. Even with the relevation that he or she was working undercover, arguments could be made that the undercover cop "went to far" and "turned".

It is even more difficult for foriegn intelligence operatives. They rarely get the oppurtunity to speak of their missions. At least the undercover cop can have the expectation of testifying in some court and or ending the undercover status and return to wearing a uniform or carrying a badge. Foriegn intelligence gathering more ofter than not requires silence forever to protect "methods" and other operatives and especially with foriegn service in a place like the USSR, the families of operatives.

Civilians that serve in danger for the benifit of the security of their nation are rarely given recognition. They are easy targets for the conspiacy theorist and revisionist.
I happen to reject the types of sources so often used to promote revisionist histories and conspiracy theories. For me, a foriegn operative attempting to project himself as a cooperative friend that is understanding of the foriegn countries culture, politics and traditions would be expected to say kind and cooperative things to the government controlled newspaper.
I also reject writings by policial pundits and commentators that have political agenda's and have no reason to follow scholarly methods or even methods that would be expected to be used for writing a college thesis. At least the writer of the thesis has a set of standards to follow. Not so with the pundit and commentators. They can say what they want, get it published by anyone they want and puff.....it becomes a source.
This does not mean I do not value some writing of pundits and commentators. Some of them use and list legitimate sources. Unfortunitly, those types are not the types seen on these pages.
I honestly don't see why it is unreasonalble for a person to insist on highly reliable and provable data when debating history. Part of the study of history, for me anyhow, is the fun in researching the research and tracking sources. Sometimes you find cool stuff you didn't know and sometimes you find bullshit. Both are rewarding to find. That is how I see it.

What you mean is that your mind is closed, and even facing the events that can only flow from the premise of this thread, you cannot bring yourself to admit that, at it's very foundations, your understanding of politics and geopolitics is flawed.


Look at the stated aims of the the communist party from the 1930's, and note that they have, in fact, been imposed upon this nation, and accept that the results stems, largely, from the indoctrinated.....folks like you.

I think the ones we have to be most careful with, are the ones that present a great anti-communist front, pointing out all the spies about us when in reality they are the spies.
I just went to get a haircut and the first thing the barber did was ask me how my day was going. I now know that "day" is a code word for: are you a communist spy , and if so, do you have any information to be transmitted to Moscow? McCarthy used this type of anticommunist front for years until the commies decided his drinking made him more apt to talk in cheap bars, so bingo.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I believe in a thing called spinicitus. It's a word I use to refer to what happens when people begin believing spins to the point that they form opinions and come to conclusions on spin. Spin being based on some degree or level of false and exaggerated or distorted data creates false conclusions and twisted opinions based on crap data.
This makes the kind of sources used to promote revisionist histories and conspiracy theories useless.

When dealing with a topic like espionage and the gathering of intelligence, misleading data, misinterpreted data, etc. is particularly dangerous and misleading due to the very nature of espionage and intelligence gathering. How do you determine with certainty that an individual is not using infiltration and manipulation of contacts to ascertain "loose lips" type of intel. When an undercover cop infiltrates a gang, how many minor crimes might he or she have to comit to convince the bad guys he or she can be trusted? With the methods used by revisionist and conspiracy theorist, virtually any and every cop that has ever worked undercover could be made to appear dirty. Even with the relevation that he or she was working undercover, arguments could be made that the undercover cop "went to far" and "turned".

It is even more difficult for foriegn intelligence operatives. They rarely get the oppurtunity to speak of their missions. At least the undercover cop can have the expectation of testifying in some court and or ending the undercover status and return to wearing a uniform or carrying a badge. Foriegn intelligence gathering more ofter than not requires silence forever to protect "methods" and other operatives and especially with foriegn service in a place like the USSR, the families of operatives.

Civilians that serve in danger for the benifit of the security of their nation are rarely given recognition. They are easy targets for the conspiacy theorist and revisionist.
I happen to reject the types of sources so often used to promote revisionist histories and conspiracy theories. For me, a foriegn operative attempting to project himself as a cooperative friend that is understanding of the foriegn countries culture, politics and traditions would be expected to say kind and cooperative things to the government controlled newspaper.
I also reject writings by policial pundits and commentators that have political agenda's and have no reason to follow scholarly methods or even methods that would be expected to be used for writing a college thesis. At least the writer of the thesis has a set of standards to follow. Not so with the pundit and commentators. They can say what they want, get it published by anyone they want and puff.....it becomes a source.
This does not mean I do not value some writing of pundits and commentators. Some of them use and list legitimate sources. Unfortunitly, those types are not the types seen on these pages.
I honestly don't see why it is unreasonalble for a person to insist on highly reliable and provable data when debating history. Part of the study of history, for me anyhow, is the fun in researching the research and tracking sources. Sometimes you find cool stuff you didn't know and sometimes you find bullshit. Both are rewarding to find. That is how I see it.

What you mean is that your mind is closed, and even facing the events that can only flow from the premise of this thread, you cannot bring yourself to admit that, at it's very foundations, your understanding of politics and geopolitics is flawed.


Look at the stated aims of the the communist party from the 1930's, and note that they have, in fact, been imposed upon this nation, and accept that the results stems, largely, from the indoctrinated.....folks like you.

I think the ones we have to be most careful with, are the ones that present a great anti-communist front, pointing out all the spies about us when in reality they are the spies.
I just went to get a haircut and the first thing the barber did was ask me how my day was going. I now know that "day" is a code word for: are you a communist spy , and if so, do you have any information to be transmitted to Moscow? McCarthy used this type of anticommunist front for years until the commies decided his drinking made him more apt to talk in cheap bars, so bingo.

I know you believe that your being cute....but this is one of the most stupid non-posts ever.


The reality is that Smugly Backside and you, and the rest of the sorority of simpletons are furious because I have shown that so much of what they have believed is just plain wrong. FDR bowed to the wishes of Soviet communists, and his closest adviser, Harry Hopkins, was Stalin's spy.

Really.



I have numbered....what, a dozen or so pieces of the whole picture, and the cadre simply does what Liberals always do....attacked the person quoted, rather than deny the fact...or simply ignore it.

So it was with Maj. George R. Jordan, Representative Martin Dies, scholars and historians Herbert Romerstein and Eric Breindel, Murray Garsson, M. Stanton Evans, Vasili Mitrokhin , former FBI assistant director for counter-intelligence Ray Wannall, US Air Force historian Eduard Mark, and Averell Harriman, ....Each added a piece of the puzzle, and added to the preponderance of the evidence.


And Hopkins efforts to send Kravchenko back to Stalin, his efforts to place communists like Faymonville in charge of Lend-Lease......hardly accidents.



And I have more testimony and more pro-communist efforts by Hopkins.




You apologists and excuse makers cannot admit, even to yourselves, how totally indoctrinated, how blind, you have been.

The truth is evident: the aims of the communist party have been taken up by Liberals/Progressives/Democrats.....and they can never admit to the provenance: Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Hopkins.

I can list a dozen of the communist aims that correspond to the aims of the Liberals/Progressives/Democrats...coincidence?

And as far as "Liberals/Progressives/Democrats" ....isn't that where you fit in, politically?

Another coincidence?

Hardly.





14. " How did this massive penetration and policy twisting occur? Deception, [M. Stanton] Evans mentioned at a recent lecture, succeeds best when people want to be deceived. Franklin Roosevelt’s willful blindness to Stalin’s malignant goals, aggravated by the President’s health problems, was clearly a major cause. FDR saw what he wanted to see: that Josef Stalin liked him and would cooperate in preserving a peaceful and just world. That mindset went hand-in-hand with a New Deal bureaucracy chock-a-block with Soviet agents, Communist party members and ardent Stalinist sympathizers, including two FDR confidants, Lauchlin Currie and Harry Hopkins, FDR’s most trusted friend who for several years lived at the White House."
Infiltration, intrigue and Communists - Conservative News




I understand that you will never admit to the truth....but perhaps others will read this and place blame where it belongs.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

yawn:

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.

A Soviet Agent? Harry Hopkins? - NYTimes.com

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.

 

[PoliticalChic]

yawn:

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.

A Soviet Agent? Harry Hopkins? - NYTimes.com

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.

Harry Hopkins not a Soviet spy?

What is infuriating is how the Liberal press, i.e., the NYTimes, is aiding the Left's efforts to obfuscate communist infiltration.


'What deeds did Mr. Hopkins commit that may, in the popular mind, attach the monicker "spy" to him?'

Read this thread.




"....advocated positions favored by Moscow...."

Yup.....tip of the iceberg.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

yawn:

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.

A Soviet Agent? Harry Hopkins? - NYTimes.com

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.

Harry Hopkins not a Soviet spy?

What is infuriating is how the Liberal press, i.e., the NYTimes, is aiding the Left's efforts to obfuscate communist infiltration.


'What deeds did Mr. Hopkins commit that may, in the popular mind, attach the monicker "spy" to him?'

Read this thread.




"....advocated positions favored by Moscow...."

Yup.....tip of the iceberg.

and JFK, LBJ, and Nixon, and Ford, Carter, and Reagan favored a space race and moon landing and a space station with the Soviets... OMG!

 

[PoliticalChic]

yawn:

Harry Hopkins not a Soviet spy?

What is infuriating is how the Liberal press, i.e., the NYTimes, is aiding the Left's efforts to obfuscate communist infiltration.


'What deeds did Mr. Hopkins commit that may, in the popular mind, attach the monicker "spy" to him?'

Read this thread.




"....advocated positions favored by Moscow...."

Yup.....tip of the iceberg.

and JFK, LBJ, and Nixon, and Ford, Carter, and Reagan favored a space race and moon landing and a space station with the Soviets... OMG!

Once you've viewed the fourteen items I've provided, I'd be interested in your informed opinion.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Harry Hopkins not a Soviet spy?

What is infuriating is how the Liberal press, i.e., the NYTimes, is aiding the Left's efforts to obfuscate communist infiltration.


'What deeds did Mr. Hopkins commit that may, in the popular mind, attach the monicker "spy" to him?'

Read this thread.




"....advocated positions favored by Moscow...."

Yup.....tip of the iceberg.

and JFK, LBJ, and Nixon, and Ford, Carter, and Reagan favored a space race and moon landing and a space station with the Soviets... OMG!

Once you've viewed the fourteen items I've provided, I'd be interested in your informed opinion.

It is


seriously

 

[Camp]

Harry Hopkins not a Soviet spy?

What is infuriating is how the Liberal press, i.e., the NYTimes, is aiding the Left's efforts to obfuscate communist infiltration.


'What deeds did Mr. Hopkins commit that may, in the popular mind, attach the monicker "spy" to him?'

Read this thread.




"....advocated positions favored by Moscow...."

Yup.....tip of the iceberg.

and JFK, LBJ, and Nixon, and Ford, Carter, and Reagan favored a space race and moon landing and a space station with the Soviets... OMG!

Once you've viewed the fourteen items I've provided, I'd be interested in your informed opinion.

You have provided garbage. Less than garbage. Most of the stuff you have provided proves your dishonest crap to be the exact oppisite of what you claim if the source is viewed beyond your cherry picked fragmented qoutes. You know that if you tried to use your sources for a college thesis you would be laughed at and failed. At this point your efforts are deserving of little more than mockery, which seems to be what you are now getting for responses. So much effort to bare false witness. So proud to bare false witness. Like McCarthy, you deserve to be asked the question he was asked. Have you no shame?
OK, now let the foul spewing of names and insults proceed. Make it entertaining, because your history writing and opinions have become beyond boring.

 

[regent]

and JFK, LBJ, and Nixon, and Ford, Carter, and Reagan favored a space race and moon landing and a space station with the Soviets... OMG!

Once you've viewed the fourteen items I've provided, I'd be interested in your informed opinion.

You have provided garbage. Less than garbage. Most of the stuff you have provided proves your dishonest crap to be the exact oppisite of what you claim if the source is viewed beyond your cherry picked fragmented qoutes. You know that if you tried to use your sources for a college thesis you would be laughed at and failed. At this point your efforts are deserving of little more than mockery, which seems to be what you are now getting for responses. So much effort to bare false witness. So proud to bare false witness. Like McCarthy, you deserve to be asked the question he was asked. Have you no shame?
OK, now let the foul spewing of names and insults proceed. Make it entertaining, because your history writing and opinions have become beyond boring.

But for me they always bring on a smile, not a guffaw, but a smile--and maybe a little shake of the head. It's almost like McCarthy waving a piece of paper saying: I have in my hand....

 

[PoliticalChic]

and JFK, LBJ, and Nixon, and Ford, Carter, and Reagan favored a space race and moon landing and a space station with the Soviets... OMG!

Once you've viewed the fourteen items I've provided, I'd be interested in your informed opinion.

You have provided garbage. Less than garbage. Most of the stuff you have provided proves your dishonest crap to be the exact oppisite of what you claim if the source is viewed beyond your cherry picked fragmented qoutes. You know that if you tried to use your sources for a college thesis you would be laughed at and failed. At this point your efforts are deserving of little more than mockery, which seems to be what you are now getting for responses. So much effort to bare false witness. So proud to bare false witness. Like McCarthy, you deserve to be asked the question he was asked. Have you no shame?
OK, now let the foul spewing of names and insults proceed. Make it entertaining, because your history writing and opinions have become beyond boring.

The only "garbage" is your ability to use the facts provided.

And the intensity of your post indicates that you know very well that I have provided the truth.


I'll provide more.