Tender Mercies: A Roosevelt Love Story

[PoliticalChic]

The OP does not understand or have knowledge of why unconditional surrender has been a military strategy since armies began fighting each other with sharpened sticks and sling shots, spears and arrows.

Clearly, it is you who pretends not to understand.

The demand for 'unconditional surrender' came directly from the Kremlin, and Roosevelt, dutifully, acquiesced to Stalin.

The very first use of the phrase 'unconditional surrender" at Casablanca was by Harry Hopkins. One day earlier, January 23, before the President announced it, Hopkins told the grand vizier of Morocco, "The war will be pursued until Germany, Italy, and Japan agree to unconditional surrender."
"Harry Hopkins: Ally of the Poor and Defender of Democracy," by George McJimsey, p.277
and FRUS: Washington and Casablanca, p. 703.


Harry Hopkins.....
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


Pretty much the same role you fill, huh?

Hopkin's was the eyes and ears of America inside the Kremlin. He was a spy for the USA and ingratiated himself into the Soviet High Command and Stalin's inner circle at great risk to his life. In doing so he opened himself up for attack as a Stalin dupe or friend after his death.
The controversy about Hopkins seems never ending, but here is what Gen. George Marshall had to say about him.

"He was a heroic figure of the war. He rendered a service to his country which will never even vaguely be appreciated."
Gen. George C. Marshall

You lie.


He was an agent of Soviet Russia....not a problem for Franklin Roosevelt, who welcomed 'Uncle Joe's' agents in his administration.



There is absolutely no evidence of Hopkins's patriotism outside of the fact that he worked in the White House. None. All that there is an assumption, a faith based in wishful thinking. It provides for Hopkins the kind of benefit of the doubt that the Liberals never give to an opponents, as in Goldwater's vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, or Trent Lott joking that Strom Thurmond had been elected.

In 1998, the late US Air Force historian Eduard Mark published a break-through Hopkins analysis, a meticulous examination of what appears to be the first damning document to emerge from the Venona record against Hopkins. It was a partly decrypted Venona cable, authored by Akhmerov, in which a very senior Roosevelt administration official, code named "Source 19," conveyed the content of a private, top secret conversation between Roosevelt and Churchill in late May 1943 about the invasion of Normandy, which, at the time, was a year away.
By a process of elimination, this is what Mark concludes: "it is probable virtually to the point of certainty" that Harry Hopkins is Source 19.
Eduard Mark, "Venona's Source 19 and the 'Trident' Conference of May 1943; Diplomacy or Espionage?" From "Intelligence and National Security 113, no. 2, April 1998, p. 1-31.

a. See http://65.54.113.26/Publication/57558173





Please, write soon.....I enjoy smashing these custard pies in your ugly kisser.

 

[Camp]

Hopkins was in charge of the lend lease program that shipped hundreds of tons of supplies from the US to the USSR during the war. This gave him a very special advantage in making friends with Soviet leaders. Hopkins could arrange for all kinds of "special" requests to be transported to the USSR as part of the lend lease program.

For many years his and FDR opponents claimed he was an agent of the Soviets referred to as "Agent 19" in a Soviet message. It was later proven that Agent 19 was not Hopkins and identified as a British citizen. Hence, the only evidence against Hopkins was debunked.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hopkins was in charge of the lend lease program that shipped hundreds of tons of supplies from the US to the USSR during the war. This gave him a very special advantage in making friends with Soviet leaders. Hopkins could arrange for all kinds of "special" requests to be transported to the USSR as part of the lend lease program.

For many years his and FDR opponents claimed he was an agent of the Soviets referred to as "Agent 19" in a Soviet message. It was later proven that Agent 19 was not Hopkins and identified as a British citizen. Hence, the only evidence against Hopkins was debunked.

"It was later proven that Agent 19 was not Hopkins and identified as a British citizen. Hence, the only evidence against Hopkins was debunked."

That's not what the CIA report says:

In 1998, the late US Air Force historian Eduard Mark published a break-through Hopkins analysis, a meticulous examination of what appears to be the first damning document to emerge from the Venona record against Hopkins. It was a partly decrypted Venona cable, authored by Akhmerov, in which a very senior Roosevelt administration official, code named "Source 19," conveyed the content of a private, top secret conversation between Roosevelt and Churchill in late May 1943 about the invasion of Normandy, which, at the time, was a year away.
By a process of elimination, this is what Mark concludes: "it is probable virtually to the point of certainty" that Harry Hopkins is Source 19.
Eduard Mark, "Venona's Source 19 and the 'Trident' Conference of May 1943; Diplomacy or Espionage?" From "Intelligence and National Security 113, no. 2, April 1998, p. 1-31.

a. See http://65.54.113.26/Publication/57558173



Caught you lying for the Kremlin again, huh?

 

[Moonglow]

1.If Franklin Roosevelt had had a teenager’s crush on Joseph Stalin, that might explain his actions vis-a-vis that homicidal megalomaniac, as when he ceded Allied military strategy, and control over half of Europe to "Uncle Joe."
….it must have relied on a belief in Stalin's 'tender mercies.'



2. A telling insight comes from close friend, and, equally a Sovietophile, William Christian Bullitt, Jr..
Bullitt was also an extreme Liberal, and a radical who had worked for Woodrow Wilson, and, of course, was a fervent believer in internationalism.
"Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed Bullitt the first US ambassador to the Soviet Union, a post that he filled from 1933 to 1936." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Christian_Bullitt,_Jr.

Bullitt did try to stop FDR. In 1935, he had written to FDR about the Comintern Congress, and he followed that with a cable to Secretary of State Hull, that included that there had been "...no decrease in the determination of the Soviet Government to produce a world revolution...If this basic postulate of the Soviet Government is understood, there is nothing in nothing in Soviet domestic or foreign policy that is not clear.' He went on to explain that Stalin yearned for a US-Japan war, after Japan had been thoroughly defeated....to acquire Manchuria and Sovietize China."
Dunn, "Caught Between Roosevelt and Stalin," p. 52.


Even so....FDR refused the advice of Bullitt.




3. In a letter to FDR, dated January 29, 1943, Ambassador William Bullitt warned Roosevelt about what would happen if he continued pursuing the policies of appeasement toward Stalin that formed the foundation of the American war strategy. He pleaded with FDR not to 'permit our war to prevent Nazi domination of Europe to be turned into a war to establish Soviet domination of Europe.' He predicted the Soviet annexation of half of Europe; George Kennan identified that letter as the earliest warning of what would be the result of FDR's policies. "
For the President Personal & Secret: Correspondence Between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt," Orville H. Bullitt, p. 575-590

a. FDR replied: "Bill, I don't dispute your facts, they are accurate, I don't dispute the logic of your reasoning. I have just had a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of a man. Harry says he's not and that he doesn't want anything in the world but security for his country, and I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace."
William C. Bullitt, "How We Won The War and Lost The Peace," Life Magazine, August 30, 1948, p. 94

Brilliant analysis by Roosevelt, huh?




How to explain this? Well, the CIA has an interesting take:

4.Perhaps it was something else, entirely:

"In recent years, the statesmanship of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in particular his handling of Soviet affairs, has come under attack in historical studies. The situation has reached such a pass that even a psychiatrist who examined FDR’s medical records has opined that toward the end of World War II the US President ceded the better part of Eastern Europe to Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin because he was “gripped by clinical depression." How “Uncle Joe” Bugged FDR — Central Intelligence Agency


Mentally ill??????
How could that be true of the great god of the Democrats?????

Spamulicious redundancy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hopkins was in charge of the lend lease program that shipped hundreds of tons of supplies from the US to the USSR during the war. This gave him a very special advantage in making friends with Soviet leaders. Hopkins could arrange for all kinds of "special" requests to be transported to the USSR as part of the lend lease program.

For many years his and FDR opponents claimed he was an agent of the Soviets referred to as "Agent 19" in a Soviet message. It was later proven that Agent 19 was not Hopkins and identified as a British citizen. Hence, the only evidence against Hopkins was debunked.

"Hopkins was in charge of the lend lease program that shipped hundreds of tons of supplies from the US to the USSR during the war."

Lend Lease was a Kremlin plan, agreed to by their servant, Franklin Roosevelt.

a. "The millionaire industrialist, Armand Hammer played a key role in laying the foundations of Lend-Lease. As a dyed-in-the-wool collaborator of Lenin´s and Stalin’s in procuring Western, especially American, assistance in the industrialization of the USSR..... in November 1940 Armand Hammer met with FDR in the White House. He and the president discussed the idea of developing American military assistance to Britain, the Neutrality Act and Roosevelt’s campaign promises not to embroil the United States in the European war to the contrary. Roosevelt thereupon suggested to Hammer that he discuss this plan with Harry Hopkins. Hopkins twice traveled to New York City, Hammer´s base of operations, to discuss this idea with officials and businessmen there.” justice4germans.com

b. The program was finally authorized by Congress and signed into effect on March 11, 1941. By November, after much heated debate, Congress extended the terms of Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union, even though the USSR had already been the recipient of American military weapons and had been promised $1 billion in financial aid.
FDR signs Lend-Lease - Mar 11, 1941 - HISTORY.com

c. "He (FDR) left no doubt of the importance he attached to aid to Russia. 'I would go out and take the stuff off the shelves of the stores,' he told [Treasure Secretary Henry] Morganthau on March 11, 1942, 'and pay them any price necessary, and put it in a truck and rush it to the boat...Nothing would be worse than to have the Russians collapse." George C. Herring, "Aid to Russia," p. 42,56.



When one begins to consider FDR's 'Russia Uber Alles' policy, evidence form KGB archived, opened in 1991, and the Venona Papers, sheds dispositive light on the reasons for said policy.


Was FDR a dupe of Soviet influence?


No doubt.

 

[Camp]

Hopkins was in charge of the lend lease program that shipped hundreds of tons of supplies from the US to the USSR during the war. This gave him a very special advantage in making friends with Soviet leaders. Hopkins could arrange for all kinds of "special" requests to be transported to the USSR as part of the lend lease program.

For many years his and FDR opponents claimed he was an agent of the Soviets referred to as "Agent 19" in a Soviet message. It was later proven that Agent 19 was not Hopkins and identified as a British citizen. Hence, the only evidence against Hopkins was debunked.

"It was later proven that Agent 19 was not Hopkins and identified as a British citizen. Hence, the only evidence against Hopkins was debunked."

That's not what the CIA report says:

In 1998, the late US Air Force historian Eduard Mark published a break-through Hopkins analysis, a meticulous examination of what appears to be the first damning document to emerge from the Venona record against Hopkins. It was a partly decrypted Venona cable, authored by Akhmerov, in which a very senior Roosevelt administration official, code named "Source 19," conveyed the content of a private, top secret conversation between Roosevelt and Churchill in late May 1943 about the invasion of Normandy, which, at the time, was a year away.
By a process of elimination, this is what Mark concludes: "it is probable virtually to the point of certainty" that Harry Hopkins is Source 19.
Eduard Mark, "Venona's Source 19 and the 'Trident' Conference of May 1943; Diplomacy or Espionage?" From "Intelligence and National Security 113, no. 2, April 1998, p. 1-31.

a. See http://65.54.113.26/Publication/57558173



Caught you lying for the Kremlin again, huh?

Your link and conclusion is obsolete. In 2014 world known historians Harvey Klehr and John Earl Haynes identified the British citizen as "source 19", thus, rendering your conclusion as obsolete.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hopkins was in charge of the lend lease program that shipped hundreds of tons of supplies from the US to the USSR during the war. This gave him a very special advantage in making friends with Soviet leaders. Hopkins could arrange for all kinds of "special" requests to be transported to the USSR as part of the lend lease program.

For many years his and FDR opponents claimed he was an agent of the Soviets referred to as "Agent 19" in a Soviet message. It was later proven that Agent 19 was not Hopkins and identified as a British citizen. Hence, the only evidence against Hopkins was debunked.

"It was later proven that Agent 19 was not Hopkins and identified as a British citizen. Hence, the only evidence against Hopkins was debunked."

That's not what the CIA report says:

In 1998, the late US Air Force historian Eduard Mark published a break-through Hopkins analysis, a meticulous examination of what appears to be the first damning document to emerge from the Venona record against Hopkins. It was a partly decrypted Venona cable, authored by Akhmerov, in which a very senior Roosevelt administration official, code named "Source 19," conveyed the content of a private, top secret conversation between Roosevelt and Churchill in late May 1943 about the invasion of Normandy, which, at the time, was a year away.
By a process of elimination, this is what Mark concludes: "it is probable virtually to the point of certainty" that Harry Hopkins is Source 19.
Eduard Mark, "Venona's Source 19 and the 'Trident' Conference of May 1943; Diplomacy or Espionage?" From "Intelligence and National Security 113, no. 2, April 1998, p. 1-31.

a. See http://65.54.113.26/Publication/57558173



Caught you lying for the Kremlin again, huh?

Your link and conclusion is obsolete. In 2014 world known historians Harvey Klehr and John Earl Haynes identified the British citizen as "source 19", thus, rendering your conclusion as obsolete.

Well, then, you must be able to cite the CIA retraction of their report.....


Shall I wait, or will you simply admit your lie?

 

[Camp]

Hopkins was in charge of the lend lease program that shipped hundreds of tons of supplies from the US to the USSR during the war. This gave him a very special advantage in making friends with Soviet leaders. Hopkins could arrange for all kinds of "special" requests to be transported to the USSR as part of the lend lease program.

For many years his and FDR opponents claimed he was an agent of the Soviets referred to as "Agent 19" in a Soviet message. It was later proven that Agent 19 was not Hopkins and identified as a British citizen. Hence, the only evidence against Hopkins was debunked.

"It was later proven that Agent 19 was not Hopkins and identified as a British citizen. Hence, the only evidence against Hopkins was debunked."

That's not what the CIA report says:

In 1998, the late US Air Force historian Eduard Mark published a break-through Hopkins analysis, a meticulous examination of what appears to be the first damning document to emerge from the Venona record against Hopkins. It was a partly decrypted Venona cable, authored by Akhmerov, in which a very senior Roosevelt administration official, code named "Source 19," conveyed the content of a private, top secret conversation between Roosevelt and Churchill in late May 1943 about the invasion of Normandy, which, at the time, was a year away.
By a process of elimination, this is what Mark concludes: "it is probable virtually to the point of certainty" that Harry Hopkins is Source 19.
Eduard Mark, "Venona's Source 19 and the 'Trident' Conference of May 1943; Diplomacy or Espionage?" From "Intelligence and National Security 113, no. 2, April 1998, p. 1-31.

a. See http://65.54.113.26/Publication/57558173



Caught you lying for the Kremlin again, huh?

Your link and conclusion is obsolete. In 2014 world known historians Harvey Klehr and John Earl Haynes identified the British citizen as "source 19", thus, rendering your conclusion as obsolete.

Well, then, you must be able to cite the CIA retraction of their report.....


Shall I wait, or will you simply admit your lie?

Here is a link to ultra conservative Front Page Magazine. It is written by historian John Earl Haynes. He addresses the Mark conclusion you use as a source. In fact, he discusses the conversations he had directly with Mark in regards to source 19.

It was Haynes and Klehr who were the historians that found the real source 19 and proved it was not Hopkins.

frontpagemag.com/fpm/200900/was-harry-hopkins-soviet-spy-john-earl-Haynes

Remind me, what is your link to a CIA report claiming Hopkins was source 19?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hopkins was in charge of the lend lease program that shipped hundreds of tons of supplies from the US to the USSR during the war. This gave him a very special advantage in making friends with Soviet leaders. Hopkins could arrange for all kinds of "special" requests to be transported to the USSR as part of the lend lease program.

For many years his and FDR opponents claimed he was an agent of the Soviets referred to as "Agent 19" in a Soviet message. It was later proven that Agent 19 was not Hopkins and identified as a British citizen. Hence, the only evidence against Hopkins was debunked.

"It was later proven that Agent 19 was not Hopkins and identified as a British citizen. Hence, the only evidence against Hopkins was debunked."

That's not what the CIA report says:

In 1998, the late US Air Force historian Eduard Mark published a break-through Hopkins analysis, a meticulous examination of what appears to be the first damning document to emerge from the Venona record against Hopkins. It was a partly decrypted Venona cable, authored by Akhmerov, in which a very senior Roosevelt administration official, code named "Source 19," conveyed the content of a private, top secret conversation between Roosevelt and Churchill in late May 1943 about the invasion of Normandy, which, at the time, was a year away.
By a process of elimination, this is what Mark concludes: "it is probable virtually to the point of certainty" that Harry Hopkins is Source 19.
Eduard Mark, "Venona's Source 19 and the 'Trident' Conference of May 1943; Diplomacy or Espionage?" From "Intelligence and National Security 113, no. 2, April 1998, p. 1-31.

a. See http://65.54.113.26/Publication/57558173



Caught you lying for the Kremlin again, huh?

Your link and conclusion is obsolete. In 2014 world known historians Harvey Klehr and John Earl Haynes identified the British citizen as "source 19", thus, rendering your conclusion as obsolete.

Well, then, you must be able to cite the CIA retraction of their report.....


Shall I wait, or will you simply admit your lie?

Here is a link to ultra conservative Front Page Magazine. It is written by historian John Earl Haynes. He addresses the Mark conclusion you use as a source. In fact, he discusses the conversations he had directly with Mark in regards to source 19.

It was Haynes and Klehr who were the historians that found the real source 19 and proved it was not Hopkins.

frontpagemag.com/fpm/200900/was-harry-hopkins-soviet-spy-john-earl-Haynes

Remind me, what is your link to a CIA report claiming Hopkins was source 19?

Well, then, you must be able to cite the CIA retraction of their report.....
the CIA report says:

In 1998, the late US Air Force historian Eduard Mark published a break-through Hopkins analysis, a meticulous examination of what appears to be the first damning document to emerge from the Venona record against Hopkins. It was a partly decrypted Venona cable, authored by Akhmerov, in which a very senior Roosevelt administration official, code named "Source 19," conveyed the content of a private, top secret conversation between Roosevelt and Churchill in late May 1943 about the invasion of Normandy, which, at the time, was a year away.
By a process of elimination, this is what Mark concludes: "it is probable virtually to the point of certainty" that Harry Hopkins is Source 19.
Eduard Mark, "Venona's Source 19 and the 'Trident' Conference of May 1943; Diplomacy or Espionage?" From "Intelligence and National Security 113, no. 2, April 1998, p. 1-31.

a. See http://65.54.113.26/Publication/57558173


Shall I wait, or will you simply admit your lie?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Could this be of any interest, one wonders?


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


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.

 

[Camp]

Hopkins was in charge of the lend lease program that shipped hundreds of tons of supplies from the US to the USSR during the war. This gave him a very special advantage in making friends with Soviet leaders. Hopkins could arrange for all kinds of "special" requests to be transported to the USSR as part of the lend lease program.

For many years his and FDR opponents claimed he was an agent of the Soviets referred to as "Agent 19" in a Soviet message. It was later proven that Agent 19 was not Hopkins and identified as a British citizen. Hence, the only evidence against Hopkins was debunked.

"It was later proven that Agent 19 was not Hopkins and identified as a British citizen. Hence, the only evidence against Hopkins was debunked."

That's not what the CIA report says:

In 1998, the late US Air Force historian Eduard Mark published a break-through Hopkins analysis, a meticulous examination of what appears to be the first damning document to emerge from the Venona record against Hopkins. It was a partly decrypted Venona cable, authored by Akhmerov, in which a very senior Roosevelt administration official, code named "Source 19," conveyed the content of a private, top secret conversation between Roosevelt and Churchill in late May 1943 about the invasion of Normandy, which, at the time, was a year away.
By a process of elimination, this is what Mark concludes: "it is probable virtually to the point of certainty" that Harry Hopkins is Source 19.
Eduard Mark, "Venona's Source 19 and the 'Trident' Conference of May 1943; Diplomacy or Espionage?" From "Intelligence and National Security 113, no. 2, April 1998, p. 1-31.

a. See http://65.54.113.26/Publication/57558173



Caught you lying for the Kremlin again, huh?

Your link and conclusion is obsolete. In 2014 world known historians Harvey Klehr and John Earl Haynes identified the British citizen as "source 19", thus, rendering your conclusion as obsolete.

Well, then, you must be able to cite the CIA retraction of their report.....


Shall I wait, or will you simply admit your lie?

Here is a link to ultra conservative Front Page Magazine. It is written by historian John Earl Haynes. He addresses the Mark conclusion you use as a source. In fact, he discusses the conversations he had directly with Mark in regards to source 19.

It was Haynes and Klehr who were the historians that found the real source 19 and proved it was not Hopkins.

frontpagemag.com/fpm/200900/was-harry-hopkins-soviet-spy-john-earl-Haynes

Remind me, what is your link to a CIA report claiming Hopkins was source 19?

Well, then, you must be able to cite the CIA retraction of their report.....
the CIA report says:

In 1998, the late US Air Force historian Eduard Mark published a break-through Hopkins analysis, a meticulous examination of what appears to be the first damning document to emerge from the Venona record against Hopkins. It was a partly decrypted Venona cable, authored by Akhmerov, in which a very senior Roosevelt administration official, code named "Source 19," conveyed the content of a private, top secret conversation between Roosevelt and Churchill in late May 1943 about the invasion of Normandy, which, at the time, was a year away.
By a process of elimination, this is what Mark concludes: "it is probable virtually to the point of certainty" that Harry Hopkins is Source 19.
Eduard Mark, "Venona's Source 19 and the 'Trident' Conference of May 1943; Diplomacy or Espionage?" From "Intelligence and National Security 113, no. 2, April 1998, p. 1-31.

a. See http://65.54.113.26/Publication/57558173


Shall I wait, or will you simply admit your lie?

That is not a CIA report and I provided a link to a conservative magazine with an article by a recognized historian and friend of the author you used as a source. The article contains conversations they had about the subject.

Even though I am providing links and backing up all of my posts your continue to call me a liar. It really looks like you are the one trying to lie. You said you had a CIA report to support you claim. You do not have a CIA report to support your claim. You lied. You have obsolete articles by a historian, but historical works often become obsolete when new data is obtained. Someone is always finding old letters, ignored documents, etc. when that happens and a historian gets hold of the newly discovered data, the old data sometime becomes obsolete. If you were the historian you claim to be you would know this.

This is a tactic used by conspiracy theorist. They used old outdated information and data to weave the story they want to tell. And always, they claim their theories are documented and thus, proven. Well, they are documented with outdated obsolete documents or data and they prove nothing. If they tried to do this while submitting a college thesis they would get booted out of the class and program will a sub-failing grade. Probably dismissed for cheating.

 

[Camp]

Could this be of any interest, one wonders?


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


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.

Again, you ignore or miss the obvious. Hopkins was in charge of lend lease, Stalin was dependent of the lend lease program and all of it had to go through Harry Hopkins. He had to approve of everything Stalin asked for. Hopkins was on a mission to become a trusted friend of Stalin and while doing so, promote the US strategy of having Stalin supply unlimited manpower to the eastern front to decimate the German Armies and air forces before the US and allies confronted them on the western front an the D-Day invasion.

 

[Camp]

The US beat Nazi Germany with help from allies, including the USSR, but it was the US strategy of FDR that beat the Nazi's and Harry Hopkins played a major roll in that victory. It is shameful that he is disparaged and slandered by hacks with political agendas.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"It was later proven that Agent 19 was not Hopkins and identified as a British citizen. Hence, the only evidence against Hopkins was debunked."

That's not what the CIA report says:

In 1998, the late US Air Force historian Eduard Mark published a break-through Hopkins analysis, a meticulous examination of what appears to be the first damning document to emerge from the Venona record against Hopkins. It was a partly decrypted Venona cable, authored by Akhmerov, in which a very senior Roosevelt administration official, code named "Source 19," conveyed the content of a private, top secret conversation between Roosevelt and Churchill in late May 1943 about the invasion of Normandy, which, at the time, was a year away.
By a process of elimination, this is what Mark concludes: "it is probable virtually to the point of certainty" that Harry Hopkins is Source 19.
Eduard Mark, "Venona's Source 19 and the 'Trident' Conference of May 1943; Diplomacy or Espionage?" From "Intelligence and National Security 113, no. 2, April 1998, p. 1-31.

a. See http://65.54.113.26/Publication/57558173



Caught you lying for the Kremlin again, huh?

Your link and conclusion is obsolete. In 2014 world known historians Harvey Klehr and John Earl Haynes identified the British citizen as "source 19", thus, rendering your conclusion as obsolete.

Well, then, you must be able to cite the CIA retraction of their report.....


Shall I wait, or will you simply admit your lie?

Here is a link to ultra conservative Front Page Magazine. It is written by historian John Earl Haynes. He addresses the Mark conclusion you use as a source. In fact, he discusses the conversations he had directly with Mark in regards to source 19.

It was Haynes and Klehr who were the historians that found the real source 19 and proved it was not Hopkins.

frontpagemag.com/fpm/200900/was-harry-hopkins-soviet-spy-john-earl-Haynes

Remind me, what is your link to a CIA report claiming Hopkins was source 19?

Well, then, you must be able to cite the CIA retraction of their report.....
the CIA report says:

In 1998, the late US Air Force historian Eduard Mark published a break-through Hopkins analysis, a meticulous examination of what appears to be the first damning document to emerge from the Venona record against Hopkins. It was a partly decrypted Venona cable, authored by Akhmerov, in which a very senior Roosevelt administration official, code named "Source 19," conveyed the content of a private, top secret conversation between Roosevelt and Churchill in late May 1943 about the invasion of Normandy, which, at the time, was a year away.
By a process of elimination, this is what Mark concludes: "it is probable virtually to the point of certainty" that Harry Hopkins is Source 19.
Eduard Mark, "Venona's Source 19 and the 'Trident' Conference of May 1943; Diplomacy or Espionage?" From "Intelligence and National Security 113, no. 2, April 1998, p. 1-31.

a. See http://65.54.113.26/Publication/57558173


Shall I wait, or will you simply admit your lie?

That is not a CIA report and I provided a link to a conservative magazine with an article by a recognized historian and friend of the author you used as a source. The article contains conversations they had about the subject.

Even though I am providing links and backing up all of my posts your continue to call me a liar. It really looks like you are the one trying to lie. You said you had a CIA report to support you claim. You do not have a CIA report to support your claim. You lied. You have obsolete articles by a historian, but historical works often become obsolete when new data is obtained. Someone is always finding old letters, ignored documents, etc. when that happens and a historian gets hold of the newly discovered data, the old data sometime becomes obsolete. If you were the historian you claim to be you would know this.

This is a tactic used by conspiracy theorist. They used old outdated information and data to weave the story they want to tell. And always, they claim their theories are documented and thus, proven. Well, they are documented with outdated obsolete documents or data and they prove nothing. If they tried to do this while submitting a college thesis they would get booted out of the class and program will a sub-failing grade. Probably dismissed for cheating.

Of course you're a liar.....you deny that Harry Hopkins was a Soviet spy.


" How did this massive penetration and policy twisting occur? Deception, 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



Sooooo.....by extension, wasn't Franklin Roosevelt a Soviet spy as well????

 

[PoliticalChic]

The US beat Nazi Germany with help from allies, including the USSR, but it was the US strategy of FDR that beat the Nazi's and Harry Hopkins played a major roll in that victory. It is shameful that he is disparaged and slandered by hacks with political agendas.

Actually, had Roosevelt listened to his generals, and attacked via Italy, and not followed Stalin's instructions to attack via western Europe (so as to leave half of Europe to occupation by Stalin's Red Army, the war would have been over years earlier with the commensurate saving of US Army lives.

Roosevelt didn't care about US lives.....want proof?

Sure....

20,000 Americans that Roosevelt and Eisenhower allowed Stalin to kill...keep.

" By May 15, 1945, the Pentagon believed 25,000 American POWs "liberated" by the Red Army were still being held hostage to Soviet demands that all "Soviet citizens" be returned to Soviet control, "without exception" and by force if necessary, as agreed to at the Yalta Conference in February 1945.

When the U.S. refused to return some military formations composed of Soviet citizens, such as the First Ukrainian SS Division, Stalin retaliated by returning only 4,116 of the [25,000] hostage American POWs.

On June 1, 1945, the United States Government issued documents, signed by General Dwight D. Eisenhower, explaining away the loss of approximately 20,000 POWs remaining under Stalin's control."
http://www.nationalalliance.org/wwii/wwii.htm

National Alliance of Families



This is not idle conversation.....this is 20,000 American boys left to die in Stalin's gulags.

Left by Roosevelt, Hopkins, Marshall.....

....and Eisenhower.



Now.....who did Roosevelt serve again.....the US or the USSR?

Same question to you.....

 

[Camp]

Your link and conclusion is obsolete. In 2014 world known historians Harvey Klehr and John Earl Haynes identified the British citizen as "source 19", thus, rendering your conclusion as obsolete.

Well, then, you must be able to cite the CIA retraction of their report.....


Shall I wait, or will you simply admit your lie?

Here is a link to ultra conservative Front Page Magazine. It is written by historian John Earl Haynes. He addresses the Mark conclusion you use as a source. In fact, he discusses the conversations he had directly with Mark in regards to source 19.

It was Haynes and Klehr who were the historians that found the real source 19 and proved it was not Hopkins.

frontpagemag.com/fpm/200900/was-harry-hopkins-soviet-spy-john-earl-Haynes

Remind me, what is your link to a CIA report claiming Hopkins was source 19?

Well, then, you must be able to cite the CIA retraction of their report.....
the CIA report says:

In 1998, the late US Air Force historian Eduard Mark published a break-through Hopkins analysis, a meticulous examination of what appears to be the first damning document to emerge from the Venona record against Hopkins. It was a partly decrypted Venona cable, authored by Akhmerov, in which a very senior Roosevelt administration official, code named "Source 19," conveyed the content of a private, top secret conversation between Roosevelt and Churchill in late May 1943 about the invasion of Normandy, which, at the time, was a year away.
By a process of elimination, this is what Mark concludes: "it is probable virtually to the point of certainty" that Harry Hopkins is Source 19.
Eduard Mark, "Venona's Source 19 and the 'Trident' Conference of May 1943; Diplomacy or Espionage?" From "Intelligence and National Security 113, no. 2, April 1998, p. 1-31.

a. See http://65.54.113.26/Publication/57558173


Shall I wait, or will you simply admit your lie?

That is not a CIA report and I provided a link to a conservative magazine with an article by a recognized historian and friend of the author you used as a source. The article contains conversations they had about the subject.

Even though I am providing links and backing up all of my posts your continue to call me a liar. It really looks like you are the one trying to lie. You said you had a CIA report to support you claim. You do not have a CIA report to support your claim. You lied. You have obsolete articles by a historian, but historical works often become obsolete when new data is obtained. Someone is always finding old letters, ignored documents, etc. when that happens and a historian gets hold of the newly discovered data, the old data sometime becomes obsolete. If you were the historian you claim to be you would know this.

This is a tactic used by conspiracy theorist. They used old outdated information and data to weave the story they want to tell. And always, they claim their theories are documented and thus, proven. Well, they are documented with outdated obsolete documents or data and they prove nothing. If they tried to do this while submitting a college thesis they would get booted out of the class and program will a sub-failing grade. Probably dismissed for cheating.

Of course you're a liar.....you deny that Harry Hopkins was a Soviet spy.


" How did this massive penetration and policy twisting occur? Deception, 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



Sooooo.....by extension, wasn't Franklin Roosevelt a Soviet spy as well????

You are really showing yourself to be a scummy little low life. Just because someone has a differing opinion does not make them a liar. It seems that no matter how much evidence I provide and how many links to support my opinion you are going to call me a liar.

There was never anything more than suspicion and allegations to implement Harry Hopkins as a spy. Now, evidence has been found to disprove the factors that made him suspicious, yet you insist on ignoring that evidence or even address it. I posted it in this thread. You make believe it doesn't exist. Typical hack. Dishonest and ready to name call and insult rather than address issues and facts.

By the way, your latest link is another sign of you dishonesty. It has nothing to do with Harry Hopkins. You are trying to change the narrative and escape from topic like the bullshyt artist you are.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well, then, you must be able to cite the CIA retraction of their report.....


Shall I wait, or will you simply admit your lie?

Here is a link to ultra conservative Front Page Magazine. It is written by historian John Earl Haynes. He addresses the Mark conclusion you use as a source. In fact, he discusses the conversations he had directly with Mark in regards to source 19.

It was Haynes and Klehr who were the historians that found the real source 19 and proved it was not Hopkins.

frontpagemag.com/fpm/200900/was-harry-hopkins-soviet-spy-john-earl-Haynes

Remind me, what is your link to a CIA report claiming Hopkins was source 19?

Well, then, you must be able to cite the CIA retraction of their report.....
the CIA report says:

In 1998, the late US Air Force historian Eduard Mark published a break-through Hopkins analysis, a meticulous examination of what appears to be the first damning document to emerge from the Venona record against Hopkins. It was a partly decrypted Venona cable, authored by Akhmerov, in which a very senior Roosevelt administration official, code named "Source 19," conveyed the content of a private, top secret conversation between Roosevelt and Churchill in late May 1943 about the invasion of Normandy, which, at the time, was a year away.
By a process of elimination, this is what Mark concludes: "it is probable virtually to the point of certainty" that Harry Hopkins is Source 19.
Eduard Mark, "Venona's Source 19 and the 'Trident' Conference of May 1943; Diplomacy or Espionage?" From "Intelligence and National Security 113, no. 2, April 1998, p. 1-31.

a. See http://65.54.113.26/Publication/57558173


Shall I wait, or will you simply admit your lie?

That is not a CIA report and I provided a link to a conservative magazine with an article by a recognized historian and friend of the author you used as a source. The article contains conversations they had about the subject.

Even though I am providing links and backing up all of my posts your continue to call me a liar. It really looks like you are the one trying to lie. You said you had a CIA report to support you claim. You do not have a CIA report to support your claim. You lied. You have obsolete articles by a historian, but historical works often become obsolete when new data is obtained. Someone is always finding old letters, ignored documents, etc. when that happens and a historian gets hold of the newly discovered data, the old data sometime becomes obsolete. If you were the historian you claim to be you would know this.

This is a tactic used by conspiracy theorist. They used old outdated information and data to weave the story they want to tell. And always, they claim their theories are documented and thus, proven. Well, they are documented with outdated obsolete documents or data and they prove nothing. If they tried to do this while submitting a college thesis they would get booted out of the class and program will a sub-failing grade. Probably dismissed for cheating.

Of course you're a liar.....you deny that Harry Hopkins was a Soviet spy.


" How did this massive penetration and policy twisting occur? Deception, 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



Sooooo.....by extension, wasn't Franklin Roosevelt a Soviet spy as well????

You are really showing yourself to be a scummy little low life. Just because someone has a differing opinion does not make them a liar. It seems that no matter how much evidence I provide and how many links to support my opinion you are going to call me a liar.

There was never anything more than suspicion and allegations to implement Harry Hopkins as a spy. Now, evidence has been found to disprove the factors that made him suspicious, yet you insist on ignoring that evidence or even address it. I posted it in this thread. You make believe it doesn't exist. Typical hack. Dishonest and ready to name call and insult rather than address issues and facts.

By the way, your latest link is another sign of you dishonesty. It has nothing to do with Harry Hopkins. You are trying to change the narrative and escape from topic like the bullshyt artist you are.

More, you liar???

Sure thing.


Former Communist Whittaker Chambers testified to Congress in 1948 about the formation of Communist "study groups" within the U.S. government from which espionage agents were recruited. One of those groups, led by Lee Pressman, was established within the Department of Agriculture in late 1933, and Hopkins was a member of that group.

 

[Camp]

Here is a link to ultra conservative Front Page Magazine. It is written by historian John Earl Haynes. He addresses the Mark conclusion you use as a source. In fact, he discusses the conversations he had directly with Mark in regards to source 19.

It was Haynes and Klehr who were the historians that found the real source 19 and proved it was not Hopkins.

frontpagemag.com/fpm/200900/was-harry-hopkins-soviet-spy-john-earl-Haynes

Remind me, what is your link to a CIA report claiming Hopkins was source 19?

Well, then, you must be able to cite the CIA retraction of their report.....
the CIA report says:

In 1998, the late US Air Force historian Eduard Mark published a break-through Hopkins analysis, a meticulous examination of what appears to be the first damning document to emerge from the Venona record against Hopkins. It was a partly decrypted Venona cable, authored by Akhmerov, in which a very senior Roosevelt administration official, code named "Source 19," conveyed the content of a private, top secret conversation between Roosevelt and Churchill in late May 1943 about the invasion of Normandy, which, at the time, was a year away.
By a process of elimination, this is what Mark concludes: "it is probable virtually to the point of certainty" that Harry Hopkins is Source 19.
Eduard Mark, "Venona's Source 19 and the 'Trident' Conference of May 1943; Diplomacy or Espionage?" From "Intelligence and National Security 113, no. 2, April 1998, p. 1-31.

a. See http://65.54.113.26/Publication/57558173


Shall I wait, or will you simply admit your lie?

That is not a CIA report and I provided a link to a conservative magazine with an article by a recognized historian and friend of the author you used as a source. The article contains conversations they had about the subject.

Even though I am providing links and backing up all of my posts your continue to call me a liar. It really looks like you are the one trying to lie. You said you had a CIA report to support you claim. You do not have a CIA report to support your claim. You lied. You have obsolete articles by a historian, but historical works often become obsolete when new data is obtained. Someone is always finding old letters, ignored documents, etc. when that happens and a historian gets hold of the newly discovered data, the old data sometime becomes obsolete. If you were the historian you claim to be you would know this.

This is a tactic used by conspiracy theorist. They used old outdated information and data to weave the story they want to tell. And always, they claim their theories are documented and thus, proven. Well, they are documented with outdated obsolete documents or data and they prove nothing. If they tried to do this while submitting a college thesis they would get booted out of the class and program will a sub-failing grade. Probably dismissed for cheating.

Of course you're a liar.....you deny that Harry Hopkins was a Soviet spy.


" How did this massive penetration and policy twisting occur? Deception, 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



Sooooo.....by extension, wasn't Franklin Roosevelt a Soviet spy as well????

You are really showing yourself to be a scummy little low life. Just because someone has a differing opinion does not make them a liar. It seems that no matter how much evidence I provide and how many links to support my opinion you are going to call me a liar.

There was never anything more than suspicion and allegations to implement Harry Hopkins as a spy. Now, evidence has been found to disprove the factors that made him suspicious, yet you insist on ignoring that evidence or even address it. I posted it in this thread. You make believe it doesn't exist. Typical hack. Dishonest and ready to name call and insult rather than address issues and facts.

By the way, your latest link is another sign of you dishonesty. It has nothing to do with Harry Hopkins. You are trying to change the narrative and escape from topic like the bullshyt artist you are.

More, you liar???

Sure thing.


Former Communist Whittaker Chambers testified to Congress in 1948 about the formation of Communist "study groups" within the U.S. government from which espionage agents were recruited. One of those groups, led by Lee Pressman, was established within the Department of Agriculture in late 1933, and Hopkins was a member of that group.

What is the source of your latest rant. Are you really lowering even you own scuzzy low standards and going directly to "guilt by association"?
OK, show us your source. Provide the link. I am pretty sure it will be a fake unreliable source of no real historical value, but go ahead and provide the source.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well, then, you must be able to cite the CIA retraction of their report.....
the CIA report says:

In 1998, the late US Air Force historian Eduard Mark published a break-through Hopkins analysis, a meticulous examination of what appears to be the first damning document to emerge from the Venona record against Hopkins. It was a partly decrypted Venona cable, authored by Akhmerov, in which a very senior Roosevelt administration official, code named "Source 19," conveyed the content of a private, top secret conversation between Roosevelt and Churchill in late May 1943 about the invasion of Normandy, which, at the time, was a year away.
By a process of elimination, this is what Mark concludes: "it is probable virtually to the point of certainty" that Harry Hopkins is Source 19.
Eduard Mark, "Venona's Source 19 and the 'Trident' Conference of May 1943; Diplomacy or Espionage?" From "Intelligence and National Security 113, no. 2, April 1998, p. 1-31.

a. See http://65.54.113.26/Publication/57558173


Shall I wait, or will you simply admit your lie?

That is not a CIA report and I provided a link to a conservative magazine with an article by a recognized historian and friend of the author you used as a source. The article contains conversations they had about the subject.

Even though I am providing links and backing up all of my posts your continue to call me a liar. It really looks like you are the one trying to lie. You said you had a CIA report to support you claim. You do not have a CIA report to support your claim. You lied. You have obsolete articles by a historian, but historical works often become obsolete when new data is obtained. Someone is always finding old letters, ignored documents, etc. when that happens and a historian gets hold of the newly discovered data, the old data sometime becomes obsolete. If you were the historian you claim to be you would know this.

This is a tactic used by conspiracy theorist. They used old outdated information and data to weave the story they want to tell. And always, they claim their theories are documented and thus, proven. Well, they are documented with outdated obsolete documents or data and they prove nothing. If they tried to do this while submitting a college thesis they would get booted out of the class and program will a sub-failing grade. Probably dismissed for cheating.

Of course you're a liar.....you deny that Harry Hopkins was a Soviet spy.


" How did this massive penetration and policy twisting occur? Deception, 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



Sooooo.....by extension, wasn't Franklin Roosevelt a Soviet spy as well????

You are really showing yourself to be a scummy little low life. Just because someone has a differing opinion does not make them a liar. It seems that no matter how much evidence I provide and how many links to support my opinion you are going to call me a liar.

There was never anything more than suspicion and allegations to implement Harry Hopkins as a spy. Now, evidence has been found to disprove the factors that made him suspicious, yet you insist on ignoring that evidence or even address it. I posted it in this thread. You make believe it doesn't exist. Typical hack. Dishonest and ready to name call and insult rather than address issues and facts.

By the way, your latest link is another sign of you dishonesty. It has nothing to do with Harry Hopkins. You are trying to change the narrative and escape from topic like the bullshyt artist you are.

More, you liar???

Sure thing.


Former Communist Whittaker Chambers testified to Congress in 1948 about the formation of Communist "study groups" within the U.S. government from which espionage agents were recruited. One of those groups, led by Lee Pressman, was established within the Department of Agriculture in late 1933, and Hopkins was a member of that group.

What is the source of your latest rant. Are you really lowering even you own scuzzy low standards and going directly to "guilt by association"?
OK, show us your source. Provide the link. I am pretty sure it will be a fake unreliable source of no real historical value, but go ahead and provide the source.

Who is "us"???
Other communist sympathizers?????



http://www.dcdave.com/article5/110211.htm




And, "corroborating and entirely independent evidence of Hopkins’ likely treason has come to light in the pages of an obscure book by Emanuel M. Josephson. The title is The Strange Death of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and while it does have a very intriguing chapter on FDR’s demise, the main subject of the book is better captured by the subtitle, A History of the Roosevelt-Delano Dynasty, America’s Royal Family. The following passage is on pp. 145-146:

a. In later years, Murray Garsson, the munitions manufacturer who was convicted for bribery and irregularities in connection with war contracts, reported that Harry Hopkins had been very helpful to him in securing and handling those contracts. In return for his help, Hopkins had demanded and received liberal payment for his influence. Garsson regularly paid Hopkins’s numerous losses on bets on the horse races. But one form of payment demanded by Hopkins stood out as most odd, Garsson said.

b. Garsson maintained quarters at the Wardman Park Hotel in Washington in connection with his war contracts. But he spent his weekends in New York with his family. Harry Hopkins demanded of Garsson that he permit him and his friends to use the quarters during the weekends, and that he defray the cost of refreshments and entertainment. Garsson permitted Hopkins and his guests to charge their expenses to his account.

c. In looking over his bills, Garsson noted the names of the persons who had signed the tabs charged to him. Among Harry Hopkins’s associates who had signed tabs were Carl Aldo Marzani and the whole array of the members of what was later proved to be the Hal Ware (Communist) cell that operated in the Government. Garsson stated that he did not become aware of the fact that he was acting as involuntary host to Hopkins’s Communist cell until after Marzani had been convicted and sent to jail for perjury in swearing in his State Department application that he was not, and never had been, a member of the Communist Party.

3. Josephson, who was hardly an admirer of Roosevelt and his New Deal, lacks references for his allegations, but many factors militate in favor of their basic accuracy. The strongest of these is that they dovetail perfectly with the other Soviet-agent charges against Hopkins and, coming much earlier, they could not have been influenced by them. In combination, the charges are much stronger than any one of them is alone. http://www.dcdave.com/article5/110211.htm

 

[Camp]

That is not a CIA report and I provided a link to a conservative magazine with an article by a recognized historian and friend of the author you used as a source. The article contains conversations they had about the subject.

Even though I am providing links and backing up all of my posts your continue to call me a liar. It really looks like you are the one trying to lie. You said you had a CIA report to support you claim. You do not have a CIA report to support your claim. You lied. You have obsolete articles by a historian, but historical works often become obsolete when new data is obtained. Someone is always finding old letters, ignored documents, etc. when that happens and a historian gets hold of the newly discovered data, the old data sometime becomes obsolete. If you were the historian you claim to be you would know this.

This is a tactic used by conspiracy theorist. They used old outdated information and data to weave the story they want to tell. And always, they claim their theories are documented and thus, proven. Well, they are documented with outdated obsolete documents or data and they prove nothing. If they tried to do this while submitting a college thesis they would get booted out of the class and program will a sub-failing grade. Probably dismissed for cheating.

Of course you're a liar.....you deny that Harry Hopkins was a Soviet spy.


" How did this massive penetration and policy twisting occur? Deception, 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



Sooooo.....by extension, wasn't Franklin Roosevelt a Soviet spy as well????

You are really showing yourself to be a scummy little low life. Just because someone has a differing opinion does not make them a liar. It seems that no matter how much evidence I provide and how many links to support my opinion you are going to call me a liar.

There was never anything more than suspicion and allegations to implement Harry Hopkins as a spy. Now, evidence has been found to disprove the factors that made him suspicious, yet you insist on ignoring that evidence or even address it. I posted it in this thread. You make believe it doesn't exist. Typical hack. Dishonest and ready to name call and insult rather than address issues and facts.

By the way, your latest link is another sign of you dishonesty. It has nothing to do with Harry Hopkins. You are trying to change the narrative and escape from topic like the bullshyt artist you are.

More, you liar???

Sure thing.


Former Communist Whittaker Chambers testified to Congress in 1948 about the formation of Communist "study groups" within the U.S. government from which espionage agents were recruited. One of those groups, led by Lee Pressman, was established within the Department of Agriculture in late 1933, and Hopkins was a member of that group.

What is the source of your latest rant. Are you really lowering even you own scuzzy low standards and going directly to "guilt by association"?
OK, show us your source. Provide the link. I am pretty sure it will be a fake unreliable source of no real historical value, but go ahead and provide the source.

Who is "us"???
Other communist sympathizers?????



http://www.dcdave.com/article5/110211.htm




And, "corroborating and entirely independent evidence of Hopkins’ likely treason has come to light in the pages of an obscure book by Emanuel M. Josephson. The title is The Strange Death of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and while it does have a very intriguing chapter on FDR’s demise, the main subject of the book is better captured by the subtitle, A History of the Roosevelt-Delano Dynasty, America’s Royal Family. The following passage is on pp. 145-146:

a. In later years, Murray Garsson, the munitions manufacturer who was convicted for bribery and irregularities in connection with war contracts, reported that Harry Hopkins had been very helpful to him in securing and handling those contracts. In return for his help, Hopkins had demanded and received liberal payment for his influence. Garsson regularly paid Hopkins’s numerous losses on bets on the horse races. But one form of payment demanded by Hopkins stood out as most odd, Garsson said.

b. Garsson maintained quarters at the Wardman Park Hotel in Washington in connection with his war contracts. But he spent his weekends in New York with his family. Harry Hopkins demanded of Garsson that he permit him and his friends to use the quarters during the weekends, and that he defray the cost of refreshments and entertainment. Garsson permitted Hopkins and his guests to charge their expenses to his account.

c. In looking over his bills, Garsson noted the names of the persons who had signed the tabs charged to him. Among Harry Hopkins’s associates who had signed tabs were Carl Aldo Marzani and the whole array of the members of what was later proved to be the Hal Ware (Communist) cell that operated in the Government. Garsson stated that he did not become aware of the fact that he was acting as involuntary host to Hopkins’s Communist cell until after Marzani had been convicted and sent to jail for perjury in swearing in his State Department application that he was not, and never had been, a member of the Communist Party.

3. Josephson, who was hardly an admirer of Roosevelt and his New Deal, lacks references for his allegations, but many factors militate in favor of their basic accuracy. The strongest of these is that they dovetail perfectly with the other Soviet-agent charges against Hopkins and, coming much earlier, they could not have been influenced by them. In combination, the charges are much stronger than any one of them is alone. http://www.dcdave.com/article5/110211.htm

This person truly soiled herself and emerged herself in nonsense. Her source now is someone called "DC Dave". The source admits his source can not prove the story, but a guy convicted of various crimes says he had a deal with Hopkins and as payment to Hopkins paid hotel and bar tabs for a group of communist that Hopkins was alleged to have been connected to in some way. Can't be proven because there is absolutely no evidence, but the convicted crook is alleged to be reliable by some guy named DC DAVE!!!


Seriously, read DC Dave's thrilling account of espionage at the highest levels of government during WWII !!!