Talk:Harry Dexter White

Obscure Sources

The claim that Harry Dexter White was "an active agent of Soviet espionage.[1]" is illustrated with a link to "The Morgenthau Plan for Policy Perversion", by Anthony Kubek, published by the Institute for Historical Review. A closer read of the link shows that it was attributed to J. Edgar Hoover, during the notorious House Unamerican Activities Committee.

"Also, J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI charged that White was an active agent of Soviet espionage, and despite the fact he had sent five reports to the White House warning the President of White's activities, Truman promoted him to a position at the United Nations. When the shocking story of White's service as a Soviet agent was first revealed by Attorney General Herbert Brownell in a Chicago speech, it created quite a stir of public charges and counter-charges by then retired Harry Truman."

This is what the Southern Poverty Law Center has to say about Mark Weber and his Institute for Historical Review:

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/mark-weber MrSativa (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

This is what Alexander Cockburn has to say about the Southern Poverty Law Center: counterpunch.org/2009/05/15/king-of-the-hate-business/ 192.40.24.4 (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Shandafurde

Spy category

He did not confess nor was he convicted so Category:American spies for the Soviet Union is not appropriate. To leave him out of any spy category would be egregious, he belongs in Category:Accused American spies for the Soviet Union. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

For the McCarthy/Cold Warriors PROOF of White's alleged espionage activities was his being found in the VENONA cables. By that reasoning, FDR & Winston Churchill should be included as accused spies since they were also mentioned in VENONA.

 The above two sentences are ludicrous. "PROOF" is not merely being mentioned, but flows from 
 the information contained in VENONA about the individual in question. Added by MEO 4/15/10  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.34.238 (talk) 04:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC) 

By the time McCarthy paranoia dominated Washington it had been forgotten that in the 1930s & 1940s astute observers knew war was coming & if Germany were to be defeated, the Russians would have to do the bulk of the dying (their 20-30 million to our 400,000). Since it took us 3 years to get into the European war, clearly something had to be done to keep Stalin from pulling a 2nd Brest-Litovsk.

Knowing how FDR worked ("my left hand often does not know what my right hand is doing...") it is not outside the realm of possibility that White was given broad, ill defined, & NEVER written down, encouragement to feed information to the Soviets. It is not outside the realm of possibility that White observed how FDR juggled conflicting objectives & took it upon himself to pass encouraging information to the Soviets.

A spy "under party control?" Not a chance. Notice there has never been a word about where/when White "converted" to being a Stalin lackey.

Recent updates... Haynes, Klehr & Vassiliev have just published (June 2009) a new book, entitled "Spies" based on the notebooks of Vassiliev. At the Woodrow Wilson Center event in May 20-21, 2009, Bruce Craig (White's biographer) wondered to John Haynes why, if White were such an influential spy, he (White) at least in the Vassiliev notebooks the Soviets were trying to figure out who he was. DEddy (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This whole section upon the supposed Soviet spying activities of Harry White is disgusting. So now Wikipedia uses McCarthy era FBI allegations as fact. What a load of crap. Wikipedia is crap. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canuckistani (talk • contribs) 22:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

what's disgusting was White's espionage activities on behalf of the Soviet Union... Category re-added to article based on exhaustive and convincing evidence of White's spying. Azx2 06:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

careful here. "disgusting" is a personal POV. In fact every nation hires spies, and they play an important role in world affairs. Our job is to report what the RS say about spying, not to announce our displeasure with the practice. Rjensen (talk) 12:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Josephson?

There's a large section added in the 03:56, 17 December 2009 edit by 70.129.141.180 relying on a book by Emanuel Josephson, whose credibility is questionable at best. The Rockefeller-Soviet conspiracy which Josephson alleges is presented in these passages as fact. Josephson's opinions may be worth noting, but a fringe historian/conspiracy theorist's analysis ought not be given an unqualified 5 paragraphs of material.76.27.140.208 (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Strong agreement on deletion. Bruce Craig, author of "Treasonable Doubt" told me he'd never heard of Josephson. DEddy (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Vassiliev notebooks

Here's an interesting extract from Vassiliev white notebook #1, pg 44, left notation pg 95 "However, when we too had the idea of separating “Jurist” [Harry Dexter White] from “Pal’s” [Silvermaster] group and taking him over for direct communications, it turned out that he is not only not our probationer, but we hardly know anything about him at all, and “Sound” also knows very little about him and has a very fuzzy concept of the nature of his contact with “Pal’s” group."

After a series of earlier references in this notebook about how important White is & deserves a dedicated contact... suddenly it turns out the KGB doesn't seem to know much about him. Odd. DEddy (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing "odd" about it at all. On page 38 of White Notebook #1, the following appears:

 According to information we have received, “Jurist” at one time was a probationer for the
 neighbors. We will communicate detailed information about him separately. He should, at
 last, be properly recruited for work and taken on for direct communications. In view of
 Jurist’s” value and the necessity of adhering to the rules of covert work, we consider it
 advisable to assign a special illegal to work with him. You should have a better notion of
 how best to approach the implementation of this task. Wire us your suggestions.

The KGB doesn't know much about him because he is working for the GRU, not the KGB. Added by 
MEO 4/15/10  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.34.238 (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC) 

You're saying White was under GRU "control?" [We'll ignore the meaning of "control" here... personally the idea of "controlling" someone like White is laughable beyond measure, but others like to believe otherwise.] Could have been true in the 1930s when it seems Whittaker Chambers had some sort of contact (nothing really solid has ever surfaced to my knowledge... the "White memo" in the Pumpkin Papers clearly could have come from someplace other than White's direct hand.) But by the early 1940s Elizabeth Bentley's story was that White (whom she admits she never met) was being "controlled" either by her or Silvermaster. Since the story seems to be that Silvermaster didn't want to let go of White, it would appear that the man on the ground—Silvermaster—was in control. Since Bentley was a KGB resource, I'd assume Silvermaster was too.

Whittaker Chambers was off the scene by either 1937 or 1938 depending on which version of his story one has read most recently.

Bentley built her story on her control of the Silvermaster group, so GRU really isn't a player here, are they? DEddy (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Accused is not proved

Those introductory 3 lines are going to have to be modified.

At best White is an accused spy, and to the best of my knowledge the VENONA cables prove nothing other than White was talking to the Soviets which was, after all, part of his job. The most seemingly incriminating cable (1119-1122) of 4 August 1944, was with a Russian banker (a fact that didn't surface until maybe 2000). That meeting was shortly after the Bretton Woods conference where the Russian (Kolt'sov in the cable) was an accredited attendee. Rather than a clandestine meeting, a far more realistic interpretation would be that White was continuing to sell the Soviets on the wisdom of joining the IMF. DEddy (talk) 03:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Passing documents

"A number of sources from the FBI and Soviet archives, and messages decoded by the Venona project, implicated him in the passing of government documents to the Soviet Union prior to World War II."

You're going to have to get a firmer grip on your timeframes here. What precise documents "prior to WWII" do you mean? There is the single offering of the "Baltimore papers" from Whittaker Chambers, who described White as his "least productive asset." For this document (a collection of 3 documents?) to the best of my knowledge there is no evidence White gave it to Chambers. Certainly it cannot be VENONA since those were only cables beginning in 1943. My knowledge of Soviet archives is less solid... references please. Please do not include "Sacred Secrets" as a source. The chapter on White lists 20% of the footnotes as "Soviet Intelligence Archives". This is classic TIME/LIFE making up facts to fit the story. "Sacred Secrets" is NOT a credible reference.

Are you aware of White's official interest in Russian gold production?

I duly notice you say "government documents" rather than "secret government documents." Is there a difference, or is it assumed a government document is by definition, secret ? DEddy (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Bretton Woods and Captialism

Removed the assertion that the goal of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank was to promote capitalism. The article early on states that White was a Keynesian, and also 'dominated' the Bretton Woods Conference with John Maynard Keynes himself. Keynes could hardly be considered a capitalist in any sense of the word. He was a prominent member of the Fabian Society, and argued for strict monetary control by governments. He is considered the antithesis of the laissez-faire capitalists. To suggest that White and Keynes were interested in spreading capitalism through their work at Bretton Woods in 1944 is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meshmonk (talk • contribs) 05:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Keynes was never a member of the Fabian Society.--76.14.64.98 (talk) 07:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

If White was a Soviet spy, how does it happen that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which he invented and supported, were followed by an era of general financial and private stability in western countries that lasted for 25 years? And why did the Soviet Union refuse to join? The main reason they did not join is because they were afraid that joining would undermine their communist way of life. Why do you suppose that they built such deep fences and barriers around their frontiers? They were afraid (a) of their citizens being able to escape and (b)they feared that non-communist ideas would get in and subvert their dictatorship.RhosfawrRhosfawr (talk) 10:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

In my reading: White was a spy but not a Communist party member and he was not under Soviet control. Nor did he control Stalin. White wanted USSR to join but Stalin was paranoid and refused. White wanted prosperity for all nations -- including both US and USSR. Rjensen (talk) 10:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

White was a spy The only problem with this allegation is there's precious little—if any SOLID—evidence. There is, however, very good evidence—his PhD, his job & the Morgenthau diaries—to point to why White was wanting to deal with the Russians via back channels. It's called G-O-L-D. The standard allegations: provoked the Japanese, collapsed China's economy, Occupation Plates, Morganthau Plan, created IMF (see above) just don't hold up under scrutiny. As far as I know in VENONA, cable #1119-1121 still identifies Koltsov/Chechulin as a KGB agent. Last I looked the Haynes list of agent names doesn't even list Koltsov. FYI: Chechulin was Vice Chairman of the Soviet National Bank, had been in the States since January 1944, was the official Soviet delegate to Bretton Woods… and of course White would be dealing with him. DEddy (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

There are a couple of holdouts but nearly all scholars agree he secretly gave confidential US government documents to Soviet agents for transmission to Moscow. Rjensen (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

"Nearly all scholars" are who? This is not a J Edgar Hoover star chamber where the accused is not allowed to know who their accusers are.

If memory serves, the Vassiliev (sp?) notes show the Russians were confused as to who White was.

May I assume you have no idea why gold was of interest to White? DEddy (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

White was a specialist on money and gold was on his agenda. So what? If you have a point to make with a RS to back it up, please make it. Rjensen (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

DEddy asks what scholars say White was a spy? Answer: Spy says Dimitrakis (in Journal of Intelligence History, 2014), Stiehl (2013); Sulik (2012), Zieger (in American Communist History, 2012), Hastedt (2011), Cuordileone (in Diplomatic History, 2011), David Reynolds (2009), Nigel West (2007), Beisner (2006), Sibley (2004), Craig (2004); Beschloss (2003), Olmsted (2002), Romerstein & Breindel (2001), Robertson (1999), Haynes and Klehr (1999); Weinstein and Vassiliev (1999); Schrecker (1998), Benson and Warner (1996), Powers (1995), etc. On the other side N=1: "Unproven case" says Broughton (in numerous essays).Rjensen (talk) 04:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting list. Not Schecters, Coulter or Koster? Not on HDW, but I'd mention Matthew Cecil's "Hoover's FBI & the Fourth Estate," and William Sullivan's "The Bureau: My thirty years in Hoover's FBI." I certainly was not aware that Craig's "Treasonable Doubt" comes down on the side of "spy." Can you point to page references, please? Personally I like Richard Gid Powers "Broken: The Troubled Past & Uncertain Future of the FBI" (2004). Repeatedly makes a key point regarding FBI culture (40 years AFTER Hoover's death). DEddy (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

page numbers? sure: Craig (2004) p 14 says that the Venona decrypts "leave little doubt that White was involved in 'a species of espionage' and that he passed information to NKVD contacts in 1944, if not earlier." There is more detail on p 265. (p 14 can be read on amazon.com) Now let me ask, What sources do you rely upon?? Rjensen (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC).

Now let me ask, What sources do you rely upon?? Isn't it obvious from reading Craig's book?

If you can't name your sources your credibility is pretty weak. Rjensen (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I repeat… read Craig's book. DEddy (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

That is a poor answer: you seem not to have read Craig's book, nor anything else. Rjensen (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I suspect I read the thesis at least twice if not 3 times & the book at least twice. And you still can't identify who I am? DEddy (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You have missed Craig's repeated statement that White was a spy. And you missed all the other books & articles that say the same. Rjensen (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Knowing something about the culture, I'd argue that at White's level & what his job was, EVERYONE is involved in a species of espionage. DEddy (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

everyone? that's a silly argument no RS makes. All the historians (even Broughton) agree that many of White's own aides were Communist spies and passed secrets to USSR as well. What's unproven is whether White realized his aides were doing that. Rjensen (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

that's a silly argument no RS makes. I can't control what RSs accept or not. It's a fact. It's a particularly BIG fact inside the Beltway. DEddy (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

many of White's own aides were Communist spies and passed secrets to USSR as well. If Washington & Treasury in particular was so thick with Soviet spies, what precisely did they get for all this effort? I've seen it said that the nuclear spies sped up Russian development of the bomb by 3 years. Totally unconnected to Treasury. Useful, but hardly game changing. What utility did the Soviets derive from the alleged spy efforts around White & Treasury? I'd say the equation was pretty much the other way round. What we got was 50 - 60 dead Russians—having killed ? Germans—for 1 dead American. DEddy (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

What did Moscow get--it discovered the US negotiating position esp the alternatives that were acceptable to Washington & might be a better deal for USSR. That's a big advantage in negotiations.Rjensen (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Is this the loan that was so attractive, Soviets didn't take it? DEddy (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

What's unproven is whether White realized his aides were doing that. Also unproven is whether or not White was using these aides for his own objectives. May I assume you will not respond to the GOLD question or what White's job was? DEddy (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

To repeat: May I assume you have no idea why gold was of interest to White? Or let me ask from a different angle: what was White's job before becoming Assistant Secretary of Treasury? DEddy (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

White was the treasury advisor on gold. What's your riddle here? Rjensen (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, we'll go one step at a time… what was one of gold's primary functions from the (approx) 1880s to 1940s?

You have missed Craig's repeated statement that White was a spy. Evidently I have. I would be most surprised if Craig's book "repeatedly" said White was a spy. Can you provide page references, please. My Google full text search isn't working at the moment. DEddy (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Craig (2004) p 14 says that the Venona decrypts "leave little doubt that White was involved in 'a species of espionage' and that he passed information to NKVD contacts in 1944, if not earlier." There is more detail on p 265. (p 14 can be read on amazon.com) (The term "species of espionage" was first used by the Canadians when they discovered their own Soviet spy ring.) In April 2012 Craig wrote on HNN: "In fact, mounting evidence has come to light over the years that strongly implicates her father [Harry Dexter White] in what I characterized in my book on the White case, Treasonable Doubt, as “a species of espionage.” In the eight years since the book’s publication that assessment has simply been reinforced by new evidence. See Craig's statement here Rjensen (talk) 00:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Treasonable Doubt, as “a species of espionage.” I missed this. You're equating "species of espionage" to be the same thing as spy? The index in "Treasonable Doubt" is not helpful here since it references neither "espionage" nor "spy." At the moment I do not have the capability to do a full text search on "Treasonable Doubt." "You're aware, of course, that to Hoover anyone who crossed the street the wrong way was a Red?

Yes Craig says he was a spy. Dozens of other RS say he was a spy. His only serious defender says the case is "not proven". Craig says (2012) " taken collectively, Vassiliev’s documentation leaves little wiggle room for White’s defenders to continue to assert that he was not involved in an activity that, at least by present day legal standards, constitute espionage." Craig cite. Now let me ask DEddy: do YOU agree with Craig that he engaged in espionage? Rjensen (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

to assert that he was not involved in an activity that, at least by present day legal standards, constitute espionage." It's a bit difficult to see which way the information is flowing. I'm pretty sure it's safe to say none of the sources you have cited knew White, so they're largely just regurgitating the Hoover PR machine. You seem to be unaware of White's personality, his job, FDR's style, nor The Washington Rules.

I do not agree with Craig—if your claim is accurate—that White was a spy controlled by Moscow. If we are to believe Hoover's party line about Communists being mindless automatons controlled by Moscow, I've never seen a shred of evidence to support that image. Plenty of oft repeated accusations, absolutely. If the story of White as a spy is to be believed, evidently one morning he woke up & decided to be a communist in the service of Stalin. No wandering through the desert for 40 days until he found the true light. On the other hand, was White passing information to the Russians? That is much more likely. Lots of people were passing information to the Russians. That was official policy. Keep the Russians in the war long enough for us to get into the war. But again we have to play this through the embarrassment of Hoover being caught flat-footed when two walk-ins appeared at his door. The mighty JEH wasn't aware of a "massive" spy ring right under his nose. Now that's something that has to be buried deep.

We duly note that VENONA is (to the best of my knowledge) one-half of a conversation. We also note that as late as H&K's Spies (pg 259) Koltsov was identified as a agent of some sort. Before publication of Spies Koltsov's true identity was found, the Vice-Chairman of the Soviet National Bank. Just might White have reasons to meet with him post Bretton Woods? An odd footnote, Hayes's list of VENONA cover names does not list (cover name) Koltsov as (real person) Chechulin.

Once again I ask... if White was such a masterful, powerful spy what did the Soviets actually get from all his inside information? The terms of a loan they didn't accept? We know what Samuel Slater [[1]] got from the Brits. What did the Soviets get from White? As far as I know the published record is 100% silent on that score. We certainly know that Chambers described White as "timid" & useless. Steil certainly didn't shed any light on how nasty ol' Harry beating up on poor ol' John was to the Soviet advantage. DEddy (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Has the possibility ever been explored as to whether or not White was trying to get something FROM the Russians? DEddy (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

HUAC testimony sentence

The sequence of events in the last sentence in the opening paragraph is totally jumbled. Please do some homework & correct.

HDW testifies to HUAC ~August 1948

HDW dies 3 or 4 days after HUAC testimony

several YEARS later the FBI, using VENONA materials accuses HDW of being a Soviet source DEddy (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Too Controversial

The testimony of Elizabeth Bentley, the VENONA intercepts, and the Mitrokhin archives show that Harry Dexter White was very likely a soviet agent, acting under the code name "Jurist".

Clearly this is a highly controversial, loaded sentence.

Bentley herself admitted that the stories in her "Out of Bondage" were "fiction." One major story is her varied accusations that under influence White turned over the Occupation Currency plates to the Soviets. Her story was that currency samples were obtained from White, sent to Moscow, deemed impossible to counterfeit & returned to White. Such a trip from Washington to Moscow and return would have taken several weeks. In addition, the Bureau of Printing and Engraving only release currency samples to Treasury on March 27, 1944... slightly more than two weeks before the plates, inks, papers & supplies were officially released to the Soviets on April 14. The plate issue was thoroughly discussed amongst Treasury, State & War Department committees.

VENONA cables are ambiguous. The most direct cables (1119-1122) describe White meeting with a Soviet banker who'd been a formal delegate at Bretton Woods. White was selling the Russian on the wisdom of joining the IMF. DEddy (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it is only controversial according to your original research.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Surely you're not going to propose the FBI as a reliable source in this domain? DEddy (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You're clearly a White-apologist. Azx2 06:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Spies

Here is a clip from the Haynes/Klehr/Vassiliev "Spies"

[my emphasis added to new course]

pg 259

Moscow Center assigned a high priority to establishing direct access to White and wanted to remove Silvermaster as an intermediary, but this goal was difficult. First, as Elizabeth Bentley told the FBI in 1945 and as Venona decryptions confirmed, Silvermaster fiercely resisted being re-moved from the loop; jealous that it diminished his importance. Second, given White's high standing in Washington, direct meetings with a Soviet contact required great care. The KGB was not, however, concerned that

pg 260

White himself was under an illusion that his information only went to the Communist Party. Akhmerov reported: " 'When asked what 'Jurist' [White] knew about 'Pal's' [Silvermaster's] work, the latter replied that 'J' knows where his info. goes, which is precisely why he transmits it in the first place.' " A Soviet operative held the first direct covert KGB contact with White in July 1944. White answered a series of questions about American foreign policy, and the report on the meeting went on to say: "As regards the technique of further work with us Jurist [White] said that his wife was ready for any self-sacrifice; he himself did not think about his personal security, but a compromise would lead to a political scandal and the discredit of all supporters of the new course, therefore he would have to be very cautious.... Jurist has no suitable apartment for a permanent meeting place; all his friends are family people. Meetings could be held at their houses in such a way that one meeting devolved on each every 4-5 months. He proposes infrequent conversations lasting up to half an hour while driving in his automobile." Silvermaster, however, was angered by the meeting, and his hostile reaction to having been bypassed appeared to have caused the KGB New York station to defer additional direct contacts for a time. [118]

[118] "Maxim on Mer's first conversation with Pal." circa mid 1944, KGB file 35112, v4, p148, Vassiliev, White #3, 16. Venona 1119-1121 KGB New York to Moscow, 4-5 August 1944. The "new course" referred to a policy of American accommodation of Soviet foreign policy goals. Venona 1388-1389 KGB New York to Moscow, 1 October 1944.

The most interesting part of this passage—from VENONA 1119-1121—is the Spies footnote #118 which emphasizes how White, who died in 1948, is supporting a Soviet policy that didn't appear until 1954.

Much more likely in context here, new course likely refers to the post War IMF/IBRD effort, since the Bretton Woods conference establishing these institutions ended two weeks previous.

Also, the referenced VENONA cables 1388-1389 primarily discuss Silvermaster being upset at someone else approaching White. There is NOTHING about "new course" or Soviet foreign policy goals. Unless, of course there are additional versions of these cables that Haynes/Klehr/Vassiliev have access to.

I observe at least two serious distortions/errors/mistakes here: #1 the interpretation of new course and #2 the seemingly damning reference to the Silvermaster cable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DEddy (talk • contribs) 19:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Svetlana Chervonnaya/documentstalk.com

Hi, DEddy. If one click on "about this site", it will take to the page[2] which show that the this particular site is a personal website of Ms Chervonnaya.

In earlier time of wikipedia, people with rather fringe view used these type minor websites as soapbox to push their view. Then the consensus emerged in wikipedia that only materials which has gone through peer review and/or editorial oversight should be cited.[3] So citation from academic paper, media reporting, statistics from government agency, etc are fine.[4] On the other hand, an entry from the personal website of a Nobel prize winner is not o.k. Without this rule, wikipedia article on, say, "Holocaust" or "UFO" or "Climate Change" would be littered by citation from denial or conspiracy sources. Of course, it does not mean that wikipedia takes anything from media or government as fact. If you can find a citation from media or books published by reputable publishing house which cast doubt on FBI finding, then you are free to add that contents to wikipedia. Then it would be up to readers to examine these conflicting materials and draw their own conclusion. Vapour (talk) 06:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a citation from media or books published by reputable publishing house which cast doubt on FBI finding, then you are free to add that contents to wikipedia.

You're kidding, right?

I can most assuredly NOT speak to the greater Wikipedia, but in the context of this McCarthy era/Red Scare/Soviet spies issue, due to the extreme polarity of the views & opinions it is exceedingly difficult to find "unbiased/peer reviewed" materials. For certain NOTHING from the FBI was ever peer reviewed. From the 1920s to maybe 1995 or 2000 it was received, unquestionable TRUTH that what the FBI said either directly or indirectly was 100% unquestioned gospel. Now that all of the major players & I assume all the minor players are dead, there is a different version of "the truth" just beginning to appear... VERY slowly. This is very esoteric, complex material and one has to do a lot of reading, have known some of the players & bring tremendous amounts of historical knowledge to the table to grok what actually did or did not happen... regardless of the press releases.

What is or is not a "reputable publishing house" is of course a highly subjective judgement call. Example: the Schecter's "Sacred Secrets" where the chapter on Harry White has 54 footnotes, 11 of which (20%) are listed as "Soviet Intelligence Archives"... what kind of footnote is that? But it is a "published" book.

Then it would be up to readers to examine these conflicting materials and draw their own conclusion. Given that we (from the American perspective) have close to zero information about the Soviet view of all this, I find it difficult to grasp why you would reject DocumentsTalk because it's a "personal site." It's good material from a different perspective.

I would ask you... when you've been published have you been fact checked? DEddy (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it would be good to have a Russian view point and it is good to have critical commentary on FBI sources. But that is not really the point here. In wikipedia, the threshold of adding contents to any article is not the truthiness but verifiability [5]. For example, contents from Ann Coutler's book "Slander" pass the threshold of inclusion in wikipedia not because she speak the truth (she doesn't, at least according to my personal opinion), but because the book is published by a subsidary of Random House, the largest general-interest trade book publisher in the world.

there are vast amount of opinions about her available from established sources. This can't be said about Ms Chervonnaya. I seriously suspect that TV/radio talk shows are not going to seek out Ms Chervonnaya... she's not on the inflammatory talk show circuit . You're saying that Wikipedia policy ONLY includes peer reviewed academic research, newsmedia or established publishing houses. all others need not apply? That sounds like Big Brother censorship. DEddy (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You're saying that Wikipedia's "ok to be used" threshold is the size of readership? If you don't have an "established publishing house" behind you then you don't have a voice? Is that what you're tell me Wikipedia's policies are? DEddy (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

"peer review"... a very limiting, exclusionary practice. I thought Wikipedia is supposed to be inclusionary. Here's a true story about the power of "peer review"... a number of years ago I found a description of an interesting study/article from MIT's Sloan School. Topic was about software maintenance. I paid my money & got the full article. Yikes! While the abstract described a study about software maintenance the actual article pointed out that since a review of the academic literature was so lacking on the topic of software maintenance that the actual paper would discuss how object oriented programming would eliminate the need for software maintenance. Academics, on the publish or perish track, obviously live & die by "peer review." But the fact that academics don't publish or study software maintenance is to say that software maintenance does not exist? Huh?

Are you aware than Ms Chervonnaya was initially "published" (I have no idea what the meaning of "published" is on the Web... Hey!!!! Isn't Wikipedia "published" on the web & not on paper?) in concert with The Nation?

re: verifiability Please to address the issue of the Schecters book being ok where clearly at least in the context of the domain of Harry Dexter White, the Schecter statements are clearly unverifiable. This is ok by Wikipedia practices? BTW... the Schecter footnote/resource is used at least several times as "verification" in this domain. DEddy (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is inclusive in term of who can use and edit wikipedia. Anyone (including unregistered person) can edit the article. It is not inclusive in term of editorial policy. Constant and wilfull violation of editorial policies could be seen as vandalism and could get a person suspended and/or banned.

As of "Sacred Secrets", the issue (wikipedia verifiability) is whether one can verify that the book is "properly" published or not. On the other hand, you are talking about if the truth of the contents can be verified or not. The job you describe is supposed to be done by academia and media and not by us. (NO original research is another policy of wikipedia, btw). And indeed, some academic published commentary on Sacred Secrets, one in LA Times. [6]. So yes, the book as well as commentary by Professor Radosh can be included in wikipedia but not a content from personal website. As of "software maitenance", it is unlikely that this issue get attention from computer science field. However, I'm sure there is a plenty of books about software maintenance so that is where you should be looking for. Vapour (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Rather speculating about what is reliable, just read the policy and guideline about the question: WP:SOURCES, WP:IRS. FurrySings (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

To both Vapour & FurrySprings... those "references" to Wikipedia policy/guidelines are both circular & highly ambiguous.

One thing I'd like to know, which I don't remember seeing is those polices... what is a "personal website?" What is the substantive difference between a "personal website" and a vanity press publication like "Sacred Secrets" (and many others in this domain)? What makes www.documentstalk.com a "personal website?" DEddy (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

For that matter... www.whitakerchambers.org is obviously a "personal website." Is it permitted by the aforementioned Wikipedia policies to be referenced? What's the difference between the sites? DEddy (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

DEddy. Please act with good faith. Unless you are a child, you should know what personal website is. documentstalk.com is a personal website because it is created and operated by a person. As of Sacred Secrets, you can find out that it is not a self published book by just checking amazon.com, or for that matter by the fact that it was reviewed in L.A. Times. As of whitakerchambers.org, it seems to be operated by a relation of Whittaker Chambers. So unless the site become a news on its own and its contents get referenced in something like newspaper, it does not pass wikipedia verifiability. If you find a content sourced from this site, feel free to edit it out. Vapour (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Vapour—"is a personal website because it is operated by a person." Huh? ALL websites are created & operated by a person(s). If memory serves me (very difficult here on the web) DocumentsTalk.com started as sponsored by "The Nation." Surely something that passed the sniff test of "The Nation" is at least on par with L.A. Times. Perhaps that's too liberal for you, but as far as I know, political censorship isn't the topic of this discussion.

From what you have said so far, sites that are large & commercial are the only referencable sites for Wikipedia. Is that correct? In your evaluation system are DocumentsTalk.com and WhittakerChambers.org equal since they are "created and operated by a person?" My guess is that if you banned "personal websites because they're created/operated by one person" Wikipedia would be significantly "lighter."

Are you saying that Sacred Secrets is superior to the two aforementioned "personal" websites simply because Sacred Sites was physically printed on paper and the websites are not? Since Sacred Secrets was written by a husband & wife & allegedly reviewed in the L.A. Times, the book becomes a superior verifiable resource?

Perhaps I should ask... do you know anything about this topic, or are you just being a Wiki troll? Why is this conversation happening? Please explain WHY you object to DocumentsTalk.com as a reference. DEddy (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

In this context, a website created and/or operated by institution or organisations as opposed to "individual(s)" are not described as personal website. On the other hand, a website created and operated by a group of friends are still classed as a personal website. As of "the Nation", of course, the contents from the Nation, pass the threshold. Still, since documentstalk.com is no longer affiliated to the Nation, its content does not come under the Nation's editorial oversight. Wikipedia verifiability policy make no judgement in regard to "superiority" or "truthiness". It is explicitly stated in the policy documents that verifiability does not equal truth. The site is about presenting what is out in established academia, media and publishing world. documentstalk.com is not inclusion worthy simply because it is not a part of something wikipedia intends to reference. Vapour (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

the contents from the Nation, pass the threshold. Still, since documentstalk.com is no longer affiliated to the Nation, its content does not come under the Nation's editorial oversight So the content researched, vetted & published under The Nation umbrella suddenly becomes unworthy after it leaves that umbrella?

Wikipedia verifiability policy make no judgement in regard to "superiority" or "truthiness". It is explicitly stated in the policy documents that verifiability does not equal truth. So you/Wikipedia policy explicitly embraces that verifiability (because the reference is from established media) is superior to a different perspective?

site is about presenting what is out in established academia, media and publishing world So the message that is filtered through establishment media is superior to a different voice? Something the a national police force promulgates through it establishment media release process to hundreds of media outlets is "good" since it's verifiable & historical research work from an individual is not worth since it's not verifiable?

I have no idea if Jimmy Wales is still involved with Wikipedia, but do you honestly—do ponder this question before responding—believe that Mr Wales, or his successors, would embrace what you're telling me here about Wikipedia censorship policies?

Please answer... do you know anything about this topic? DEddy (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• It is the Nation "institute" not the Nation magazine. And the claim that "the content researched, vetted & published under The Nation umbrella" is unverifiable. You somewhat prove the point about wikipedia verifiability.
• It is more verifiable. For a website like wikipedia which is open to editing by amature, it is an infinitely sensible policy to limit the contents to academia and media.

• That's a pretty motivational ruling for me to pull all my comments/edits off Wikipedia since it's clearly not an organization I wish to be associated with. Is that the kind of response you wish to encourage from your contributors? DEddy (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• If someone can't or won't follow the policies of this site, that person is not a contributor. I can help you if you want to edit under the wikipedia policies and guideline. If you are not willing to do so, then I can not help you. Vapour (talk)

• Jim Wales is the person who made three core contents policy (NPOV, verifiability and no-original-research) non negotiable.
• Yes. Vapour (talk)

• Yes, what? Impossible to tell what you're answering? DEddy (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• My answer corresponds with your questions above. So "Yes" corresponds with your last question. Vapour (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Please answer... do you know anything about this topic? this is the question I was looking for an answer on, svp.

• How about venona_names Is this an acceptable website? Done by two people (one an academic, one not). Contents contents close to 100% unverifiable. Good? Not good? DEddy (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• I answered this question previously. Please pay attention to what I write.
• Hmm, I must apologise here. I said previously that "an entry from the personal website of a Nobel prize winner is not o.k.". This was the case in earlier time of wikipedia. The guideline appeared to have been modified. Please read the last paragraph of this section[7]. Anyhow, I'm assuming you are asking if this[8] page pass the threshold of inclusion. My guess is probably yes. John Earl Haynes`s credential can easily be verified. One just need to go to his wikipedia page and then cross reference it with something like amazon to know that he has a good track records of publishing materials in this field from reputable academic publishing house (Yale University Press). So this page probably qualify as something "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." As of Ms Chervonnaya, she does not appear to fall into this category.Vapour (talk)

a bit rash

Seems a bit rash to exclude he commentary. She is a professional academic and journalist and had a position at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. It may be her 'personal website', but that doesnt seem much different than if she made a speech at a conference or something saying the same things, and was quoted in a newspaper. Decora (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Operation Snow

The recent book "Operation Snow: How a Soviet Mole in FDR's White House Triggered Pearl Harbor", by John Koster" takes the position that White was not only a spy, but was responsible for the US side of the negotiations that induced Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. The point of the book was that if the US didn't enter WWII, the USSR was going to lose. So efforts were made to get the US into WWII. --John Nagle (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

An observation about the Koster book... while there is an impressive looking bibliography, there is not a single footnote in the entire book. The author even quotes one person—who I happened to know personally—in the body of the text and there is no bibliographic reference to this person. If memory serves me, Koster justifies the absence of footnotes by saying footnotes would slow the reader down. Plenty of imagination. Questionable facts. DEddy (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Spies reference?

Rjenson - could we have a page reference for the recent (1998) Spies allegation, please. It's a big book, covers a lot of ground & has jumbled to dead wrong facts, specifically about White. DEddy (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

sure -- read about White at John Earl Haynes; Alexander Vassiliev (2009). Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America. Yale University Press. pp. 259–60. ISBN 0300155727. Rjensen (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

pages=259–60

Thank you. Are your aware of the gross error (at least one, I suspect there are others, but I'll work on one at a time)? on pg 260? The A Soviet operative held the first direct covert KGB contact with White in July 1944. was Nikoli(sp)? Chechulin(sp?), the Vice Chairman of the Russian National Bank & head of delegation at Bretton Woods. Chechulin (cover Koltsov) arrived in Washington DC in January 1944 for early meetings with White & others. While I have to assume he would certainly "pass" information to KGB (as would American bankers & businessmen to CIA), he was hardly as "KGB operative" as implied in Spies. It took over 60 years to attach cover name Koltsov to Chechulin.

Video of IMF historian's comment about Chechulin & White. About minute 1:10, James Boughton with hand held microphone (not sitting down). http://www.imf.org/external/mmedia/view.aspx?vid=2314795165001 DEddy (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

wikipedia depends on reliable secondary sources such as recent books published by Yale university press. Will they contain errors? oh yes, but the errors have to be sourced by a similal RS--a video doesn't pass the rigid Wikiperdia rules. (it's self-published by IMF and sponsored by their PR department). Rjensen (talk) 03:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. What about blatantly political spin in print/book form? Is that considered RS or not?

This is really confusing, since if one source says NORTH & another says WEST isn't it more realistic to include BOTH opinions & let the reader choose & balance the inevitable contradictions for themselves, rather than to just show a single interpretation? DEddy (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

No one says White was innocent of espionage. One (Broughton) says he is not yet convinced. He says White did hire and protect Soviet spies and they may have stolen the info from his Treasury desk and passed it to Soviets. Broughton was an employee of the IMF and says he is defending that organization. 20:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

No one says White was innocent of espionage. Huh? Jim Boughton is the only person you're aware of who speaks in White's behalf? As far as I know—and I was on a jury last month—in this country, people are INNOCENT until proven guilty, not assumed guilty because no one says otherwise. White has been alleged by many to have passed information to the Soviets. He was never formally accused, charged or tried. So how can you say he was "not innocent?" There are plenty of reasons why what appears to be possible espionage wasn't.

Broughton was an employee of the IMF and says he is defending that organization. By this logic, any pronouncement, press release or speech coming out of any organization is just self defense PR. Certainly anything as politically charged as VENONA has to be treated as non RS since it is "defending that organization" and work done by their employees. How in any way is the IMF different than the NSA or the local Chamber of Commerce in such a regard?

Back to page 259-260 in Spies published in 2009. The description there is highly misleading. It describes White as meeting with a A Soviet operative held the first direct covert KGB contact with White in July 1944 who was discovered to be Nikolai Chechulin (sp?) in about 2000. Nine years later Spies strongly hints the man is a KGB agent rather than the official Bretton Woods delegate that he was. Spies makes no attempt to provide such background information. DEddy (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

1) "innocent until proven guilty" -- the great majority of historians think White has been proven guilty by history. He is dead and cannot go to prison. Broughton disagrees, saying that it is possible that one of the spies that White hired took the incriminating documents. 2) none of the VENONA employees are involved in the debate; 3) PR from any agency gets discounted and Broughton (see the video you cited) was brought in by the publicity dept of the IMF and says he is defending the IMF. (The spying in question was before White's IMF days). 4) The Spies book seems reasonably accurate: it claims correctly that White gave secret material to a person he knew would give it to the KGB, & did so hoping that the USSR would benefit. That is what spies do. Rjensen (talk) 05:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

the great majority of historians think White has been proven guilty by history. Who's on this list of "great majority of historians? The last two historians I read who touched on White used Elizabeth Bentley's story about the Occupation Currency Plates as evidence of Moscow's control of White. Only problem is the story doesn't hold water. The currency proofs were released by Bureau of Printing & Engraving on March 28?, 1944 & the three plane loads of plates, inks, papers, etc. left Washington on April 14-18. This means the proofs had to travel to Moscow & return in a smidge over two weeks. And then White—if Bentley's story is to be believed—had to dream up a justification AND convince folks. Do you honestly believe the folks in Treasury, State & War Departments were able to clear their desks—six weeks before D-Day—to focus on White's Moscow directed "request?" DEddy (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The great majority-- see Williamson Murray; Jim Lacey (2009). The Making of Peace: Rulers, States, and the Aftermath of War. Cambridge University Press. p. 295. ISBN 9780521517195. who reports that in 2004 one historian is still a holdout (and Broughton too). Rjensen (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Wait a minute here… you accuse Boughton of being a flak for the IMF & you offer up Williamson—a USAF flak—as a counter as an "historian?" Next thing we know you'll be offering the WWII strategic bombing campaign as an unquestioned success.

When one looks at the record, you can't help but see that the vast majority of the allegations against White are from the FBI's PR machine. Ask yourself this question. In the 1930s what was White's job at Division of Monetary Research? What did he need to know? What did he want from the Russians? None of the historians, including Craig I believe have ever mentioned WHY White was dealing with the Russians.

Back to the pg 259-260 passage… do you declare that Chechulin was a KGB agent now that it is known Koltsov=Chechulin=Co-Chairman of Soviet National Bank despite HK&V ignoring that knowledge? DEddy (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Charles Morse

Who pray tell is (was?) this Charles Morse who seems to not exist? www.charlesmorse.com DEddy (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

#1 - the accusation about the German Occupation Currency plates has been seriously discredited. The short story: in her initial 1945 signed statement to FBI, Bentley made no mention of the plates story, in her 1948 testimony, again there was no mention, & finally in 1954—very close to the height of McCarythy/Red Scare witch hunts, suddenly she does remember how White, under ORDERS from Moscow turned over the plates. The facts do not support the reality.

#2 - White/Treasury losing China is an old, old, old—original?—shibboleth from McCarthy's side of the isle. Again... great political mud ball, but the facts simply don't support what happened. Short story: the China Hands had been reporting for years that if we intended to remain in China after the War, we'd be wise to find another horse to ride (e.g. the only other known game was the communists). Such factual wisdom was obviously directly against Henry Luce's "American Century" vision that he fed the American people via TIME/LIFE. Whittaker Chambers—miraculously converted from communist courier to Luce's foreign editor, bragged as he tossed Teddy White's China dispatches into the trash without reading them. DEddy (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Morse is a radio host who interviewed White's daughter. His report is needed to balance her POV. Rjensen (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Morse is what appears to be a "conservative" radio personality. Is not therefore an opposing view allowed? Isn't his piece just as much self serving organizational PR —if not more so—as the IMF's Boughton? Plus let us duly note that Morse offers no references to what you offer as a RS footnote.

Personally I'd find it very suspicious if Joan Pinkham even spoke with Morse. She didn't want to talk about this stuff in the 1950s (I can direct you to information on that if you wish) & I seriously doubt if she warmed up to Right Wing media 50 years later.

Plus Boughton, speaking in 2013, has the benefit of 13 years more information on the situation than Morse did. 173.48.26.79 (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

to: Rjensen - much better edit on main page. Thank you.

Redacting my talk comments on Talk page isn't overly cool, but I'll let it pass for now. Please let us acknowledge there are progeny that defend their parents and both left & right wing opinions with every hue in between. No one comes to the table with a 360 degree view of so called reality (whatever that is).

What would you be more comfortable accepting... "Ann Coulter is hard line right wing polemicist & commentator (I'll leave out the classic line from "Working Girl" when Melanie Griffiths appropriately describes her boss, Sigourney Weaver)? Or "Ann Coulter is a preceptive published author, firmly grounded in the ground level situation?" To a Wikipedia reader who has no idea who Ann Coulter is or where she fits in the scheme of things, which is more appropriate? DEddy (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

people interested in Ann Coulter can learn all about her on wikipedia's main article. The IMF has a deep $$$ interest in protecting the reputation of its founding father. They pay people to protect their image, which is a conflict of interest from Wikipedia's standpoint. -- commentators in the US (born after White's death and with no connection to him whatever) have no such conflict of interest. Rjensen (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

That smacks of conspiracy theory thinking. I suggest not accusing others of conflict of interest without better proof. LK (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

conspiracy theory??? the IMF says in its magazine that "James M. Boughton is Historian of the IMF. " in the cited source Broughton, James M (September 1998), "Harry Dexter White and the International Monetary Fund", last line Rjensen (talk) 07:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Passing Documents reference

Heads up here. That reference to "Spies" is a fatally flawed reference. Published in 2005 it still references Koltsov(VENONA cover name)/Checulin (real name) as a KGB "agent" when in fact Chechulin was the Deputy Chairman of the Russian Central Bank & the head of the Russian delegation to the Bretton Woods conference.

Who would you expect White to be speaking with? Chechulin's secretary?

White was still trying to get the Soviets to sign on to the Bretton Woods agreements.

You can remove that line or I will. DEddy (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hull Note

If you think other scholars disagree with Steil by all means include them. But please don't try to cover up statements from those you disagree with!

Steil's book has been called “the gold standard on its topic” by the New York Times, “a triumph of economic and diplomatic history” by the Financial Times, and “a superb history” by the Wall Street Journal.

It seems you have a different opinion regarding the scholarly consensus from Steil. Please don't silence Steil, just include other opinions regarding the scholarly consensus.Jimjilin (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's keep this discussion of Steil in one place. I've responded at Talk:Hull_note#Harry_Dexter_White, so perhaps we can continue there. Binksternet (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

That Secretary of State Hull was seemingly taking orders from a lowly Treasury functionary seems very odd, particularly given the internal political rivalries of the time. DEddy (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Just in case: I have created the article Benn Steil. Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 11:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

173.66.83.12 (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC) Steil is quoted in the text, as it stands at this time (Dec. 2017), in a way that is misleading. It makes it sound half-way as if he is denying White's guilt. In fact Steil is very firm in asserting White's guilt. Please fix this. Thanks, Ira Straus 173.66.83.12 (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC) To correct the confusion, the question of White's guilt for spying and acting as an agent of Soviet influence needs to be distinguished clearly from the problem of White's lack of sense of guilt or treachery. Steil discusses the latter problem, too, and seems to explain it by the point that White's views were not too far outside of the mainstream of the New Deal as he understood it, meaning its leftward half if not majority and its cutting edge tendency. My interpretation of his point would be that White and others viewed, not the formal US Government, but the cause of the New Deal -- understood as its left side and inclusive of the Soviet Union as one of its international complements -- as the truest and most legitimate locus for the loyalty of a good citizen, the thing to which one is supposed to look up to as the bearer of one's conscience, and that one is not supposed to betray. This overlap with a factional, "cause" loyalty that pervaded much of the Administration, and no doubt the mass media of the time as well, is essential for understanding how White was able to survive in positions of power from which he was able to do tremendous damage, despite being identified as a spy. It apparently affected the mentality even of some such as Truman, who did not really believe consciously in the left as the bearer of his conscience, yet needed some time to shake free of its hold. Ira Straus 173.66.83.12 (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC) Many of the denials of White's guilt are logically dependent on the premise ascribed above to White, namely, that the left factional cause of the New Deal is the proper primary locus of loyalty, not the formal US Government. As such, it might be more accurate to describe some of them as a corollary to that ideological premise and a rewording of it, rather than as an independent attestation of conviction that he was not guilty before the formal US Government and its laws. Best regards, Ira Straus 173.66.83.12 (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC) The discussion of whether White's spying did much damage misses the point of why that spying matters. Steil went to some length, in his Foreign Affairs article on White, to detail the several damaging actions White took on behalf of Communist interests, giving totals of direct costs to the U.S. that probably would be many billions of dollars in today's terms. His tally does not count the indirect costs, such as White's considerable help in undermining the friendly Nationalist government in China and bringing the Communists to power there. This gives him a share, hard to put an exact number on but substantial, of the costs of the Korean War, of any future Korean conflict, and of any future conflict with China. It was understood already by White's critics in the 1950s that this was where he did his real damage. What makes the spying important is that it confirms his willingness to commit formal treachery against the formal, lawful government of the U.S. on behalf of Soviet Communism. When taken together with the damage he did in his foreign policy actions, it establishes the legally guilty motivation for those actions and renders the damage treasonous, on a scale probably exceeding that of any other traitor in US history. Regards, Ira Straus, 12.28.17 173.66.83.12 (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Steil showed that the Soviets, despite their fanatical love of control, were aware that White was not very controllable and would be mostly useful to them as an autonomous operator serving their interests. Regards, Ira Straus, 12.28.17 173.66.83.12 (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Unconditional Surrender

Re: " Benn Steil suggests the Morgenthau Plan "may well have extended the war and inflated Allied casualties."

Duly note that at the January 1943 Casablanca conference FDR—to Churchill's annoyance—announced "unconditional surrender" for Germany… which also stiffened German resolve & gave Goebbels propaganda fodder. This is year & a half before Morgenthau Plan. DEddy (talk) 02:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

White's Biographer?

At what point did Steil become White's biographer? Is Steil's Bretton Woods book a biography? DEddy (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

yes it is, but it focuses on a couple key years. Rjensen (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

White's job?

Do any of the folks here who so vehmently proclaim that White was without any question a spy, have any idea what his job was?

he was a top aide to Treasury secty and the chief postwar planner, where he tried to ensure a big role for USSR. Rjensen (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

So I may assume you do not know what his job was? Those are the ROLES he rose to, but what was his JOB? DEddy (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor

involvement lifted from another source—without either attribution or the source having ANY footnotes—is not what Wikipedia is about... is it? Do look at Koster's book. Not a single footnote. Steil's book is about Bretton Woods. Gratuitous slurs about White's alleged Pearl Harbor footnote. "They would confuse the reader" was his explanation. DEddy (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Steil did not read the standard scholarship -- many books and studies refute his idea. White was not a major decision maker in the decision to end negotiations with Japan. As for the American ultimatum, Roosevelt, Morgenthau, Stimson, Hull and all the top leaders had decided that Japan was launching an all-out war on the allies and would never agree to give up its conquest of China. Steil states Japan decided to attack Pearl Harbor because of the ultimatum. Nonsense. The Japanese fleet sailed to attack Pearl Harbor the day BEFORE Japan received the American ultimatum. Rjensen (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen. Thank you. DEddy (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

DEddy, since Steil brings up White's role regarding Pearl Harbor the book is obviously about this subject too!Jimjilin (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Steil's book is about Bretton Woods. Have you noticed the title of the book? "The Battle of Bretton Woods: John Maynard Keynes, Harry Dexter White, and the Making of a New World Order" It is not about Pearl Harbor. How much coverage does Steil devote to the topic? Four or five lines? I read Steil's book for two reasons: (1) to provide knowledge of why White' plan was so bad. That enlightenment was not provided. (2) If the allegations that White was a Soviet agent were true how did the Soviets benefit from White "working" for them at Bretton Woods. Also not provided. To toss in an off hand accuation (without providing a detailed provenance trail) that White provoked the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor with what I assume was at most a short paragraph simply isn't acceptable. If you want to say Steil plagerized material from Koster's footnote-less fantasy, give it a whirl. Besides... at the time (1941) White was a obscure Treasury functionary. How would he have such commanding influence over the State Department? For White to INSTRUCT State to provoke the Japanese would have been serious poaching... something that Cabinet departments do not take lightly under the best of circumstances. At the time Morgenthau's Treasury was ascendant & State was in the dog house. DEddy (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You need to study VENONA 1119 - 1121 & figure out who KOLTSOV (KOL'TsOV) was & his significance. I'll help... do look in HK&V's "Spies" on page pg 259 & 260. DEddy (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen, if you feel other scholars disagree with Steil go ahead and mention them in the article, but let's not cover up Steil's view okay?Jimjilin (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

To reiterate... does Steil offer any evidence for his accuation other than he says it? DEddy (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Steil literally misses the boat, having failed to note the sailing of the Japanese attack fleet earlier than White's ultimatum. Binksternet (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Steil missed a lot of things... like virgin source materials. My assumption is that if they're not listed in his bibliography, he didn't use them. DEddy (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Steil is not a reliable secondary source on Pearl Harbor. the reviewers explicitly reject Steil's analysis regarding Japan as shown by International Monetary Fund. [http://books.google.com/books?id=Se71H73MUOcC&pg=PA53 Finance & Development, March 2013. p. 53.] The revuew points out that Steil uses documents that scholars have proven to be fakes. Rjensen (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

DEddy, Steil's book devotes much more than 5 lines to the matter of White and Pearl Harbor. Koster discusses his sources with great specificity. Underlings have been known to exert enormous influence. Steil's book contains many footnotes.Jimjilin (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Koster discusses his sources with great specificity. Koster doesn't have a single footnote ("Too much work for the reader." were his words) in the book. Impressive LOOKING bibliography. He even goes as far as to quote someone I knew yet, there's no bibliographic reference to this person. The whole thesis of White taking ORDERS from a junior KGB agent is ludicrous beyond belief. White was after something else from that KGB guy. DEddy (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen, we've been through this before. If you'd like to include other sources that disagree with Steil go ahead, but Steil is a great source who shouldn't be ignored.Jimjilin (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The scholarly reviewers say that as far as Pearl Harbor is concerned, Steil is a terrible source based on forged documents. Only reliable sources are allowed in Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Some disagree with Steil but not all! As I've pointed out Steil's book received great reviews. Moreover I have another source: Koster. Some documents according to some historians might be dodgy, I don't know why you feel those were crucial to Steil's opinion. And why do you believe the task force could not have been recalled after Nov. 26? If you can find a good source that disagrees with Steil I encourage you to add it. Let's not cover up the debate, let's give Wikipedia readers both sides and let them make up their own minds.Jimjilin (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Could the Japanese task force of been recalled... Maybe but Steil explicitly says that it was sent out after and in response to the American ultimatum (That is false--The fleet sailed the day before the ultimatum was delivered), and that white wrote the ultimatum (that is false), and that he was told to do so by Soviet agents (that is false). No reviewer has praised his 1941 argument because it is based on his misunderstanding and fake documents, and his ignorance of the standard literature such as Langer and Gleason (1951). Rjensen (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)You are mistaken Rjensen, Steil wrote the Japanese made the decision "to move forward with the Pearl Harbor strike" after the ultimatum. If you want to include Langer and Gleason, go ahead. Steil's book received extraordinary praise. The entire book was praised. In the favorable reviews Steil's opinion regarding Pearl Harbor was not criticized.Jimjilin (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

"to move forward with the Pearl Harbor strike" after the ultimatum" Yes he does not know any better. No reviewer has praised the 1941 material, largely because he is dead wrong. He its name states and places wrong. He thinks that Stalin wanted Japan to distract the USA when no biography of Stalin agrees. The biographers all say that Stalin had total trust and Hitler in spring 1941. Steil does not cite a single biography of Stalin....He relies on a popular Russian book that is not based on serious research and includes forge documents. Steil Says that the Russian agents told white what to say, and offers zero evidence of that. Rjensen (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

why do you believe the task force could not have been recalled after Nov. 26? How about radio silence? DEddy (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Steil's book received great reviews. Where? Who by? The American Enterprise Institute? Took a look at "reviews" of Steil's book on Amazon. It would be interesting to track how many of those reviewers have ever written a negative review about a CFR book. DEddy (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen you have yet to provide evidence Steil's opinion was based "on a popular Russian book that is not based on serious research and includes forge documents." Your insistence on inserting your own opinion into this article is completely inappropriate. Reviewers have praised Steil's book which includes the Pearl Harbor matter.Jimjilin (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

here is the evidence as stated by a leading economics professor: "The 2002 history Steil uses to support his case [about Pearl Harbor] relies, itself, on documentation that historians John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr have determined to be fake." Eric Rauchway. "Whitewashing History" Finance and Development 50, no. 1 (March 2013) 53–54 online) Othe rreviewers have called Steil's allegations "controversial" as in The Journal of Economic History Volume 73#4 December 2013, p 1188. Rjensen (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Reviewers have praised Steil's book which includes the Pearl Harbor matter You're saying that since Steil's book was praised (beyond Amazon?) on its coverage of the Bretton Woods event, because Steil also accuses White of provoking Pearl Harbor, in the same book, this is evidence? What sources did Steil use for his Pearl Harbor accusation? DEddy (talk) 12:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The Journal of Economic History merely states that Steil has sparked an active debate. That is no reason to censor Steil! Should we suppress either side in a debate? Yes or no?Jimjilin (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

wiki suppresses speculation not based on reliable sources. Steil is reliable on Bretton Woods and not on Pearl Harbor Rjensen (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Great reviews and awards for Steil: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9925.html Jimjilin (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

First off, Steil is a revisionist, in the sense that he aims to change the mainstream understanding of the Bretton Woods situation. His analysis should only be considered in light of its non-mainstream position. Second, his book is about economics, not about military history. It doesn't take into account the various military timetables and unit movement records which are bread and butter for the military historian. Frankly, I don't see Steil taking over this page and reshaping its content with incorrect analysis. The only way I see Steil's Pearl Harbor analysis presented in this article is in the form of a firm rebuttal, if not outright dismissal. Binksternet (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Another source regarding White and Pearl Harbor: Communism at Pearl Harbor, How the Communists Helped to Bring on Pearl Harbor and Open up Asia to Communinization, Dr. Anthony KubekJimjilin (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Where do you get this stuff? You actually believe the Cold War myth that there were commies under every bed? Answer me this question... if J Edgar Hoover was the master spycatcher why was it it took two walk-ins (Cambers & Bentley) to TELL him was was happening right under his nose. The other issue... with all those spies crawling around Washington, tell me what the Soviets actually got? This may not be intuitively obvious but when espionage is effective the side doing the spying actually gets something useful.

I duly notice that amongst all those glowing Steil reviews on Amazon (which I assume is your basis for saying the book has lots of positive reviews), there are 47 mentions of Bretton Woods & 0 mentions of Pearl Harbor. What does that lead you to conclude? DEddy (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet, I agree both sides should be presented.Jimjilin (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of "both sides" being presented. Wikipedia does not give WP:UNDUE weight to arguments. The argument existing does not guarantee it a spot in the article. As noted by Binksternet, Steil is a revisionist, to include him would give his argument undue weight.-Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Xcuref1endx your belief that Steil and Koster are fringe figures is based on what? Steil's book received great reviews from prestigious sources.Jimjilin (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Where did I say WP:FRINGE? WP:UNDUE and Fringe are not the same thing. Please read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, it appears consensus is against your inclusion. This isn't about "suppression" against information, it's about presenting the most general and accepted information regarding any topic that can be backed up by reliable secondary sources without giving undue weight to theories that are outside what is generally accepted to be the case. Wikipedia isn't here to "deal with the controversy". -Xcuref1endx (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

How much influence did Harry Dexter White's Nov 1941 plan have? John Blum covered these matters in his 1964 book The Morgenthau diaries: years of Urgency: 1938-1941 pp 384-5. He emphasizes that White was making a peace proposal, not a war proposal. Both sides had to make major concessions. He called for the US to withdraw most of its forces from the Pacific, sign a 20 year nonaggression pact with Japan, internationalize Indochina, give up all American and British extraterritorial rights in China, force the British to turn Hong Kong over to China, loan Japan billions of dollars, and so on, with Japan in turn pulling out all its military forces out of China, among many other things. As Blum points out, the State Department used to the White proposals along with several other plans, to draft the American reply. In the process, says Blum, “White’s proposals lost their distinctive character…. To the deliberations in that delicate and laborious process [of framing a reply to Japan], neither Morgenthau nor his aides were privy." Anyone seriously interested in the question really should read Langer and Gleason The Undeclared War (1951) pp 875ff. Rjensen (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

1)Steil is a great source used elsewhere in the article. 2)Steil's book received great reviews: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9925.html 3)No evidence Steil's opinion was based on fake documents. 4)Soviet spymaster Vladimir Karpov: “The war in the Pacific could have been avoided,” wrote retired GRU military intelligence colonel and World War II “Hero of the Soviet Union” Vladimir Karpov in 2000, nearly sixty years after Pearl Harbor. “Stalin was the real initiator of the ultimatum to Japan,” he insisted. 5)Koster discusses his sources with great specificity. Time magazine article by Koster: http://nation.time.com/2012/12/07/pearl-harbor-2-0/ These are not fringe theories!Jimjilin (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

4)Soviet spymaster Vladimir Karpov: “The war in the Pacific could have been avoided,” And why is it we give weight to a retired KGB agent? You do know these guys are in the spin/disinformation business, right? DEddy (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead and quote Langer and Gleason Rjensen! I have no problem with a quote from even this antediluvian source. Can you answer my question: Should we suppress either side in a debate? Yes or no?Jimjilin (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Should we suppress either side in a debate? Yes or no? Where does this "suppress debate" come from? By continuing to push this issue when we know the accusation again White is nothing more than McCarthy era paranoia, you're taking a pro-McCarthy era stance. If you wish to continue to personally embrace McCarthy era paranoia, go ahead, but please let's not keep it publicly alive. DEddy (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

As a compromise I suggest we quote the opinions of Steil and Rauchway.Jimjilin (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Rauchway Who/what is Rauchway? With great specificity, please. DEddy (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

He wrote: https://books.google.com/books?id=Se71H73MUOcC&pg=PA53&dq=Steil+%22Pearl+harbor%22+Dexter&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2KKzVIKmM4q9yQTs04GgBw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Steil%20%22Pearl%20harbor%22%20Dexter&f=falseJimjilin (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The consensus on this page is clearly strongly against including Steil's notion that White was responsible for Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. Hundreds of historians have written on this topic, and no one has supported Steil. The problem is that Steil consulted none of the primary sources, and none of the major secondary sources. They state Explicitly explicitly that White really wanted a peace agreement between the United States and Japan, and that he (and Morganthau) had no role in the final decision-making in Washington in the weeks before Pearl Harbor. (see Blum quotes above). Steil instead relies on a popular book published in Russia years ago by someone who knew nothing about American or Japanese diplomacy. Some the key sources Steil relies upon are forge documents, as has been pointed out by professors Rauchway, John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr. Steil has never attempted to defend himself against any of the critics, and Jimjilin himself seems seems no longer to believe in Steil's speculation. Rjensen (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Based on my own professional readings in the literature on Pearl Harbor I endorse the argument summarized by Rjensen (just above) that 1) White's role in any decisions was small and could not have been responsible for Japan's attack and 2) that Steil is not a Reliable Source in any case. Since Steil's views are not grounded, there is no need to represent them. Probably no need to mention White's role in PH at all.ch (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Your claim Rjensen about "hundreds of historians" is just your personal opinion and not backed up by any data. Whether a book is popular or not is irrelevant and the Soviet spymasters certainly knew a lot about White and his activities in bringing about conflict. Rauchway claims Steil relied on fake documents, but this is his opinion and he offers no proof that Steil relied significantly on said documents. I continue to find Steil's argument convincing.Jimjilin (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

the Soviet spymasters certainly knew a lot about White That's not quite accurate. The descriptions of White in the Vassiliev papers (I forget if White's alleged "role" in Pearl Harbor is mentioned by Vassiliev) lean towards "Do we know who this guy is?" DEddy (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Rauchway claims Steil relied on fake documents, but this is his opinion The "opinion" on fake documents appears to be from no less than Haynes & Klehr. How can you possibly challenge such authorities? DEddy (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

ch, please check this out: Wikipedia:No original researchJimjilin (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor issue

This is an article on Harry Dexter White, not on Steil. Any coverage of White's activities in 1941 have to be based on the standard scholarly sources-- in this case the famous study by Langer and Gleason, the undeclared war. What we Need is a statement of what White actually did in 1940. What we do not want is a Commentary on what he did, without explaining what it was. We especially do not want a French commentary that has never been accepted by any serious historian, such as the revisionist conspiracy theory to the effect that Franklin Roosevelt started the war with Japan and did so by following White's advice that had been planted by Soviet spies. Rjensen (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I added the following text to the main article. There was no need to mention Steil (who is fully covered in the last footnote):

In November 1941, White sent a memorandum to Morgenthau that was widely circulated and influenced State Department planning. White called for a comprehensive peaceful solution of rapidly escalating tensions between the United States and Japan, calling for major concessions on both sides, including Japanese withdrawal from China. The American position all along had been a demand for Japanese withdrawal from China, which Japan totally refused to consider. [ref> William Langer and Everett Gleason, The Undeclared War (1953) pp 875-901. </ref] The complex negotiations at the top ranks of the US government, and its key allies of Britain and China, took place in November 1941 with no further input from White or Morgenthau. White’s proposals were never presented to Japan, [ref>Blum, The Morgenthau diaries: years of Urgency: 1938-1941 (1965) pp 384-86 </ref] Right-wing revisionist historians who blame FDR for causing the war with Japan have argued that White was the key intermediary between the Kremlin and Roosevelt's decision for war. Historians reject that argument, pointing out it is based on forged documents. [ref> Eric Rauchway. "Whitewashing History" Finance and Development 50, no. 1 (March 2013) 53–54 online </ref] Rjensen (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Does Jimjilin think that Steil's assessment is correct or not?? Rjensen (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

If we use the Koster book Operation Snow: How a Soviet Mole in FDR's White House Triggered Pearl Harbor, there is no need to mention Steil because Steil adds nothing new and has far less detail. Rjensen (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I object most strenuously. Koster's book does not offer a single footnote. He quotes someone for which there isn't even a bibliographic reference. His book cannot possibly pass muster as historical analysis. For heaven's sake, it's published by Regnery. How low can you go? Who's ever heard of a history book—particularly on a complex, contentious topic—with no footnotes? I get the impression that Steil built on Koster's foundation of sand. How could Steil have made his case—other than by simply stating "it is so because I say so"—in 5 pages when Koster takes 350 pages? Or are we back to the Wikipedia standard of: "If it's a published book it must be a RS?" DEddy (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with DEddy that the revisionist position is Rejected by practically all historians. However it is out there in the popular literature, and it should be covered in this article rather than ignored. Readers come to Wikipedia for refutation of false claims, so I tried to provide it. As for Steil, he has nothing new re Pearl Harbor indeed, I have not seen a single historian or popular writer who respects or agrees with Steil on Pearl Harbor. He can be ignored on this point. I am still puzzled however about Jimjilin -- does he agree with Koster and Steil or not?? Rjensen (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Sam Tannenhaus

It is my understanding that Chambers complained that White turned over what he wanted to rather than what was asked for. Does Tannenhaus say something different? Can someone connect the dots from their own knowledge of this topic and deduce WHAT White wanted from the Soviets? Am I going to have to dig into—yawn—Blum for a page reference? DEddy (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

that is just what Tanenhaus says. Blum has an index. Rjensen (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Under the "Bretton Woods Conference" section, first paragraph second sentence -- the author(s) state that White's positions on the Bretton Woods system differed from John Maynard Keynes (true so far), and then added "economic historian Brad Delong" thinks Keynes was right on each and every issue (no mention of many many other viewpoints that differ from Delong).

Just because Wikipedia, and many of its editors, are based around San Francisco CA and the Berkley campus -- that does not mean that Berkley's extreme left wing political viewpoints represent the views of all US citizens, or all economists, never mind a "neutral point of view" WP:NPV that wikipedia is supposed to take.

Many economists think the entire Bretton Woods system was doomed from the start -- the record of central economic planning (not just BW) has been a disaster. Still other economists think the BW system worked fine for decades, and it was Keynesian fiscal policy in Washington DC that caused Bretton Woods to collapse.

Why is the Berkley / Brad Delong viewpoint the only view included? Why is this one single economist's opinion treated as though it were fact (which it is not)? Other49states (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

User Rjensen ... Do not revert my edit yet again -- first check your own bias. According to your talk page, you apparently studied theology and claim to have a PhD in said. Does that make you the world expert on every single religion (hopefully that is a rhetorical question)? The subject I am questioning is either economics (which is NOT really Brad Delong's specialty) or else I am questioning political science (which is what every major university, including your Yale and Delong's Berkley) considered economics until the 1970s (give or take, the switch didn't happen all at once). Just because you are (supposedly) a PhD in theology does not mean you mastered all religions, and certainly doesn't mean you know economics. There are many many economic schools of thought, even if theology majors are unaware. Brad Delong's well established left wing politics (see the wikipedia page on him) makes him more of a political commentator than an economist (his job title might be economist, but his activities are political). Other49states (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm curious... what White/Bretton Woods policies does DeLong say have been proved wrong? When I tried the link behind the DeLong statement, it didn't work.

Some folks are still waving their hands that White was a Soviet spy (witness the recent Benn Steil booki). Has anyone presented evidence—not the same thing as allegations—how whatever White did at Bretton Woods actually BENEFITED the Russians? After all Russia did not join Bretton Woods/World Bank. DEddy (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

As I understand Delong's various comments (the link didn't work for me, but Delong has made many comments on the subject so I am inferring the bad link had similar sentiments)... As I understand Delong's comments, he wasn't really talking about White as a Soviet spy / informant / etc. Delong is an ardent supporter of Keynesian economic policies -- or by some definitions, "new Keynesian policies". Keynesian policies practiced in the UK led to England needing an IMF bailout in the 1970s. In the US, Nixon declared "we are all Keynesians now" as Vietnam war spending spiraled higher -- Watergate and a decade of stagflation followed. Keynesian policy "works" in theory, but using real world results in Keynes' home country and in the US it failed miserably... so Keynesian proponents, like Delong, started promoting "new keynesianism" (under various labels) trying to defend perpetual deficit spending. In fairness to Keynes (the man, not the political movement Delong represents), Keynes advocated fiscal/monetary policy that "leaned against the wind" -- deficits during recessions, but SURPLUSES when the economy was growing (pay the debt back). In practice, politicians calling themselves Keynesian (like Mr Delong) have used Keynes theories to justify perpetual deficit spending. No, they don't say they support perpetual deficit spending, but if you look at the real world results: they run deficit spending all the time... which is quite different from what Keynes himself proposed (one might argue that implementing Keynesian policy in real life would require omniscience that no human actually possesses -- but if the so-called Keynesians were attempting to act as Keynes advised, they would show some actual spending surpluses at least during some periods).

Anyway, I suggested the propaganda be removed precisely because it has very little, if anything, to do with Harry Dexter White or Bretton Woods. It was Brad Delong's opinion, falsely represented as though it were anything more than one person's opinion. Some economists agree with him, many do not -- but Keynes "lost" every argument for reasons that have nothing to do with Keynes or White (perhaps this should be on the page instead?). It is true that White and Keynes disagreed on many points, and also true that the US government ended up prevailing on each of those points -- because of the US economic and military position at the end of WW2 (when the Bretton Woods agreement was reached). The US delegation happened to be headed by Harry White. England needed money and resources to rebuild its economy, and the US was the only major economy not in rubble after the war. The US government (Truman, Congress, etc, etc) decided how they wanted things done, and for diplomatic reasons tried to be sensitive to other allies wishes (including England). But the US government said "jump" and everyone jumped. Harry Dexter White (whatever his Soviet spy status may have been) was the messenger of Washington DC. Much of the IMF, World Bank and the Marshall loan program were designed to help western economies rebuild (under US influence) and prevail against the Soviet influence -- which is why the Soviets didn't join. Harry White might have leaked that agenda explicitly to the Soviets (intentionally or unintentionally), but the agenda of US lending wasn't exactly hard to discern. Harry White probably leaked (intentionally or unintentionally) more sensitive information to the Soviets -- but that is outside my area of knowledge, and I have to defer to others commenting / writing in other parts of the talk page. Other49states (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Skidelsky and de Long are two of the world's most famous economic historians, and Wiki rules on NPOV require the INCLUSION of major views. Are there economic historians with a different view on Bretton Woods? If so please ADD them so readers can get a full picture of the debate. Other49states seems to defend a Soviet spy and eliminate White's critics based on zero Reliable sources. Actually Other49states is primarily concerned with attacking a very different set of Keynesian ideas re deficit spending during a recession, but that is not connected to Bretton Woods. Rjensen (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about User:Rjensen? I said, explicitly, that I don't know enough about your stupid spy crap, and I deferred to others. Brad Delong is hardly a world famous economist, he is a widely known US professor closely associated with democratic administrations, and critical of republican administrations. Want to hear the names of economists that are world famous? Karl Marx, Hernando De Soto, Milton Friedman, Joseph Schumpter, Adam Smith, John Keynes is.

And I will repeat that Delong's views, whether you vote democrat or republican, have nothing to do with Harry White, who was a BW delegate of the US government -- he was not acting on his own. Other49states (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I did not invent "the stupid spy crap" I think the overwhelming consensus of scholars agree White was a Soviet agent. As for the economics I added the conclusions of the two latest scholarly studies: The Battle of Bretton Woods: John Maynard Keynes, Harry Dexter White, and the Making of a New World Order (2013) by Benn Steil; and Forgotten Foundations of Bretton Woods: International Development and the Making of the Postwar Order (2014) by Eric Helleiner. Other49states seems to have read zero economic historians who dealt with Bretton Woods--he instead relied more on old-timers like Adam Smith and Karl Marx, none of whom defended HD White's policies at Bretton Woods. Rjensen (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

old-timers like Adam Smith and Karl Marx, none of whom defended HD White's policies at Bretton What relevance do Smith & Marx have to White, much less Bretton Woods which was in 1944? Smith died 1790, Marx died 1883. White was born 1892. White's strength was international monetary issues... please correct me here since I've not read either Smith or Marx, but I don't think they were looking at international monetary issues. Marx was into labor. I don't think I've ever seen anything on labor & White.

Steil's book is considered a scholarly study? Wow! That's like calling Ann Coulter an historian. Steil bases his accusations about White on a single "new" (old if you talk to other White scholars) piece of information... White's comment to himself at the end of an unpublished paper "And it works..." Which is taken by Steil as solid evidence that White was a convert to the Soviet system. Very weak. DEddy (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Harry Dexter White. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091014073814/http://econ161.berkeley.edu/Econ_Articles/reviews/skidelsky3.html to http://econ161.berkeley.edu/Econ_Articles/reviews/skidelsky3.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070629055716/http://origin.www.gpo.gov/congress/commissions/secrecy/pdf/12hist1.pdf to http://origin.www.gpo.gov/congress/commissions/secrecy/pdf/12hist1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

New External Link?

"The Archival Evidence on Harry Dexter White", a summary of references to Harry White found in the Venona decryptions

Is there provenance for this document? Where's it from? Who wrote it? Who posted it? DEddy (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Harry Dexter White. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120718012823/http://ultra-secret.info/CSR/Holdings/Soviet/NKVD.htm to http://ultra-secret.info/CSR/Holdings/Soviet/NKVD.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726022429/http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster016.pdf to http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster016.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726024554/http://www.education-research.org/PDFs/splitfiles/splitprocessed/Silvermaster016_Folder/Silvermaster016_page98.pdf to http://www.education-research.org/PDFs/splitfiles/splitprocessed/Silvermaster016_Folder/Silvermaster016_page98.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726024610/http://www.education-research.org/PDFs/splitfiles/splitprocessed/Silvermaster016_Folder/Silvermaster016_page99.pdf to http://www.education-research.org/PDFs/splitfiles/splitprocessed/Silvermaster016_Folder/Silvermaster016_page99.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726024638/http://www.education-research.org/PDFs/splitfiles/splitprocessed/Silvermaster016_Folder/Silvermaster016_page100.pdf to http://www.education-research.org/PDFs/splitfiles/splitprocessed/Silvermaster016_Folder/Silvermaster016_page100.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100327103412/https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/venona-soviet-espionage-and-the-american-response-1939-1957/15.gif to https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/venona-soviet-espionage-and-the-american-response-1939-1957/15.gif
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100327103142/https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/venona-soviet-espionage-and-the-american-response-1939-1957/15a.gif to https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/venona-soviet-espionage-and-the-american-response-1939-1957/15a.gif
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100327103552/https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/venona-soviet-espionage-and-the-american-response-1939-1957/15b.gif to https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/venona-soviet-espionage-and-the-american-response-1939-1957/15b.gif
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726023440/http://education-research.org/PDFs/SOVIET%20REPORT.pdf to http://education-research.org/PDFs/SOVIET%20REPORT.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726023440/http://education-research.org/PDFs/SOVIET%20REPORT.pdf to http://education-research.org/PDFs/SOVIET%20REPORT.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726024646/http://www.education-research.org/PDFs/splitfiles/splitprocessed/Silvermaster156_Folder/Silvermaster156_page54.pdf to http://www.education-research.org/PDFs/splitfiles/splitprocessed/Silvermaster156_Folder/Silvermaster156_page54.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726023600/http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster156.pdf to http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster156.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewpdf.cfm?article_id=10726
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100909200438/http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/venona/sep_1944.shtml to http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/venona/sep_1944.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harry Dexter White. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100721004854/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hiss/8-3testimony.html to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hiss/8-3testimony.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

actual job titles

can we put his actual job titles at Treasury in the article somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwray (talk • contribs) 16:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

death by digitalis

86.191.95.230 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Is there a reason you continue to insist that his cause of death is mentioned in the lede? This is your opportunity to reach consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

There are 3 versions of White's death that I'm aware of: 1) heart attack, 2) suicide & 3) the KGB eliminated him. 2) & 3), of course, make far better headlines & stories, particularly in that period of rapidly rising Cold War paranoia.

He'd already had several heart issues. Plus... during WWII, he was on something like 40 committees. My guess would be he was a tad overworked. Any questions? DEddy (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

conflicting profiles

..."It is this chasm between what is known publicly of White's economic and political views, on the one hand, and his clandestine behavior on behalf of the Soviets, on the other, that accounts for the plethora of unpersuasive profiles of the man that have emerged."

Anyone want to ponder this one... HOW did the Soviets pay for the five-year plans in the 1930s (after repudiating Western debt)?

Anyone consider that White possibly gave something (we really don't know what, since "classified information" is a massively overblown & titillating term in DC) in order to (hopefully? possibly?) GET something in return?

Do remember, as a Keynesian (see: "Economic Consequences of the Peace", 1919), White was well aware another war was coming. Our first venture into the European war is 60,000 troop into North Africa, 18 months AFTER Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union. To some it was very clear it was necessary to keep the Soviets in the war while we got our war industry going. DEddy (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

A ridiculous suggestion. What would he have just printed a bunch of dollars age sent to them to the Soviet Union? That would have showed up as a massive increase in trade from the United States to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was a planned economy and questions of how it afforded the five year plan are kind of missing the mark, the economy was inherently based on planning not money and markets, they just ordered the people to correct places, they didn't worry about paying for it. They were largely concerned with the investments of labor they'd have to make and the transport of the materials. I'm not even sure if Soviet enterprises even used money among themselves, laborers would be assigned from the labor pool and the central planners would allocate so and so much labor and so and so much materials from other parts in the supply chain and legally it had to be distributed to them. 2601:140:8900:61D0:4407:F60D:797C:318A (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)