-
Pick Obama’s Brain
May 16, 2013 | 61 comments
-
Remembering Herb Romerstein
May 10, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Obama’s Planned Parenthood Love Fest
April 29, 2013 | 69 comments
-
Happy Earth Day… and Lenin Day
April 22, 2013 | 33 comments
-
Bill Casey’s Centennial
April 5, 2013 | 69 comments
Buy the Book
The Stalinist Assassin
Few knew Fidel Castro quite like the CIA’s Brian Latell.
(Page 3 of 3)
There were anecdotes involving Indiana state legislator Vernon Wormser, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and Hillary Clinton’s vast right-wing conspiracy (of which we’re all proudly a part); an acknowledgment of Bob Tyrrell’s “persecution” of the Clintons; and an observation on the ideological aspects of aging: “I’ve always felt that anyone who has his head screwed on right should be conservative when he is young and, as he gets older, become more and more conservative.”
That, in a nutshell, is the road Stan Evans has taken. In 1955 he graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Yale, where he’d been an editor of the Yale Daily News. He went to work at the Freeman, was named editor of the Indianapolis News (where at 26 he was the nation’s youngest editor of a metropolitan daily), and became one of the earliest contributing editors of National Review, and an ally and friend-to-the-end of Bill Buckley, Bill Rusher, and Frank Meyer. (Many conservatives were upset when, after Frank Meyer’s death, George Will rather than Stan Evans was appointed NR’s books editor.) He was a frequent contributor to Human Events and to TAS, to which he also provided valuable advice and counsel, especially during the early Indiana years. He was a columnist for the Los Angeles Times news syndicate, founder and president of the National Journalism Center, and president of the American Conservative Union and the Philadelphia Society.
He was also one of those young conservatives, along with Lee Edwards, whom Bill Buckley and Marvin Liebman recruited to help with the founding of Young Americans for Freedom. Stan Evans drafted the Sharon Statement, and Lee Edwards became the first editor of New Guard.
Evans is author of nine books, among them the magisterial Blacklisted by History, a vindication of Senator Joseph McCarthy based on an intensive analysis of now-available FBI files and material from Soviet archives. In Stalin’s Secret Agents, he continues his examination of the depth and breadth of Soviet subversion, as revealed through primary sources and formerly secret documents.
His co-author, Herbert Romerstein (The Venona Secrets), a leading Cold War expert, served on the staff of several congressional committees, among them the House Intelligence Committee, and headed the USIA’s Office to Counter Soviet Disinformation from 1983 to 1989, when the extraordinarily nightmarish Soviet alternative universe finally imploded.
That implosion occurred in no small part because of the continued pressure, despite the best liberal attempts to thwart it, applied to Washington thinkers, legislators, and policy makers by outnumbered conservative spokesman, journalists, and patriots like Evans and Romerstein. The fact is that there was indeed a genuine international communist conspiracy, and the ultimate success of this conspiracy necessarily entailed neutralizing opposition from the United States. To this end, Joseph Stalin’s agents of influence infiltrated the federal government at the highest levels, one of their primary objectives being to shape our foreign policy in a manner favorable to the Soviet Union.
With FDR’s health and mental capacity steadily diminishing, these agents of influence, among them Harry Hopkins, one of FDR’s closest advisers who came to be known as the “Deputy President” (he actually lived in the White House), increasingly steered American foreign policy in pro-Soviet directions.
Evans and Romerstein focus on the Yalta Conference of early 1945, a meeting at which the big three—FDR, Churchill, and Stalin—decided the futures of nations like Poland and Yugoslavia in the post-WWII world. Two conflicting views about that future would set the tone of the talks. Winston Churchill believed that “the West urgently needed to shore up its defenses against the expansion of Soviet power,” while among those apparently speaking for FDR (the authors convincingly document the president’s mental deterioration, witnessed by a wide variety of reputable observers and casting doubt on his ability to think clearly), “the impending dominance of Soviet power in Europe was not something to be combated, deplored, or counterbalanced, but rather an outcome to be accommodated and assisted.”
Part of this view was no doubt an extraordinary misreading of Joseph Stalin by those, who, if they weren’t agents of influence, served effectively as useful idiots. The authors quote an assessment of Stalin written by Joseph Davies, our ambassador to Moscow: “He [Stalin] gives the impression of a strong mind which is composed and gentle. A child would like to sit on his lap and a dog would sidle up to him.” And FDR himself is quoted as having said to a somewhat startled cabinet “that as Stalin early on had studied for the priesthood, ‘something entered into his nature of the way in which a Christian gentleman should behave.’”
In much the same vein, the authors quote William Bullitt on FDR’s view of aid to Stalin. Said FDR: “I have just a hunch that Stalin doesn’t want anything but security for his country, and I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything and will work for world democracy and peace.” (Emphasis added by the authors.)
And that, at Yalta, is pretty much what happened. The authors go on to give an account of the dealings between FDR and Stalin, including FDR’s attempt to cut Winston Churchill out of the discussions so as not to upset Stalin, and some tasteless jokes told by FDR, including a highly offensive reference to the problems he and Stalin shared in dealing with Jews.
But tastelessness, bigotry, and intellectual shallowness aside, and given the obvious physical and mental deterioration, how did FDR come to so misread and misunderstand the basic and unchanging goals of Soviet policy? The answer: He had no coherent idea of what he was doing and his policies, resulting in the great concessions made to the Russians at Yalta, were in large part the result of the work of dupes and useful idiots led by a genuine traitor, Alger Hiss, who as a Russian agent played a central role in shaping the conference.
According to one report, write the authors, “The KGB lamented that Hiss was already spoken for by the rival Soviet agency GRU (military intelligence), saying that if the KGB had such a source at State ‘no one else would really be needed.’” (And thus, in the end, to the distress of liberal fellow-traveling dupes everywhere, would Whittaker Chambers be totally vindicated, as would Richard Nixon, the congressman who stood by him.)
Evans and Romerstein identify key conspirators and agents planted in high positions in the federal government, as well as the central roles played by such influential advisers as Harry Hopkins and Henry Morgenthau. They document the indifference of the bureaucracy to the threats posed by communist infiltration, as well as the orchestrated cover-ups, including rigged grand jury sessions, that prevented Congress and the American people from receiving facts about the extent of that infiltration. In a perceptive review of Anne Applebaum’s splendid new book, Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe, 1944–1956, Norman Davies writes: “Perhaps the hardest thing for Eastern Europeans to bear was that no one in the outside world cared. As seen from Washington and London, Applebaum writes, ‘Russia’s behavior in Eastern Europe…was hardly worth noticing at all.’” Or worse, as the evidence mustered by Evans and Romerstein strongly suggests, noticed in some influential quarters with approval.
As Wlady Pleszczynski points out, Ms. Applebaum’s book “is getting deserved attention, in part because it focuses on something that’s either been forgotten or was never paid attention to by the dominant liberal culture, when that culture wasn’t colluding with the Stalinists and Stalinoids.”
For the same reasons—and whether it’s agents of influence, traitors, dupes, or useful idiots—Stalin’s Secret Agents merits the same critical attention.
About the Author
Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. He is author of the new book The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor. His other books include The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism and Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.
Commander Kelly | 2.7.13 @ 6:33AM
Interesting points in this article. See my post "Conspiracies through History" only here...http://americanconservativeinlondon.blogspot.co.uk/
Doctor Right| 2.7.13 @ 7:39AM
EDITOR:
Looks like you've run an older article about Stanton Evan's new book onto the end of this one.
Doctor Right| 2.7.13 @ 7:46AM
I have long believed that Castro had arranged for Kennedy's death to avenge his wounded pride from the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.
If Oswald was involved at all, it was as a patsy of Castro, not of some right-wing conspiracy promoted by Oliver Stone.
In my mind, this explains the need for the obvious and ongoing cover-up that started with the Warren Commission. The Commissioners knew all along that it had been Castro, but they and President Johnson obviously feared the reaction if that information went public.
The world had narrowly averted nuclear war in October of 1962. If the American people knew that Castro had killed their President, an invasion of Cuba would have been inevitable. This would naturally have drawn the US into conflict with the Soviets, who would have come to the aid if Castro.
The cover-up was the only way to avoid World War III.
When Castro assumes room temperature - hopefully soon - then maybe the truth will emerge.
Alan| 2.7.13 @ 8:38AM
A lot of people still don't realize just how close we came to nuclear disaster in that Cuba crisis. The Soviets had far more than nuclear Intermediate range missiles on that island. The US invasion force and fleet would have been evaporated before they ever landed on that island. I also believe that Castro had a hand in the asassination.
JmsA| 2.7.13 @ 11:49AM
Don't be so certain the Russians would have come to the aid of Castro should Cuba have been invaded by the U.S. It was the Russians, upon realizing they could not trust Castro with the nuclear weaponry, that made them remove the missiles from Cuba. In fact, more than fifty Russians ships managed to bypass the so-called blockade.
Alan| 2.7.13 @ 12:33PM
What made them remove the Missiles from Cuba was the US overwhelming strategic strength compared to the Soviet's arsenal of few if any workable ICBM's from the Soviet Mainland. The US later threw them a bone by removing the Jupiters from Turkey. The whole idea behind operation "Anadyr" was to take a short cut to create some kind of deterence against a US attack on the Soviet Union and to gain the Soviets time to build up an ICBM long range deterrance which was at the time almost useless as a counter deterrence.
The Nuclear Weaponry brought to Cuba was NEVER going to be left to the Cubans to use, maintain or them to have anything to do with in any way. It was all strickly in Soviet Control and Castro agreed to that. The warheads and delivery systems were strickly under Soviet Military control and would stay totally under their control. What the US did not know until many years later was that the Soviets also had Battlefield Tactical Nuclear weapons(Frog missiles and possibly some Scud short range missiles) positioned to oppose a US invasion.
Interviews with Soviet commanders who took part in the situation conducted many years later said that they had the authority to use them to oppose any attempts by the US to invade including launching Nukes at the US fleet and landing Forces. Castro later admitted that if the US did invade he was totally convinced that Cuba would have dissappeared and so would the US invasion force.
JmsA| 2.7.13 @ 1:43PM
Serge Nikoyan, the son of Soviet Foreign Minister, Anastas Nikoyan, has written that up to face to face meeting by the latter and Fidel Castro in November 1962, the Soviets had secretly planned to leave behind in Cuba over 100 tactical nuclear weapons. It was not until they came to understand Castro's "obstreperous" behavior relative to his feelings about being left out of the negotiations with the U.S., that they, the Soviets, changed their mind. In fact, those truly in the know, and as history has subsequently shown, understand that the placement of the missiles in Cuba had nothing to do but with projection of power, and ultimately, the guaranteed survival of Castro and communism in Cuba, from where not the remainder of the southern American continent has been turned if not socialist, then at least neo-socialist, but subversive activities have been carried out, not to mention proxy wars for the benefit of Soviet expansionism throughout the World.
JmsA| 2.7.13 @ 1:53PM
It follows then, that as to Cuba, as well as anywhere else they endeavored to expand, the Soviets followed their method and slogan, and I paraphrase: Thrust forward with the bayonet, and if resistance is encountered, pull back and try somewhere else. I call it the chopping wood effect: Keep on chopping and eventually the tree will fall. What you claim, is not what happened in Cuba. It's not the grand strategy you've posited; it was just a very thought out long-term strategy in the backyard of a World Power, against a young and inexperienced counterpart, Kennedy, operating under domestic political restraints, namely appearing heroic to the voting public, in exchange for a treaty guaranteeing no further attempts to invade or subvert Castro's dictatorship from the U.S. It appears you can't see the forest for the trees. Don't believe everything you hear or read from communist Russians, particularly those from that era. They were truly committed communists, who are now just engaging in hyperbole. They never had any intention to go to war over Cuba.
Alan| 2.7.13 @ 4:11PM
First of all, get your facts about missiles straight, the tactical Nukes described in that discussion had nothing to do with the reasons for removal of the Strategic SS4 and SS5 missiles which are considered "Offensive" weapons because they can reach the US homeland from Cuba. The Tactical weapons(your describing nuclear tipped FROG-7 and scud) proposed to be left behind are NOT and were not considered Offensive(because they are considered short range battlefield weapons) since they could only be used due to limited range as defensive in nature.
Alan| 2.7.13 @ 4:11PM
The purpose of the placement of Intermediate range SS4's and SS5's and the crux of the crisis was to buy time to close the gap Khruschev was terrified about due to the nature of the imbalance with the US. The defense of Cuba was important but secondary in purpose. The Soviet SS6 and SS7 ICBM programs, Missiles which could reach the US, was in shambles and at the time the Soviets had a credible force of a dozen of so ICBM's that could launch from Soviet soil, and none of them were in hardened launchers to survive a first US strike. The reason Khruschev backed down and removed them was simply because he knew his bluff was called, if a nuclear war occurred the Soviet Union would have been devastated in comparison with what the US would have suffered and he knew it. His bluff was called and he had no choice but to back down. The strategic Missiles, aka IRBM's were always UNDER Soviet control, soviet personal, and the decision to use them was in Soviet control. As I said, any Nuclear weapons that were in Cuba were always under Soviet control, proposals to allow Cuban control of anything were just that proposals. The crisis was about the SS4's and SS5's, not the tactical weapons which at the time the US didn't even know existed and were not the subject of the Cuban Missile crisis.
Alan| 2.7.13 @ 4:13PM
Lastly, if your going to advise not believing Communist sources of the time as now engaging in hyperbole, then don't quote one yourself. I can quote plenty of Soviets sources and references.
JmsA| 2.7.13 @ 5:27PM
Your comments are full of surmise and conjecture. I deal with facts, especially the final facts or end results. Such, irrespective of your deep in the weeds comments about missiles, it's what ultimately matters, as is the subject of the author's thesis: Castro, tyrannical communism, and what came and continues to come from it, including the possible assassination of President Kennedy. The purposes of the missiles, whether tactical or strategic, were to ensure the survival of Castro's communist tyranny, absent a treaty non-intervention or invasion, whether aided or carried out by the U.S. I guess you can't help but miss the obvious. Go back to your reading; maybe you'll learn it, though I doubt it. The end result is what matters: Cuba remained a communist dictatorship, spreading its socialist poison about the world. I don't care about the missiles; that's ultimately a side issue and a seemingly simple (particularly to you), yet very complex and drawn out geopolitical phenomenon. Read the post again, it's not about missiles, which are but a tool in the overall geopolitical context.
If you have a fetish about missiles, so be it. I don't care. If the Russians really wanted a fight, they would have acted in Berlin, or elsewhere.
JmsA| 2.7.13 @ 6:16PM
You can quote all the Russians you want, but you weren't there, in Cuba. I was. As were my parents, including my father, not only a doctor, whose patient's included many high-ranking Russian military and diplomatic personnel, but also Vice-Minister of Public Health, including head of military medicine in the second largest Cuban province of Camagüey, as well as director of a paratrooper training school, etc. (And no, my father is not and has never been a communist, in case you or anyone else wonders).
Who do think I'm going to believe? You, who weren't there and only know what might have happened from books and other second hand sources, particularly from those whose misinformation prowess is renown, or from those directly affected. My father was directly involved, in the front lines, as they say, and he told me that had the Cubans wished to take over the missiles, they would have easily done it. Remember, there were only a few thousand Russians there, but millions of Cubans, OK? Thus the haste in light of previously alluded to comments about bluster, by the Russians to reach an agreement with the U.S. Not the mention their attaining their final strategic goals, without firing a shot, other than shooting down an American observation plane, of maintaining a base of operations in the Western Hemisphere, including nuclear-armed submarines, such as those housed in Cienfuegos Bay, and the listening post of Lourdes in Western Cuba.
JmsA| 2.7.13 @ 6:20PM
I quoted Mikoyan's son, because his father's version, as proven by all that has transpired following the removal of the missiles from Cuba, directly and accurately comports with accomplished Soviet long-term strategic goals: survival and spread of communism in the Americas, as well as Africa, in addition to access to military installations, including the signal intelligence post at Lourdes in Western Cuba, the nuclear submarine base in Cienfuegos Bay, etc.
Although you appear to know certain details about certain things, you lack an essential or over-arching perspective, and as such fail to see the big picture. The missiles were but a tool in the grand scheme. Your very thesis of American strategic predominance gives ample credence to my views insofar as the fulfillment of the Russians' original intent, which was far from War with the U.S.
JmsA| 2.7.13 @ 6:25PM
Apologies for the repeated mention of Lourdes and Cienfuegos Bay.
Alan| 2.7.13 @ 7:06PM
Khruschev didn't want war, but he didn't want to be inihilated either, The Sputnik program scared the US and created a panic in the US missile program. The purpose of a Strategic deterrence needed by the Soviets was to at least firstly guarentee their own survival and not be forced to back down when moves where made to expand Soviet Communism accross the globe. Lacking that is why he was forced to back down and remove the IRBM's which later caused his own removal.
Alan| 2.7.13 @ 6:55PM
We all know about the Soviet world dominence and dogma, its taken for granted. I get the big picture. Unfortunately, it WAS the Russians and the US, NOT the Cubans who went head to head, the Cubans had no say in the discussions that went on between Kennedy and Khruschev, so those are the key sources on the crisis and they are numerous. Modern historians are not required to have BEEN THERE to have any credibility on a subject from the past especially the near past. Soviets Archives were extensively explored for research on this subject, the whole thing was pretty well documented by both sides.
"particularly from those whose misinformation prowess is renown"
I tend to take both Khruschev and Kennedy's recollections as a pretty good source as well as those who were these two persons staff and inferiors in the field. Khruschev was in an inferior position militarily on a strategic scale and he misread Kennedy in their meeting and took an opportunity to take a shortcut to address the Soviet strategic disadvantage and deter a cuban invasion by the US. Kennedy called his bluff because Kennedy was in a superior military situation, Khruschev new it and had to back down.
The recollections of military people on both sides at the time pretty well admitted that if the US invaded Cuba the Soviets would resist and also launch a probable invasion of western Europe to retalitate.
Alan| 2.7.13 @ 6:32PM
Your totally ignorant of the subject aren't you? It was called the Cuban Missile Crisis, read this again numbnuts, it was called the Cuban MISSILE crisis, it was not the Cuban Communist Dogma Crisis.
"The purposes of the missiles, whether tactical or strategic, were to ensure the survival of Castro's communist tyranny"
Wrong, the installation of the Intermediate range SS4 and SS5 first strike missiles were a deterent for the protection of the Soviet Union first and foremost not Cuba. Thats why Khruschev put them there in the first place, he admitted so in his memoirs. The defense of Cuba was also an excuse to put first strike weapons within range of the US mainland. The rest of the forces involved were to defend Cuba from US invasion. This was a two pronged operation, firstly a deterence against a first strike by the US agains the Soviet Union and the defense of Cuba as a base of operations in the region. Khruschev feared the warhawks in the Kennedy administration like LeMay and others who openly stated that the US should take advantage of its overwhelmingly superior strategic forces and take out the Soviets while they had a chance. If Kennedy followed LaMay's advice during the crisis there would have been a nuclear war.
"I don't care about the missiles; that's ultimately a side issue"
That WAS the issue in this crisis.
Pecos Pete| 2.7.13 @ 7:06PM
Alan and JmsA: Good discussion, I learned stuff I didn't know. Thank you both.
RCV| 2.7.13 @ 12:23PM
I don't buy the "cover-up" angle, but I do share your belief that Castro might well have been behind JFK's assassination. Oliver Stone is an utter liar and disgrace.
CJW| 2.7.13 @ 5:08PM
I agree that Castro was involved using Oswald as a patsy. Oswald was involved in distributing literature and other activities in support of Cuba. In addition, to revenge for the missiles, JFK and RFK has tried to assasinate Castro in the CIA Operation Mongoose.
spike59| 2.8.13 @ 6:18AM
maybe the truth will emerge.
----------------------------------------
i wish i had a nickel for every time i've heard that old chestnut since '63
IF the Warren Commission got it wrong, we'll never know
the thing about conspiracy theories is they give comfort to people frightened at the idea of an out-of-control world; when bad things happen, they need to believe that some shadowy and sinister cabal is behind the scenes, pulling the strings...otherwise, life has just too much uncertainty
but, in reality, more often than not, it's just a case of 'shit happens'...the grubby little Leftist gets off the shots that change history
Pecos Pete| 2.7.13 @ 9:28AM
Cuba and Fidel, the leftist/progressive/moderate/communist plan for the USA.
BTW: Does the description of Fidel and Fidel's speeches sound eerily familiar?
Gary B| 2.7.13 @ 2:28PM
Pete,
Exactly... sounds like our own Dear Leader.
"Fidel’s speech was totally self-congratulatory, all about himself, his braveness, valor, exceptional leadership abilities, his triumphs, all expressed with the “most heinous extreme” hubris—and without a word for the efforts of his men."
Anthony| 2.7.13 @ 10:10AM
Yeah, only Oliver Stoned, and I do mean stoned, could turn the Russia & Cuba loving Communist, Lee Harvey Oswald, into a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy.
I read once that the American left started its unhinged decent after JFK was killed by a communist, and RFK was killed by a Palistinian.
Amazing, the American left haven't hit bottom, but that's coming soon.
Walter Duranty was the New York Times reporter who shilled for Stalin and informed America what a transformational leader he was.
I can't remember the hack New York Times reporter who was Castro's shill, but his writing was equally sickening.
Today, the American media are full of Obozo drones willing to overlook Obozo's criminal behavior.
And now we have killer Obozo drones, hopefully, to take out American Obozo drones.
I just might put an Obozo 2012 sticker on my car if the New York Times building is hit by a stray Obozo drone, or Rockerfeller Center.
JmsA| 2.7.13 @ 11:45AM
The name of Castro's shill at the New York Times was Herbert Matthews.
Anthony| 2.7.13 @ 1:49PM
Thanks JMSA.
Gary B| 2.7.13 @ 2:32PM
What could possibly motivate an American to spend all his waking hours being anti-American? The only thing I can compare it to is the mindset of a teen age vandal, who takes immense pleasure in simply wrecking stuff.
CJW| 2.7.13 @ 5:10PM
The NYT had a shill for Stalin also, Will Duranty.
gene| 2.7.13 @ 6:11PM
Nov. 63 was a renegade Black Ops Operation gone bad. I will like to point out a funny anomoly. During the McCarthy hearing, the media went hog wild over a "cropped Photograph" that removed an individual. There is a photograph that shows Kennedy being hit and raising his arms to his throat. The photograph (Altgens Photo) is from the front of the vehicle. In the trailing vehicles you see a smiling Lady Bird Johnson and Senator Yarborough. They have not reacted to anything yet. Just to Ladybird's right is EMPTY SPACE. The six foot plus LBJ was HIDING down by the floor a full 30 seconds before the first shot rang out. Even a motorcycle cop next to the vehicle made public comments about it. The FULL UNcropped photo is on the Net. For decades it was NEVER published.
spike59| 2.8.13 @ 6:19AM
the Mother Ship called; you missed the rendezvous. call Ron Paul for new coordinates
gene| 2.8.13 @ 6:31AM
I suggest you read Billy Sol Estes biography IF you can find a copy printed in the United States. He survived prison and out lasted everyone and called the book "The Last Standing Man". He published in France for a reason. Back in the 80's, a smart person dragged Billy in front of a Grand Jury. Not wanting to return to prison, Billy spilled the beans on everyone. It is all there is black and white. You have recorded history and you have real history. I prefer the real stuff undiluted. I suppose you believe all the current official versions on Benghazi and the Mexican Drug Cartel Assault Rifles? If you do, I truly feel sorry for you.