|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Re: Granted . . . (Reply to this comment)
by garym
Mac, that is simply a foolish argument. Front to finish. I expect better from you. I at least hope you have some sense of non-revisionist history.
Gary
|
Feb 01 '06
8:35 pm PST
|
|
Re: Granted . . . (Reply to this comment)
by gaviidae
Hi macresarf1, and thanks for your comment.
You said: We had reason to be concerned about Russian espionage because we perceived them a threat, though, in the end, they never proved to be much of one.
The USSR was an extremely serious threat, both militarily and ideologically, as I think virtually all historians would agree.
It was not Joseph McCarthy's ends which were his problem; it was his methods.
I would say BOTH his ends and means were pretty shabby. But some of his paranoid suspicions had some basis in fact.
He believed, evidently, much as a majority of Americans do today, probably, that it is justified to ruin the lives of thousands of people in order to catch one spy.
He was wrong about it then, and I'm quite certain a majority of Americans would disagree with your assertion, both then and now.
Where in your review are the spies named?
I only named a few--the book names a hundred or more, many in high positions in government
Where are the others? I know they existed, but does the book name them?
Yes
It is the opinion of the authors that the extensive espionage allowed the USSR to produce a nuclear bomb many years earlier than they otherwise would have. That emboldened them to encourage North Korea to attack South Korea. It was the opinion of the authors that without the espionage that led to the Soviets having the bomb, the Korean War would not have happened when it did, which would drastically have changed ALL the subsequent events.
Of course that's just their opinion----
Gavia
|
Jan 31 '06
9:06 pm PST
|
|
Granted . . . (Reply to this comment)
by macresarf1
There were Soviet spies in the United States in the 1950's; there are always spies. There were and are spies from, say, Paraquay, but we pay no attention to them. We had reason to be concerned about Russian espionage because we perceived them a threat, though, in the end, they never proved to be much of one.
It was not Joseph McCarthy's ends which were his problem; it was his methods. He believed, evidently, much as a majority of Americans do today, probably, that it is justified to ruin the lives of thousands of people in order to catch one spy.
Where in your review are the spies named?
Hiss and the Rosenbergs were all prosecuted -- Hiss for perjury and the Rosenbergs for treason (and executed). Where are the others? I know they existed, but does the book name them?
[Macresarf1]
|
Jan 30 '06
10:59 am PST
|
|
Re: Could not figure out some of the dates... (Reply to this comment)
by gaviidae
Hi Asafono---good questions!
Kim Philby defected no later than the early 60s. How could the Soviet intelligence still use the codes into the 80's when they knew those to be compromised? Any way the book reconciles this contradiction, or did I misread something?
As I understand it, it sometimes took YEARS to decode any particular message. The decoding activity called Venona continued into the eighties, decoding messages that were sent in the sixties or seventies. There was also an implication that the Soviets were so sure of their "foolproof" encryption method that they continued to use it even after they knew about the defection. Their code really was unbreakable if followed pecisely, but what made it breakable was some Soviet clerical carelessness in not following the encryption technique precisely. Details are in the book, but I won't attempt to repeat it here!
Thanks for your comment!
Regards,
Gavia
|
Oct 22 '04
10:28 am PDT
|
|
Could not figure out some of the dates... (Reply to this comment)
by asafono
Venona was eventually exposed by Soviet agents, including H.R. "Kim" Philby, a senior British intelligence officer stationed in Washington, D.C., who had access to Venona information until the summer of 1951 and later defected to the Soviet Union.
vs.
some 3000 cable messages sent by KGB agents in the United States to the Soviet Union were decoded and translated from Russian between 1946 and 1981 by American counterintelligence authorities.
Kim Philby defected no later than the early 60s. How could the Soviet intelligence still use the codes into the 80's when they knew those to be compromised? Any way the book reconciles this contradiction, or did I misread something?
|
Oct 21 '04
7:40 am PDT
|
|
Re: yup (Reply to this comment)
by gaviidae
Very interesting and historically significant stuff!
Thanks for stopping!
Gavia
|
Aug 18 '04
9:42 pm PDT
|
|
yup (Reply to this comment)
by garym
Nice review. I hope a lot of people take the time to read it.
I was on the verge of buying the book. I could only afford one. Instead, I bought "Stalin: the first in-depth biography based on explosive new documents from Russia´s secret archives" It arrived from Amazon this afternoon. I think it will cover many of the same things. I might review it down the line.
I finished"The Gulag Archipeligo last week and now I´m on part two.Part two is hard to come by. Both are excellent reading.
Anyway, thanks for the info.
Gary
|
Aug 18 '04
12:20 pm PDT
|
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.