Posted on 01/28/2005 6:45:05 AM PST by blackminorcapullets
And, by the way, forgot to mention - a couple of names on your lists are Putin's enemies... You guess which ones.
HA! Keep guessing. I am NOT a businessman.
Would you agree with the following statement:
"Bolshevism cannot escape responsibility for waging genocide against non-Russian citizens of the USSR, for forcibly resettling in the country's most sparsely populated regions Germans, Poles, Tatars, Chechens, Ingush, Karachayevs, Koreans, Balkars, Kalmyks, Turko-Meskhetins, Armenians, Bulgarians, Greeks, and Gaguzy.
Bolshevism cannot escape responsibility for organizing the hounding of scholars and writers, of those active in film, theater, and music, of doctors and others; for the colossal damage done to the nation's culture and science. Out of criminal ideological motives, genetics and cybernetics, as well as progressive movements in economics, linguistics, and literary and artistic endeavor, were ostracized.
Bolshevism cannot escape responsibility for organizing racist trials - against Jewish Anti-Facist Committee, against the "doctors-murders" - aimed at fomenting enmity among the country's national groups and playing on the masses' vilest insticts.
Bolshevism cannot escape responsibility for organizing criminal campaigns against every kind of dissidence, whose many adherents were subjected to the widest array of punishments - prison, exile, special resettlement, expulsion abroad, pyschiatric institutionalization,loss of jobs, slanderous attacks in the press, and other indignities.
Bolshevism cannot escape responsiblity for the total militarization of the country, which rendered the people destitute and drastically stunted the development of society."
GOP, as far as I can gather from Koba's previous posts, he has worked or is working in some sort of government capacity in Russia, and he also claims to write articles in/about Russia. He claims that he was inspired to learn Russian to help Reagan win the Cold War. Now that the Soviets have been "defeated" he decided to utilize his Cold War skills by going to work for our "former" enemy.
Does that about some it up Koba?
"Debate over the Penkovsky case and the bona fides of Penkovsky was influenced by the controversial defector Anatoli Golitsyn, who cast doubt on Penkovsky. Golitsyn, a KGB major, working against NATO targets defected in Helsinki on December 15, 1961, and arrived in the United States on December 19. For two years he was debriefed by the CIA and provided valuable material which was used to trap the British Admirality spy John Vassall in 1962.
When Golitsyn's well of current information ran dry, he proposed that the CIA sponsor a multimillion dollar study by him of how the Soviet intelligence system was involved in a massive deception campaign against the West (GOP_1900AD - What was that you said about a dog, hunt, and no bias? You apply those rules to Golitsyn?). Golitsyn insisted that the KGB already had implanted an agent in the highest ranks of U.S. intelligence and that Soviet-controlled agents, masked as defectors or double agents, would supply disinformation to build up the mole's credibility.
Dissatisfied with a negative response to his proposal from the CIA, Golitsyn went to England. From March to July 1963 he spent long hours with Stephen De Mowbray of MI6 and Arthur Martin and Peter Wright of MI5, who supported his views and supported him. When he returned to Washington, Golitsyn pawned off his massive deception theory on Counterintelligence chief James Angleton. So deep was the deception described by Golitsyn that the Sino-Soviet split was part of it. The plot, which began in 1959, included the writing of Andrei Sakharov, Golitsyn said.
Golitsyn found few supporters for his theories inside the Agency, except among Angleton and his Counterintelligence staff. Angleton embraced Golitsyn's long-term, massive-deception theory. For Golitysn every Soviet agent who had come to the West since 1959 was part of the plot - including Penkovsky. "There is serious, unresolved evidence that Colonel Penkovsky was planted on Western Intelligence by the KGB," wrote Golitsyn.
Golitsyn turned every CIA success into a failure. He was a major source for Edward Jay Epstein's "Deception," a study of the invisible war between the KGB and the CIA. Epstein says Golitsyn supplied information that undermined "The Penkovsky Papers. "He [Golitsyn] demonstrated, by diagramming hidden Soviet microphones in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, that Penkovsky's early debriefings had to have been monitored by the KGB. Even if he had been a legitimate traitor then, Golitsyn argued, he would have been forced, in a deal that he could not refuse, to deliver the documents the Soviets wanted delivered to the CIA. He was, in other words, a Soviet postman at the time of the missile crisis." On the contrary, Penkovsky was never debriefed in the American Embassy in Moscow. There is no evidence that he came under Soviet control until he was arrested. Nonetheless, Angleton agreed with Golitsyn's assessment; for Angleton the only new question was when had Penkovsky come under Soviet control.
Golitsyn insisted that Penkovsky was a provocation and that his messages were used to control the reaction of the Kennedy administration to Soviet moves. The missiles were put in Cuba, insisted Golitsyn, to be bargained away. They were there to manipulate Kennedy into accepting a hostile Castro regime in Cuba and thus in giving up the Monroe Doctrine.
Golitsyn and Epstein fail to deal with the fact's of Penkovsky's contributions and arrest. Penkovsky never directly advised the Anglo-American team that Khrushev was placing medium- and intermediate-range missiles in Cuba, although he correctly sensed long in advance that Cuba would become a point of Soviet-American conflict. Penkovsky's contribution to resolving the crisis was different. He provided the manuals and missile characteristics enabling the government analysts to interpret what they had seen in Cuba, and the president to act from knowledge and American strength when dealing with Khrushev.
Golitsyn's grand theory of a massive Soviet disinformation plot against the CIA was based on his doubtful premise - advanced at a moment when his own usefulness to the CIA was declining - that the KGB had infiltrated the Agency and had a high-ranking American official working as a mole, a Soviet agent in place. After Penkovsky's demise, Angleton called Bulik to his office to tell him that all Bulik's Soviet agents recruited since 1960 were compromised and, Angleton believed, part of a Soviet disinformation plot. "I was so angry I just turned and left and we never spoke again," said Bulik.
Yet the records demonstrate that Angleton initially supported Penkovsky's bona fides and urged that his information be brought directly to President Kennedy. While Penkovsky was alive and sending information, Angleton never questioned the validity of the material. The record does show that Angleton argued in one discussion that Penkovsky was an anarchist who would like to see a war between the United States and the Soviet Union.
After Golitsyn sowed his theory, Angleton's suspicions grew and he argued that Penkovsky was a provocateur. "It is hard to convey just how perverse this seemed to the Soviet Russian Division under Jack Maury," Thomas Powers wrote in his study of Richard Helms' career, "The Man Who Kept the Secrets." "Penkovsky is credited as the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT SPY EVER RECRUITED by the Americans agains the Russians. CIA people who saw the 5000 frames of microfilmed documents provided by Penkovsky, two pages to the frame, were dazzled by the quality of his information. The rule of thumb is that a provocateur must provide 95 percent true information if he is to be trusted and believed. The idea that Penkovsky was a plant, and that the Russians deliberately surrendered so much ture information, strikes CIA officers as insane. One man in the DDP, arguing the point with Angleton, was finally fobbed off with an appeal to secret knowledge. 'You aren't cleared for certain sources,' Angleton said enigmatically, and would add not another word."
The chief of Counterintelligence argued against the bona fides of the CIA's best spy, but only after his death. Angleton's conversion against Penkovsky was only one element in the internally divisive search for a mole in the Agency. ANGLETON'S BELIEF IN GOLITSYN WENT TO THE EXTRAORDINARY LENGTH OF LETTING HIM REVIEW THE PERSONNEL FILES OF CIA OFFICERS WHO SPOKE RUSSIAN OR HAD BEEN POSTED TO MOSCOW TO SEE IF HE COULD SPOT A MOLE. SUCH A BREACH OF SECURITY IS WITHOUT PRECEDENT. The mole was presumed to be in the Soviet Division; eventually officers from the division upon whom suspicion had been cast were transferred out of Soviet and East European affairs to less sensitive posts.
For a long time Tennent Bagley, former deputy chief of the Soviet Division, argued that Penkovsky had not been apprehended earlier because the KGB was protecting a mole inside the CIA and feared exposing him by arresting Penkovsky. His argument was that the CIA's investigation to discover how Penkovsky was exposed would have led to the mole.
Former CIA director Richard Helms recalls that, "the idea of Penkovsky as a double agent first came from Jim Angleton, who was too close to Golitsyn. It was a conception of Angleton's that we couldn't run a case without Soviet infiltration. We disagreed about this. If it was left up to him none of our defectors would have been bona fide. As long as I was in the in Agency I handed Angleton. When I left, the Agency lost control of him."
"It is great fun - if I may use such a vulgar phrase - to poke holes in the other guy's operation. Watching Jim perform was like watching a magician, " said Helms, pantomiming a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat. "The business of Penkovsky becoming a double agent did not become lively until Penkovsky was lost."
A series of reviews was conducted by the CIA on what happened to Penkovsky and how he was caught. On June 26, 1963, John McCone discussed the case with the president's Intelligence Advisory Board. When a board member asked what motivated Penkovsky, McCone replied, "It was primarily emotional - that the man resented his failure to advance higher in the regime and was motivated to work against the present leaders." McCone told the distinguished group of presidential advisors, which included Dr. Edward Land, chairman and chief executive of Polaroid, that "the British had taken the principal rap on the case because of Wynne, who was a courier working for MI6. We think that the case was blown because of penetration in the British government who saw Wynne and Penkovsky together. We also think that Penkovsky got careless and when they searched his apartment they found all of the espionage equipment."
" most assuredly do not agree. The Bolsheviks did in fact escape responsibility."
Think about what the statement "cannot escape responsibility" means. In no way does the author infer that the Bolsheviks have been tried, punished, etc., for their crimes. It's a moral statement. HELLO.
"He claims that he was inspired to learn Russian to help Reagan win the Cold War. Now that the Soviets have been "defeated" he decided to utilize his Cold War skills by going to work for our "former" enemy"
I'm working for the Russians? That's also pretty funny. I'm sure they'd be surprised to hear that. And once again, I never claimed what you state about me and the gubment - that's your assumption. Why is what I do so important to you? What do you do for a living? Where do you work?
Are you accusing me of being disloyal to my country? Of selling out to the Russians? That's what your statement appears to suggest.
He claims that he was inspired to learn Russian to help Reagan win the Cold War. Now that the Soviets have been "defeated" he decided to utilize his Cold War skills by going to work for our "former" enemy"
By the way, you misrepresented what I said about learning Russian and Reagan. Try again and think hard about what I said.
And furthermore, what have you done, or did you do, to eliminate the Soviet threat? Care to compare personal efforts in this? I doubt it.
"I most assuredly do not agree. The Bolsheviks did in fact escape responsibility. There were no Nurenburg-type trials, no long prison sentences, nor were there any executions. They simply relabeled themselves as "ex"-Communists and went right on leading. Putin and Primakov are a case-in-point, not to mention the names I posted to you. Actually, with the proper research, it wouldn't be all that difficult to provide thousands of "case-in-points."
Can't disagree about Primakov, but perhaps you'd like to enlighten us what Putin did during the August '91 coup and afterwards?
"I'm working for the Russians? That's also pretty funny. I'm sure they'd be surprised to hear that. And once again, I never claimed what you state about me and the gubment - that's your assumption. Why is what I do so important to you? What do you do for a living? Where do you work?"
I didn't ask for specifics. I just want to know what kind of work you do in Russia. You sure are defensive about it. I really don't feel like going back through all your posts...but I do recall you saying that you have worked in some sort of government capacity. Whether that be on a local, regional or national level, I don't recall. You also posted that you write articles about Russian politics, but you never mentioned for what publication(s). But hey, if you want to keep it to yourself, that's fine.
"When Golitsyn's well of current information ran dry, he proposed that the CIA sponsor a multimillion dollar study by him of how the Soviet intelligence system was involved in a massive deception campaign against the West (GOP_1900AD - What was that you said about a dog, hunt, and no bias? You apply those rules to Golitsyn?)."
Again, cite your sources. Why do find this so difficult? How are we supposed to check the validity of your sources when all you do is throw up random quotes with no attribution? Could it be that you are trying to hide the fact that your "sources" have an axe to grind with Golitsyn/Angleton?
"Dissatisfied with a negative response to his proposal from the CIA, Golitsyn went to England. From March to July 1963 he spent long hours with Stephen De Mowbray of MI6 and Arthur Martin and Peter Wright of MI5, who supported his views and supported him."
So much for your assertion that "Golitsyn told the CIA whatever it wanted to hear." BTW, doesn't it give you pause when you contemplate De Mowbray, Arthur Martin, and Peter Wright supported Golitsyn?
I cited the sources before. "The Spy Who Saved The World."
Why did he go to the Brits - to shop them the story. When I wrote CIA, I had Angleton in mind.
"do recall you saying that you have worked in some sort of government capacity. Whether that be on a local, regional or national level, I don't recall. You also posted that you write articles about Russian politics, but you never mentioned for what publication(s)."
I think you are confused. I mentioned that I interviewed people - you made the assumption that I write for a publication. If I wanted to tell you what I do I would tell you. My work has no bearing on my discussions here or my participation as a Freeper. But, if you want to go on with the inferences regarding my loyalties please put up or shut up. Tell us what you did during the Cold War and post-Cold War.
"So much for your assertion that "Golitsyn told the CIA whatever it wanted to hear." BTW, doesn't it give you pause when you contemplate De Mowbray, Arthur Martin, and Peter Wright supported Golitsyn?"
The Brits don't impress me. Doesn't it give you pause that Angleton would give a Russian national access to CIA agents' personnel files?
"That's exactly what happened. The US switched from a policy of ousting Castro and his merry band of Communists from Cuba to a policy of getting rid of missiles. If memory serves, we even agreed to remove our own missiles from Turkey as part of the exchange. In short, Kennedy's "standoff" with the Soviets was an unmitigated disaster for the US, not to mention Cubans suffering under the jackboot of Communism. Moreover, once Castro secured our blessing to establish a permanent Communist beachhead 90 miles from the shores of the US, he immediately sprang into action and began fomenting Communist revolution both in the US (Black Panthers, Weather Underground, SDS, etc) and throughout Latin America."
The Soviets thought they could put the missiles on Cuba because they thought Kennedy a naive indecisive president -based on his poor performance during a "summit" with Khrushev early in his presidency. They were mistaken. They did not expect the response of the US. The missiles in Turkey were slated to be removed prior to the Cuban missile crisis. All the Soviets "got" was the removal of missiles that we had already promised to remove. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a success for the US. The unmitigated failure of the US was earlier during the Bay of Pigs - another example of Kennedy's indecisiveness to the Soviets and probably helped encourage their decision to take such a provocative step such as basing missiles on Cuba.
Most of the groups you mentioned above were more-than-likely funded by the Soviets and via the World Peace Committee. Castro naturally more-than-likely assisted. He's pretty p.o.'d at the Russians now.
"Doesn't it give you pause that Angleton would give a Russian national access to CIA agents' personnel files?"
If you want to know why Angleton gave Golitsyn access to the files (not the names on those files btw) read Edward Jay Epstein's book "Deception." You may also want to visit his webite if you are truly interested in finding out more.
http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/index.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.