Talk:Lauchlin Currie

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Untitled

I've revised the text relating to the allegations as more NPOV. Given the doubts over whether a reference in Venona means that an individual was an actual spy (as opposed to an inadvertant source), I think it is more accurate to put distance between the allegation and the 'confirmation'. 84.68.83.177 20:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to the note below by D J Clayworth, I have only now seen the way he inserted his own spin on Currie into my article. I am surprised that this is allowed. If someone disagrees with an entry, surely he or she should write a separate note, not addle someone else's writing like this. I have restored my original text (which is not the same text as my ANB entry, though there is much overlap). Roger Sandilands (r.j.sandilands@strath.ac.uk) 22 July 2005.

I have replaced the initial version of the article with an alternate version emailed to me by Roger Sandilands. The original version was the same as what Sandilands submitted to American National Biography [1] (and for which ANB holds the copyright). I deleted the original version to avoid a copyvio problem, and recreated the page with the alternate version. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:05, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is not the place for you to use your own works to dispute allegations against Currie - Tεx τ urε 18:47, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This a copy from [2]. I can find no statement of copyright on the website, which I believe means that they retain copyright. Without a specific release as GFDL can we copy this? DJ Clayworth 14:42, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Not deleted based on discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Lauchlin Currie. Copyright issue also addressed.

Dear Roger: I read your article on Politics and the Attack on FDR's Economists and found it very interesting; I would prefer to seek some balance to give Currie, White, et al, a well rounded biographical page. If the contention is that Venona materails are still in dispute, then I will bring in the judgement of Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive, the Archivist of the National Security Agency, and others. If their credibility is questioned, I will qualify it with a Law by the United States Congress which authorized them to make such judgements. The point is, the more denial, the more evidence will be brought forward. This could overwhelm any contributions they made. It may be easier to seek balance, and I stand ready to work with all like-minded contributors. nobs 02:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Venona

Currie is referenced in the following Venona project decrypts:

928 KGB New York to Moscow, 30 June 1943;
1317 KGB New York to Moscow, 10 August 1943;
1431 KGB New York to Moscow, 2 September 1943;
900 KGB New York to Moscow, 24 June 1944;
1243 KGB New York to Moscow, 31 August 1944;
1463 KGB New York to Moscow, 14 October 1944;
1634 KGB New York to Moscow, 20 November 1944;
143 KGB Moscow to New York, 15 February 1945;
253 KGB Moscow to New York, 20 March 1945.

nobs 02:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When one actually looks at those VENONA cables, there is very little there. Currie's name (Page) is mentioned & then the bulk of a cable is "XXX groups unrecoverable." Only when we get to #143 (15 February 1945), which is a virtually unreadable image, is it brought up: "Can we have direct contact with Currie?" Not stated here if such direct contact was or was not established. The point is that up until this point, if Currie is a "source," it is likely NOT with his knowledge. If Currie were a witting source/agent, why would Moscow be asking Silvermaster (ROBERT) for permission for direct contact with Currie? DEddy (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several historians, which have been cited in this article, have concluded that Currie did engage in espionage against the United States for the Soviet Union. This, combined with the Verona transcripts, is more than sufficient to justify the inclusion of this material in the article. If you have sources that indicate otherwise, please feel free to provide them.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

if you have sources that indicate otherwise, please feel free to provide them. Have you read at those cables? I offer the above referenced VENONA cables. They MENTION Currie. Period. No. 143 almost gets to something, but it's virtually unreadable. I argue those cables prove nothing other than Currie knew & interacted with ROBERT/Silvermaster.

If you use those cables as EVIDENCE that Currie was anything more than a source (not same as knowing agent), you'll also have to include folks such as Roosevelt, Churchill, & Morgenthau since they too are MENTIONED in VENONA. DEddy (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many historians have argued or concluded that Roosevelt, Churchill, or Morgenthau engaged in espionage against the United States for the Soviet Union?(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

No way of knowing. But certainly there are "historians" who believe Roosevelt was either a Communist or Socialist.

The question for this discussion... have you read those cables? Which cables & which passages (please quote) do you believe prove Currie was a knowing Soviet agent? Was Currie a "source" (not even remotely the same thing as an "agent," although the terms are used promiscuously & incorrectly as synonyms), very likely since Washington was a very small place at that point. I would say cable #143 very specifically proves that Currie was NOT knowingly cooperating with Soviet agents. If he were an agent, why would Moscow be asking Ahkmerov(sp?) & Silvermaster if it's possible to contact Currie directly? How do you read that cable (if you can read it)? DEddy (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're still missing the point: at least four historians, John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr, Allen Weinstein, and Christopher Andrew have all stated that Currie engaged in espionage for the Soviet Union (all of these are cited in the article). You have not cited a single source to support your claim that Currie was not a Soviet spy. Rather, all you have provided is your own analysis of the Verona cables. This is WP:OR. Unless your analysis has been published in other venues (e.g. peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, respected online publications, etc.) then it cannot be used as a basis to add or remove material from Wikipedia. If you can provide a source that contradicts the four historians cited here, then feel free to include it in this article.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Let me get this straight... the original research—the VENONA cables themselves—that historians based their allegations on is not acceptable as "original research?" So published authors who are INTERPRETING the VENONA cables, are NOT original research & the material they base their allegations on is the banned original research? Do I have that right? DEddy (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...convincing and substantial...

evidence that Currie cooperated with Soviet espionage is convincing and substantial are the words used in In Denial (pg 191). The problem with this reference is that it is a statement made with no support or evidence. Read pg 191-192. H&K SAY the evidence is "convincing & substantial"... but WHAT evidence? This is the work of "historians?"

Allegation without evidence is a standard approach in books of this genre. The Schecters' Sacred Secrets is a classic. In their chapter 2 ("Operation Snow") about Harry Dexter White, there are 55 "footnotes." Eleven (20%) of them are either: "Soviet Intelligence Archives" or "Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russian Archive." In what universe of "reliable source" does Wikipedia allow those as reliable "footnotes?" DEddy (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, do you have a source that supports your analysis of these documents? As long as the only source that you can cite is your own analysis, it is still WP:OR. You clearly are not convinced that Currie engaged in espionage, but you can't use your own interpretation as a benchmark for editing this article. The simple fact is that Currie has been accused of espionage, an accusation that is cited and supported by a number of RS sources. You can't justify the removal of this material simply because your own analysis of these sources has led you to the conclusion that they are wrong.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Again, do you have a source that supports your analysis of these documents? Matter of fact I do... the documents themselves. Are they not better than the interpretations of the authors? I'm not analysizing anything. Just look at what those VENONA cables say. (You have looked at these documents, right?) Or are you saying that source documents are NOT acceptable as RS? If they're not acceptable to Wikipedia, how can they be considered in the works of "historians?"

I am not asking, requesting removal of the citing of what Weinstein, H&K & Andrew say. They are entitled to say what they want to say. What I'm saying is that what is said in those cables is also eligble to be included in this page. Is that acceptable? DEddy (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Well, that's a different issue altogether. If you want to add "what is said" in the Verona documents, then I have no objection. However, any interpretation drawn from these documents requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. In other words, if you want to quote from, or make straightforward, descriptive statements about material in primary sources (in this case, the Verona cables), that's fine. However, be careful that you don't imply a conclusion that is not supported by a secondary source.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

don't imply a conclusion that is not supported by a secondary source Let me get this right... a seondary source, which by definition is interpreting something, is more valid than a primary source? Do I have that right? DEddy (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An interpretation of a primary source by a WP:RS is acceptable for Wikipedia. An interpretation of a primary source by a Wikipedia editor (e.g. you) is not. Please see WP:NOR for a full explanation. Again, if you want to add material from the Verona cables, then feel free too - as long as you respect Wikipedia's guidelines, there shouldn't be any problems.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Gorsky Report

Translation of KGB file 43173 vol. 2 (v) pp. 46-55, names Lauchlin Currie as a member of the Sound & Myrna groups. nobs 02:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup Finished - Need more help!

I just came across this article. It was a pretty interesting read, so I did a cleanup of the entire contents. By the way, it appears the article was a complete copyvio, from start to finish. [3] I don't know if this will be a problem since much of it is now rewritten and reformulated.

On another note, I felt like much of what I was reading was pulled out of thin air because of the lack of proper sourcing. The bibliography also needs to be reformulated. In other words, these things are fine, but they're not wikified. Anyone care to help? ♠ SG →Talk 18:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Denial reference?

re: jimjiiln… there is no evidentiary presentation, other than the typical unsupported allegations regarding Currie on pg 191. If you feel there are other passages that provide supporting evidence—allegations are not evidence—in "In Denial" please put them forward. The bulk of the text on pg 191 is a discussion of so-called agent Koltsov & Harry White. "In Denial" as in "Spies" incorrectly presents that Koltsov was a KGB agent when by 2000 it was determined that Koltsov was Nikolai F. Chechulin, the Deputy President of the Soviet State Bank. DEddy (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naturalized or not?

The article is self-contradictory. The header states explicitly that he was never naturalized. Later it says he was. Which is it? Rourin bushi (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VENONA

VENONA cables were not publicly acknowledged until 1995. DEddy (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

McCarthyism Charge Unsupported. Date VENONA Cables Decrypted Relevant, Not Date Revealed

I am completely new at revising Wikipedia pages and I hope appending this matter to the Talk section is a good place to put this. The article contains the following information: "However, when Currie, as a U.S. citizen, tried to renew his passport in 1954, he was refused, ostensibly on the grounds that he was now residing abroad and married to a Colombian. However, he may have in fact been identified with the then-secret VENONA project, which had decrypted wartime Soviet cables where Currie was identified as a source of Soviet intelligence. He appears in the VENONA cables under the cover name 'PAGE', and in Soviet intelligence archives as 'VIM' and as a source for the Golos and Bentley spy networks.[8][9] According to historians John E. Haynes and Harvey Klehr evidence that Currie cooperated with Soviet espionage is convincing and substantial.[10]"

Yet the lead to the article contends that Currie has his passport renewal denied because of McCarthyism. The lead shouldn't contradict the material in detail in the body of the article. When Currie's passport renewal was considered the US wasn't yet willing to reveal Venona (sources and methods). The year Venona was publicly acknowledged is not relevant to when the US government had the information. This is quite different than the McCarthyite method of making wild accusations. The majority of historians of the period state that Currie was a Soviet source, so I consider that opinion NPOV. There is no support in the article to suggest he was merely a victim of McCarthyism and contending that is not NPOV. Odysseus1150 (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Denial

Duly noted that pg 191 "In Denial" says Currie was involved... but the passage offers no proof or evidence at all. NONE. Simply an opinion of guilt. DEddy (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many Sources Supporting Charge Lauchlin Currie Spied for the USSR

Known Communist organizers and couriers Elizabeth Bentley and Whittaker Chambers were the first to name Currie as someone who passed information, through them, to the Soviets. While Bentley and Chambers both had their bona fides challenged at the time, historians now agree they both interacted with networks of Soviet agents and would be in a position to know who were in them. Next, the VENONA Project involved a massive effort to decrypt Soviet cables from their agents. Currie's code name is PAGE in many of the cables. Currie-specific cables are referenced earlier on this Talk page. The John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr book on the decrypts is Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America (2000) and it has numerous specific points on Currie's activities to examine and weigh, not merely a summary judgment. See especially pp. 145-150, but there are many other pages of information on Currie that can be found in the index. Finally, during the early Yeltsin years, the Russians briefly opened many KGB files to historians. These KGB files also implicate Currie. See The Haunted Wood by Allen Weinstein and Alexander Vassiliev. Again, the index contains the page numbers on Currie, but rather than read them in isolation, it's best, for context, to read the entire chapters on the Bentley and Silvermaster Groups. Another book naming Currie as a Soviet source is The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive by Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin (1999). Odysseus1150 (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You put too much faith in right wing documents. I duly noticed the first four (I stopped reading, since I know the pattern) of the Currie VENONA cables were largely "xxx unrecovered." Additionally i have never seen an explanation why when people like Roosevelt, deGaulle & Churchill are mentioned in VENONA they do not end up on H&K's "agents" lists. It never seems to be discussed how Washington works. Could it have been possible that FDR wanted information to be leaked to Stalin to keep him happy & throwing babushkas under Nazi tanks.?

Another question. If Currie were an Agent under Moscow Control (as Hoover & McCarthy were so insistent), when did he convert?

Finally. If, as the VENONA adherants are so fixated on, precisely WHAT did the Soviets get from those "massive spy rings?" Atomic bomb you say? Yes, maybe speeded up by three years I've seen it said. But the bomb was certainly NOT our secret. It was Mother Nature's secret & we proved to the Russian that it worked. We'll just ignore that the way Hoover found out about these spies was from two walk-ins. How embarrassing.

Just maybe this was a factor... since we're at VEDay + 70... US lost 400,000 dead in WWII. Russians lost between 20,000,000 and 30,000,000 it is guessed. One dead American for every 50 to 60 dead Russians. Weight that when you accuse people serving The Juggler of nefarious motives. DEddy (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lauchlin Currie. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 05:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lauchlin Currie. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 04:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]