Dupes
Page 69
4. Horowitz, Radical Son, 83–84.
5. Quoted in, among others, Billingsley, Hollywood Party, 255; and Horowitz, Radical Son, 84.
6. I discuss this in my book The Crusader, 36–39. It was a stunning, blatant, shameful Soviet incident, one that ultimately would inspire Robert Kennedy's assassin. Anyone who finds this hard to believe—understandably so, as it was incredibly devious, even by Soviet standards—should research the subject. It was one of the most awful examples of Soviet international behavior in the entire history of the Cold War. It has not been given its historical due. I encourage many others to tell this story at greater length. The outstanding 1999 PBS series The Fifty Years War offers one of the best presentations on the subject, complete with interviews with the major players in the conflict from the Egyptian, Soviet, and Israel sides (including the late Levi Eshkol's wife).
7. Barron, Operation Solo, 19.
8. Ibid., 19, 129.
9. Barron's Operation Solo shows how American comrades followed the Moscow-dictated line time and time again. Barron records four particularly notable examples on pages 163–67. Among them, the despicable Soviet behavior that prompted the Six-Day War also prompted the Soviets to try to backtrack on their involvement, including through a planned speech by Premier Alexey Kosygin at the United Nations. Through Morris and Jack Childs, the Soviets gave Gus Hall an advanced copy of the speech so he would understand the position the American party must adopt on the war. This was likewise the case a year later, in 1968, when Soviet tanks rolled into Czechoslovakia: Moscow instructed Hall on how to try to defend the invasion.
10. Barron, Operation Solo, 164, 353.
11. Ibid., 173, 200.
12. House Committee on Internal Security, “Subversive Involvement in the Origin, Leadership, and Activities for the New Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam and Its Predecessor Organizations,” U.S. House of Representatives, 91st Congress, Second Session, 1970, vii.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid., ix.
15. Ibid., vi.
16. Ibid., vii.
17. The Soviet press continued to use such language on Vietnam as late as the 1980s. A casual reading of Pravda, Izvestia, and numerous other Soviet “news” sources in the 1980s, including transcripts of TV and radio broadcasts, would lead one to believe that the United States was still fighting in Vietnam, years after the last helicopter left Saigon (1975). The Soviets rarely let go of an excellent propaganda chip.
18. House Committee on Internal Security, “Subversive Involvement in the Origin, Leadership, and Activities for the New Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam and Its Predecessor Organizations,” vii.
19. Ibid., x–xi.
20. Ibid., vii.
21. Quoted in Susan E. Tifft and Alex S. Jones, The Trust: The Private and Powerful Family Behind the New York Times (New York: Back Bay Books, 1999), 499.
22. House Committee on Internal Security, “Subversive Involvement in the Origin, Leadership, and Activities for the New Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam and Its Predecessor Organizations,” 2.
23. House Committee on Un-American Activities, “Communist Origin and Manipulation of Vietnam Week,” U.S. House of Representatives, 90th Congress, First Session, March 31, 1967, 22–24.
24. Ibid.
25. House Committee on Internal Security, “Subversive Involvement in the Origin, Leadership, and Activities for the New Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam and Its Predecessor Organizations,” 12.
26. “U.S. War Foes Met with Hanoi Group,” Washington Post, September 21, 1968, A3; House Committee on Internal Security, “Subversive Involvement in the Origin, Leadership, and Activities for the New Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam and Its Predecessor Organizations,” x; and “Subversive Involvement in Disruption of 1968 Democratic Party National Convention,” Part 1, Hearings Before the Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, 90th Congress, Second Session, October 1, 3, and 4, 1968, 2324.
27. This statement was printed in a July 18, 1969, article in The Militant, cited in House Committee on Internal Security, “Subversive Involvement in the Origin, Leadership, and Activities for the New Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam and Its Predecessor Organizations,” 24.
28. In fact, Ichord's warning was so unequivocal that it was included in the committee's formal resolution adopted on September 12, 1968, which established the basis for the investigation of the convention blow-up. “Subversive Involvement in Disruption of 1968 Democratic Party National Convention,” Part 1, 2238.
29. Ibid., 2244.
30. Ibid., 2245–62.
31. A number of these directives are published in “Subversive Involvement in Disruption of 1968 Democratic Party National Convention,” Part 1, 2262–68.
32. These will be noted in short order, as they ranged from Tom Hayden to Mark Rudd, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Michael Klonsky, and many more.
33. As Congress documented, the evidence suggests that the seeds for the assault on the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago were planted by Communists and their fellow travelers at Columbia in October 1967. See “Subversive Involvement in Disruption of 1968 Democratic Party National Convention,” Part 1, 2270–71.
34. “Subversive Involvement in Disruption of 1968 Democratic Party National Convention,” Part 1, 2269–72.
35. The committee investigation detailed Copstein's clear links to the Communist Party, dating back to the early 1940s. For Cummings, it listed Communist associations or relationships with Communist fronts or Communist-led activities. Ibid., 2269–71.
36. The ad ran on page E7 of the Sunday, December 10, 1967, edition of the New York Times, under the giant banner “Johnson vs. Reagan? God help us.” Congress certainly noticed. The ad was cited in “Subversive Involvement in Disruption of 1968 Democratic Party National Convention,” Part 1, 2271–72.
37. “Subversive Involvement in Disruption of 1968 Democratic Party National Convention,” Part 1, 2271–72.
38. John Leo, “Leftists Ponder Convention Move,” New York Times, December 10, 1967, A38. Congress also caught this one. See “Subversive Involvement in Disruption of 1968 Democratic Party National Convention,” Part 1, 2271–72.
39. A photocopy of the letter is published in “Subversive Involvement in Disruption of 1968 Democratic Party National Convention,” Part 1, 2277.
40. James Gallagher reported this. “Subversive Involvement in Disruption of 1968 Democratic Party National Convention,” Part 1, 2244.
41. “Subversive Involvement in Disruption of 1968 Democratic Party National Convention,” Part 1, 2237–40.
42. The material that follows is taken from Young's testimony and his exchanges with committee members and counsel during the testimony, which is transcribed in this report: “Subversive Involvement in Disruption of 1968 Democratic Party National Convention,” Part 1, 2422–74.
43. See, for example, the congressional testimony of Mike Soto, published in “Extent of Subversion in the ‘New Left,’” Hearings Before the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws of the Committee of the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 91st Congress, Second Session, March 31, 1970, 224.
44. “Subversive Involvement in the Origin, Leadership, and Activities for the New Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam and Its Predecessor Organizations,” 11.
45. “Hearings on Restraints on Travel to Hostile Areas,” Hearings Before the Committee on Internal Security, House of Representatives, 93rd Congress, First Session, May 9 and 10, 1973, 15–16.
46. “Subversive Involvement in the Origin, Leadership, and Activities for the New Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam and Its Predecessor Organizations,” 10–16.
47. “Subversive Involvement in Disruption of 1968 Democratic Party National Convention,” Part 1, 2430–31.
48. Ibid., 2412–21, 2475–91.
49
. See William Conrad Gibbons, The U.S. Government and the Vietnam War (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986), 158.
50. Douglas served in the U.S. Senate from January 1949 to January 1967, losing to Republican Charles H. Percy.
Chapter 15: Grown-up Vietnam Dupes: Dr. Spock, Corliss Lamont, and Friends
1. The cast of grown-up Vietnam dupes is so extensive as to merit a book unto itself. I heartily encourage future researchers to take up the task.
2. Biographical details presented in Lamont, The Illusion of Immortality.
3. Robert D. McFadden, “Corliss Lamont Dies at 93; Socialist Battled McCarthy,” New York Times, April 28, 1995.
4. See Corliss Lamont, A Lifetime of Dissent (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1988), 187; and Corliss Lamont, Soviet Civilization (New York: Philosophical Library USA, 1952), 324.
5. McFadden, “Corliss Lamont Dies at 93; Socialist Battled McCarthy.”
6. More evidence is being released on this subject, demonstrating that Stone was as bad as (if not worse than) anti-Communists long suspected. In their 2009 book Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America (Yale University Press), historians John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr, and Alexander Vassiliev conclude: “To put it plainly, from 1936 to 1939 I. F. Stone was a Soviet spy.” For that quote and an easily accessible summary, see the excerpted article published in April 2009 by the online version of Commentary magazine, titled “Special Preview: I.F. Stone, Soviet Agent—Case Closed.” See also Haynes and Klehr, Venona, 247–49; and Romerstein and Breindel, The Venona Secrets, 432–39. On page 436, Romerstein and Breindel write: “It is clear from the evidence that Stone was indeed a Soviet agent.” Of course, Stone (in death) has defenders who dispute the allegations (not convincingly, in my view). To see the refutations, visit the I. F. Stone tribute website: http://www.ifstone.org/biography-refuted.php.
7. Some sources state that the committee was formed in 1951.
8. This actually had begun in the 1940s, though most people report it as beginning in the 1950s. See next endnote.
9. Actually, these “others”—seventeen of them—were ahead of Lamont, having signed a letter in 1940 condemning the ACLU's barring of Communists as office holders. In signing, Stone was listed with The Nation at the time, as were signers Maxwell Stewart and James Wechsler. Also signing, from Colum bia University, were Professors Franz Boas (also cited as “Boaz”) and Robert S. Lynd. On this, see “Investigation of Un-American Propaganda Activities in the United States,” Special Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, 78th Congress, Second Session, on H. Res. 282, App. part 9, vol. 2 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1944), 1386–88.
10. For an interesting article that revisits this history while also highlighting one of Lamont's colorful battles during the 1960s, see Sidney E. Zion, “Yelling Match Disrupts Rights Forum,” New York Times, December 10, 1967, 40. In this article, the reporter (not Lamont) used the word “purge,” but did so to imply (correctly) that Lamont and his friends used that word as well. They saw it as a purge.
11. Sources date this period of starting the committee and leaving the ACLU as between 1951 and 1954.
12. McFadden, “Corliss Lamont Dies at 93; Socialist Battled McCarthy.”
13. See, for instance: Ann Charters, ed., The Portable Sixties Reader (New York: Penguin, 2003).
14. House Committee on Un-American Activities, “Communist Origin and Manipulation of Vietnam Week.”
15. Ibid., 1–3.
16. Ibid., 6.
17. See Kaplan and Shapiro, eds., Red Diapers, 278–85.
18. Herbert Aptheker, The Truth About Hungary (New York: Mainstream Publishers, 1957).
19. See Christopher Lehmann-Haupt, “Herbert Aptheker, 87, Dies; Prolific Marxist Historian,” New York Times, March 20, 2003. Among those who noticed this curious omission: Frederic U. Dicker, “Lies After Death,” Human Events, April 7, 2003; and Ronald Radosh, “Herbert Aptheker: Hero or Hack?” Hudson Institute (online), March 26, 2003.
20. Lehmann-Haupt, “Herbert Aptheker, 87, Dies; Prolific Marxist Historian.”
21. House Committee on Un-American Activities, “Communist Origin and Manipulation of Vietnam Week,” 5.
22. House Committee on Internal Security, “Subversive Involvement in the Origin, Leadership, and Activities for the New Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam and Its Predecessor Organizations,” 5.
23. House Committee on Un-American Activities, “Communist Origin and Manipulation of Vietnam Week,” 12–13.
24. Ibid.
25. Howard Zinn, Vietnam: The Logic of Withdrawal (Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 1967). On the book's usage by the Vietcong in POW camps, see Mary Hershberger, Jane Fonda's War: A Political Biography of an Antiwar Icon (New York: The New Press, 2005), 96.
26. In 2009 A People's History of the United States found incarnation on the History Channel as a documentary called The People Speak.
27. Another name on the list was Ted Weiss. Though I cannot say for certain, this was possibly the Ted Weiss who became a prominent liberal congressman from New York (1977–92). From 1962 to 1977 Weiss was a member of the New York City Council and vocal critic of the Vietnam War. He ran for Congress in 1966 on an antiwar platform.
28. House Committee on Un-American Activities, “Communist Origin and Manipulation of Vietnam Week,” 10–11, 53. The committee was particularly troubled by the King aspect, a focus of the conclusion of its report: “Dr. Martin Luther King's agreement to play a leading role in the April 15 demonstrations in New York City,” concluded the report, was “evidence that the Communists have succeeded, at least partially, in implementing their strategy of fusing the Vietnam and civil rights issues in order to strengthen their chances of bringing about a reversal of U.S. policy in Vietnam.”
29. See Leo, “Leftists Ponder Convention Move,” 38. “Subversive Involvement in Disruption of 1968 Democratic Party National Convention,” Part 1, 22713.
30. Ibid., i–ix.
31. House Committee on Internal Security, “Subversive Involvement in the Origin, Leadership, and Activities for the New Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam and Its Predecessor Organizations,” ix.
32. Ibid., 5–6.
33. Quoted in ibid., ix.
34. Quotes taken from the coverage in the Washington Star, October 22, 1967, A8. See also House Committee on Internal Security, “Subversive Involvement in the Origin, Leadership, and Activities for the New Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam and Its Predecessor Organizations,” 8–9.
35. House Committee on Internal Security, “Subversive Involvement in the Origin, Leadership, and Activities for the New Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam and Its Predecessor Organizations,” 9.
36. Ibid., 22.
37. Dr. Benjamin Spock and Mitchell Zimmerman, Dr. Spock on Vietnam (New York: Dell, 1968).
38. I was unable to find much information on Zimmerman, then and today. He does not seem to be as active as he was in the 1960s. More recently, he published a very left-leaning article for the far-left Alexander Cockburn publication Counterpunch, titled “The Bizarre Legal Philosophy of Justice Janice Rogers Brown: First Amendment Protection for On-the-Job Racism?” which Counterpunch carried in a March 31, 2005, issue. The tagline in the piece refers to Zimmerman as “a former SNCC organizer and co-author of Dr. Spock on Vietnam” and “a partner at a high-tech firm in Mountain View, California.”
39. The New York Times is quoted on pages 14, 28, 32, 41, 42 (three times), 44, 45, 49, 71, 77, and 78.
40. Spock and Zimmerman, Dr. Spock on Vietnam, 14.
41. Ibid., 18, 42, 54, 57, 71–72.
42. Ibid., 15–7.
43. Ibid., 18.
44. Ibid., 19–20.
45. For more on this trip and Ted Kennedy's reversal on Vietnam, see Adam Clymer, Edward M. Kennedy: A Biography (New York: HarperPerennial, 2000), 80–82, 99–103.
46. These are Spock's and Zimmerman's words, and not a direct quote
from Kennedy. They wrote that Kennedy “reported” this. They then quoted Kennedy indeed reporting such claims. Spock and Zimmerman, Dr. Spock on Vietnam, 45–46.
47. Spock and Zimmerman, Dr. Spock on Vietnam, 45–46.
48. Ibid., 46.
49. The Kennedy quote is a direct quote from Kennedy—i.e., Kennedy's words, not Spock's and Zimmerman's. See ibid., 15, 48–49.
50. Spock and Zimmerman, Dr. Spock on Vietnam, 52–55.
51. Ibid.
52. Ibid., 54.
53. “Investigations of Students for a Democratic Society,” Part 7-A, Hearings Before the Committee on Internal Security, House of Representatives, 91st Congress, First Session, December 9–11 and 16, 1969, 2186–88.