View the h-diplo Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in h-diplo's June 2000 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in h-diplo's June 2000 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the h-diplo home page.
At the end of one of their recent postings, John Haynes and Harvey Klehr are 'bewildered that Mr. Lucas cannot see the difference between American citizens working for and with an agency of the American government and American citizens working for the Soviet Union'. I agree that it is folly to reduce the question to a simple equivalence but it is also a folly to turn it into a dichotomy, justifying a blind eye to issues which might be troublesome. The CIA secretly subsidised many US private organisations, with thousands of activists, between 1948 and 1967 (and possibly beyond). All sectors --- labor, students, women's groups, athletes, lawyers --- were included. The ideological illusion that it was the private individual, rather than the State, that was campaigning for the American way of life had to be projected. This was, at the least, a deception; at the worst, it helped lead to ill-conceived efforts such as 'liberation'. In 1967 many in private groups who thought they were carrying out autonomous work were horrified to find that, for up to 20 years, their 'witting' colleagues had taken CIA money and maintained the deception that the State was not involved in their efforts. Others who were 'witting' were rewarded with entry into the 'private' and State elite --- Kissinger, Rostow, and Schlesinger to name only three. None, of course, would reveal how their careers were assisted by covert help. Funny how, with the scramble for VENONA books (and here in Britain the much-hyped Mitrokhin files), few seem to be considering this aspect of the Cold War. It is notable that the most recent books on the subject have come from historians based outside the United States (for example, Frances Stonor Saunders' Who Paid the Piper?). It is also notable that the files of the CIA's International Organizations Division, who co-ordinated this effort, remain very tightly classified. As some continue sweeping condemnation of those in 'Moscow's pocket', wouldn't an analysis of this covert collusion between the private sector and the US State that went beyond 'My country, right or wrong' be welcome? Scott Lucas University of Birmingham