View the h-hoac Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in h-hoac's August 2007 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] View the Next Message in h-hoac's August 2007 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] Visit the h-hoac home page.
To: haynes@mail.h-net.msu.edu Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 5:25 PM Subject: Re: Max Bedacht On the question of Max Bedacht's presence or absence from New York in 1932, the minutes of the CPUSA Central Committee and Polburo provide important evidence. Bedacht was present at an extended Polburo meeting on July 6-8. He noted that he had been on the road for 5 weeks "up to a little more than a week ago" (i.e., last week of May and all of June). So indeed Bedacht could not have been in New York on the "hot June day" recalled by Whittaker Chambers. However, Bedacht was in New York almost all the rest of the time from May through October. It is not true that Becacht was absent from New York from July "until late November 1932." Bedacht was present at Polburo meetings on May 11 and May 18. Presumably he was in the city until about May 23. He returned around July 1. He attended a Polburo meeting on July 6-8, as well as August 4, 17-18, and 28. He was present at an extended Central Committee meeting of August 27-30. He attended Polburo meetings on Sept. 8, 14, and 19(at which he had a bitter exchange with Browder.) All of these minutes can be studied in the CPUSA microfilm collection, Rolls 204-207 (515/1/2653, 2671-5). Chambers was notorious for his imprecise memory for dates. In this case the fateful summons by Bedacht could easily have been on a hot July or even August day. It seems to me a mistake to try to discredit Chambers by focusing on the precise accuracy of a date he proposed for a particular event. Rather scholars should look at the bigger picture and all the available evidence, as Sam Tanenhaus has done in his excellent biography of Chambers. Tom Sakmyster Professor of History, University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, OH 45221
|