The Real Henry A. Wallace: The Truth About Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick’s “Unsung Hero.”
In the Vassiliev Papers, the KGB files that Alexander Vassiliev copied and brought from Moscow to London, an entry appears in the Vassiliev notebooks dated February 10, 1945. An NKGB agent — Washington D.C. station chief Anatoly Gorsky — reported to NKGB head Lavrenti P. Beria that he was enclosing a telegram from the intelligence agency’s station chief in Washington, D.C. about the station chief’s future meeting with Henry A. Wallace, which would take place on Oct. 24, 1945. (At above Vassiliev link, see the translated pdf of the Black Notebook.)
What the document reveals is that Wallace initiated a contact with a senior Soviet diplomat, who he more than likely knew was the resident KGB officer in the Soviet Embassy in Washington, D.C. In his conversation, he explained that he supported a pro-Soviet policy and was pushing for it in the United States government.
For that task, he asked the Soviets for assistance.
The context of Wallace’s comments reveal that he saw himself as an ally of the Soviet Union and as a collaborator with them in a common cause. He saw himself not as a supporter of “a century of the Common Man” and an anti-imperialist — as Stone and Kuznick claim — but as a fervent believer in the Soviet Union who was asked for foreign intervention on their part in U.S. internal political fights.
Here, from the Vassiliev papers, is the actual document:
“To Comrade L.P. Beria” “I am enclosing a telegram from the NKGB USSR station chief in Washington regarding his meeting with U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wallace.” (Molotov’s decision: “Cde. Merkulov! This should be sent to Cde. Stalin without fail. Molotov. 2.10.45.” Vadim had been introduced to Wallace (the former Vice President) previously. Wallace called him personally and invited him to breakfast at the Dept. of Commerce, which took place on 24.10.45. He was interested in what the reaction would be if the USA were to invite a group of Soviet scientists to become familiar with science in the USA. Truman wants Kapitsa very much he is working on the atomic project. Wallace was interested in the Soviet reaction to the discussion taking place in the USA regarding the safeguarding of the secret of atomic bomb production.
“Safeguarding the tech. information pertaining to that question in the USA leads, in Wallace’s opinion, not only to a worsening of already highly strained Soviet-Amer. relations, but also gives the rest of the world the impression that the USA is the most potentially aggressive state on earth.
Wallace said that he has been trying within the government to get control over the use of atomic energy for military purposes handed over to the UN Security Council. However, his attempts have so far been unsuccessful. Wallace described Johnson’s bill pertaining to this question, which was put before Congress, as a reactionary attempt by the War Department that was incited by the representatives of major industrial capital: ‘DuPont’, ‘General Electric’, ‘Union Carbide’, and ‘Carbon Corporation’. Vadim asked how one could explain Truman’s diametrically opposite statements on this question.
“Wallace faltered somewhat, before saying that Truman was a minor politico who had taken up his current post by chance. He frequently has ‘good’ intentions but yields too easily to the influence of those around him. Wallace explained that there were two groups currently fighting for Truman’s ‘soul’ (his expression word for word) a smaller one, in which he included himself, and a more powerful and influential one, of which he named only Hannegan (Postmaster General and Chairman of the Democratic Party), Tom Clark (Attorney General), Byrnes (Sec. of State), and Anderson (Sec. of Agriculture). The smaller group believes that there are only two superpowers in the world: the USSR and the USA; the well-being and fate of all mankind is dependent on good relations between them. The second group is very anti-Soviet (Wallace singled out Byrnes in particular) and sets up an opposing idea of the dominant Anglo-Saxon bloc (chiefly comprising the USA and England) which is decidedly hostile to the Slavic world that is ‘under Russia’s heel’. With regard to this, Wallace blurted out: ‘You (i.e., the USSR) could help this smaller group significantly, and we have no doubt of your desire to do so’. Wallace declined to specify what he meant by this statement, and I felt it would be awkward to press him.”
Then Wallace, of his own initiative, touched upon Anglo-American econ. talks. “At the end of the conversation, Wallace mentioned that congressmen who had returned from trips to the USSR and around Western Europe were spreading a lot of anti-Soviet lies here.”
In their book The Haunted Wood, Allen Weinstein and Alexander Vassiliev discuss the same document. They call this meeting “one of the most remarkable and unexpected meetings of the period.” Noting that Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov found it so important that he noted it had to be sent to Stalin, they write:
That Wallace had chosen the Soviet intelligence chief in Washington as his conduit to the USSR leadership testified to the daring (and recklessness) of the man whom FDR had removed from the Democratic ticket in 1944 in favor of the more conservative Truman. Wallace’s proposal, considering the Truman Administration’s cooler relations with the USSR in past months, was also startling.
They note the importance of Wallace’s suggestion to Gorsky that technical data about the atomic bomb should not be kept in U.S. hands, a suggestion, they correctly write, that was “extraordinarily indiscreet.”
I would add that Wallace’s suggestion that he opposed Senator Edwin Johnson’s bill to keep control of the bomb in U.S. hands rather than transfer it to the U.N. Security Council — which he called a “reactionary attempt” created by “representatives of big industrial capital” — is precisely the argument used today to explain opposition to Wallace by Stone and Kuznick, who actually present old Soviet and communist arguments as their own contemporary original analysis.
They also concur with Wallace’s statement to Gorsky that Harry S Truman was a man who fell under “the influence of people around him,” a group which Stone and Kuznick keep repeating was made up of reactionary Southerners like James F. Byrnes who represented big corporate industry.
Most importantly: Weinstein writes that Wallace’s call for Soviet support on behalf of those who shared his views “reached beyond the fragile boundaries of discretion,” particularly because Wallace asked the Soviet to “help this smaller group considerably,” referring to himself and his supporters.
Wallace, in other words, was a complete dupe of the American Communists, a group which — as I have explained in an earlier column — convinced him to run for president on the so-called Progressive Party ticket in 1948.
Between the huzzahs for Oliver Stone’s revisionist history and the Common Core Standards adopted by a large majority of the states, I don’t know what is more frightening to the writers and readers of reliable history, including readers of the history of literature. Ron Radosh has sounded the alarm on Stone, but here is another debacle that threatens to 1. decrease the English and American literature taught in the schools in favor of bureaucratic legalese; and 2. move literary criticism of the Greats away from “moderation” toward the most extreme Left, including ideas that would be agreeable to all proponents of the organic society. I sounded my own warning bell here: http://clarespark.com/2013/01/05/american-fascism-and-the-future-of-english-and-american-literature/.
The Social Democrats are on the march.
Time for cable to unbundle channels? I know ShowTime is extra but there is no reason subscribers should be forced to support CBS and other junk channels.
“…Michael Kazin, Christopher Hayes, and all those sycophants who pretend to be giving Americans the real story.”
“There is something almost charming about the left’s habit of using childish name-calling….”
– Seth Mandel in Commentary
It’s “name-calling” only if they’re not sycophants pretending to give the real story. Sycophant is accurate, and actually quite tame for these “men of the left.”
“There is something almost charming about the left’s habit of using childish name-calling….”
– Seth Mandel in Commentary
You’re a troll. How’s that for name-calling?
Nothing unexpected from the Right.
How very clever of you to brand any negative term “name calling.” You’ve rendered us powerless with your verbal alcarity and the sheer force of your mighty intellect. Well done, HillelA.
The embrace of the Democrats of the historical Truman and JFK has had with it the potential to illustrate that the current Democratic Party is NOT their party. It was hijacked by the forces which ran Wallace for President in 1948. Today, the only thing the schools teach about the 1948 election is that “Dewey Beats Truman” headline. Nothing else.
The refusal of the Republicans to point this out is one of the reasons why they are unable maintain that they are actually quite centrist and it is the contemporary Democratic Party which has strayed from its roots. Based upon the recent election results, voters today really think that Obama is a middle-of-the-road Democrat. Truman would have disowned him, JFK would have disowned him. But the Stupid Party helps the Democrats keep that little secret.
You have no idea of what you speak of. This nation is built upon lies and people like Stone want us to know the truth.
The GOP is “quite centrist”? And Radosh agrees entirely? Wow.
For example:
“Rep. Tom Cotton: Congress Must Be Willing to Shut Down the Government if Obama Won’t Budge on the Debt Ceiling”
– PJM headline
Soros expects better work for the $8.00 per hour he’s paying you.
Terrific comment, Craig. I agree entirely.
I routinely watch C-SPAN’s Afterwords program, as well as much of what is on Book Tv on the weekends. This one I deliberately skipped. The reason was Oliver Stone. Why waste time on him?
Afterwords is supposed to be non-fiction authors interviewing other non-fiction authors about their work. This wasn’t.
Wow! Glenn Greenwald!
Makes it clear that the book is a waste of pulp better used to wipe.
Excellent deconstruction of Stone’s propaganda. The man is a fraud on so many levels.
Stone and Kuznick’s “history” is as ridiculous as their “hair.”
It’s quite shocking to think Wallace was a vice-president, and might have even become president. With so many traitors and fools in high places it’s a miracle the US survived so far, let alone become a superpower.
It is also why the US no longer is a superpower.
Stop being duped. Stone’s world view has won. It will never change again. The Republican are weak and dem-lite. The Dems won and will continue to win. They are the strong horse. That’s it.
Yes, let’s all give up and submit meekly to our totalitarian overlords. “It will never change again.” If you believe that, why don’t you just commit suicide now?
Ugly Dirt is back. My, oh, my.
Proggy trolls sometimes do commit suicide, but not because of anything we say or do.
For the rest of us, there IS a way out.
I didn’t say an EASY way out.
People like Stone and Kuznick seem obsessed with rewriting history, or distorting it beyond recognition. One asks why they would want to do this on behalf of a moral squalor like the former Soviet Union? The simple answer is they hate the US so much they want any device, tool, weapon they can lay their hands on to bash it with. The second question is why they have this deep, abiding need to persuade people to think about the US the way they do? The answer to this question is even simpler: they are intellectually insane. It seems that many people have this condition, otherwise loons like Stone, Kuznick, a frighteningly large number of American academics, and usual leftist journalists would be seen for what they are. Unfortunately, intellectual insanity on the left is the scourge of the planet. The good news it’s a disease confined largely to the left.
“Confined largely to the left” I don’t think so. I saw some of Stone’s swill on SHO recently and was left slack-jawed. This is the sort of totally over-the-top bizarro propaganda that would have gotten him laughed out of the office twenty years ago. Now, it’s getting prime-time Showtime imprimatur and its director and author are getting the triumphal publicity tour. Like Al Gore, they can afford to ignore their opponents. Their side OWNS the debate forum. Soon enough, the school kiddies will be forced to watch their swill on class time.
We can debate their personal motives till we’re blue-in-the-face. I think it’s merely because they were raised to think this way from birth. U.S.A. and capitalism–bad. U.S.S.R. (or any enemy of America) and socialism–good. I was exposed to this sort of thinking in my youth as well. It doesn’t go any deeper than that.
Jonah Goldberg in his “Liberal Fascism” was right when he said most liberals have no idea of the sinister roots and disgusting progenitors and non-sensical philosophical basis of their cherished ideals, they’ve just been raised and trained this way and been told that being a liberal is hip and cool and compassionate.
The Dark Side is EASIER. As Master Yoda might have said, all you have to do is embrace a certain set of beliefs and you are automatically conferred a halo of compassion and intellectual superiority. You don’t actually have to study or learn or defend a damn thing. Just mouth the correct rhetoric and you’re all set. Everything you say is right and any personal sin you commit can be laughed off or dialectically explained away. Furthermore, saying or writing the wrong thing in public can nowadays get you in social trouble or legal jeopardy or blight your school or job prospects. Best to keep your mouth shut and go along even if you don’t agree. Just go with the flow and no-one gets hurt.
This is the mini-series Oliver Stone would liked to have put out decades ago. He knew he just had to be patient.
People like Stone and Kuznick seem obsessed with rewriting history, or distorting it beyond recognition. One asks why they would want to do this on behalf of a moral squalor like the former Soviet Union?
I can’t help but wonder if their “alternate history” is inspired by an overwhelming bitterness at the Left having lost the Cold War. Now that the Left is in power in the United States and the darling of the media, they can go ahead and rewrite history to prove themselves morally and politically correct, at least retroactively.
With the almost total ignorance of history among the young, there is almost no one to challenge their version of events. Most kids could show their parents their textbooks and their parents would be unable to detect the errors although perhaps their grandparents or great-grandparents could do so.
I’m deeply greatful to Prof. Radosh for speaking out about this and wish him every success in his effort to debate Stone and Kuznick. I’m not holding my breath on the mainstream media giving him that forum though. I also doubt that Stone and Kuznick will accept the challenge. They know that the media will not pressure them to defend themselves against Prof. Radosh or someone of similar credentials and that will leave their narrative unchallenged. Stone and Kuznick are probably wise enough to recognize that their blarney will propagate effortlessly in the absence of vocal criticism.
I anticipate the Stone series being the video equivalent of Howard Zinn’s history text, widely touted as being the definitive history of the United States in the latter part of the 20th Century. Both, of course, are utter rubbish in terms of accuracy but that is insignificant since they are filled to the brim with “truthiness”.
In the Vassiliev Papers, the KGB files that Alexander Vassiliev copied and brought from Moscow to London, an entry appears in the Vassiliev notebooks dated February 10, 1945. An NKGB agent — Washington D.C. station chief Anatoly Gorsky — reported to NKGB head Lavrenti P. Beria that he was enclosing a telegram from the intelligence agency’s station chief in Washington, D.C. about the station chief’s future meeting with Henry A. Wallace, which would take place on Oct. 24, 1945.
Wrong date. Further on the article quotes:
That would be October 2, 1945, not Feb 10,1945, to be consistent with “24.10.1945,” where the month comes before the day.
A common sense approach would also state that it is very unlikely that one would plan in February for a meeting in October: two weeks is more likely than 8 months in advance.
Those who would look to Henry Wallace’s view in the Cold War in the 1940s ignore the change in his point of view as a result of the Korean War. As a result of the Korean War, Henry Wallace abandoned his previous benign view of the Soviet Union.
Dear Ron Rodish,
Why don’t you write a book about Wallace? Interestingly, later on he became anti-
communist.
Another terrific piece by Ron Radosh. But what is really astonishing to me is how supposedly respectable historians like Martin Sherwin, Michael Kazin and Douglas Brinkley can put their critical abilities in cold storage and praise Stone and Kuznik’s confabulations and delusions. I just don’t get what animates them other than their leftist pretensions. It certainly can’t be that they don’t know the history of the Cold War or Soviet policies in Eastern Europe or Soviet intentions of undermining governments in the West, as Radosh seems to imply if I read him rightly. One doesn’t have to be a Cold War scholar deeply familiar with its literature to realize that the Soviet Union was an expansionist totalitarian state that could not be assuaged but could only be confronted and contained, precisely the policies pursued by Truman and his successors. If these historians celebrating Stone and Kuznik still have any doubts what Stalinism meant — hard to believe, though — they should read Anne Applebaum’s latest book on Soviet control of Eastern Europe and what that would have portended for Western Europe had Wallace been president. But perhaps those historians don’t care and are only moved by the corrosive anti-Americanism that still seems to permeate many of their 1960s generation. How else can one rationally explain their willingness to lend their good names to a work of such obvious ideological propaganda?
I am beginning to believe that instead of calling them “the Left”, they should be more accurately identified as Democrats.
They are in the Democratic Party.
They pretty much control the policies that Democrats implement.
Their intellectuals are the Democrat intellectuals.
Calling them the “Left” allows most Democrat voting people to avoid responsibility for them. Criticizing them as Democrats is needed so that Republicans, or other non-Dems, can win elections.
Thank you Mr. Radosh.
Free speech gives Mr. Stone and Mr. Kuznick the right to lie as loudly and as often as they like. Free speech also gives historians in high academic positions who live high off the public dole the right to discredit themselves and their institutions as well as dishonor their profession.
Free speech also gives Mr. Radosh the opportunity to let the truth demolish everything standing in its way just like Thomas Jefferson said it would.
Thank you Mr. Radosh.
Would be nice if Radosh would actually demonstrate the evidence that Gaddis used to prove that Wallace was “regularly reporting to the Kremlin in 1945 and 1946.” This is such an over-the-top accusation that it demands documentation. Does Radosh really think that the sitting Secretary of Commerce was a Soviet spy? Gaddis is the myth maker here.
Simplicity itself is the badge we flash whenever the taint of Communism appears- What we have yet to learn but the “intelligences” on all sides know very well is that nothing quite deceives like a document. Henry Wallace would have led us down a dark path; the whole world would have been worst for it – baloney. Just because good people were taken with or deceived by the “communist line” doesn’t mean that the outcome would have been inevitable. What makes any of us so sure that our national security state was/is the answer? After defeating the Nazis, we sided with them. We hired them, used them and in the end they themselves were “corrupted” by inept “intelligences” that we paid for at what horrible price. Our weakness was we didn’t have faith enough in our own democracy – and, sad to tell, we still don’t. The Bogeyman is good for business; Fear is the primary lever – thats the history of the cold war.
I think Wallace would have been historically great for this nation. Race-relations, corporate structure and our appearance to other nations would have been greatly improved at an earlier time had he not been railroaded. Same for JFK.
Turning the world upside down. And then turning that upside down world upside down again, and again. Plowing up, undermining, the soil on which NEW seeds are to be sown.
The Seeds of the “DREAMS From The Fathers”. But Whose fathers? Which fathers? Which seeds?
To satisfy the myth requires destruction. The murder of the father and his seed. By a man from outside the kingdom of the Father – the putative “son” of the father.
The seed in full flower gave HOPE to millions of people world wide to CHANGE their lives for the better. HOPE satisfied over more than two centuries for disparate peoples from the entire world. At times at great cost in treasury and blood of those who cherished THAT promise.
That soil to be plowed under – UNDERMINED – to make way for THEIR seeds. Seeds producing flowers KNOWN to be toxic to aspirations of men wherever they’ve grown. In any of the New Worlds created by those called by a number of names Leftists. Why Left?
The rush – why the rush? to CHANGE that Old World Dream into one consistent with the DREAMS of self-appointed, self-propagating, incestuous wizards who as in those most dangerous words in the language, “We’re from the government and we’re here to help”. Help which requires the destruction of the seed and fruits of the Founders, of the Fathers.
What is a promise to “fundamentally transform” the creation of those Fathers but a promise of destruction of that creation? Left? Right? Independent? the words exist and have meaning outside the political arena and the person who says them.
To “transform” the seed of the double helix of the DNA of these United States of America: The Declaration of Independence with the protection of that independence as spelled out in detail in the Constitution of the United States of America is the goal, for whatever personal psychopathy of Wizards of Destruction.
These documents that detail a DREAM of human aspiration in freedom from self important control freaks ought not have a sell-by-date. And should not be readily exchanged by a rational and enlightenec self-interested population for the blowing in tbe wind promises of politicians. ANY politician.