David Josephs Posted June 8, 2018 Share Posted June 8, 2018 4 minutes ago, Paz Marverde said: Tu quoque, David? Please ... Paul, do you think it possible that Angleton may have been Sasha? Not being familiar with that expression I looked it up... Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern: Person A makes claim X. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X. Therefore X is false. which of my "actions or past claims" are inconsistent with asking whether Angleton as SASHA is possible? I am not making the claim he was SASHA, I am only asking... maybe something lost in translation Paz... no doubt. Just as Philby was made aware of the CIA closing in on the Cambridge Five and himself, as JJA was aware of a hunt for SASHA, if he was SASHA what a better place to be than leading the search? After reading a little... Aleksander Kopatzky sees the name which comes up for SASHA so I am probably just plain wrong here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paz Marverde Posted June 8, 2018 Share Posted June 8, 2018 Tu quoque simply means: you too? You too with the obsession of a KGB mole? That's all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted June 8, 2018 Share Posted June 8, 2018 25 minutes ago, Paz Marverde said: Tu quoque simply means: you too? You too with the obsession of a KGB mole? That's all Oh... not at all Paz... just a conversation worth having with those who are interested.... learning something new every day... offering search and links skills when possible "et tu" in french (which I studied) and "e tu" in Italian according to google translate... That's why I was so surprised... no worries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted June 8, 2018 Share Posted June 8, 2018 17 minutes ago, David Josephs said: Paul, do you think it possible that Angleton may have been Sasha? Not being familiar with that expression I looked it up... Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern: Person A makes claim X. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X. Therefore X is false. which of my "actions or past claims" are inconsistent with asking whether Angleton as SASHA is possible? I am not making the claim he was SASHA, I am only asking... maybe something lost in translation Paz... no doubt. Just as Philby was made aware of the CIA closing in on the Cambridge Five and himself, as JJA was aware of a hunt for SASHA, if he was SASHA what a better place to be than leading the search? After reading a little... Aleksander Kopatzky sees the name which comes up for SASHA so I am probably just plain wrong here... David - CIA internal investigation asked the same question and suggested Angleton might have been the mole. My own personal view of Cold War history allows for Angleton to be just that while also being a fascist (proven connections in OSS and with his father) connected to Mossad and Mafia. But even from a traditional view Golitsyn did more damage by far than Nosenko. He got VIP treatment from Angleton, and feathered his own nest when he predicted that the Soviets would send a false defector (Nosenko) to discredit him. Then he went wild and started naming everyone as KGB, including British labor leader Harold Wilson. He destroyed French/US relations by claiming that SDECE and the French government were heavily infiltrated with KGB agents. DeGaulle objected, naturally. Eventually there were French Soviet sympathizers discovered, but from my reading not KGB agents, just sympathizers. Big difference, and important ones. Is it so surprising that DeGaulle would have a neutralist stance on the Cold War? He was not Communist nor Fascist, and had the experience to know the difference and chart an independent course for France. Angleton, on the other hand, took the public stance that there was a war between KGB and CIA, good guys vs. bad guys. Golitsyn fed that point of view, and was rewarded for it. Both Nosenko and Golitsyn provided some good info, but both were probably false defectors. However, Golitsyn was probably destructive to US relations abroad, and yet well treated financially and otherwise, whereas Nosenko was put through the ringer for years (because of Golitsyn) but emerged intact and did not destroy anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted June 8, 2018 Share Posted June 8, 2018 Thanks Paul... very interesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Ross Posted June 8, 2018 Share Posted June 8, 2018 51 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said: Eventually there were French Soviet sympathizers discovered, but from my reading not KGB agents, just sympathizers. Big difference, and important ones. What have you read that leads you to believe they were only sympathizers? That's a serious question; if it exists, I would like to read it. It seems to contradict what Mangold wrote (Cold Warrior, Chapter 9, The Sapphire Network). If what he wrote is correct, and his bias towards Angleton and Golitsyn was mostly negative, we are not talking about just sympathizers here, are we? They were purportedly at least passing NATO secrets to the KGB. Golitsyn is said to have claimed some NATO files had crossed his desk while he was there (he was able to recall their NATO filing number, if I remember correctly). And there were some much more serious allegations involving the top levels of government prior to that (p. 117). Has this all been de-bunked somewhere? Somewhere besides the publicly available internal CIA studies. How timely. I just bought "Topaz" last night out of interest in it's supposed connection to this subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paz Marverde Posted June 8, 2018 Share Posted June 8, 2018 Jim Garrison was accused to be a sort of KGB mole. Metta's investigation shows he was, instead, totally right. Besides, we now know that it was the CIA the one trying to smear Garrison with false accusations. It speaks volumes on how disinformation really works. Keep it in mind. That's my advice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted June 8, 2018 Share Posted June 8, 2018 2 hours ago, Kirk Ross said: What have you read that leads you to believe they were only sympathizers? That's a serious question; if it exists, I would like to read it. It seems to contradict what Mangold wrote (Cold Warrior, Chapter 9, The Sapphire Network). If what he wrote is correct, and his bias towards Angleton and Golitsyn was mostly negative, we are not talking about just sympathizers here, are we? They were purportedly at least passing NATO secrets to the KGB. Golitsyn is said to have claimed some NATO files had crossed his desk while he was there (he was able to recall their NATO filing number, if I remember correctly). And there were some much more serious allegations involving the top levels of government prior to that (p. 117). Has this all been de-bunked somewhere? Somewhere besides the publicly available internal CIA studies. How timely. I just bought "Topaz" last night out of interest in it's supposed connection to this subject. I believe all that. Nothing has been debunked as far as I know. The only prosecution of a NATO official I could find was sentenced to 20 years and served 6 thanks to DeGaulle. For the part of my post you quoted, ‘Sympathizer’ might be the wrong word. What is the correct one? A source inside? Were they paid spies? Soviet born moles? Active KGB agents? Mainly I’m questioning what Golitsyn was doing. I’m suggesting that Angleton and De Vosjoli used him and even fed him info, such as details of the inner workings of French Intelligence. Lots of smoke, and a casual reading would suggest lots of fire too. But when I peer more closely I don’t see it. If you’re working in a neutral country watching the Cold War rage and the world becoming more dangerous how do you deal with it? I’m thinking of DeGaulle mostly, who I think tried to steer a course for France without becoming a tool in the Cold War. I haven’t read Cold Warrior yet, though I see it quoted often. Have you read what David Josephs posted on page 20 of this thread? Called Angleton, Golitsyn and the Monster Plot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. A. Copeland Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 20 hours ago, Paul Brancato said: Tommy Graves is no longer posting, but I am sure he is reading and chomping at the bit. I’m fairly sure that his current theory is that the Soviets were the prime movers. It wasn’t always his belief, but Bagley convinced him. I’d like to leave that aside for the moment, and it’s really not fair that I represent him anyway. i think we spend too much time on Nosenko. There was a deep disagreement in the CIA on his bonafides. If he was false, it’s completely understandable why he was sent. But as Jim says he provided lots of good info in either case. Maybe as Pamela says he was ‘something different. i think we should look at Golitsyn, widely considered to be genuine, and completely accepted as such by Angleton. Even Graves admitted to me that Golitsyn went berserk later on and started seeing Communist agents everywhere. The difference in the treatment he got vs Nosenko surely has to do with the fact that Golitsyn fed Angleton’s Paranoid world view, and Nosenko did not. The CIA mole who Golitsyn called Sasha was never found, and Angleton ruined many careers trying to figure out who he was. Golitsyn drove a wedge between the US and France that was very destructive. I think we need to look closely at that. I have a theory. I’m not sure it’s original, but I haven’t read it anywhere else. I’ve been looking as closely as I am able at Phillippe Thyraud De Vosjoli, and I smell a rat. He was head of French Intelligence (SDECE) in the US, Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean from 1951-63, and had a working relationship with Angleton during those years. Then he defected to the US in November of 1963. The official story is that Golitsyn and Angleton convinced him that France’s Intelligence services were heavily infiltrated by the KGB starting in the 1950’s. JFK heard about these revelations and sent a letter to DeGaulle expressing his concerns. As a result of that and efforts by Angleton and De Vosjoli the French debriefed Golitsyn for a long time, checking and double-checking everything. Here the story gets confusing, because apparently he convinced some but not all of his questioners of his truthfulness. The most impressive thing he did was demonstrate a very deep understanding of the inner workings of the SDECE. When I read this I couldn’t help but wonder how Golitsyn would know so much detail about French Intelligence. It’s one thing to name names of KGB moles, and quite another to do what he is purported to have done. And then it struck me - maybe Vosjoli was feeding him this inside info. Wouldn’t this be right out of Angleton’s playbook? I’m going to leave it here in hopes someone think this is an intriguing possibility. I will share a lot more about De Vosjoli later. Huh? Thats awful. Oh well....well thanks a ton Paul for the detailed and thoughtful response. Your theory is certainly worthy of further study I'd say and as usual, I'll be reading this response of yours a few times to make sure I get it. If I've any further questions or thoughts I'll be sure to pass them your way. What are your thoughts on Newman's recent analysis on Nosenko (and Golitsyn for that matter) Paul? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 3 hours ago, B. A. Copeland said: Huh? Thats awful. Oh well....well thanks a ton Paul for the detailed and thoughtful response. Your theory is certainly worthy of further study I'd say and as usual, I'll be reading this response of yours a few times to make sure I get it. If I've any further questions or thoughts I'll be sure to pass them your way. What are your thoughts on Newman's recent analysis on Nosenko (and Golitsyn for that matter) Paul? Did you read or watch Newman on this subject? Mr. Graves mentioned it a few times and I took his word for it. But I would like to dig in a bit. Do you have a link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 6 hours ago, Paul Brancato said: Did you read or watch Newman on this subject? Mr. Graves mentioned it a few times and I took his word for it. But I would like to dig in a bit. Do you have a link? Paul here is part 2 of that video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 And part 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 I still think this is important On 5/23/2018 at 9:16 PM, Michael Clark said: Bagely was likely a sadistic, myopic torturer. His later claims about Nosenko are very likely clouded by guilt. He was also likely incompetent and dangerously-so. https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32359254.pdf Italics are mine... TOP SECRET 13 October 1970 MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD Subject: BAGELY, Tennant, Harrington #386 38 1) On Wednesday, 7 October 1970 I briefed Colonel L. K. White, Executive Director-Controller on certain reservations I have concerning the proposed promotion of Bagely to a supergrade position. 2) I was very careful to explain to Colonel White at the outset that my reservations had nothing whatsoever to do with Bagely's security status. I explained that it was my conviction that Bagely was almost exclusively responsible for the manner in which the Nosenko case had been handled by our SR division. I said I considered that Bagely lacked objectivity and that he had displayed extremely poor judgment over a two year period in the handling of this case. Specifically as one example of Bagely's extreme prejudice I pointed out that the SR division had neglected to follow up several leads provided by Nosenko which subsequently had been followed up by this office (Bruce Solie) and that this lead us to individuals who have confessed their recruitment and use by the Soviets over an extensive period of time. 3) I explained further that Bagely displayed extremely poor judgment in the actions he took during that time that Nosenko was incarcerated at ISOLATION. On many occasions, as the individual responsible for Nosenko's care, I refuse to condone Bagely's instructions to my people who are guarding him. In one instance Bagely insisted that Nosenko's food ration be reduced to black bread and water three times daily. After I had briefed Colonel White, he indicated that he would refresh the Director's memory on Bagely's role in the Nosenko case at the time he reviews supergrade promotions. Howard J. Osborn Director of Security Edited May 14 by Michael Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 3 hours ago, Michael Clark said: And part 1 Thanks Michael - listening intently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 Best part of the filmed Newman talk is at the end of part 2 where, after saying that Newman had convinced him that Nosenko was a false defector Peter Dale Scott asks a couple of key questions: was the Oswald killed in Dallas the same as the one who lived in the USSR? Was Golitsyn a genuine defector? Was Oswald (the one killed in Dallas ) in. MC in 1963? Was this same Oswald ever at the MC Soviet Embassy? Newman responds to the first question by saying he’s not sure at all. To the second he says Golitsyn was genuine but later, after being given first class treatment by Angleton and CIA he looked out for his own self interest. Scott makes the point that Golitsyn was very destructive as the years went on and Newman does not disagree. To the third question Newman says he’s not sure whether the ‘real’ Oswald as in MC, or perhaps there but also being impersonated. Scott makes the point that the impersonation not only happened in a phone call but also at the Soviet Embassy, and he believes Nochiperenko and his book Passport to Dallas is controlled disinformation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now