The Spy (K.G.B. General Alexander Orlov), the Dupe (Bertram D. Wolfe), and the Documents (The Stalin Resolutions)

2014 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 375-417
Author(s):  
Jennifer McDowell ◽  
Milton Loventhal

Two-hundred and forty-two consecutive, Soviet Politburo resolutions on foreign policy covering 1934–1936, some built on reports by Stalin with his actual words, and 34 pieces of 1934 espionage correspondence that traveled between the Moscow Foreign Office and its branch in the Soviet Embassy in Vienna, were purchased clandestinely by German intelligence, at the time, and as they were written. A German Sovietologist named Dr. Georg Leibbrandt authenticated them right at the time. Adolf Hitler read them. They influenced his decision to attack the Soviet Union in 1941. Captured by the U.S. Army in Germany (OMGUS) at the close of World War II, they were brought to the United States, to the National Archives and Hoover Institution. Milton Loventhal and Jennifer McDowell translated and authenticated them, using both sets of copies. The story of their authentication sheds light on the 1960–1961 machinations of one of Stalin’s foremost secret agents, master spy K.G.B. General Alexander Orlov, who fled to the United States in 1938 to escape Stalin’s terror. But this “loyal Soviet dropout” (Stanley G. Payne’s term) was in reality a cloaked agent who had never renounced his loyalty to the Soviet state. Asked by Bertram D. Wolfe to comment on the resolutions’ authenticity, Orlov informed Milton Loventhal and Wolfe that these documents were forgeries, using arguments that were proven worthless in their entirety. Untangling the web of deception Orlov wove around these detailed, complex documents is the focus of this article, shining a bright light on the power a mesmerizing secret agent can have when the rules of research are abandoned by influential experts.

2008 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 555-567 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerhard L. Weinberg

At the end of World War II, vast quantities of German documents had fallen into the hands of the Allies either during hostilities or in the immediately following weeks. Something will be said near the end of this report about the archives captured or seized by the Soviet Union; the emphasis here will be on those that came into the possession of the Western Allies. The United States and Great Britain made agreements for joint control and exploitation, of which the most important was the Bissell-Sinclair agreement named for the intelligence chiefs who signed it. The German naval, foreign office, and chancellery archives were to be physically located in England, while the military, Nazi Party, and related files were to come to the United States. Each of the two countries was to be represented at the site of the other's holdings, have access to the files, and play a role in decisions about their fate. The bulk of those German records that came to the United States were deposited in a section of a World War I torpedo factory in Alexandria, Virginia, which had been made into the temporary holding center for the World War II records of the American army and American theater commands. In accordance with the admonition to turn swords into plowshares, the building is now an artists' boutique.


1953 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-167
Author(s):  
S. Bernard

The advent of a new administration in the United States and the passage of seven years since the end of World War II make it appropriate to review the political situation which has developed in Europe during that period and to ask what choices now are open to the West in its relations with the Soviet Union.The end of World War II found Europe torn between conflicting conceptions of international politics and of the goals that its members should seek. The democratic powers, led by the United States, viewed the world in traditional, Western, terms. The major problem, as they saw it, was one of working out a moral and legal order to which all powers could subscribe, and in which they would live. Quite independently of the environment, they assumed that one political order was both more practicable and more desirable than some other, and that their policies should be directed toward its attainment.


Author(s):  
David M. Edelstein

This chapter traces the deterioration of Soviet-American relations at the end of World War II and into the beginning of the cold war. While the United States and the Soviet Union found common cause during World War II in defeating Hitler’s Germany, their relationship began to deteriorate as the eventual defeat of Germany became more certain. The chapter emphasizes that it was growing beliefs about malign Soviet intentions, rather than changes in Soviet capabilities, that fuelled the origins of the cold war. In particular, the chapter details crises in Iran, Turkey, and Germany that contributed to U.S. beliefs about long-term Soviet intentions. As uncertainty evaporated, the enmity of the cold war took hold.


Author(s):  
Kal Raustiala

The single most important feature of American history after 1945 was the United States’s assumption of hegemonic leadership. Europeans had noted America’s enormous potential since at least the nineteenth century. After the Civil War the United States had one of the largest economies in the world, but, as noted earlier in this book, in geopolitical terms it remained a surprisingly minor player. By 1900 the United States was playing a more significant political role. But it was only after 1945 that the nation’s potential on the world stage was fully realized. Victory in the Second World War left the United States in an enviable position. Unlike the Soviet Union, which endured devastating fighting on its territory and lost tens of millions of citizens, the United States had experienced only one major attack on its soil. Thanks to its actions in the war America had great influence in Europe. And the national economy emerged surprisingly vibrant from the years of conflagration, easily dominant over any conceivable rival or set of rivals. When the First World War ended the United States ultimately chose to return to its hemispheric perch. It declined to join the new League of Nations, and rather than maintaining engagement with the great powers of the day, America generally turned inward. The years following the Second World War were quite different. In addition to championing—and hosting—the new United Nations, the United States quickly established a panoply of important institutions aimed at maintaining and organizing international cooperation in both economic and security affairs. Rising tensions with the Soviet Union, apparent to many shortly after the war’s end, led the United States to remain militarily active in both Europe and Asia. The intensifying Cold War cemented this unprecedented approach to world politics. The prolonged occupations of Germany and Japan were straightforward examples of this newly active global role. In both cases the United States refashioned a conquered enemy into a democratic, free-market ally—a significant feat. The United States did not, however, seek a formal empire in the wake of its victory.


2006 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 635-644
Author(s):  
MARTIN H. FOLLY

The Second World War continues to be an attractive subject for scholars and even more so for those writing for a general readership. One of the more traditional areas of focus has been the ‘Big Three’ – the alliance of the United States with Britain and the Soviet Union. Public interest in the three leaders – Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin – remains high, and their decisions continue to resonate in the post-Cold War era, as demonstrated by continued (and often ahistorical) references to the decisions made at the Yalta Conference. Consequently, while other aspects of Second World War historiography have pushed into new avenues of exploration, that which has looked at the Grand Alliance has followed fairly conventional lines – the new Soviet bloc materials have been trawled to answer old questions and using the frames of reference that developed during the Cold War. This has left much to be said about the nature of the relationship of the United States with its great allies and the dynamics and processes of that alliance, and overlooked full and rounded analysis of the role of that alliance as the instrument of Axis defeat.


2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 3-11
Author(s):  
R. V. Yengibaryan

Introduction. Relations between Russia and the United States have nearly three centuries of history, and for more than two hundred years the countries had diplomatic relations which were interrupted for sixteen years from 1917 to 1933. Perhaps the XIX century was the most peaceful and fruitful for our countries when the interests of the Russian Empire and the United States on the world stage did not contradict each other, often coincided, thus excluding confrontation between the two nation-states. The XIX century for Russia and the United States was marked by the singing of a number of bilateral treaties, including the treaty on the extradition of criminals, which consolidated their partnership.On the contrary, the XX century is marked by unstable and cyclical relations between the two countries. The rejection of Soviet power, the long period of non-recognition of the Soviet Union was followed in 1933 by mutual multifaceted cooperation between the USSR and the United States, which included the legal sphere, and by the allied relations during the Second World War. The second half of the twentieth century was the time of open confrontation between the two world giants, when the crisis of relations between the USSR and the United States put the world on the brink of world war III. In such conditions, there could be no talk of improving the legal framework of legal cooperation, and the agreement on the procedure for execution of court orders concluded in 1935 did not find its practical application.Modern Russia has assumed the entire burden of problems and contradictions in legal cooperation with the United States. Searching for ways out of them is possible only on the basis of historical analysis of their prerequisites, taking into account the peculiarities of modern international relations.Materials and methods. The methodological basis of the study is the dialectical method of cognition of phenomena in the relationship and mutual conditionality using a set of general and particular scientific methods of cognition of reality. The historical method contributed to the restoration of the chronological sequence of legal cooperation between Russia (USSR) and the United States. The method of actualization made it possible to identify the historical factors that determined the peculiarities of international cooperation in the legal sphere. The method of diachronization made it possible to identify certain successive stages in the development of international legal cooperation between Russia (USSR) and the United States, to compare them, to identify patterns of development.Results. In the framework of the study, the author found that inter-state legal cooperation is an integral part of the foreign policy of states. The international legal basis of cooperation between Russia and the United States in civil, family and criminal cases was created in a different historical era, does not meet modern international relations, and is poorly implemented by the justice authorities of the two States.There is no treaty on legal assistance in civil and family matters that is fundamental to the protection of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens of both States, and there are no provisions on extradition in the Treaty on legal assistance in criminal matters.Discussion and Conclusions. The international legal framework of cooperation between the Russian Federation (and earlier - the Soviet Union) and the United States of America in the legal sphere; the problems of implementation of international legal assistance in civil, family and criminal cases are researched. The main provisions of the Treaty on mutual legal assistance in criminal cases of 2000; multilateral Conventions on the service abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial cases of 1965 are analyzed. The 1958 Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, the 1935 Agreement “On the procedure for the execution of court orders between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America” were explored. The prospects for the development of legal cooperation between Russia and the United States are shown.


2018 ◽  
Vol 219 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Dr .Ayad Tariq Khudier Al-Alwani

      This research deals with the attitude of the Soviet Union of the war the Korean Semi –Continental during  the years 1950  - 1953. It also treats the historical matters of the Korean issue which is considered one of the most important forms of the conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States; especially that the strategic spot that distinguished the Korean Semi- Continental had stimulated the great countries such as China and Japan to control the Semi- Continental .Besides the attempts of both the United States and the Soviet Union to exend their leverage to the areas they had controlled after the Second World War; of what led to obstruction of appearance of a united state in the peninsula; therefore Korea had been divided into two parts and Latitude 38 had been put as a separate border between them.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document