The History Book Club discussion

Hello Everyone,

Welcome to the fifth week of discussion for Enemies: A History of the FBI.

The fifth week's reading assignment is:

Week Five - July 2nd - July 8th :

Chapters SEVENTEEN, EIGHTEEN, NINETEEN, TWENTY p. 140 - 170
SEVENTEEN - Showdown, EIGHTEEN - "Red fascism", NINETEEN - Surprise Attack, and TWENTY - Paranoia

We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did for other spotlighted books.

This book kicked off on June 4th. We look forward to your participation. Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Borders and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, or on your Kindle/Nook. We offer a special thank you to Random House for their generosity.

There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.

Bryan will be leading this discussion.

Welcome,

~Bentley & Bryan

TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL

Tim Weiner

Notes:

It is always a tremendous help when you quote specifically from the book itself and reference the chapter and page numbers when responding. The text itself helps folks know what you are referencing and makes things clear.

Citations

If an author or book is mentioned other than the book and author being discussed, citations must be included according to our guidelines. Also, when citing other sources, please provide credit where credit is due and/or the link. There is no need to re-cite the author and the book we are discussing however.

If you need help - here is a thread called the Mechanics of the Board which will show you how:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/2...

Glossary

Remember there is a glossary thread where ancillary information is placed by the moderator. This is also a thread where additional information can be placed by the group members regarding the subject matter being discussed.

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/8...

Bibliography

There is a Bibliography where books cited in the text are posted with proper citations and reviews. We also post the books that the author used in her research or in her notes. Please also feel free to add to the Bibliography thread any related books, etc with proper citations. No self promotion, please.

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/8...

Q&A with Tim

Please as you are reading post questions to the author's Q&A thread because Tim Weiner will be looking in periodically and will be posting answers to your questions and will be available for a chat. We are very fortunate that he is making time to spend with us.

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/8...

Tim Weiner

Chapter Overviews and Summaries

Chapter Seventeen: Showdown

Truman created a director of central intelligence, which upset Hoover. The FBI used two spies, Igor Guzenko and Elizabeth Bentley, to learn about Soviet spy activity. However, the Soviets were one step ahead. Hoover continued to warn Truman about spies at the highest levels of government, but the president didn't believe him. Truman cut the FBI budget, so all overseas agents had to come home. This did not stop the FBI director from going after the American Communist Party by using his Security Index.

Chapter Eighteen: "Red fascism"

Clark Clifford used Hoover's reports to warn Truman that the Soviet Union was the next big enemy. In the 1946 elections, the Republican came to power, using anti-communism as effective campaign rhetoric, fueled by FBI reports. Nixon, especially, got information for his campaign. The House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) also got FBI help. Hoover testified before this committee, saying Truman was not taking the Soviet threat very seriously.

Chapter Nineteen: Surprise Attack

The CIA was created against Hoover's wishes. So, Hoover began to investigate CIA personnel, and nominally helped Allen Dulles and the CIA. Hoover befriended James Forrestal and warned him about the Soviets learning atomic bomb secrets. Hoover painted a bleak picture of Communists in the U.S. using atomic, chemical, and biological weapons. Using the Smith Act, Hoover got the American Communist Party banned and arrested members. The FBI broke into Amtorg to get old cables. Under the Venona project, they were able to break the Soviet code to learn about spy activities. In the HUAC hearings, Alger Hiss was named. Hoover devised a mass detention program with military tribunals for Communists in an event of a national emergency. Truman won reelection and Hoover left his job for two weeks.

Chapter Twenty: Paranoia

Through the Amtorg cables, the FBI learned about a spy in the DOJ. They investigated Judith Coplan and arrested her with perjury and faulty evidence, and her conviction was overturned. Venona was alluded to in court, as well. So, Hoover implemented "June Mail" where all the secret files were sent to a secret location and not part of the FBI central records.

Klaus Fuchs was arrested for stealing atomic bomb secrets, and the FBI had a file on him, but did not act on it. The Soviets knew about the FBI manhunts and changed their codes. They had someone on the inside of Venona. Hoover thought the CIA was vulnerable to Soviet spies, due to the fact that most of the CIA agents going over the Iron Curtain were killed. Hoover still resented the larger CIA budget and it being a major intelligence player.

An interesting start: having a national and international spy organization run by someone, as Tim states:

"His rage was personal and political, bitter and implacable, barking and biting. He had high-soaring ideas, and he had hissing fits. His sense of humor was sarcastic, sometimes petulant. His knowledge was enormous, though his mind was narrow." (p. 140)

these were the questions I had asked myself when I was reading Chapter 17. the answers could be inferred from the text, but I'm kind of at a loss as to why Tim didn't actually address any of these points directly...

- Why did Truman cut the FBIs budget, dropping hundreds of agents?

I can only assume that he just really didn't like Hoover and had concerns about the FBI as a secret police.

- Why didn't Truman respond-- or rather: what was his response-- to Hoover's report on Soviet agents in government?

This isn't addressed at all except for a brief mention in Truman's letter to Churchill, and I'd really love to know what his response was :/

- Did Truman feel that there really was a Soviet conspiracy?

The impression that we get from the text is that Truman didn't take anything Hoover warned about seriously, but we really only get that impression because Hoover said that during his session with HUAC.

- What was Truman's views on the Soviet's trying to steal bomb secrets? Did he understand the severity of the situation?

I think knowing this would really help us understand the dynamic between Hoover and Truman on a policy level, as opposed to the more personal, vindictive level we get from Hoover's p.o.v.



While I'm no fan of Hoover's, I really did get a kick out of him spying on the CIA. The cajones one has to have to pull off such a stunt!

Some great questions, Misty. I suggest you copy and paste this over to the Q&A with Tim thread.

I have always been interested on how and when the shift occurs that the Soviets were now our enemy. I do think Truman took Soviet espionage seriously, but you get the impression he was not on board with it immediately. Truman was a common-sense guy, not one to go where Hoover "lived." Now you got me thinking, so I might check in with some books and get back to the group. Does anyone have some insight?

I read Truman by David McCullugh several years ago. If I recall correctly I think it would be accurate that Truman was somewhat slow to see the Communist threat, but when he did he took action. (this would be my interpretation) It was interesting to read about the background investigation of all government employees in these chapters. As I remember, Truman was very conflicted about allowing that to go on but felt he had too. Again, a case in my opinion where a President does something against his instincts because he is being told unless he does, he's responsible for what ever happens next.

One additional thought. In reading this weeks chapters,I have been wondering did Hoovers disrespect of Truman in any way influence Truman firing General McCarther? it almost appears like Truman was convinced he had to defend his office from people who will disregard it after dealing with Hoover. If so, Truman learned the job of the presidency quickly under some of he greatest stress of the offices history.

I apologize for not linking the book correctly, I'm on my iPad during a power outage, will update when I have my pc back up.

As I read these chapters I found myself wondering what was the basis of Hoover's reaction to the start of the CIA. Was it a concern that only he and the FBI would be effective (questionable belief, but founded on a concern for the country) or was it a desire for control and power.

Then I read these:
Page 145:
"On July 8, 1946, Hoover told his agents in Latin America and the Caribbean to close down their operations immediately."
and:
“All investigative files, both pending and closed, were burned,.... shut down operations in Mexico, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Venezuela, Haiti, and Cuba."

Destruction of the files, breaking his commitment for a transition - obviously an exposure for significant damage to the United States' intelligence efforts.

Disheartening.

True, it is disheartening.

It is probably both.

Brian, I think it was control/power. We know that the FBI was horrible for quite a long time with overseas spying until they realized the beauty of attaches. By having another agency handling overseas spying outside of war, Hoover would no longer have that monopoly of information with which he could use to bully people to get his way.

Edit: he also probably suspected that Truman was doing this to spite him :)

Rodney wrote: "I read Truman by David McCullugh several years ago. If I recall correctly I think it would be accurate that Truman was somewhat slow to see the Communist threat, but when he did he took action. (t..."

Thanks Rodney. The country didn't feel Russia as a threat until late 1946. I think it all took time.

Misty wrote: "Brian, I think it was control/power. We know that the FBI was horrible for quite a long time with overseas spying until they realized the beauty of attaches. By having another agency handling overs..."

I agree, Misty, it is all about control of. Information.

Sorry I haven't posted in awhile, I've been very busy these past few weeks. I'm all caught up now though.

Anyway, one thing that has always intrigued/puzzled me about Hoover and the Red Scare is that it seems so blatantly obvious that the tactics used by HUAC and Hoover were repulsively un-american in and of themselves, and that their "investigations" involved harassing innocent people. How could anyone have gone along with this?

As I was reading though, I came to two realizations: one was that Hoover obviously had a lot of experience manipulating the enemy. I believe Tim points out that all Hoover had to do was repeat his strategies from the gang-busting years.
The second realization was that refusing to listen to Hoover at all would have been nearly impossible in the late forties and early fifties, because there actually WERE soviet spies operating within the government, spies who were rather more effective at their jobs than their American counterparts. I'm sure that in the immediate aftermath of the revelation that the Soviet Union had stolen the secrets of the atomic bomb, it was both personally satisfying and politically advantageous to persecute innocent Americans in a grand show of fighting the red menace

I don't have much to add to the comments above. I don't think there's anything Truman could have done to get more under Hoover's skin than instituting then FBI. Truman probably saw Hoover as more dangerous to America than the communists, and I might have to go along with that line of thinking.

The enmity between those two groups certainly grew, fueled by the mutual hatred between Hoover and Allen Dulles. (p. 169) It will be interesting to see how these turf wars play out in future chapters.

Why am I not surprised that Hoover and Richard Nixon hit it off? (p. 150) The kings of wiretapping . . .

Two peas in a pod

I enjoyed reading these chapters on Hoover but I keep feeling that there is something missing. I keep wondering what makes the man capable of such chameleon behavior. He seems to get along with almost anyone no matter what their politics or religion. This is probably the wrong place to post this but was just wondering if anyone has any thoughts as to what religious training Hoover had undergone as a youth if any. Did he have any party affiliation? In what ways was he influenced by his Mother? The animosity between Hoover and Truman was fascinating. What I do not understand is why Truman put up with him. I just keep thinking about how Truman relieved General MacArthur of command without a moments hesitation. I can not imagine Truman being bluffed by Hoover. He must have been serving a very useful purpose to get away with all the stuff he did. It seems that he was almost truly above the law.

Clayton wrote: "I enjoyed reading these chapters on Hoover but I keep feeling that there is something missing. I keep wondering what makes the man capable of such chameleon behavior. He seems to get along with alm..."

You should ask the Hoover background questions in the Q&A with Tim thread. These are great ones.

Yes, why did Truman put up with Hoover? I wonder if FDR's advisers, then his own, told him that you can't get rid of him because of his secrets, maybe he was the only person doing intelligence early on and needed him for something. Another possibility is that he had only one "popular figure" firing in him and it was MacArthur. Hoover, I think, was hugely popular and Hoover's firing could be a problem as Truman's ratings went down. Lots of possibilities...

I never fully appreciated the FBI's close relationship with HUAC. Do you think it set a bad precedence?

Kay wrote: "Why am I not surprised that Hoover and Richard Nixon hit it off? (p. 150) The kings of wiretapping . . ."

I am actually really surprised that Hoover made it thorough so many different presidencies. You would think that his law breaking ways would get on some one's nerves sooner or later. He must have been producing some results to the POTUS in order to keep his job for so long.

I think Hoover knows how to play the game well enough that he gives them useful intell, and they probably thought they could control him.

And the secrets/files...good to keep friends close, but enemies closer??

I think Claytons comment about JEH's chameleon like behavior is exactly right. I also think that Hoover hated people who saw through his ability to change colors (or so it would seem to the uninitiated) so quickly and Truman saw through him almost immediately. Which is why it is so odd that Truman signed the Loyalty Order/ The Federal Loyalty and Security program. If I remember correctly, he did try to create boundaries for the FBI within the program, but why would he allow this? I know this book is a history of the FBI, but I am curious as to what persuasive power Hoover had over Truman, especially in the face of their mutual animosity.

G wrote: "I think Claytons comment about JEH's chameleon like behavior is exactly right. I also think that Hoover hated people who saw through his ability to change colors (or so it would seem to the uninit..."

Yeah, the loyalty program was a mess. I think Truman did it for two reasons: 1. The Republicans were obsessed with this and if they ran the show, then it would be much worse, and it would surrender presidential power to Congress; 2. there were spies in the federal bureaucracy. Truman didn't like doing it, but he felt he had to.

The directive didn't have a working definition of loyalty. The Loyalty Review Board along with the other loyalty review boards in government did wrongly fire people and forced others to resign.

Tom Clark was in charge, but I think the buck did stop at Truman's desk.

Politically, do you think Truman had much of a choice with the Republicans winning on the anti-communism theme and the Cold War now starting?

It is interesting on the flip side: Hoover became more secretive because Truman didn't trust him. Not a good situation.

Bryan wrote: "G wrote: "I think Claytons comment about JEH's chameleon like behavior is exactly right. I also think that Hoover hated people who saw through his ability to change colors (or so it would seem to ..."

Politics. Of course. He was very much a politician. Unfortunately, in his battle with Hoover, I applied a misplaced avuncular image of Truman. I still can't get passed this, though, even with knowledge of the Missouri political machine. But he certainly had no chance of winning that year unless he did sign the act. All for the greater good, right? Road to hell, etc. What a let down. I have on my reading list
by Alonzo L. Hamby (no photo)

This is the wonders of history and how it can change your perceptions. I mourn with you, G.

Hamby book is a good one.

Alonzo L. Hamby

In thinking about Clayton's fantastic comments it makes me wonder something simple.

Is it really in our best interest to tell the truth?

Yes, as a matter of ethics and personal responsibility it clearly is. However, if someone is able to either go past the ethics, or feel they are the only ones who can save the country, manipulation of the situation becomes far more useful or even necessary. I clearly think Hoover and many who are drawn to politics make this trade off. Drunk in their own feeling of convictions, I think ethically they let go of needing to tell the truth and consider the ends justify the means.

I work with a many people in many areas who will openly tell you their greatest skill is manipulation of events and people to their agencies benefit. When I've confronted them with the opinion that I consider this a character flaw not an assets, I've been told "you'll never be a leader" I see Hoover as one of these types of people.

Very interesting take on it, Rodney, thank you.

There probably is a trade-off when you get into politics (and business as well). I agree, Hoover had such strong convictions that he really thought the end justified the means. You wonder how he would react if someone told him he was investigated and then detained. He doesn't listen when AG after AG tells him the evidence you provide through wiretaps, etc. are not admissible. Amazing.

I think your question plays right into Tim's major theme of this tug-of-war. And do we ask for something better, or let national security, from time to time, allow ethical lapses to save our country from threat...

Interesting that no matter how paranoid Hoover was about the Soviets stealing US Nuclear secrets and how many measures he put in place to stop this, it seemed to happen with relative ease.

Rodney wrote: "Is it really in our best interest to tell the truth?"

Great point. Something I think everyone has had to struggle with in their life. For those in charge of this country it is imperative that they do the right thing. I'm not saying that Hoover did all the right things, nor am I saying that the right thing and the moral thing are the same.

I do however, understand that given the right event sometimes the only thing you can do is lie. A great point Rodney and a stirring conversation starter!

Rodney wrote: "In thinking about Clayton's fantastic comments it makes me wonder something simple.

Is it really in our best interest to tell the truth?

Yes, as a matter of ethics and personal responsibility..."

My experiences as well, Rodney.

It makes me have greater respect for those who acknowledge and stand up for their convictions. Even though he tried to play down his Communist affiliations, I wonder why Robert Oppenheimer was not included in the Los Alamos part of this books narrative?

Also, William Fulbright who was well known for his support of speaking out against government and those who abused democracy, once said (I couldn't find the quote, unfortunately) that his constituency proscribed him from voting the way of his beliefs, but he made his beliefs known none the less.

So, in my humble opinion there actually are people of power who are both ethical and political. So far, none of them have appeared in this book (not the authors fault!!).

Thanks, G, you are right, there are people of principle in D.C. We saw it in Harlan Fiske Stone. I think he could have done something if he wasn't elevated to the Supreme Court.

Sometimes, I feel I need to read an uplifting book while I'm reading this great book, lol.

Bryan wrote, "Yes, why did Truman put up with Hoover? I wonder if FDR's advisers, then his own, told him that you can't get rid of him because of his secrets, maybe he was the only person doing intelligence early on and needed him for something. Another possibility is that he had only one "popular figure" firing in him and it was MacArthur..."

I have to agree. I'm sure most people 'in the know', including Truman, feared firing Hoover, and didn't want to risk his releasing his files, possibly and probably with blackmail. They knew he had a lot more secrets and information about lots of people than they could even imagine. 'The genie was out of the bottle', and there was no way he could be put back and removed without awful consequences. The only thing they could do is try to keep an eye on him and find out what he was doing. If it weren't for the mistakes made, i.e. Judith Coplan, they wouldn't have learned much of anything.

MacArthur was still very popular, and his relief from command during Korea was far from unanimously favored. While Truman got praise for having the courage to relieve MacArthur's command, most leaders felt he could not get away with another controversial removal, which firing Hoover would have been.

Succinct observation re JEH on page 140 (chapter 17):
"His knowledge was enormous, though his mind was narrow."
On many fronts, JEH carried out his task very well...thorough, dedicated, focused... However, being narrowly focused, I believe, may have been his undoing in several areas. Perhaps the most serious problem he had, and which is at times a danger with any highly talented person, was that he could be out of touch with other people and with reality or with acceptable ways of operating.

JEH's belief in his own righteousness and uncompromising mandate caused him to act outside of any accountability and meant that he "all but declared war on the White House." (page 146)

A dangerous situation when one has so much power in his own hands.

On page 160 we again see the danger of believing that one is righteous in politics to the point of being unwilling to compromise. "It was a dangerous moment in American democracy. Hoover was no longer listening to the president." And again... "But when Hoover distrusted the White House, he became most secretive. He hid things."

Indeed, Lewis. It is scary to see the FBI doing such illegal things and being more secretive in response to one man's distrust in a pouts.