Talk:Walter Bernstein

Untitled

Walter Sol Bernstein, aka Walter Bernstein, appears in Venona project decrypt

• 1509 KGB New York to Moscow, 23 October 1944, p.1
• 1509 KGB New York to Moscow, 23 October 1944, p.2
• 1509 KGB New York to Moscow, 23 October 1944, p.3

Reference:John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), pgs. 238–240. Any objections to including this material and his inclusion in the Category:Soviet spies. Thank you. nobs 02:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I read the GIF files and couldn't see how it evenly vaguely establishes that Bernstein was a spy. "Khan met Bernstein who welcomed the re-establishment of liason with him and promised to write a report on his trip." Is it Walter Bernstein? What was Bernstein going to write about? What trip? Did he know that he was in touch with a Soviet agent? Is there something more definitive in the Haynes Klehr book? I've removed the category Soviet Spies pending more information. --Lee Hunter 20:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

" re-establishment of liason ", liason is the term that directly links him to espionage (re-establishment is more damning, in that it is evidence of prior espionage activity). Haynes & Klehr devote 3 pages to it (as referenced pgs. 238–240), which is quite lengthly actually for one person in thier book working outside government. Other sources could be developed to. nobs 21:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Shooting down Navasky

Navasky claims "they do not qualify the list". This is incorrect. Here is John Earl Haynes of the Library of Congress Manuscripts Division, "unqualified" list Cover Name, Cryptonym, CPUSA Party Name, Pseudonym, and Real Name Index. This will be referreed to as "Haynes Index", i.e. it contains all codenames & names sent in clear in Venona traffic (plus material from sources other than Venona). "Unwitting sources", who may have been assigned code names, or their name was transmitted in the clear in Venona, are not included in any of Haynes & Klehr's Venona Appendix's. Here are the fully qualified Appendix's to Haynes & Klehr's Venona:

• APPENDIX A Source Venona: Americans and U.S. Residents Who Had Covert Relationships with Soviet Intelligence Agencies
• APPENDIX B Americans and U.S. Residents Who Had Covert Relationships with Soviet Intelligence Agencies but Were Not Identified in the Venona Cables
• APPENDIX C Foreigners Temporarily in the United States Who Had Covert Relationships with Soviet Intelligence Agencies
• APPENDIX D Americans and U.S. Residents Targeted as Potential Sources by Soviet Intelligence Agencies
• APPENDIX E Biographical Sketches of Leading KGB Officers Involved in Soviet Espionage in theUnited States

All are fully qualified, were the context determines the subject was involved in a witting cooperative relationship; or as in Appendix D, corroboration has yet to emerge. If a codename from Appendix A can be found to fit person who willing qualified as to having witting contact in Appendix D, that would corroborate recruitment & espionage activity. Additional material can be provided, if necessary. nobs 16:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

So what's the significance of this list in regards to Bernstein? Seems like only a cross-reference prepared by the authors of the book with a pointer to that single vague sentence. --Lee Hunter 16:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Reversion

I've reverted this article twice today becaus:

• the recent edits removed a critically important point made by the author of The Nation article (i.e. the absurdity of linking someone to Soviet intelligence based on a single ambiguous and uncorroborated sentence in a report from an agent).
• the recent edits added source material that doesn't actually expand beyond that one dim sentence.

Care to comment? --Lee Hunter 01:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

"re-establish laison" says it all; defines complicity and overtly states he was previously invloved. nobs 01:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

It only establishes that a Soviet agent had two conversations with Bernstein and one of those conversations was only about Bernstein's public, above-board activities. There is absolutely nothing that "defines complicity" as you put it. Was Bernstein even aware that he was speaking with a Soviet agent? We don't know. Did he ever pass secret information to Khan? We don't know. Was Khan anything more than someone Bernstein bumped into a few times at a Hollywood cocktail party? We don't know. Is there any corroboration or context from other sources? Nope. It is simply intellectually dishonest to contrive a story about spying around this one sentence. --Lee Hunter 12:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

User: LeeHunter 4 Reverts!!!

Unless, User:LeeHunter is an exception to the three revert rule that gets bandied about on Wikipedia, he has violated it in his apparent zeal to censor this article to his political beliefs that is stifling facts from coming out.

In an effort to try and strip facts from the article he uses such terms as "balancing." Since when does someones biography get balanced? Facts are what should be incorporated into articles and I really hate it when zealots delete added information and facts because it does not fit in with their warped beliefs!

I would suggest that this user believes Walter Bernstein an innocent victim of Sen. McCarthy! The evil blacklist that befell this poor man. This is what we've been taught as history until the fall of the Soviet Union when we now know that there was more to it. In response to the evidence in the KGB files Bernstein wrote a book revealing his Communist Party involvement.

Nothing in the article controvenes fact. I would suggest that instead of erasing facts in the hopes of stifling truth this user should contribute facts to the article. Dwain 15:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

What "facts" did I "strip" from the article? I simply restored the quote from the Nation article (a quote which pretty much demolishes the "Bernstein as spy" angle which, for some reason, you seem to be anxious to promote). Would you care to address the reasons for reverting which I've outlined above? --Lee Hunter 15:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

So the Nation magazine, a magazine which itself had two Soviet spies working as correspondents during the time in question, "pretty much demolishes" the NSA findings. Perhaps the so-called "rebuttal" information needs to be balanced with factual material as well. nobs 17:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that there weren't Soviet spies at right wing publications? Gimme a break. I have no problem with factual information. The problem is that there simply isn't any, beyond that one third-hand sentence (an English translator's version of a report by someone who was reporting on what someone else reported about a conversation). That's all you've provided so far. If you have any further "factual information" please share it. --Lee Hunter 18:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

It has become quite obvious that this Lee Hunter does not care about facts and that his only purpose is to remove "real" facts from the article in order to prevent them from being seen! Why is this I wonder? I tried to placate this censor by putting the quote he so desperately wanted in the article but it did not placate him! It is indeed true that one cannot make deals with the devil! His edits have now become those of a vandal. He removes facts and conclsuions of other researchers with no apologies. If this person actually wanted to contribute to the article and include other facts that would be fine. But this person just wants to disrupt and delete and mislead which certainly is not fine. You should be ashamed of yourself Lee Hunter for you behavior. Dwain 00:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

And what are these "facts" that have been removed? I deleted one of the sentences about Bernstein liasing with the KGB for two reasons. First, because this particular sentence was worded in such a way as to imply that he knowingly did so and this is not supported by the evidence. Secondly, I removed it because it simply repeated what is already covered at length at the end of the article. I removed the category of Soviet Spies because there is no supporting evidence whatsoever that Bernstein was a spy. Having a conversation with a Soviet agent is obviously not equivalent to being a Soviet agent oneself! I removed references to a bunch of books about soviet spies in America because there is no clear reason why they are there. This is called editing, not vandalism. You and Nobs seemed to be on some whacky crusade to portray him as a spy. Again, I ask you to show me some facts. Other than that one sentence in Venona there is nothing. Instead of howling with protest, perhaps you could actually show me something to support your position.--Lee Hunter 01:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

It has become quite obvious that this Lee Hunter does not care about facts and that his only purpose is to remove "real" facts from the article in order to prevent them from being seen! Why is this I wonder? I tried to placate this censor by putting the quote he so desperately wanted in the article but it did not placate him! It is indeed true that one cannot make deals with the devil! His edits have now become those of a vandal. He removes facts and conclsuions of other researchers with no apologies. If this person actually wanted to contribute to the article and include other facts that would be fine. But this person just wants to disrupt and delete and mislead which certainly is not fine. You should be ashamed of yourself Lee Hunter for you behavior. Dwain 00:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

And what are these "facts" that have been removed? I deleted one of the sentences about Bernstein liasing with the KGB for two reasons. First, because this particular sentence was worded in such a way as to imply that he knowingly did so and this is not supported by the evidence. Secondly, I removed it because it simply repeated what is already covered at length at the end of the article. I removed the category of Soviet Spies because there is no supporting evidence whatsoever that Bernstein was a spy. Having a conversation with a Soviet agent is obviously not equivalent to being a Soviet agent oneself! I removed references to a bunch of books about soviet spies in America because there is no clear reason why they are there. This is called editing, not vandalism. You and Nobs seemed to be on some whacky crusade to portray him as a spy. Again, I ask you to show me some facts. Other than that one sentence in Venona there is nothing. Instead of howling with protest, perhaps you could actually show me something to support your position.--Lee Hunter 01:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

You obviously don't know very much about the Communist Party of America of the 1930's, 40's and 50's. The Communist Party of America was an arm of the Soviet Union, run by the Soviet Union, and they got their marching orders from the Soviet Union. This is a fact. Any member in good standing followed orders that came down from Moscow. They could not decide what direction to take their activities. They were instructed what they were to do. This is why members of the party would have aliases, why most of them kept their involvement secret and why to the bitter end they would lie to protect their cells and fellow members.

So if a person is a CP member in good standing they were working for Moscow already. They believed in their doctrine, they believed in the Soviet Union and Communism. Some so strongly that they are continuing to this very day to stick by their warped beliefs. They didn't turn on Hitler until Hitler attacked the Soviet Union, then they "hated" Hitler.

You obviously have an agenda. I believe you are trying to keep the party "lie" alive - that these people who were Communists were "innocents" whom their government (USA) unjustly persecuted. Well, the evidence is out. The records are speaking and the line that we've been fed for years and which it seems you want to keep alive is being discovered for what it is - propaganda.

1. You don't get to Tito without connections. I'm sure he wrote up a great puff piece on this future dictator. That after all would be what he'd have been assigned to do either through the channels of the CPUSA or from contacts. Sure you can say this was just a journalist doing his job.

2. It is mentioned in the article that he was blacklisted several times. The reason for mentioning Venona twice is easy to comprehend. Chronology firstly, his name is mentioned in the secret Soviet cable in October of 1944. It should be referred to in chronological order. Then the fact that he was mentioned in the cable is further examined down at the bottom of the page after his biography. Why is this so hard to understand? Well, it's not! So you must have other reasons for deleting it.

3. KGB cables are not something that many people are mentioned in ordinarily. Possibly government workers, the President big public figures. But Walter Bernstein was none of these. He is insignificant in and of himself and there is no reason for someone's name to be mentioned in a cable.

I. F. Stone is referred to in a cable, only because a Communist spy named Samuel Krafsur suggested that he might be a god person to recruit. This does not mean that Stone was recruited. However, you have to suggest that the Venona cable didn't really say what it said about Bernstein because it was translated into English by an American and that this a third rendering of a conversation? That's a brilliant argument. A KGB is not going to send innuendo back to Moscow, not that is, if he knows what’s good for him.

The evidence says he was in contact with the KGB and was planning on getting back together with them. You don’t talk to the intelligence agency of a foreign country just for fun! The fact that Bernstein doesn't admit this in his 1996 autobiography does not mean that what was said is not true. Bernstein tells us enough in his book in order to suggest that he was only a Communist Party member and that was the extent of his involvement in the Communist movement. Of course, by the 1990’s he knew what information was out there and I’m sure he didn’t want to lose his standing as a victim.

4. The information in the Venona cable is strong evidence that he was a spy. The KGB does not have to lie to themselves. It shows that he was in contact with the KGB before which means he was a contact, an asset also known as, a spy. Not all spies are like James Bond, but I think you know that. Just talking to the KGB and giving information is spying whether the information you are giving is very secret or not. Knowingly doing something at the behest of the Soviet Union, in fact, could be considered working as an agent. What is written in that transcript would leave no doubt to an intelligence agent from either the United States or the Soviet Union that he was indeed an asset. Maybe you really don’t know anything about such things. Maybe you actually are so naive though I doubt it.

The fact that he is referenced in only "one" cable means nothing. That is not evidence that what was said in the cable was not true or that it means nothing. Only a very small amount of cables were intercepted. you can talk semantics all you want, but all the evidence is there. Clinton might not know what "is" is when he's trying to prevaricate but everyone else knew what was going on and the same applies here. Just because you say there is no evidence doesn't mean it is true. But you can be like OJ if you want I’m sure by now he even thinks he is innocent!

You seem to be coming from the angle that he was not an asset to the KGB. What I want is the truth. I am not trying to vilify this Bernstein. I own the Magnificent Seven. He obviously was a talented writer. It is too bad that he was so misguided that he would rather swear his allegiance to what has been proven to be an evil empire.

Not everyone involved in Communism stayed and these people have been vilified for their great strength for doing the right thing. I know about Communism and the American Communist Party firsthand. Members of my own family had cover names and worked for the cause most of their lives. They believed in their beloved Socialism right up until the bitter end. Their lives were robbed from them by the brainwashing that they underwent when they joined the party in the 1930's. They didn't care that Stalin was worse than Hitler they hated Roosevelt because he wasn't Socialist enough. These talented people wasted their lives for one of the worst evils to ever hit mankind. To admit to being a Communist is akin to admitting that one was a Nazi, however the Nazi didn’t kill as many people as the Communists have.

It is hard to understand what went through the minds of these family members. Their closest friends turned out to be Soviet spies and I think now that they knew all about it. I wonder whether they were all part of the whole spy network and believe most likely that they probably were. They always acted cagey kept everything secret. A whole group of Communists all lived in the same apartment building in New York. They all had different names tried to get their families to cover for them, had people sign documents to take their children if they were arrested. They seemed very complicit in their actions and they spewed the party line, mimicking word for word what the KGB was broadcasting.

You seem to want to continue the lie by arguing that this Bernstein wasn't a spy despite what is written in black and white. There can never be enough evidence for someone like you. Who apparently, is blinded by your ideology. I really don’t understand what could be going through your mind. Or the minds of so many other Communist sympathizers the world over. What’s the draw? I don’t get it. You come up with every flimsy excuse to remove sentences and facts.

I believe he is a spy and yet I only listed the facts in the article and don't come to any conclusions. The evidence is there and it speaks even louder to people who know about these things. Well, I won't cover up for the wrong that my family members did and I won't lie for them and people like them. I want the truth to be told. That is my motivation. I want the truth to be told. Let the readers get all the facts and make up their minds! But stop removing the information in order to silence the evidence! Dwain 03:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

- A brief comment here: the KGB didn't exist in 1944. The Soviet agency at that time was the NKGB. Andrew

"References" that aren't references

I have removed a number of publications from the references section because they have no information about the subject of the article, Walter Bernstein. For example, you can see in the index of The Secret World of American Communism shows no mention of Walter Bernstein. I also did a PDF search through the Official History of Counterintelligence and found no mention of Walter Bernstein. I can only conclude that editors are dumping these references into the article in the hope that it will make it appear as if there is more to the Bernstein as Spy story than there actually is. This is both pathetic and dishonest. You should be ashamed. --Lee Hunter 03:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• You are not obtuse. So why do you act in this manner? These are references that can help people to understand the facts that are listed in the Venona documents. References don't have to list the person for whom the article is about. They can give information that can be used to further understand the facts that are listed.

You must be deliberately trying to remove these things in order to free your comrade from the historical evidence that condemns him. Chow. Dwain 03:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Again I repeat, if you have any documented evidence that Walter Bernstein was a spy I would be delighted to have it in the article. For example, I have absolutely no problem with the Venona transcript along with the context that some writers have made much of it and some have dismissed it. However I will continue to remove unsupported speculation (for example, the suggestion that he if he was mentioned in one KGB message he was certainly mentioned in many. This is nothing but silly conjecture.) I will also continue to remove references that don't have anything to do with the life of Walter Bernstein. This is fully in accordance with WP practise and policy. If you want to add them to articles about communism in America or counterintelligence, fine. I will also remove content that distorts the facts (for example, implying that the KGB message said that Bernstein "welcomed the liason with Soviet intelligence" when it clearly said otherwise - that he welcomed the liason with Khan and that there is no evidence that Bernstein knew that Khan was an agent. They do call them "secret" agents for a reason).

In your last edit, you tried to discredit the Nation article by saying that two spies were on the staff. This is nothing but a cheap shot. The article was written more than half a century after the era of the Venona papers. --Lee Hunter 10:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Evidence

Ok, we've been there, done that. Looks like the full weight of evidence must be introduced into this article, too. And it will be. It is just a matter of time. Once it is presented, there will be no doubt left Mr. Bernstein belongs in Category Soviet spies. So please, don't blame me if his espionage career begins to overrun what other positve contributions he may have made. nobs 19:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Believe me, I welcome any factual information you care to add to the article. I simply object to drawing conclusions based on pure conjecture. --Lee Hunter 19:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Venona information should stay

Ok now I'm in the odd position of arguing against the removal of the Venona material. However, it is certainly a fact there is a mention of Walter Bernstein in the Venona transcripts and it is a fact that at least one book has tried to make it appear as if that brief mention is somehow significant, so I think the information should remain in the article (along with the sharp rebuttal from the Nation article which puts it in context). --Lee Hunter 01:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. While the Venona material requires careful treatment, that doesn't mean we can sweep it under the rug either. -Willmcw 05:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

General comments on this article

I do not think this article is very good, however I am reluctant to enter into the 'reversion' wars taking place here.

An article of this kind ought to have a short biography of the subject and a filmography. (Actually, a bibliography too, as Bernstein has published a couple of books.)

The biographical information here is rather thin, even though a good deal of information on Mr. Bernstein is available. There is no filmography.

The 'Venona' section, although it appears even-handed, is too large and too prominent. Here is a relatively recent (1999) allegation, made, it appears, by one pair of authors working together. By its prominence, the accusation is raised to more significance than it deserves in an encyclopedia article. A better approach would be to limit it to a sentence or two in the main body, something like 'In their 1999 book [title], Haynes and Klehr argue that Bernstein was a Soviet spy during the 1940s. This claim has been disputed inter alia by Walter and Miriam Schier, writing in The Nation.'

A single claim by Haynes and Klehr, especially where the 'evidence' is open to interpretation, does not make a 'controversy'.

The general impression is that the article reflects the views of one person who is more interested in passing judgment than in writing an encyclopedia article. Plenty of interest in his relations, real or imaginary, with communist organizations. Little or no interest in his films or other aspects of his life. Why is that?

For models of what this article should look like, see the Wikipedia articles on John Huston and on Elia Kazan, the latter controversial for testifying before the HUAC against his friends. Both articles appear balanced.

A couple of detailed comments:

In the general section, paragraph 2 and the last paragraph are almost identical in content.

It is said that he wrote The Magnificent Seven, but this is not indicated in the Wikipedia article on this film. Where did this information come from? The Magnificent Seven was released in 1960, but by 1959 he was openly working with Sidney Lumet. So why did he have to hide his identity as author in 1960? My hunch is that this is wrong.

Disclaimer:

I met Mr. Bernstein a few times in the 1980s, at a time when I was friend of one of his children. I probably would not know of him otherwise, and I am not a film buff. I simply came across this article while doodling around in Wikipedia. My views here reflect my professional view of these things. (I have been a professional librarian for 30 years.) As well, I confess a bias as someone who resists the John Birch view of people, slinging around accusations of communism.

Have a good day.

Andrew

Thanks, Andrew. I agree with all of your comments. Hopefully, someone with an interest in Hollywood cinema of that era will some of the gaps you identify. --Lee Hunter 17:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a specific question concerning Bernstein's identity in Venona. He is mentioned once in [New York-Moscow KGB message No. 1509 http://www.nsa.gov/venona/releases/23_Oct_1944_R3_m4_p1.gif]. NSA's footnote identifies Bernstein as a freelance journalist [1]. But the KGB says he had malaria and consequently Bernstein would not be leaving the US for at least a year. So, my question is: Did Walter Bernstein have malaria? If not, he cannot be the Venona Bernstein. If so, he may be.

By the way, I have checked the names of all blacklisted Hollywood persons listed in Wikipedia article on the Hollywood 10 against all names in Venona. None are mentioned in Venona, except this one, Bernstein.

So, can we find out if the blacklisted Bernstein had malaria?

John

Venona

I've tried to clarify the "Venona" allegations a bit. I welcome further participation, as I see this has been heatily discussed in the past. I thought the beginning was odd, as it begins with a denial. I think that we need to start with the allegations. Since Bernstein is living we have to be super careful about this.--Stetsonharry (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Date of death?

Here we go again...! Yet another Hollywood celebrity death where the media outlets can’t seem to make their mind up. New York Times, Washington Post and ABC News says Saturday January 23, but Deadline, Variety and Hollywood Reporter says Friday January 22. This is getting to be very tedious... Which sources should we believe?95.199.130.83 (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I spoke to Adam Bernstein, the Obituaries editor of the Washington Post, also the writer. He spoke to the family, which gave him the date of death as January 23, 2021 Saturday morning (NYC) 01:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obit fan (talk • contribs)

This also says January 23rd. [2] MikaelaArsenault (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

January 23rd used. Wyliepedia @ 08:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Even the tweet on Twitter said that he died on the 22nd. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Cause of death

He died from pneumonia: [3] MikaelaArsenault (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done with AP source. Wyliepedia @ 08:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)