View the h-hoac Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in h-hoac's November 2004 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in h-hoac's November 2004 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the h-hoac home page.
This message is in reference to Mr. Hartshorn's words below: I've gone through all the materials Hede Massing left to the Hoover Institution. In order to believe that her trial testimony about Hiss was fabricated, one would also need to believe that she continued to lie for the next fifty years of her life -- to friends, colleagues, acquiantances, government officials, at risk of exposure and the destruction of her personal reputation. Massing's papers reveal her ongoing correspondence with many former Communists, liberals, and conservatives alike about her absolute belief in Hiss's guilt based on her own contacts with him and Noel Field, and her own experiences with Soviet Intelligence. Furthermore, her memoir and personal correspondence make it very clear that her reluctance to tell the Hiss-Field story to HUAC in 1948 was at least partly due to her reluctance to work with the committee (as opposed to State Department security officials), and her fear of further alienating her estranged husband Paul Massing, who abhorred HUAC and the negative publicity the Hiss case generated for the Massings. There is no concete proof that Hiss and Field were Soviet agents along with Hede Massing, or that the infamous supposed dinner party at which all three were present ever truly occured. But there is no proof that it did not, and why would Hede Massing continue to correspond with friends and acquaintances for several decades afterward concerning Hiss's espionage, if she truly believed him innocent of the charges? Why would she and Chambers have continued to comfort each other for months for their roles in the Hiss Case, if they both knew themselves and therefore, presumably, each other, to be lying about it all? And the most problematic issue, to my mind, is this. Why would she have testified as she did in the 1949 trial, knowing it would further alienate her hueband, and possibly end their marriage, if she knew the charges against Hiss to be completely false? No one in this current list debate has ever ventured hypotheses on these issues, as far as I know, and I would like to hear people's thoughts on these matters. Veronica Wilson Re: Mr. Hartshorn's > > --- Begin Orginal Message --- > Date: 11/19/2004 5:02:26 PM > > Mr. Haynes writes: "Hede Massing, a former KGB operative, testified at the > Hiss trial that she had personally known Hiss as a Soviet source working for > the GRU. This came about when Hiss attempted to recruit a fellow State > Department official, Noel Field, who had already been recruited by Massing." > Noel Field left the State Department in June 1936. He could not have been > Hiss's fellow State Department official because Hiss did not join the SD > until September 1936. > Hede Massing was not permitted to testify at Hiss's first trial because > her story was considered irrelevant. Her testimony at the second trial in no > way substantiated Chambers's charge that Hiss provided him with copies of > State Department documents in the early months of 1938. > Moreover, the testimony she did give was probably perjured. She testified > as a "friendly witness" before HUAC in September 1948. The transcripts > reveal that she had every opportunity to tell her story about Hiss and > Field. She never mentioned it. This is a rather glaring omission in light of > her later trial testimony - but by then she had a book deal in progress. > > > > --