Talk:Anna Louise Strong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

[corrections][edit]

Having just come across the ALS article, and as the author of what is I believe to be the most extensive account of her life, let me add or correct a few things:

1. While it is certainly probable that ALS was encouraged to help get Americans to invest in the USSR during the NEP, the contacts she had in the USA pre-existed her first trip to the USSR. Furthermore this was a pretty standard practice at the time as General Electric, the Filene enterprises, etc all were eager to try to invest in the USSR.

2. Her 1929 book is Red Star (not Start) in Samarkand.

3. The article scants her growing quiet but internal disaffection with the USSR during the late 1930's and the gradual shift of her hopes for socialism to China.

4. During most of WW II she was in the USA, and on the urging of Eleanor Roosevelt undertook a trip across the country by car to examine the effects of the New Deal on ordinary people (leads to My Native Land)

5, She did not return to the USSR until 1944 (if she was spying for the USSR at the time the disappointed FBI was unable to find anything in her luggage that incriminated her).

6. if there is evidence that ALS got to Berlin in 1945 behind the Soviet Army, I should like to know of it as I do not think she went further than Warsaw.

7. The interviews with Liu ShaoQi and Mao in Yan'an in 1946 are of great importance in that they are the first time that the Chinese CP publicized to the West the idea that there was an "asiatic form of Marxism." -- something that made the USSR very nervous.

8. Her arrest by the Soviets is not until 1949 (after she had participated in the USA in the Wallace campaign); the cause for the arrest appears to have been her unrelenting public support (in Moscow, no less) for the Chinese Communists). On her return she was named a Soviet agent by a US House committee, thus finding herself in the odd posiiton of being an agent for both the USA and the USSR (which, ironically, is sort of true).

9. She did not return the the USSR in 1955, but in 1958 after the ROckwell Kent case was decided by the Supreme Court (having to do with passports). 1955 is the date she was rehabilitated by the Soviets. She went quickly from the USSR to China in 1958. She did not visit China "with" Dubois but was there when he visited in 1959.

10. Incidentally, while most people, including those on the Left, were quietly dismissive of her "Letter from China" (post 1959), I know from people in the US State Department that it was regularly read as a good source of information.

Subsequent to the book we published an annotated transcript of "Three Unpublished Interviews" she had with Mao (China Quarterly (Sept 1985)

Best wishes to you all, Tracy Strong — Preceding unsigned comment added by TStrong (talkcontribs) 20:30, 16 February 2006‎

Distortion[edit]

Stop using this article as a way to try and discredit Anna Louise Strong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.144.52.102 (talkcontribs) {{{2}}}.

Friend, I can understand your strong feelings on this subject. Perhaps you feel the article is unfairly slanted. However, our goal is a neutral-point of view discussion of her. Therefore if we have omitted or distorted facts, please correct them. Thanks for taking an interest in her. She was a fascinating person! Best, Dpr 03:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) (also posted to original contributor's Talk page)
The problem he was talking about was that you mentioned how she and DuBois were taken through "Potemkin" type villages. This is clearly a lie as there is no evidence for it. It's based on assumptions. Anyway, I've been editing the article lately, a lot! And I've added much to it. If there's anything you wish to discuss about it please do let me know.
Scrib 04:14, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
I'll try to be more discriminating in the checking of statements in the future. Thanks. It was not my intention to be POV. ~ Dpr 1 July 2005 02:01 (UTC)

POV?[edit]

Is the word "covert" in the following revision by Nobs01 POV? Thanks. She is best known for her coverage of, and, often, covert support for, communist movements in Russia and China, ~ Dpr 1 July 2005 02:00 (UTC)

Well, she is named in the Venona project as an American who had a covert relationship with Soviet intellignece. Nobs01 1 July 2005 02:10 (UTC)
Factually, it seems you're right--but no matter how you slice it, I'd wager that we may get some accusations of POV. It's tough to be accurate yet sensitive enough... ~ Dpr 1 July 2005 04:41 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be in the opening, so long as there is fair treatment of the subject. I guess I was seeing if anyone was actually watching the page. Thanks. Nobs01 1 July 2005 04:56 (UTC)

I've removed the "Soviet Spy" category. Being mentioned in a Venona project transcript does not make one a spy. She was arrested by the Soviets and charged with espionage which should be a clue. --Lee Hunter 18:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Being arrest by the Soviets, etc. does not dilute earlier complicity. In fact, many such loyal subjects of the ideological cause were purged in the Doctors Plot, about the same time as what is commonly refered to as the "McCarthy" period in the United States. Another such example remained in a Hungarian prison until 1962, charged as a CIA spy, but never swerved from his idealogical commitment to Communism and the Soviet Union. Numerous other examples can be cited. Many of these, like Strong, ended up in Maoist China. nobs 18:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with this perspective. The passage struck me as special arguing and I've deleted it leaving the question of her purported espionage efforts wide open, where it should be. Carrite (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"The Hungarian Tragedy "[edit]

I'm removing the reference to "The Hungarian Tragedy " from the works because I can find no evidence that she wrote anything with that title or on that subject. I think somebody's got confused with the book by Peter Fryer. If I'm wrong, please supply a source. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Decent article, but where are the footnotes?[edit]

Really poor sourcing here. Somebody needs to spend a day laying in the footnotes... Carrite (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The status of the death and legacy section is problematic[edit]

Very POV, to the extent a neutrality infobox is warranted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.144.72 (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that this is not a coherent sentence (it seems like it was written by a non-native speaker of English): "Because of her writings on life and society in places like the Soviet Union and China, it has given many communists a clearer idea of what societies based on their views should look like." Even if the serious syntactical issue ("because of her writings....it has given") were cleared up, it still wouldn't make much sense..."a clearer idea of what societies based on their views should look like" --huh?? Moonlet (talk) 08:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)