Talk:Klaus Fuchs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Linuxlad (talk | contribs) at 23:12, 25 September 2005 (→‎Technical Work). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Featured on Template:March 1 selected anniversaries (may be in HTML comment)

Nationality

(William M. Connolley 21:27, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)) For some odd reason, KF's nationality seems to be in dispute. It seems to me fairly clear that he is german: he was born there; and he was interned in UK during ww2 as a german citizen. The page says nothing about his being naturalised UK. 


I'm new to this and I'm not sure how to edit the page. There is a mistake in it. I corrected this and was accused of vandalism. Please advise me.
  The mistake is in the first paragraph. Fuchs was not born into a Jewish family. His father was a Lutheran clergyman.
  My source is my own book, 'Klaus Fuchs. The Man Who Stole the Atom Bomb.'

- Norman Moss

(Moved from article. -b 20:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I don't understand this one. I have changed the article to state the truth that Fuchs was not Jewish. Is it antisemitism or false association of a Jewish-sounding name and the Jewish Rosenbergs that is responsible for this being asserted? (Norman Moss, by the way, is probably the foremost expert on Fuchs so it's great that he's commented.)

On his citizenship, the page states he became a British citizen in 1942. After all, he had top security clearance with the British nuclear industry. My understanding from Moss's book is that he was charged with treason - so he was British. Don't follow cobbled together Internet sources - they only regurgitate misinformation and misunderstandings.--Jack Upland 22:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beria or Kurchatov?

In "Dark Sun," Richard Rhodes said it was Kurchatov, the science head of the Soviet A-bomb project, who didn't let his charges access the espionage-derived data directly because (a) it may have been disinformation and (b) if the Soviets were to do any better than copy, they had to build up their own team of experts. Beria probably didn't think that deeply; he was all about survival and taking advantage, from what I've read. --MWS 21:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kojevnikov's book is newer and based on newly declassified sources, and I'm pretty sure he fingers Beria as responsible for this policy, but I can check. Beria wasn't a deep thinker but he knew how to run a business, so to speak, and he knew how to be suspicious. --Fastfission 22:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Gentlemen of Venona

Anyone who has any awareness of the "Soviet atom spies" and the Venona transcripts knows this issue is very confused. It is also politically charged. I query whether this much assertion should be placed in an open encyclopedia like this one.

I don't have time to go into the full complexity here - and I think this needs to be the subject of genuine scholarship - suffice it to say that the official sources are not even clear on how the Venona transcripts were obtained (cipher clerk error, captured codebook, blackbag job, telecommunications intercept etc). Then there is the question of why they were only released in the 90s. After all, Kim Philby saw them in the 50s (see his book, The Secret War)!

And that's the other point: much of the official discourse on the "atom spies" centres round the Rosenbergs, overtly or not. A quite different view can be obtained by viewing the Fuchs case or the Cambridge Spies in their own terms. The Soviet sources are tainted in that they are attacked magpie-fashion in order to bolster the official American discourse on this issue.

Overall it is not the accummulation of evidence but the accummulation of assertions.

Bottom line: much of the page on Fuchs is speculation and assertion. The fact that he was a physicist in the Manhattan project spying for the USSR gets buried. The celebrated Rosenbergs never went near Los Alamos!--Jack Upland 22:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand what your objection is here -- this article, though it could use more detail, basically says "Fuchs was born; he worked on the project; he testified that he gave secrets the Soviets; a major result of his testimony was the whole famous Rosenberg thing; the data he gave the Soviets may or may not have been extremely helpful." Obviously VENONA is problematic for various reasons but this article isn't really the place to go into that in full detail, and mainstream historical opinion is of the opinion that Fuchs really did do what he said he did (which you seem to agree with). The Rosenberg stuff is complex but I don't think it is asserted too strongly here one way or another, and is covered in plenty of detail on the Rosenberg article.
If you could clarify more specifically which parts of this page you think are "speculation and assertion", it would be very helpful. I think it does a good work of reflecting mainstream critical historical scholarship. --Fastfission 01:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course I accept Fuchs was a spy! But seriously, assertions and speculations include:
  • Fuchs' identification of Harry Gold. As Norman Moss's Klaus Fuchs states, Fuchs only identified him after he was pressed to do so based on photos and film. Hence this is dubious, and it is clear that he did not - as is often stated - lead to Gold and hence the Rosenbergs. Gold was already a suspect at the very least. As a physicist Fuchs' spying would have been far more useful than the Rosenbergs' (who didn't even go to Los Alamos!), so implying that he's important only as a link to the Rosenbergs is perverse.
  • Meeting with Donald Maclean. Just bizarre. Maybe he met Alger Hiss and Jane Fonda too.
  • Venona identifying him. As outlined above, Venona is questionable. It is hard to know how much is 'inferred' after the fact.
  • The detailed discussion about Soviet use of his spy work. Speculation.
Myself, I would give more indication of the tenuousness of links with other spies alleged or real. After all Fuchs gave a cogent confession which stated he worked alone (which is the most secure policy).--Jack Upland 23:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Duh, correct me if I'm wrong but User:Jack Upland is the editor who claims Fuchs identified Harry Gold.[1]; really, not to be impolite, but all you've posted now in three articles is what the meaning of is "is" "is is" is. nobs 18:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My only change to the page was to correct the assertion that Fuchs was Jewish. I think you're the one posting nonsense.--Jack Upland 03:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This here [2] says User:Jack Upland posted this phrase: "was used to identify Harry Gold, a key witness". Now, this could (a) a mistake (b) bad faith (c) something else I don't understand. Help me out here, what is it? nobs 03:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A regrettable lapse in memory, I'm afraid, compounded by my inability to understand the relevance your comment about the meaning of 'is' - I'm not an American, you see, and don't share your obsession with Clinton. As you have pointed out, in addition to correcting Jewish comment, I made two light edits. In the relevant case, the original said Fuchs 'led to' the Rosenbergs etc. I chose my words carefully and said that Fuchs was used to identify Gold. As I have stated above, I consider this to be a dubious identification but I did not unilaterally insert that into the article. I hope this clarifies the matter.--Jack Upland 10:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Technical Work

Fuchs is presumably the K Fuchs of the Fuchs-Nordheim equation, still used today to work out the kinetics of superprompt critical excursions (similar to Bethe-Tait model I think). Anyone confirm please? Linuxlad 20:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that reference to Fuchs high technical competence (eg with Fuchs-Nordheim equation) deserves mention in intro (where I put it), not in the middle of the rammle later on.Linuxlad 23:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Klaus_Fuchs&oldid=24033192"