Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Military

Was America's Top Rocketeer a Communist Spy? The FBI Thought So 165

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the spying-as-a-hobby dept.
New submitter IMissAlexChilton (3748631) writes Frank Malina masterfully led the World War II effort to build U.S. rockets for jet-assisted takeoff and guided missiles. As described in IEEE Spectrum, Malina's motley crew of engineers and enthusiasts (including occultist Jack Parsons) founded the Jet Propulsion Lab and made critical breakthroughs in solid fuels, hypergolics, and high-altitude sounding rockets, laying the groundwork for NASA's future successes. And yet, under suspicion by the Feds at the war's end, Malina gave up his research career, and his team's efforts sank into obscurity. Taking his place: the former Nazi Wernher von Braun. Read "Frank Malina: America's Forgotten Rocketeer". Includes cool vintage footage of early JPL rocket tests.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Was America's Top Rocketeer a Communist Spy? The FBI Thought So

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 31, 2014 @10:15PM (#47578945)

    A Nazi he was not.

    Go read up on the history of Germany's rocket scientists. The majority were a buncha eggheads who thought it was cool they'd found someone willing to fund them, right up until they found themselves with guns pointed at their heads and explanations of what would happen to them or their families if they didn't succeed.

    While it's s sad Frank Malina lost out on continued innovation in the JPL, put the blame where it belongs: The Feds and the Congresscritters who were so caught up in their witch hunts that they drove away the very brilliance that might've helped us not only take the space race to another level, but perhaps also avoid the stagnation imbued during the late saturn v and shuttle era.

    Imagine if Skylab had stayed in orbit and been used as the basis of an ISS 20 years earlier.

    The possibilities were endless. But as usual jackbooted thugs and politicos ruined them for their own careers.

    • by Nutria (679911) on Thursday July 31, 2014 @10:24PM (#47578983)

      The majority were a buncha eggheads who thought it was cool they'd found someone willing to fund them,

      And willingly worked 12,000 "undesirables" to death.

      put the blame where it belongs

      Square on Frank Malina's shoulders for wanting to do something else.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by JDAustin (468180)

      Of course you need to remember that the US government was infiltrated with communist spies and sympathizers. You only need to look at Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, Harry Hopkins and the Rosenbergs.

      • by readin (838620) on Friday August 01, 2014 @02:19AM (#47579555)

        Of course you need to remember that the US government was infiltrated with communist spies and sympathizers. You only need to look at Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, Harry Hopkins and the Rosenbergs.

        Good luck getting Communism Deniers to admit this. I would be happy if we can get them to admit that Russian Communism was just as evil as Nazism.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 01, 2014 @04:30AM (#47579917)

          The problem is people like you keep mixing up Communism - an economic system - with the Soviet political system. It's about the same as claiming that capitalism is a government like the United States. The Soviet political system was corrupt as any seat of power will be.

        • As far as I can tell, Nazi Germany murdered innocent people at a considerably higher rate than the Soviet Union did, and being conquered by the Red Army wasn't as devastatingly bad as being conquered by the Wehrmacht. Overall, I have to rate the Nazis as worse.

          Of course, there's still a lot of moral room between being horrifyingly evil (and the Soviet Communist Party certainly was) and the Nazi Party.

      • by Nyder (754090) on Friday August 01, 2014 @03:13AM (#47579705) Journal

        Of course you need to remember that the US government was infiltrated with communist spies and sympathizers. You only need to look at Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, Harry Hopkins and the Rosenbergs.

        You know, it's sort of like terrorists today. We might have a few here (and we do, Boston marathon bombing) but see, most of us are NOT terrorist, but the way out government acts, there is terrorists under every bed. Not unlike how they acted in the "communist" scare days.

        The problem? Our government, the USA doesn't care if it fucks over all it's law abiding citizens trying to stamp out a few "undesirables". They didn't care back then, they don't give a fuck today. That is the problem. They create these monsters why how they act, then want to punish us for it?

      • by dryeo (100693)

        You also have to remember that the US claims to be a Constitutional Republic which of course means that if the people and the several States (3/4s) decide to pass a Constitutional Amendment making the country communist, well that's part of freedom and democracy.

    • Imagine if Skylab had stayed in orbit and been used as the basis of an ISS 20 years earlier.

      I don't think the substances that would allow me to imagine that are actually legal.

      Seriously, by the time of the third occupancy crew Skylab was badly worn out on top of the damage caused by the loss of the heat shield. It would have been much more of a liability due to the amount of work required to resupply and refit it.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 01, 2014 @04:45AM (#47579945)

        You clearly have not read the appropriate NASA documents.

        Skylab was in very good condition and NASA wanted to use it in conjunction with the shuttle, which was scheduled to be operational before Skylab fell into the atmosphere. The Shuttle was to be used to re-boost it, but two things happened: [1] solar activity was higher than expected (which affects the upper-most part of the atmosphere and increased the atmospheric drag on Skylab) and [2] the shuttle ended-up being too far behind schedule. NASA, realizing that shuttles would not be ready in time, studied launching an unmanned "tug" to dock with and re-boost Skylab so it would still be there on orbit and operational by the time shuttles were ready, but congress in the late 70's was as stupid as today - Congress did not fund this cheap solution, so we ended-up dumping $100 Billion and ten years of construction time into building ISS to get a similar orbital capability (Skylab had 320 cubic meters pressurized volume, that's more than the US part of the ISS). The shuttle could have then flown additions to Skylab (which had a docking adapter for multiple visiting vehicles). An enhanced Skylab would have had no Russian "entanglements", and had its own lifesupport and navigation capabilities.

        Skylab was FAR from "worn out" and the damage from the launch was quite managable. The astronauts who closed it out left it ready for re-manning. When Skylab re-entered the atmosphere it did so under remote control from the ground, with its systems fully functioning until they were destroyed by the reentry. READ THE DAMNED REPORTS, which consist of hundreds of paged of excellent details, before misinforming people.

        • by dj245 (732906)

          Skylab was in very good condition and NASA wanted to use it in conjunction with the shuttle, which was scheduled to be operational before Skylab fell into the atmosphere. The Shuttle was to be used to re-boost it, but two things happened: [1] solar activity was higher than expected (which affects the upper-most part of the atmosphere and increased the atmospheric drag on Skylab) and [2] the shuttle ended-up being too far behind schedule. NASA, realizing that shuttles would not be ready in time, studied launching an unmanned "tug" to dock with and re-boost Skylab so it would still be there on orbit and operational by the time shuttles were ready, but congress in the late 70's was as stupid as today - Congress did not fund this cheap solution, so we ended-up dumping $100 Billion and ten years of construction time into building ISS to get a similar orbital capability (Skylab had 320 cubic meters pressurized volume, that's more than the US part of the ISS). The shuttle could have then flown additions to Skylab (which had a docking adapter for multiple visiting vehicles). An enhanced Skylab would have had no Russian "entanglements", and had its own lifesupport and navigation capabilities.

          Skylab was FAR from "worn out" and the damage from the launch was quite managable. The astronauts who closed it out left it ready for re-manning. When Skylab re-entered the atmosphere it did so under remote control from the ground, with its systems fully functioning until they were destroyed by the reentry. READ THE DAMNED REPORTS, which consist of hundreds of paged of excellent details, before misinforming people.

          Skylab was put into orbit in one launch. Using the shuttle to lift further components is silly- all it does is justify the shuttle. The shuttle is a Honda Fit compared to the 18-wheeler Saturn 5. Letting Skylab burn up may have been a "waste" but if you can launch more than 1/3 of the current ISS volume (currently at around 837 pressurized cubic meters) with 1 Saturn 5 rocket, an orbiting space station then becomes essentially disposable. Just launch another one.

        • by DerekLyons (302214) <fairwater AT gmail DOT com> on Friday August 01, 2014 @09:47AM (#47580911) Homepage

          You clearly have not read the appropriate NASA documents.

          Actually, yes, I have.
           

          Skylab was in very good condition and NASA wanted to use it in conjunction with the shuttle

          NASA was (is) an organization of thousands of people - and cannot "want" anything. A small group of people, who had no funding, wanted to use Skylab in conjunction with the Shuttle, but that was just one of the dozens (hundreds?) of pie-in-the-sky ideas various groups within NASA generate on an annual basis. Very few space fanboys realize this and presume every single dammed one of those gotta-publish-something-to-keep-my-job studies and "plans" (was) is something "NASA wanted to do" no matter how ludicrous the idea was. Actually, the more ludicrous the idea the more the space fanboys love it, because it's just more ammo for their ignorant whinging about NASA's "failures". Ignorant because on top of not grasping the pie-in-the-sky nature of many of those "plans", they fail to realize that NASA is not an independent organism - but rather is a branch of the Executive Department and only does what the Executive approves and Congress fails.
           

          Congress did not fund this cheap solution, so we ended-up dumping $100 Billion and ten years of construction time into building ISS to get a similar orbital capability (Skylab had 320 cubic meters pressurized volume, that's more than the US part of the ISS).

          What's interesting here is you claim Skylab would provide similar capability - but then rather than comparing capability, you compare volume. Thus, probably inadvertently due to gross ignorance, you reveal the shallowness of your knowledge. In reality, Skylab didn't have a fraction of *any* of the capabilities of the ISS. It doesn't produce as much power, could only support a much smaller crew, and wasn't equipped with but a fraction of the scientific equipment, etc... (Even though Skylab and the ISS have a similar volume, the ISS has almost six times the mass. There's a reason for that.) Nor, given the small diameter of it's hatches, could it have been reasonably refitted to provide significant extended capability. Raw volume is impressive, but it's no more useful than an empty house. It's useful stuff that make a house or a space station useful, and Skylab was grossly lacking in that department.
           

          The shuttle could have then flown additions to Skylab (which had a docking adapter for multiple visiting vehicles).

          Yes, Skylab had a docking adapter for visiting vehicles. No, they weren't useful for adding additional modules. On top of lacking the structural strength, they had no provision for routing power, life support, data, etc. (Not without running cables through the already narrow docking tunnel - not that there was anywhere to hook them to on the Skylab end anyhow.)
           

          When Skylab re-entered the atmosphere it did so under remote control from the ground, with its systems fully functioning until they were destroyed by the reentry.

          No, they weren't "fully functioning". The third crew had to use a lashed up servicing system to replenish the freon loops in the air lock module (which were leaking). The also had to perform a spacewalk to install a back up set of rate gyros since the original set were failing. (Etc... etc...) Skylab was worn out, and it's equipment was beginning to fail even while the manned occupancy program was in progress.

          A lot of people believe that Skylab was some lunar landing level program, and that in the same vein "tossing it aside" represented the loss of some grand capability. Nothing could be further from the truth. Skylab was a shoestring budget program subsisting on Apollo's leftovers and discards. (To the point where they had to take a hatch off an unused Gemini to provide an EVA hatch - they had no money to develop or build one of their own.) It had a minimal lifespan and modest scientific capability with no capacity for significant resupply, replenishment, refitting or extension.

        • IIRC, Skylab was launched with pretty much all the consumables for the three missions, and no good way of replenishing them. It wasn't designed as a permanent space station. There was good reason for that: nobody knew how to build good living and working environments for zero-G. For example, panels and controls were designed for use from a sitting position, which turns out to be a difficult position in zero-G, and one area was designed without a coherent up and down, which was comfortable for only one

    • by Stormy Dragon (800799) on Friday August 01, 2014 @01:22AM (#47579455) Homepage

      o/~ "Once the rockets go up, who cares where they come down? [youtube.com]
      That's not my department", says Werner von Braun o/~

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 31, 2014 @10:16PM (#47578947)

    I wonder how many innocent people today have had themselves and their careers ruined by the NSA/GCHQ/TLA and how as a result we have all suffered by not benefiting from their work.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Yep replace paranoia over communism with paranoia over terrorism and we have the NEW USA.

      • by readin (838620)

        Yep replace paranoia over communism with paranoia over terrorism and we have the NEW USA.

        To get to paranoia over communism you have to replace paranoia over nazism.

        You think it wrong to call the concern about Nazism "paranoia"? It is similarly wrong to call the concern about Communism "paranoia". Communists killed a whole lot of people. They were equally involved in the invasion of Poland that started WWII in Europe. They killed millions in Ukraine through forced starvation. Name something the Nazis did and you can find the equivalent in Communism (except for developing nice cars like t

    • by ToasterMonkey (467067) on Friday August 01, 2014 @12:18AM (#47579309) Homepage

      I wonder how many innocent people today have had themselves and their careers ruined by the NSA/GCHQ/TLA and how as a result we have all suffered by not benefiting from their work.

      In an environment where you can be punished for your beliefs, is intelligence really the evil?

      It's not the information that's to blame, it's what people do with it, and the worse people are, the less they'll need.
      Think of the worst people throughout history, and imagine them making less informed decisions.

      McCarthyism, Salem witch trials, Inquisitions

      See, the problem wasn't solid information regarding who's a communist, who's a witch, or who's Muslim, the problem was the people punishing you if they thought you smelled like one.

      • by readin (838620)

        McCarthyism, Salem witch trials, Inquisitions

        One of these things doesn't belong here...

        How many people were executed by McCarthyism? Sure, some careers were set back, but the same can be said of how we handle racism, sexism, and laws concerning homsexuality? People lose their jobs for speaking their minds due to fears the government will huge amounts of money to be taken from employers as a result of a lawsuit.

        You have modern day examples of witchhunts but you choose one from 60 years ago. Why?

        And the witches McCarthy were far more dangero

        • by dbIII (701233) on Friday August 01, 2014 @02:47AM (#47579637)

          And the witches McCarthy were far more dangerous and worthy of being hunted

          Ah yes, like that dangerous playwright who was offered a way out if his wife, Marilyn Monroe, agreed to be photographed with McCarthy for political promotional material. That was one part of the witch hunt, in that case more accurately called a shakedown.

          It was an utterly worthless grab at power by an immoral, corrupt and ultimately cowardly man who wanted to skew the political playing field in his direction when opposed by a large number of far more worthy candidates for President from both parties. It's just as well that he bit off more than he could chew by getting a lot of special favors for one of his friends in the military and then attempting to prove that General Marshall (of the Marshall plan and a lot of other things, such as running a big chunk of WWII) was a communist. His stupid stunt meant to send him into the White House was exposed for what it was - a power grab by a man who had achieved very little in his life attempting to drag down others who had and make himself look bigger.

          So do you think he had a list of spies like he said he did? Why didn't he hand them over then? Wouldn't it be a bit like treason to have a list of foreign spies and not hand it over to law enforcement?

    • by readin (838620)

      I wonder how many innocent people today have had themselves and their careers ruined by the NSA/GCHQ/TLA and how as a result we have all suffered by not benefiting from their work.

      I wonder how many innocent people had themselves and their careers ruined by Communists. I seen numbers over 100 million just for people murdered by Communists. The number of careers ruined is many times that - both by simple matter of Communism not working and by deliberate attempts to deprive people of education (see the Cultural Revolution and talk to my physics professor who spent his college years on a farm rather than learning physics and researching). .

      • The Edward Snowden of the KGB revealed *there really were communists* infiltrating all over the place. I have a book he wrote - something like the Verona Files or ????
  • another GNU link (Score:5, Informative)

    by clovis (4684) on Thursday July 31, 2014 @10:36PM (#47579025)

    I think this is the intended artice:
    http://spectrum.ieee.org/aeros... [ieee.org]

  • by thrich81 (1357561) on Thursday July 31, 2014 @10:45PM (#47579047)

    von Braun didn't take anyone's place -- he created his own place in Huntsville. The work on rockets on the West Coast and other places in the US continued with little affect by von Braun. For example the Navy's Vanguard project which was supposed to launch the USA's first satellite was a parallel effort to the Army's efforts at Hunstville. And the Air Force developed the Atlas and Titan missiles in other parallel efforts. It just happened that when NASA needed big rockets for Apollo, the Saturn series developed by von Braun's team were the most suitable. Notably, precursors to Apollo, the manned orbital Mercury and Gemini missions, were launched on those Air Force derived boosters. The sentence in the summary is BS. And by all accounts, von Braun was agnostic towards the Nazis, neither a supporter nor a resister, disinterested in politics, but navigating the system he found himself by the time it was too late to get out -- yeah, I know it is more complicated than that, but I don't have a thesis to write here.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      It's pretty hard to claim you're "agnostic" or "not a supporter" when you build weapons for someone.

      • by jafac (1449) on Friday August 01, 2014 @12:50AM (#47579393) Homepage

        There's actually a long story behind this, and Von Braun was actually arrested because Hitler suspected he was a traitor. Von Braun was a visionary who just loved rockets and wanted to land on the moon and colonize space. The Nazis were a funding means-to-an-end for his rocketry studies. After the Nazis tried to arrest him and his team, he escaped with some equipment and top scientists to defect to the allies.

        So no, it's not at all accurate to speculate that Von Braun was a Nazi or into that whole ideology.

        He used his expertise to con the Nazis into paying for his very expensive hobby.
        Then he came to the USA, and played the same con on Congress to fund his continued work here. Congress thought they were getting ICBMs to wave at the Russians. Von Braun was getting a moon landing, and who gives a shit about politics.

        • by Concerned Onlooker (473481) on Friday August 01, 2014 @01:07AM (#47579425) Homepage Journal

          "So no, it's not at all accurate to speculate that Von Braun was a Nazi or into that whole ideology."

          No, he was just a guy who used up the lives of prisoners to meet his ends. He may not have been an ideologue, but he was a sociopath.

          • by Threni (635302)

            He made rockets out of prisoners?

            You don't get to call someone a sociopath just as an insult; it has a technical meaning.

        • by radtea (464814) on Friday August 01, 2014 @03:32AM (#47579763)

          Then he came to the USA, and played the same con on Congress to fund his continued work here.

          So in your view von Braun was an amoral, self-agrandizing liar who was willing to actively engage in the selection of slave labour working in death camps to build rockets that killed thousands of strangers just so he could play with cool toys? Because that's what you're describing.

          I say "self-agrandizing" because everything that von Braun wanted to do would have been done without him, without the 12000 dead slave labourers, without the 9000 dead British civilians.

          I've had some pretty extreme scientific and technical ambitions in my time, but have somehow been able to realize many of them without killing people, and have given up the rest because: killing people. So I'm willing to pass judgment on von Braun in this respect: if he faced a choice between following his dreams and not killing people I'd have to say the latter is the far better choice.

          • by serviscope_minor (664417) on Friday August 01, 2014 @04:38AM (#47579931) Journal

            f he faced a choice between following his dreams and not killing people I'd have to say the latter is the far better choice.

            It's very easy to say that when faced with threats against yourself or your family. We'd all like to believe that we'd do the right thing in the face of overwhelming adversity, but frankly you have no way of knowing what you'd do until it happens.

            It is however easy to judge from behind the safety of a keyboard.

        • by ultranova (717540)

          There's actually a long story behind this, and Von Braun was actually arrested because Hitler suspected he was a traitor. Von Braun was a visionary who just loved rockets and wanted to land on the moon and colonize space. The Nazis were a funding means-to-an-end for his rocketry studies. After the Nazis tried to arrest him and his team, he escaped with some equipment and top scientists to defect to the allies.

          So no, it's not at all accurate to speculate that Von Braun was a Nazi or into that whole ideology.

    • by kamapuaa (555446)

      He joined the Nazis when he didn't have to, and then later lied under oath about when he joined, saying he didn't join until years later when he did have to.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    You should look up who is China's "Father of Rockets".
    Hint: just like Malina, except he was ethnic Chinese and decided to go to Communist China instead of giving up his career.

    Suspecting your top talent of being a spy, what a great way to kickstart advancement programs for your enemies!

  • by dbIII (701233) on Thursday July 31, 2014 @11:07PM (#47579111)
    However remember the FBI was too incompetent back then to remember to bring handcuffs to the arrest of "public enemy number one". A necktie had to do the job.
    And then they fell for the scam of the "lie detector" - or did they really fall for it or was Hoover just accepting yet another kickback before spending Government money?
    What you see today is nothing like it was back then.
  • by Trepidity (597) <delirium-slashdot@@@hackish...org> on Friday August 01, 2014 @01:40AM (#47579483)

    Malina is pretty well known in some corners of CS for his work on kinetic sculpture and generative art, and for founding the International Society for the Arts, Sciences and Technology, along with its associated journal Leonardo [leonardo.info] . But I didn't know he did rockets earlier in his career.

  • I'm so sick of Denialists who refuse to except the facts about Communism and the evil it created for hundreds of millions of people.and the threat that it posed to those not yet taken by it.
  • by rainer_d (115765) on Friday August 01, 2014 @04:51AM (#47579959) Homepage
    That was really the line of thinking in large parts of the US-government for a while.
    Best expressed by no one else than Harry S Truman, who, when a member of the congress complained about the huge amounts of former Nazis in the new intelligence agency the US was building up in post-war Germany (nowadays known as BND), simply replied: "I don't care if this Gehlen guy [first head of the agency, a former Nazi-general] is fucking goats - as long as he's helping us, we'll use him".

    During the 2nd world-war, if you played your cards well in Germany, you could achieve a lot. Some people early on realized this and built a career on it that often continued after the war. If you had the support of "the system", you had almost unlimited resources at your disposal.
    Von Braun used these resources because he had a vision, a dream - and he was crazy and ruthless enough to sacrifice anything to make his dream come true.
    Like the above mentioned Gehlen, he was also bold enough to change sides when the right time had come - knowing that the work he had done and the ideas in his head were more interesting to the Allies than the rest of what had happened during the war.

    People from the UK (where V2 rockets hit mostly) are usually furious when you mention the name - they'd have probably wanted to put him up for trial in Nuremberg and seen him hanging - but his work, his men and he himself were already too important by the time the court was setup - and the cold-war had already started.

    • Gehlen took over Foreign Armies East (German Army intelligence) and the Germans started getting better information. His predecessor was woefully incompetent.

      Gehlen then spent years downplaying Soviet capabilities, so the Germans were constantly being surprised by the Soviets doing something Gehlen had said they didn't have the strength to do.

      After this miserable track record of getting the German Army surprised time and again, he switched sides and convinced people he was actually competent.

      • by rainer_d (115765)

        Gehlen took over Foreign Armies East (German Army intelligence) and the Germans started getting better information. His predecessor was woefully incompetent.

        Gehlen then spent years downplaying Soviet capabilities, so the Germans were constantly being surprised by the Soviets doing something Gehlen had said they didn't have the strength to do.

        Still, it was more or less in line to what the top guy wanted to hear :-)

        With that mind-set, he would probably also have succeeded in the GWB administration...

  • by jandersen (462034) on Friday August 01, 2014 @07:17AM (#47580233)

    Is it not possible to be a Communist - even in America - without automatically being a spy or traitor? In most of the world 'communist' means 'somebody whose political views align with Communism'; well, more or less. If it is possible to be Christian, Jew, Muslim, ... and still be a patriotic American, is it not possible to be a Communist, patriotic American? Or course it is.

    'Communism' is, put simply, the idea that means of production should not be owned by any individual, but should belong to the community. Not the state - the community, whatever that means. Equating the state with the community is a highly artificial idea. Please note that communism in this sense does not mean that people can't have property, it just means that the means of production are owned by everybody - like in a cooperative, really. Or a family - and if anything is being touted as American these days, it is 'family values'; so communism is at the core of what it means to be American.

    • by GauteL (29207)

      You are of course right, but it is impossible to be a communist and not be at odds with the current establishment (your upper class overlords) of the US. It was genius to label socialism and communism as 'unamerican'. That way they could label all their political foes as traitors.

    • by PPH (736903)

      There's big 'C' Communist and little 'c' communist. Those that adhered to the Communist parties platform (the one chaired in the former Soviet Union) were natually under suspicion as being agents of a hostile power. Little 'c' communists by rights should not have fallen into this category. But back in the McCarthy era, they didn't bother to differentiate between the two. And there was the possibility that adherents to the philosophy of little 'c' communism might be turned to do the bidding of the big 'C' p

    • by judoguy (534886)
      To be sure, "Communism" is the perfect example of something that doesn't scale. Works OK for my family (sort of) but starts to become unworkable with two families.

      Totally wrecks everything at scales larger than that. Astonishing idiocy to try and apply to a country.

    • I was on a wargaming mailing list for a time with a Communist. We'd talk about various things, and eventually I realized he was as patriotic as I was. We both wanted what was best for the country. We had considerably different opinions on what would be best, and our opinions differed a lot more on how to get there, but the basic aim was the same.

    • There was a certain celebrated folk singer. Communist, of course. In May 1941, he and his group published an album of "Don't send our boys over there to fight for the plutocrats" songs, against any involvement in stopping the Axis powers from taking all of Europe. ("Und tomorrow, ze VORLD!")

      On June 22, 1941, he pulled this "peacenik" album from distribution, and quickly started cranking out "We must arm, fight, and save the world from Hitler" songs.

      So, what happened on June 22, 1941? There's a reason I

"Marriage is low down, but you spend the rest of your life paying for it." -- Baskins

Working...