Checkout a book called

“Alger Hiss’s Looking Glass Wars” by G. Edward White.  Here are a few excerpts from the book by G. Edward White.

page 78 taking about Alger Hiss.

“He first denied knowing Chambers at all.  Then, after a charade of listening to Chamber’s voice and examining his teeth, he admitted knowing him as George, Crosley, but denied having more than a cursory relationship with him.  Then, as Chambers continued to produce evidence of a closer relationship with the Hisses, Hiss offered comparatively feeble efforts to minimize that evidence.  Yes, Chambers had occupied an apartment of Hiss’s after Hiss had vacated it, but not rent free, as Chambers suggested.  Yes, Hiss had given a car to Chambers, but just the use of the car, not the car itself.  Yes, Chambers had given Hiss an Oriental Rug, but in part payment for rent.  No, Hiss had not loaned Chambers $400, he had withdrawn that amount from a bank for other reasons.

            No, Hiss did not know what had become of a typewriter first owned by Priscilla’s father.  Priscilla had possibly sold the typewriter to a secondhand dealer.  On recollection, the Hisses may have given the typewriter to the Catletts.  But they had done so in 1937, so the documents Chambers had produced could not have  been typed on that typewriter.  Well, perhaps the documents had been, but neither he nor Priscilla had typed them.  Chambers, or some associate of his, must have done so.  They typist must have gained access to the typewriter while the Catletts had possession of it."

Page 45

“Alger Hiss’s work, however, was substantial, its importance accentuated by Hiss’s rise up the State Department ladder.  Hiss’s increased access to confidential sources, especially after he became an assistant to Secretary of State Edward Stettinius, made it possible for him to funnel intelligence information of considerable value to the Soviets.  For example, Hiss’s placement, coupled with that of British Soviet agent Donald Maclean, who held a high level post in the British Embassy in Washington from 1944 to 1949, meant that Stalin had a firm grasp of the postwar goals of the United States and Great Britain before the Yalta Conference.  A recent study, in highlighting Soviet intelligence success in the 1940’s, singled out the contributions of Hiss, Maclean, and other British-based Soviet agents in “providing a regular flow of classified intelligence or (confidential) documents in the run-up to (Yalta),  “Some sense of how Moscow felt that good intelligence had contributed to Stalin’s success at Yalta, “ the study concluded, “is conveyed by Moscow’s congratulations to Hiss.”  The reference was to a secret meeting in Moscow, just after the Yalta Conference, at which Hiss was personally thanked for his efforts by Deputy Soviet Premier Andrei Vyshinki."

RTsKhIDNI files offer more information.

Page 223         

“Among those identified by the Venona decryptions as having a covert relationship with the Soviets was Alger Hiss”

Page 208

“Asked whether he admired Stalin, Hiss said,’Oh yes.  In spite of knowing the extent of his crimes, he was very impressive…He was decisive, soft-spoken, very clearheaded.’"

Page 225

“In addition, in the Cyrillic alphabet, used by Russians, Ales looks like a  contraction of “Alger Hiss”, and a former KGB official, Oleg Gordievsky, stated that Hiss’s code name was Ales in a history of the KGB he published after defecting to Great Britain in 1985.”

Goodnight all!

I agree with you, and I think the left may have had a part in it, but I think the right -- especially National Review, which was about the totality of the right magazine-wise back then -- certainly had a part in it too. They wanted a convenient insult, but they should have stuck with "socialist" if that's what they were insulting, instead of being lazy and letting the left get away with misusing an old and venerable term. Besides, of all languages, English is rich with insulting terms which fit better IMO, "libertine" being prominent among them. Anyway, because the NewSpeakificiation of the word 'liberal' is and has been so-intense, I want to study it more when I have the time by reading editorials from the mid and late '50s. (Were the Republicans who questioned Clinton's military policy in Bosnia being "liberal," for example? Might there be a better, more-accurate term for those of us who tend to question foreign military adventures without regard for the political party of the commander in chief?) I guess the gist of all this is, "I hate NewSpeak, and I think words' definitions should remain largely the same as they always were." Jeez, that sounded pretty "conservative"!
JMR