Cleveland Cram

Cleveland Cram


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

In 1975, after twenty-six years in the agency, Cram had retired. In the fall of 1976, he was attending a cocktail party in Washington given by Harry Brandes, the representative of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian security service. Theodore G. Shackley, the assistant DDO, called over Kalaris, and the two CIA men cornered Cram.

"Would you like to come back to work?" he was asked. The agency, Cram was told, wanted a study done of Angleton's reign, from 1954 to 1974. "Find out what in hell happened," Cram was told. "What were these guys doing?"

Cram took the assignment. For the duration, he moved into a huge vault down the hall from what had been Angleton's office. It was a library like room with a door that had to be opened by a combination lock. There many of the materials he needed were at hand-the vault, for example, contained thirty-nine volumes on Philby alone, all the Golitsin "serials," as Angleton had called the leads provided by his prize defector, and all of the Nosenko files.

But even this secure vault had not been Angleton's sanctum sanctorum. Inside the vault was another smaller vault, secured by pushbutton locks, which contained the really secret stuff, on George Blake, Penkovsky, and other spy cases deemed too secret for the outer vault.

Kalaris thought Cram's study would be a one-year assignment. When Cram finally finished it in 1981, six years later, he had produced twelve legal-sized volumes, each three hundred to four hundred pages. Cram's approximately four-thousand-page study has never been declassified. It remains locked in the CIA's vaults.

But some of its subject matter can be described. Cram obviously spent a substantial amount of time reviewing the history of the mole hunt that pervaded the era he studied. In doing so, he had considerable difficulty. The names of the mole suspects were considered so secret that their files were kept in locked safes in yet another vault directly across from Angleton's (then Kalaris's) office.

Even though Cram had carte blanche to conduct his study, he had trouble at first gaining access to this most sensitive material. In part, he was hampered as well by the chaotic and often mysterious nature of Angleton's files.

Eventually, Cram got access to the vaulted files on individuals kept in the locked safes. But among Kalaris and his staff, Cram detected an edginess that Angleton, in Elba, might somehow return and wreak vengeance on those who had dared to violate his files by reading them.

This monograph has two parts. The first is an essay on the counterintelligence literature produced from 1977 to 1992. The second contains reviews of selected books from that period. The essay and reviews concentrate on the major counterintelligence issues of the period. Highlighted are the controversial views of James Angleton, former head of CIA's Counterintelligence (CI) Staff, about the threat posed by Soviet intelligence operations. Also featured is Soviet defector Anatole Golitsyn, whose claims about Soviet operations had a compelling influence on Western counterintelligence services beginning about 1962 and until 1975.

The study focuses mainly on books about the American, British, and Canadian intelligence and security services as they dealt with the Soviet intelligence threat, although it also mentions the services of other West European countries such as France, West Germany, and Norway. Not every book on espionage and counterintelligence published between 1977 and 1992 is reviewed; only those that are historically accurate, at least in general, and were influential are assessed. Excluded are some recent works like Widows, by William R. Corson and Susan and Joseph Trento because they are not reputable by even the generally low standards of most counterintelligence writing.

No study exists on Angleton's efforts in retirement to spread his conspiracy and other theories through writers such as Edward J. Epstein. Nor has there been any substantial analysis of the impact in Britain of revelations such as the Blunt case, the false charges made against Sir Roger Hollis and his deputy, Graham Mitchell, nor of the events that led eventually to the famous Spycatcher trial in Australia. The books reviewed in this monograph appeared during these difficult times, and an effort has been made to put them in their historical perspective. Some of these publications, with their extreme assertions, distracted intelligence and security services from important challenges they faced in the last years of the Cold War. That they overcame these diversions reflects the common sense and decency exercised by leaders of intelligence services in the post-Angleton years.

The year 1974 was a watershed in literature about the CIA. Before that time, only a few outsiders, usually professional journalists, had written books critical of the Agency. Most of the others were neutral or even positive, especially those written by former Agency officials like Allen Dulles and Lyman Kirkpatrick. But in 1974 a disgruntled former Agency employee, Philip Agee, published his highly critical book Inside the Company: CIA Diary. Books by other ex-employees - J. B. Smith, John Stockwell, Victor Marchetti (with J. D. Marks), and R. W. McGehee - followed in quick succession, each exposing highly confidential material.

These authors usually wrote about subjects of which they had special knowledge, and the cumulative effect was to breach the walls of confidentiality that had protected Agency operations and personnel. Although the net effect was damaging - especially in the case of Agee, who disclosed the identities of officers serving abroad under cover - information about sensitive operations against the Soviet Union and its intelligence organs was not compromised.

A Turning Point

The change that occurred in the mid-1970s began when Edward J. Epstein published a series of articles that later, in 1978, were the basis for his book Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald. The articles, and especially the book, publicized for the first time clashes that had occurred within the Agency between the Counterintelligence Staff and the Soviet Division over the bona fides of a KGB defector named Yuriy Nosenko.

Because Epstein's writings contained so much information about sensitive CIA and FBI operations, it was generally assumed he had a willing and knowledgeable source, either a serving officer (considered doubtful) or a retired senior person with wide knowledge of anti-Soviet operations overseas and in the United States. Neither the articles nor the book was annotated, however. Epstein stated that he had spoken occasionally with James Angleton, the retired chief of CIA's Counterintelligence Staff, but did not acknowledge that he was the source.

Epstein, Edward J. Legend: The Secret World of Le Harvey Oswald. McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1978 (382 pages)

Epstein is a bright and able writer who took his M.A. at Cornell and his doctorate in government at Harvard. He made a name for himself with his book Inquest: The Warren Commission and the Establishment of Truth, his master's thesis at Cornell. It was one of the first serious works to expose the shortcomings of that Commission. Epstein became aware of the Yuriy Nosenko case through The Reader's Digest, and this led to his acquaintance with James Angleton. Their association flourished, and Angleton became Epstein's major source on Nosenko and the controversy surrounding his defection. Eventually The Reader's Digest sponsored Epstein's research to the tune of $500,000. Legend, the book that resulted, was a bestseller, projecting the author to the forefront of those who were proponents of Angleton's theories. Following its publication, Epstein wrote numerous articles for New York, Commentary, and other publications, mostly - though not always - supportive of the Angleton theories.

Legend has two parts: the first is about Nosenko and Angleton's belief that he was part of a KGB deception operation; the second is about Oswald's sojourn in the Soviet Union following his service with the Marine Corps in Japan. While in Japan the book suggests that Oswald acquired information about U-2 flights flown from the airfield at which he was stationed.

In brief, Epstein accepted Angleton's conclusion that "Nosenko was a Soviet intelligence agent dispatched by the KGB expressly for the purpose of delivering disinformation to the CIA, FBI, and the Warren Commission." In this scheme, Oswald, the supposed lone assassin of President Kennedy, probably was working for the KGB. (Nosenko said this was not true.) Oswald, having defected to the USSR in 1959 and returned three years later, had been living a "legend," a false biography concocted for him by the KGB.

A central theme in both parts of the book, carefully stated and always present, was that the highest level of the Intelligence Community, and certainly the CIA, was penetrated by a "mole" working for the KGB. Although this mole had not been found by 1978, the best "proof" that one existed, according to the book's argument, was Nosenko's assertion that he knew of no penetration, thereby contradicting statements made by a "Mr. Stone," who subsequently proved to be Anatolelbolitsyn. Epstein thus promoted the twin beliefs of deception and penetration by the KGB, Angleton's theory that came to be called derisively "the monster plot."

Epstein's source notes state that his work is based on interviews with Nosenko and retired CIA and FBI officers. He lists Gordon Stewart, Admiral Turner, Richard Helms, James Angleton and members of his CI Staff, William Sullivan and Sam Papich of the FBI, and others connected with the Golitsyn and Nosenko cases. Epstein carefully camouflaged his sources by never quoting them directly, but clearly a number of CIA officers provided an immense amount of classified information. This leaking about sensitive Soviet cases was on a scale the CIA had not experienced before. But, because Epstein so cleverly refrained from pinpoint sourcing, exactly which CIA or FBI officers provided classified information could not be determined.

In 1989 the mystery was solved when Epstein published a second book, Deception: The Invisible War Between the KGB and the CIA, which again dealt with the contentious old cases, including Nosenko and Golitsyn. Angleton, his major source, by then was dead, and Epstein revealed who his informants had been. Although the presentation of these highly classified cases shocked most observers, within a year the entire Nosenko case was opened to the public by the US House Select Committee on Assassinations.

Legend sold well, and conspiracy buffs found it a welcome addition to the growing literature on the Kennedy assassination. Many others, however, found the book confusing, its claims extravagant, and its conclusions unsupported by evidence. One of the chief critics, George Lardner of The Washington Post, wrote: "What Epstein has written... is a fascinating, important, and essentially dishonest book. Fascinating because it offers new information about Oswald, about the KGB, and about the CIA. Dishonest because it pretends to be objective, because it is saddled with demonstrable errors and inexcusable omissions, because it assumes the KGB always knows what it is doing while the CIA does not. It is paranoid. It is naive."

Nevertheless, Legend unquestionably set the tone for the debate that subsequently ensued in the media about the Nosenko affair. It gave Angleton and his supporters an advantage by putting their argument adroitly - if dishonestly - before the public first. Not until David Martin responded with Wilderness of Mirrors was an opposing view presented coherently.

Martin, David C. Wilderness of Mirrors. New York: Harper and Row, 1980 (228 pages).

This is the best and most informed book written about CIA operations against the Soviet target during the 1950s and 1960s. It includes a penetrating critique of two of the most prominent CIA officers involved, William K. Harvey and James Angleton. Citing interviews with retired CIA officers, material acquired under the Freedom of Information Act, and open sources, including evidence derived from the House Committee Hearings on Assassination, Martin crowds an exciting and generally accurate story into 228 pages.

During his research for the book, Martin became convinced that, while Harvey was an important figure, Angleton was the subject around whom major controversy swirled; furthermore, substantial evidence indicated that he had damaged CIA severely (especially its counterintelligence operations) and that his forced resignation by CIA Director William Colby had been necessary and long overdue. After his dismissal, Angleton continued a guerrilla action against the Agency, the new CI Staff, and Colby, launching a minor propaganda campaign which he fueled with calculated leaks, playing one journalist against another.

Martin did not name his sources, footnote the book, or provide a bibliography and other academic paraphernalia. In his foreword he noted that Angleton was one of his principal sources and that he "... was a marvelous education in the ways of the CIA. Over time, he explained to me its organization, its personnel, its modus operandi, and its internal rivalries." It was from Angleton, Martin continues, that he first heard some of the more colorful stories about Bill Harvey. When Martin called Harvey, however, the latter always hung up.

Angleton refused to continue his cooperation after learning that Martin was in touch with Clare Edward Petty, who had become suspicious of Angleton's motives when working for him and had begun to speculate that perhaps Angleton was the mole for whom the Agency searched. It appears likely that Petty generously contributed information about his former boss, the molehunt, the Golitsyn-Nosenko controversy, and many other subjects covered in the book. Martin identifies few other ex-CIA sources, although he claims they were legion.

The book was well received by almost every reviewer, sold out quickly, and is now a collector's item. Many readers found it especially interesting because the enigmatic Angleton had become a well-known figure by 1980. Epstein's Legend had painted him as a counterintelligence genius wrongly dismissed at the height of the Cold War, an act many observers hinted was close to treasonable.

Martin took a different tack, revealing Angleton as self-centered, ambitious, and paranoid, with little regard for his Agency colleagues or for simple common sense. Epstein, the lone critic of the book, responded by writing a long review for The New York Times Book Review that was filled with vituperative comments, loose charges, and what some might consider character assassination. Angleton himself entered the fray with a three-page public statement denouncing Martin and accusing him of having stolen his phrase "Wilderness of Mirrors."'

Epstein, Edward J. Deception: The Invisible War Between the KGB and the CIA. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989 (335 pages).

Epstein published Deception in mid-1989, just as the Soviet Union was on the verge of its demise in the autumn of 1991. The concurrent dismantling of the KGB, its major intelligence arm, led almost overnight to the disappearance of what was once a small industry in the West employing dozens of self-appointed experts in universities and think tanks who were devoted to the study of Soviet deception, disinformation, and subversion. Their endeavors, and Epstein's book, now have the smell of attic dust.

Like its predecessor Legend, Deception has two parts. The first 105 pages explain Angleton's theories, as developed by Epstein, largely from lengthy interviews with Anatole Golitsyn. The remainder of the book describes various forms of deception. One chapter is devoted to another Soviet defector, Vitali Yurchenko, who Epstein believes is a KGB provocateur similar to Nosenko. The conclusion is a long chapter on glasnost, which Epstein dismisses as simply another massive KGB deception.

The most arresting information in the book is the author's confession regarding his sources for this book and Legend. After Angleton died on 11 May 1987, Epstein apparently felt free to admit that the former chief of CIA counterintelligence had been his major source since 1976 when they first met.

Most astute observers had concluded that Angleton was leaking classified information to Epstein and others, but nothing was officially done to caution the discredited cold warrior. On the other hand, when CIA found that Clare E. Petty had been leaking classified material to the press, he received an official warning letter. Even in forced retirement, Angleton enjoyed protected and special status, as he had when he was at the Agency.

In Part One, Epstein recites again, as in Legend, the Angleton belief in the KGB program of deception and penetration, which the former CI Staff chief had heard about from Golitsyn and then embellished. One of Golitsyn's major claims, made almost immediately after his defection, was that the KGB would soon send another defector to "mutilate" Golitsyn's leads, as Angleton invariably put it. Thus when Nosenko defected to the CIA in 1964, Angleton viewed him as the predicted plant. This in turn ensured that Golitsyn would maintain his primacy as the CI Staff's resident expert on the subject.

When Nosenko did not confess that he was a false defector, CIA incarcerated him for three years under severe conditions. Epstein blames this action entirely on the management of the Soviet Division in CIA's Directorate of Operations, and he portrays Angleton as agonizing helplessly on the sidelines. This is patently absurd. Angleton was aware of all the legal considerations associated with such action and of the construction of the prison quarters but never raised an objection. If he had, as Epstein claims he did, one word from him to Director Richard Helms would have prevented Nosenko's detainment.

This is but one of many errors and misinterpretations in the book. Like Legend, it is propaganda for Angleton and essentially dishonest. The errors are too many to document here, but one more example will give the flavor. On page 85, Epstein cites Golitsyn's assertion that Soviet intelligence was divided into an "outer" and an "inner" KGB to support the deception program. Nothing, however, can be found in any of Golitsyn's debriefings that remotely supports this. Moreover, no other Soviet source or defector has ever reported the existence of two KGBs, including the most senior defector of recent times, Oleg Gordievsky.

Golitsyn probably developed this fiction after visiting England, when other evidence indicates he began to embroider and fabricate. One exasperated senior FBI officer wrote to Director J. Edgar Hoover: "Golitsyn is not above fabricating to support his theories." Epstein, who makes considerable pretensions to scholarship, should have been more conscientious in checking such stories with more responsible sources before labeling them as fact.

In summary, this is one of many bad books inspired by Angleton after his dismissal that have little basis in fact. An interview with Epstein in Vanity Fair magazine in May 1989 suggests he too has had second thoughts about Angleton and even about Golitsyn, his pet defector. Epstein admitted that Golitsyn shaped Angleton's views and possibly was a liar. The interview ended with the remark: "Actually, I don't know whether to believe Angleton at all!"

Wise, David. Molehunt: The Secret Search for Traitors That Shattered the CIA. New York: Random House, 1992 (325 pages).

David Wise, sometimes described as the dean of espionage writers, has produced a readable and accurate account of the molehunt in CIA under James Angleton in the 1960s. It seems a slight exaggeration, however, to describe it as an event that "shattered the CIA." Although he writes that the hunt involved more than 50 cases, just eight of them are discussed in the book and only three in detail. He also mentions Angleton's atrocious accusation that David Murphy, another senior Agency officer, was a Soviet agent, but Murphy's refusal to talk to Wise limits his treatment of that issue. The molehunt and its victims are the centerpiece of the book, but the author gives the reader a fascinating overview of Angleton's multifold activities in collaboration with Anatole Golitsyn, his defector-turned-mentor.

When Wise began his research for this book, he probably intended to produce a full biography of Angleton but soon learned Tom Mangold had beat him off the mark by over a year in preparing his Cold Warrior. Wise had to regroup, and he decided instead to concentrate on the molehunt. This proved to be a worthy topic. Using the testimony of several former CIA officers whose careers suffered because of Angleton's suspicions of them, the author provides an exceptionally interesting narrative. His stories of Peter Karlow, Paul Garbler, Richard Kovich, Vasia Gmirkin, George Goldberg, and others are an appalling testament to Angleton's paranoia and CIA management's failure to bring him under control.

The fact that so many senior officials were willing to be quoted reflects the depth of their feelings, which were suppressed for years, regarding the many injustices perpetrated under Angleton's direction. Wise did careful and extensive research on the events he describes, using footnotes to amplify and document his story, although he does not provide the kind of supportive detail that is the hallmark of the Mangold book.

While Molehunt is highly critical of Angleton, his supporters did not attack it as viciously as some did Mangold's work. Cold Warrior had appeared one year earlier and was like a heavy douse of cold water on the former counterintelligence chief's conspiracy theories. Many reviewers perhaps were becoming accustomed to Angletonian mischief by the time the Wise book appeared with more evidence of it. Among the pro-Angletonians, two such dousings in rapid succession did much to dampen their enthusiasm for further verbal combat.

Wise devotes considerable attention to Igor Orlov, who was thought to be the Soviet penetration molehunters were seeking on the advice of Golitsyn. At KGB headquarters Golitsyn had heard of "Sasha," which he thought was the codename for an important source. Later, after studying classified CIA files in Washington, he concluded Sasha was Igor Orlov. Orlov, indeed, was a likely candidate; he was never a CIA officer but had served the Agency in Germany as a contract agent doing operational support work. As such he would have been a useful source for the KGB, although he never had access to the kind of intelligence Golitsyn claimed an agent in Germany had produced. About that time the Soviets did have a valuable American military source in Germany. Golitsyn probably had seen material received from both sources and concluded that the product from the military officer, which often contained CIA finished intelligence, had come from Orlov. The simple fact is the two sources were confused in Golitsyn's mind.

His confusion persisted throughout the molehunt and thwarted its effectiveness, despite available evidence that should have clarified the issue. Not the least of this evidence was Golitsyn's own lead on that military officer plus one from Nosenko on the same person. Because Nosenko was not thought to be genuine, however, his vitally important lead was never followed up by the Agency's counterintelligence staff and matched with the Golitsyn lead. If the two leads had been considered together, investigators would very likely have been led to the military officer, who was not associated with CIA but passed Agency material to the KGB whenever he had the opportunity. The molehunt would at least have been a partial success and, with the apprehension of the true spy, Angleton would have been a hero.

The officers associated with the molehunt who knew the whole story would rather forget this embarrassing failure. Thus it seems likely Wise never heard from them the complete tale, causing him to make more of Orlov than he deserves." None of this, however, diminishes Wise's well told story about Orlov, on whom Golitsyn and Angleton had concentrated so much attention.

Wise's Molehunt is an important addition to the literature of the Angleton period. It is the last of a trilogy of books critical of Angleton that includes David Martin's Wilderness of Mirrors and Tom Mangold's Cold Warrior.


James J. Angleton

Arboit, Gérald. James Angleton, le Contre-espion de la CIA. Paris: Nouveau Monde, 2007.

Beyond its being the only book about Angleton in French, Robarge, Studies 53.4 (Dec. 2009), is not impressed by this work: Its "stereotyped depiction" of Angleton and CIA counterintelligence "as deranged . adds little to an understanding of a complex story."

Cleveland C. Cram died on 8 January 1999 at the age of 81: J.Y. Smith, "CIA Official Cleveland C. Cram: Specialist in Counterintelligence Conducted Influential Study of Legendary Agency Spymaster," Washington Post, 13 Jan. 1999, B6.

1. Of Moles and Molehunters: A Review of Counterintelligence Literature, 1977-1992, An Intelligence Monograph. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, 1993. Available as PDF file (1993) at: https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/index.html.

Clark comment: Although it remains the object of considerable ire from Angleton supporters, Cram's monograph is a great read for anyone interested in the literature of intelligence. Readers need not take Cram's opinions as the gospel, but they will learn about more things than "merely" Angleton. For an antidote to Cram's view of Angleton, see Hood, Nolen, and Halpern, Myths Surrounding James Angleton (1993).

For the Surveillant 3.4 reviewer, this monograph is an "opinionated, literate, fresh look at some items in the CI literature from an Agency insider." It offers a "terrific, though brief, historical review . [and is] well worth reading." Bates, NIPQ 10.2, saw things differently: The "title is, at best, misleading because the monograph is really an attack on . Angleton, blaming him for so many things I can't chronicle them here. [T]his is not the way to write history."

Robarge, Studies 53.4 (Dec. 2009), calls this "a unique and valuable historiographical survey of counterintelligence publications from the late 1970s to the early 1990s."

2. "Of Moles and Molehunters: Spy Stories." Studies in Intelligence 38, no. 5 (1995): 129-137.

"Editor's note: The following background essay first appeared in a monograph published by the Center for the Study of Intelligence in October 1993." (See above)

Epstein, Edward Jay. Deception: The Invisible War Between the KGB and the CIA. New York: Simon & Shuster, 1989.

Thomas Powers, NYRB (17 Aug. 1989) and Intelligence Wars (2004), 123-139, calls Deception "a richly suggestive but ultimately inconclusive work, which comes closer than Angleton himself ever did to laying out his case." On the negative side, Epstein "makes no attempt to weigh Angleton's case. He has an obligation to the reader to pass some sort of judgment on these wild claims, but gives us nothing of the kind." According to London, IJI&C 4.1, this is a "much needed antidote to the overheated rhetoric of the moment [1990]."

To Cram (1993), Epstein's work now has "the smell of attic dust. The first 105 pages explain Angleton's theories. The remainder . describes various forms of deception." The author dismisses glasnost "as simply another massive KGB deception." The book contains "many errors and misinterpretations. Like Legend, it is propaganda for Angleton and essentially dishonest." It is "[o]ne of many bad books inspired by Angleton after his dismissal that have little basis in fact."

NameBase comments that the "second half of this book examines some major deceptions in the twentieth century: the Soviet 'Trust' in the 1920s, Hitler's armament inventory in the 1930s, Soviet faking for our spy satellites, and the mole wars. Then Epstein looks at Glasnost in the Soviet Union. Epstein is . worth reading, even after Angleton has been largely discredited and Epstein's premise is forced to fly in the face of almost all available evidence."

Halpern, Samuel, and Hayden Peake. "Did Angleton Jail Nosenko?" International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence 3, no. 4 (Winter 1989): 451-464.

The authors conclude that "Admiral Turner got it wrong" in the accusation that Angleton was responsible for the incarceration of Nosenko. That responsibility rests with SR Division, Dave Murphy, and others, but not Angleton.

In a personal interview in February 1998, Dave Murphy commented, "I wish Sam had talked to me before he wrote the article," and suggested that the article had failed to take all the facts into account.

Hathaway, Robert M., and Russell Jack Smith. Richard Helms as Director of Central Intelligence, 1966-1973. Washington DC: History Staff, Center for the Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, 1993. Available at: http://www.foia/cia.gov.

This work, completed under the auspices of the CIA History Staff, was declassified (with redactions) in 2006. The "Editor's Preface" by J. Kenneth McDonald states that it is "organized as a topical study and not as a comprehensive narrative history of Richard Helms's six and a half years as DCI." (vii) Robarge, Studies 53.4 (Dec. 2009), notes that Hathaway's "highly unfavorable chapter on Angleton [was] based not on in-depth archival research but mainly on critical internal surveys . and on interviews with CIA retirees unfavorably disposed to him."

Hersh, Seymour M. "The Angleton Story." New York Times Magazine , 25 Jun. 1978, 13 ff. [ Petersen ]

Heuer, Richards J., Jr. "Nosenko: Five Paths to Judgment." Studies in Intelligence 31, no. 3 (Fall 1987): 71-101. In Inside CIA's Private World: Declassified Articles from the Agency's Internal Journal, 1955-1992 , ed. H. Bradford Westerfield, 379-414. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995. [Available as a 300 kb (vice 2.6 mb thanks to Kathrine M. Graham/NMSU) pdf file at: http://intellit.muskingum.edu/alpha_folder/H_folder/Heuer_on_NosenkoV1.pdf]

From Westerfield 's headnote: The Angleton-Golitsin-Nosenko story "has been told many times -- but never, I think, as well as in this meticulous logical and empirical exercise."

Clark comment : Heuer goes beyond a review of the case, presenting "five criteria for making judgments about deception" and describing "how each was applied by different parties to the Nosenko controversy." He also draws conclusions from his discussion of the case. Heuer notes: "I remain firmly opposed to the view that the master plot was an irresponsible, paranoid fantasy. Given the information available at the time. it would have been irresponsible not to have seriously considered this possibility. The mistake was not in pursuing the master plot theory, but in getting so locked into a position that one was unable to question basic assumptions or note the gradual accumulation of contrary evidence."

For the author (in comment to Clark 4/98), "The long-term value of this article is not what it says about Nosenko or Angleton, but the lessons about how bona fides analysis in general should be done."

Hoffman, Bruce, and Christian Ostermann, eds. Moles, Defectors, and Deceptions: James Angleton and His Influence on U.S. Counterintelligence. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 2014.

Peake, Studies 58.3 (Sep. 2014), judges this transcript from a 2012 seminar to be "the best assessment of James Angleton and his career ever produced."

Holzman, Michael. James Jesus Angleton, the CIA, and the Craft of Counterintelligence. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 2008.

Clark comment: My review of this work appears in Intelligence and National Security 27.1 (2012), pp. 158-162.

For Peake, Studies 53.3 (Sep. 2009) and Intelligencer 17.2 (Fall 2009), this book has "much that is new" on Angleton's personal life but "little new" on his career. In addition, the book has small and large errors concerning both British and American intelligence. This work "is less a biography than a literary vehicle skewed by a preconceived conclusion supported by secondary sources. James Angleton is worthy of a good biography. This isn't it." On the other hand, Hawkes, Times Literary Supplement (10 Jun. 2009), says that this "brisk, uncluttered book offers valuable access to previously untapped material on Angleton."

West, IJI&C 23.1 (Spring 2010), eviscerates this work. For example, the author "surprisingly offers little" on the subject of the Venona material, "and what he does say reveals that he cannot have studied the topic in any detail." On matters involving the Cambridge Five, "Holzman's reliability . is really very dubious." West concludes that the author "has done little or no original research and instead has written a polemic based on his not very extensive reading. Holzman is out of his depth and just does not really know very much about Angleton."

To Robarge, Studies 53.4 (Dec. 2010), the author's "research is reasonably thorough, but . he uses secondary sources with a surprisingly unquestioning attitude, and he makes many careless mistakes with dates, organizations, and people." In additiom, Holzman's "narrative is cluttered with several redantic or politically loaded asides and digressions."

Jeffreys-Jones, Diplomatic History 34.4 (Sep. 2010), notes that the author's "sense of comfort within the literary zone inclines him to emphasize the importance of Angleton's youthful interest in poetry," as had been done by Robin Winks. Holzman "argues that Angleton fell in with the American New Criticism that rejected historicism in favor of a closer reading of texts that resulted in the highlighting of ambiguity. Holzman addresses his subject with mixed fortunes and fails to assess the significance of Angleton for U.S. foreign policy. But his book is a lively addition to the literature in a field where nobody is likely to be regarded as authoritative."

Hood, William, James Nolan, and Sam Halpern. Myths Surrounding James Angleton: Lessons for American Counterintelligence. Working Group on Intelligence Reform. Washington, DC: Consortium for the Study of Intelligence, 1993.

Clark comment: Reading this piece together with Cleveland Cram's Of Moles and Molehunters (1993) will not tell readers all they need to know about the disputes surrounding Angleton, but careful perusers will certainly come away with some understanding of the complexities involved.

The reviewer in Surveillant 3.4/5 was quite enthusiastic about this Working Group release: "This . is an important item. [It is] delicious 'I-was-there' stuff, with their prejudices -- for 'im or against 'im -- out on the table." Johnson, "Reader's Forum," IJI&C 7.3, asks the questions: Was Angleton right? Was Colby wrong? He answers with a qualified yes to each question. Angleton's firing "was the culmination of a conflict between two opposing operational philosophies that dated from the days of OSS."

Bates, NIPQ 10.2, says that "[a]ll three are supportive of Angleton, but not to the point where they did not see his faults and at times disagree with him. [T]hey do a remarkable job. If counterintelligence is your bag, this pamphlet is for you. [It is] pretty obvious that [Cleveland C.] Cram was the first to comment in the discussion period and to attack the whole presentation."


Cleveland C. Cram Wrote CIA Analysis

Cleveland C. Cram, 81, a retired CIA official who made an influential and highly critical study of James J. Angleton, the controversial spymaster who headed the agency’s counterintelligence branch for 20 years during the Cold War, died of congestive heart failure Friday at his home in Washington.

Cram, holder of master’s and doctoral degrees in history from Harvard University, joined the CIA in 1950 and specialized in counterintelligence. After a distinguished career with several overseas postings, he retired in 1975.

The next year, he returned to the agency to do a special project: analyze and report on the work of Angleton, who had been forced to retire in 1974. Officials at the agency wanted the study to pierce the controversies that had surrounded the counterintelligence chief for years. The basic question was whether he had done the agency more harm than good.

For the sake of security, Cram had to conduct the project in a vault-like room that contained an even more secure inner vault. The study took six years and produced 11 volumes called “History of the Counterintelligence Staff, 1954-1974.”

Although the contents are still classified, the study’s general conclusions can be gleaned from an essay Cram wrote in 1993 titled “Of Moles and Molehunters: A Review of Counterintelligence Literature.” The essay has been published by the CIA on its Web site.

Angleton emerges as a brilliant operative whose methods were so chaotic and secretive that they almost defied rational analysis. His obsessions were that Soviet moles had penetrated the CIA and that Moscow was manipulating the United States through disinformation and propaganda. In pursuit of these perceived threats, Cram found, Angleton caused suspicion to be cast on several valuable agents whose careers were ruined. He also denounced intelligence officers of friendly governments, including a former head of MI-5, Britain’s internal security service.

When his work was finished, Cram remained a consultant to the CIA for several years.

His wife of 56 years, Mary Margaret, died in 1998. Survivors include a daughter, Mary Victoria Cram of Potomac, Md., and one granddaughter.


Cleveland C. Cram Papers

The Cleveland C. Cram Papers comprise the personal papers of Cleveland C. Cram, a longtime official at the Central Intelligence Agency. The collection includes ample correspondence to and from Cram, numerous manuscripts by Cram and others, printed materials about intelligence topics, a series of Cram's appointment books, a few photographs, and several audio cassette tapes. The Cram Papers document in detail the historical research conducted by the Central Intelligence officer Cram. The collection is contained in 7 archival boxes (6.5 linear feet). The Cram Papers complement other intelligence collections held by the Georgetown University Library Booth Family Center for Special Collections, including the Edgar J. Applewhite Papers, the Richard M. Helms Papers, the William Hood Papers, the Robert J. Lamphere Papers, and the Russell Bowen book collection on military intelligence.

Series 1 - Correspondence from Cram. Series 2 - Correspondence to Cram. Series 3 - Chronological Correspondence of Cram. Series 4 - Correspondence of Others. Series 5 - Manuscripts. Series 6 - Printed Materials. Series 7 - Appointment Books. Series 8 - Photographs. Series 9 - Audio Cassettes.

Dates

Collection-level Access Restrictions

Extent

Additional Description

Biographical note

Cleveland C. Cram was born in Waterville, Minnesota. His father was a farmer. Cram studied at St. John's University in Collegeville, Minnesota. He then received a Masters degree in European history from Harvard University. During World War II, he served in the Pacific theater of war for four years. After the war, Cram went back to Harvard and earned a Ph.D., and his dissertation was on Irish politics.

After joining the Central Intelligence Agency in 1950, Cram embarked on a long and prestigious career in intelligence. His area of focus was counterintelligence. In 1953, Cram moved to London, England, where he worked for five years and met Kim Philby. Cram and his CIA colleagues tried to expose Philby, who spied for the Soviets. Cram rose to the rank of deputy station in London, and he worked as a liaison officer between the Central Intelligence Agency and the British intelligence network. Later in his career, Cram held the post of station chief in Holland and Ottawa, too.

In 1975, after a distinguished career, Cram retired from the CIA. In 1976, he undertook a lengthy study of the history of the counterintelligence arm of the Central Intelligence Agency under James Jesus Angleton from 1954 to 1974. The study took six years to complete. In the process, Cram produced a massive, classified 11-volume study entitled, "History of the Counter-Intelligence Staff, 1954-1974." Subsequently, in 1993, Cram published an unclassified document entitled, "Of Moles and Molehunters: A Review of Counter-Intelligence Literature." Later, Cram did consulting work for the CIA, and he helped train CIA officials at the Center for Counter-Intelligence and Security Studies.

Mary Margaret Cram, Cleveland's wife, died in 1998. Their daughter is Mary Victoria Cram.

Cleveland C. Cram died at age 81 on January 9, 1999.

-Wise, David. "Mole-hunt: How the Search for a Phantom Traitor Shattered the CIA." (New York: Avon Books, 1992). -Obituary of Cleveland C. Cram in the "Washington Post," 1/13/1999, p. B6.


ARCHITECTURE

ARCHITECTURE. Cleveland's innovations in certain areas of architectural planning have displayed a progressiveness and vision matched by few other cities. The 1903 Group Plan, which produced widespread national admiration at the time, is only one example. In the 1920s, the plan of the CLEVELAND UNION TERMINAL complex anticipated many of the features of Rockefeller Center. Greater Cleveland also developed the first comprehensive modern building code (1904), the first industrial research park (NELA PARK, 1911), and the most spectacular realization of the garden city suburb idea in SHAKER HTS. Moreover, Cleveland is not without its individual architectural landmarks that have no peer anywhere, the most notable being the ARCADE of 1890.

Architectural design in Cleveland during most of its history was typical of that in any growing midwestern commercial and industrial city. The building needs for various uses—domestic, commercial, religious, social, industrial, and so on—were common. The same is true of the styles used to clothe these uses styles followed the general chronological development of those in the rest of the nation. The design of buildings was determined less by any discernible architectural philosophy than by the function or symbolism of the building, the wishes of the builder, the type of site or amount of money available, and the dictates of fashion. Because of the demand, the city attracted numerous fine architects, who generally produced buildings at a very high level of quality, though Cleveland is not known as the home of prophetic architects of national reputation.

At the time of Cleveland's beginnings in the early 19th century, there was no profession of architecture in the modern sense. The designer of buildings was sometimes a gentleman-scholar but more often a master builder in the late-18th-century tradition. The first master builder practicing in Cleveland who called himself "architect" was JONATHAN GOLDSMITH (1783-1847) of Painesville, who built at least 10 houses on Euclid Ave. in the 1820s and 1830s. The most notable were the Federal-style Judge Samuel Cowles mansion (1834) and the Greek Revival Truman Handy mansion (1837). The modern profession of architecture began in the 1840s, and the individual private practice, performing most of the services of the modern architect, was established in Cleveland before the Civil War. Goldsmith's son-in-law CHAS. W. HEARD (1806-76) was the most important architect from 1845 until his death. From 1849-59 he worked in partnership with SIMEON C. PORTER (1807-71) from Hudson, OH. Heard and Porter designed predominantly in the Romanesque Revival style (Old Stone Church, 1855). They introduced the use of cast-iron columns in Cleveland in the mid-1850s. Heard designed the Case Block (distinct from CASE HALL), rented and known as city hall, Cleveland's greatest Second Empire building, in 1875.

In the last quarter of the 19th century, Cleveland's most magnificent architectural ensemble was found on EUCLID AVE., lined with the fashionable mansions of wealthy executives in shipping, iron and steel, oil, electricity, and railroads. The fine residential stretch between E. 12th and E. 40th streets was known as "Millionaires Row" Clevelanders and many visitors called it "the most beautiful street in the world." Mansions remaining from the Greek Revival period, together with Gothic Revival and Tuscan villas from the 1850s and 1860s, stood side by side with great Romanesque Revival stone residences and eclectic houses in the Victorian Gothic, Renaissance, Queen Anne, and Neoclassic styles. The residences were designed both by Cleveland architects such as LEVI T. SCOFIELD, CHAS. F. SCHWEINFURTH, and GEO. H. SMITH and by out-of-town architects, including Peabody & Stearns, Richard M. Hunt, and Stanford White. Euclid Ave. remained fashionable until after the turn of the century, but virtually all of "Millionaires Row" was destroyed in the years around World War II.

At the same time, Cleveland participated in the revolution in commercial architecture that evolved simultaneously in Chicago, New York, and other large commercial cities, and which was characterized by 1) a concern for fireproof construction, 2) the provision of lighter and more open structure, and 3) the evolution of iron and steel skeletal construction. The foremost exponents of this development in Cleveland were FRANK E. CUDELL (1844-1916) and JOHN N. RICHARDSON (1837-1902), who produced a remarkable series of progressively lighter and more open structures between 1882-89—the Geo. Worthington Bldg., the Root & McBride-Bradley Bldg., and the PERRY-PAYNE BLDG. The first in Cleveland to utilize iron columns throughout all 8 stories, the latter contained an interior light court that attracted visitors from a considerable distance. The Chicago School of commercial building was actually represented by 3 buildings of Burnham & Root—the Society for Savings (1890), whose masonry load-bearing walls enclose an iron skeleton, and whose lobby is an unusually fine example of decorative art in the
Wm. Morris tradition the WESTERN RESERVE BUILDING (1891), a building of similar structure built on an unusual triangular site and the CUYAHOGA BUILDING (1893 demolished 1982), the first building in Cleveland with a complete steel frame.

The development of skeletal structure and the interior light court reached a climax in Cleveland with the construction of the ARCADE. Opened in 1890, the Arcade is an architectural landmark that has remained without peer for more than 100 years. Combining features of the light court and a commercial shopping street, the "bazaar" of stores and offices was built by a company whose officers included STEPHEN V. HARKNESS of Standard Oil and CHAS. F. BRUSH. The architects were JOHN EISENMANN and Geo. H. Smith. The 300' long iron-and-glass arcade of 5 stories is surrounded by railed balconies and connects two 9-story office buildings designed in the Romanesque style. Because of the differences in grade, there are main floors on both the Euclid Ave. and Superior Ave. levels. The skeletal structure of the Arcade consists of iron columns and oak, wrought iron, and steel beams. The roof trusses were of a new type since no local builder would bid on the construction, the work was done by the Detroit Bridge Co. The central well of the Arcade, with its dramatic open space and natural light, is the most impressive interior in the city, and its renown is international.

Other architects active in the last quarter of the century were ANDREW MITERMILER, planner of breweries, business blocks, and social halls JOSEPH IRELAND, architect to AMASA STONE and DANIEL P. EELLS Levi Scofield, designer of Cleveland's most important monument, the SOLDIERS & SAILORS MONUMENT (1894) and COBURN & BARNUM, whose major works were institutional and business buildings. By 1890 36 architects were listed in the city directory, and in the same year the Cleveland chapter of the AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS was formed. To design important Cleveland buildings in the 1890s, however, many clients sought architects of national reputation, among them Burnham & Root, Richard M. Hunt, Henry Ives Cobb, Shepley, Rutan & Coolidge, Geo. B. Post, Peabody & Stearns, and Geo. W. Keller. After the turn of the century, these included Stanford White and Cram, Goodhue & Ferguson.

When the profound change from Victorian revivalism to classicism took place in the 1890s, Cleveland architects responded with characteristic adaptability. Such architects as Geo. H. Smith, LEHMAN & SCHMITT, GEO. F. HAMMOND, and KNOX & ELLIOT began careers in the Richardsonian Romanesque and other revival styles and later were able to design tall office buildings and Beaux-Arts classical monuments with equal facility. One architect of this generation, CHAS. F. SCHWEINFURTH (1856-1919), was the first Cleveland architect to rank with those of national stature. Trained in New York, he came to Cleveland to design mansions, institutional buildings, and churches for the wealthy, especially in association with Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Mather. His early work was in the Richardsonian Romanesque style, but his masterpiece is generally agreed to be the Gothic TRINITY CATHEDRAL (1901-07).

The dominance of the classic revival was epitomized by the Group Plan of 1903, whose significance was immediately recognized across the country. The plan evolved as a result of the conception that newly planned federal, county, and city buildings could be placed in a monumental grouping. The Group Plan Commission consisted of Daniel H. Burnham, John M. Carrere, and Arnold W. Brunner. Uniformity of architectural character and building height was recommended, and the Beaux-Arts classical style was followed. The MALL, which is the center of the plan, was finally completed in 1936, and the major buildings include the Federal Courthouse (1910), CUYAHOGA COUNTY COURTHOUSE (1912), CLEVELAND CITY HALL (1916), PUBLIC AUDITORIUM (1922), CLEVELAND PUBLIC LIBRARY (1925), and Board of Education Bldg. (1930). As an example of city planning inspired by the City Beautiful movement and specifically by the precedent of the Columbian Exposition of 1893, Cleveland's Group Plan brought the city a national reputation for progressive municipal
vision.

A few Cleveland architects studied at the Beaux-Arts in Paris and brought its teachings with them, the most notable being J. MILTON DYER (1870-1957), architect of the city hall. By the 20th century, the first generation of architects trained in an American architectural school was beginning to practice. In 1921 a group of architects established the Cleveland School of Architecture, with ABRAM GARFIELD as the first president. The school was affiliated with Western Reserve Univ. in 1929. It later became a department of WRU (1952) and continued to operate until it was discontinued in 1972. Many architects were attracted to Cleveland by the opportunities to build in the growing and wealthy industrial city. The development of well-to-do suburban enclaves in LAKEWOOD, BRATENAHL, and the Heights between 1895-1939 fostered a climate in which eclectic residential architects flourished. Among the finest were Meade & Hamilton, Abram Garfield, PHILLIP SMALL, CHAS. SCHNEIDER, FREDERIC W. STRIEBINGER, CLARENCE MACK, J. W. C. CORBUSIER, ANTONIO DI NARDO, and Munroe Copper.

The development of SHAKER HTS. (1906-30) was probably the most spectacular embodiment of the suburban "garden city" idea in America. The subdivision was laid out so that curving roadways, determined as much by the topography of the land as by the desire for informality, replaced the grid layout of city streets. The apparently aimless meandering of the roads was actually calculated to provide access to the main arteries, as well as to create the best advantages for beautiful and livable home sites. Certain locations were reserved for the commercial areas, and lots were donated for schools and churches.

The homes of Shaker Hts. could be built for a wide range of prices, and there were neighborhoods of diverse character, from mansions to more humble homes. The architecture of the houses of the 1920s held few surprises eclecticism was the accepted manner. The architects turned to styles that had developed satisfying and comfortable forms of domestic architecture, including American Colonial and English Manor (either Adam or Georgian), French, Italian, Elizabethan, Spanish, or Cotswold. But the similar plans and common scale, differentiated mainly in detail, resulted in familiar streets where the different styles stand side by side without jarring in the least.

The consistency of the domestic vision in the planned suburb was remarkable. Churches were designed to relate to the domestic architecture, the two favorite styles being American Colonial and English Gothic. Schools, stores, libraries, hospitals, fire stations, and even the gasoline stations were designed in the Georgian and Tudor idioms. In 1927-29 the planned suburban shopping center at Shaker Square was built in the Georgian Colonial style. The plan of the square has been compared to a New England village green, but it owes a great deal to the concepts of mid-18th-century Neoclassic town planning in Europe it has been suggested that the octagonal form of the square and its buildings was patterned after the Amalienborg Palace in Copenhagen. SHAKER SQUARE illustrates the continuing dependence on European models, combined with the expected references to American Georgian domestic building. It is also unusual in its integration of the rapid-transit line, which made the development of suburban Shaker Hts. possible.

The first 3 decades of the 20th century also saw a greatly increased demand for much larger and more formal private, institutional, and public buildings. Two architectural firms dominated the field—HUBBELL & BENES, architects of the WEST SIDE MARKET, the CLEVELAND MUSEUM OF ART, and the Ohio Bell Telephone Bldg., and WALKER & WEEKS, architects of the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK, Public Auditorium, the Cleveland Public Library, and SEVERANCE HALL. However, two of the largest such projects of the period, the HUNTINGTON BLDG. and the Union Terminal Group, were entrusted to the Chicago firm of Graham, Anderson, Probst & White.

The Terminal Group (1922-31), an architectural complex that became the symbol of Cleveland, consisted originally of 7 buildings occupying 17 acres. The group was notable for the development of commercial air rights over the station all of the passenger facilities were below the street level. The arched portico on the PUBLIC SQUARE led to the Terminal Tower lobby and to ramps going to the station concourse level. The Hotel Cleveland (1918) was incorporated into the group and balanced by Higbee's department store (1931). The Terminal Group may be compared with Rockefeller Center, which it predated by several years, in size, multipurpose use, and the incorporation of connecting underground concourses and an indoor parking garage. The 52-story Beaux-Arts-style tower, second-tallest in the world in 1928, is crowned by a classical spire, probably based on the New York Municipal Bldg. of 1913. Sometimes criticized as conservative in style, the Terminal Tower forms a focal point for the Public Square and the radiating avenues of Cleveland's street plan, expressing the enterprise of the VAN SWERINGEN brothers who built it. The Builders' Exchange (Guildhall), Medical Arts (Republic), and Midland buildings, also planned by Graham, Anderson, Probst & White, were designed in the modernistic style of 1929-30 their Art Deco lobbies were destroyed in 1981. The last building in the original group, the U.S. Post Office, was completed in 1934.

The Depression era saw profound effects in architecture. Apart from the general decline in building and the consequent attrition in the number of practicing architects, the most important was the arrival of modernism under the influence of the European International style, which was most apparent in the design of federal public works. The first 3 public housing projects authorized and begun by the Public Works Admin. were built in Cleveland in 1935-37. They were the Cedar-Central apartments planned by WALTER MCCORNACK, Outhwaite homes by Maier, Walsh & Barrett, and LAKEVIEW TERRACE by Weinberg, Conrad & Teare. Lakeview Terrace is especially notable because of its adaptation to a difficult sloping site, and it appeared in international publications as a landmark in public housing. The simple design of the building units was clearly influenced by the European precedent of the International style. Other architects who adopted the new style with intelligence and vigor were J. Milton Dyer, HAROLD B. BURDICK, CARL BACON ROWLEY, J. Byers Hays, and Antonio di Nardo. The GREAT LAKES EXPOSITION in 1936 provided an opportunity for the display of the simple geometric forms of modernism, but the general acceptance of the style did not occur until after World War II.

The architecture of the postwar era is difficult to assess objectively from a recent perspective. New construction in Cleveland may have been more conservative in style and direction than at any other period in its history. Buildings continued to be built in traditional forms, as well as in the rectangular geometry of the assimilated International style. Many major projects were still awarded to nationally famous architects. Greater Cleveland saw structures designed by two of the old masters of modern architecture, Eric Mendelsohn and Walter Gropius. In the 1950s and 1960s, Cleveland firms such as Outcalt, Guenther & Associates filled the need for comprehensive planning on such projects as the Cleveland Hopkins Airport Terminal and master plans for CUYAHOGA COMMUNITY COLLEGE and CLEVELAND STATE UNIV. While the individual practice continued, a new type of complex design organization that could plan everything from a single structure to a megalopolitan transit system was typified by Dalton-Dalton-Little-Newport. The ERIEVIEW urban-renewal plan of 1960 was one of the most ambitious undertaken under the Federal Urban Redevelopment program. The clearance of nearly 100 acres between E. 6th and E. 14th streets, Chester Ave. and the lakefront provided sites for the building of new public, commercial, and apartment structures. The centerpiece of the plan was Erieview Tower (1964), designed by Harrison & Abramovitz. A new commercial and financial center developed that extended from Erieview to Euclid and E. 9th from the late 1960s to the early 1980s, no fewer than 12 new office buildings were erected in and around the area. Virtually all of the new buildings represented variations on the formula of the late modern glass and metal skyscraper. The architects included Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, Chas. Luckman, Marcel Breuer, and local Cleveland design firms.

Though it lies just over the Summit County line, the music pavilion of the Blossom Music Center (1968) deserves mention as the product of a Cleveland architect, Peter van Dijk, for a Cleveland institution, the CLEVELAND ORCHESTRA. The Ohio Section of the AIA in 1992 voted the dramatic clam-shaped shelter a 25 Year Building Award as a structure of lasting importance.

The most significant achievements in Cleveland architecture have been in large-scale planning—the Group Plan, the Terminal complex, Shaker Hts., PUBLIC HOUSING, and urban renewal. Chronologically, architectural design has often lagged behind national developments, and its general standard has been typical of that in cities of the same size. Individual buildings of every period rival buildings anywhere in quality—the Arcade, the Terminal Tower, the Society Bank, the Rockefeller Bldg., the motion picture palaces, and many churches. Several Cleveland architects, such as Chas. Schweinfurth and the firm of Walker & Weeks, achieved regional if not national reputations, and they will doubtless be more widely recognized when their work is fully documented. In conclusion, the architecture of Cleveland constitutes a representative index of the physical development and the taste of a large midwestern industrial and commercial city throughout its 19th- and 20th-century history.


Talk:Cleveland Cram

I have just modified one external link on Cleveland Cram. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot . No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template <> (last update: 15 July 2018).


Outlook / Prognosis

Can leg cramps be cured?

Leg cramps don’t have a cure at this time. Fortunately, there are steps you can take to prevent leg cramps (see the “Prevention” section) and manage your leg cramps (see the “Management and Treatment” section).

Can leg cramps get worse?

The severity of a leg cramp is difficult if not impossible to predict. Some people see improvement with prevention and treatment plans, while others struggle. It is possible that your cramps will feel worse and happen more often as you age.


Company-Histories.com

Address:
301 South LaSalle Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46201
U.S.A.

Telephone: (317) 635-5564
Toll Free: 800-227-4199
Fax: (317) 687-2845
http://www.georgefcram.com

Statistics:

Private Company
Incorporated: 1921
Employees: 90
Sales: $19.3 million (2000)
NAIC: 511199 All Other Publishers


Company Perspectives:
While the George F. Cram Company is over 130 years old, we are still committed to develop a new and innovative product line while maintaining and surpassing quality standards.


Key Dates:
1867: Company is founded as Blanchard & Cram in Evanston, Illinois.
1869: Firm becomes George F. Cram Company with George as sole owner company moves to Chicago.
1871: Great Chicago fire destroys the business company is re-established as Cram Map Depot.
1921: Edward Peterson buy the company and merges it with his National Map Company of Indianapolis.
1928: After Cram's death, Peterson changes the company name to The George F. Cram Company.
1932: Cram begins manufacturing globes.
1937: Loren B. Douthit begins employment with Cram.
1966: Douthit becomes president and majority shareholder of the company.
1978: Douthit retires and his sons William and John assume leadership of Cram.
1988: Cram acquires American Geographic, Visual Craft, and Starlight Manufacturing.
1991: Company purchases Southwind Publications and in-troduces the first Vacuum-Formed Illuminated Globe.
2002: Company earns Export Achievement Certificate from the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Indianapolis-based The George F. Cram Company, Inc. is one of the nation's leading publishers and manufacturers of maps, atlases, globes, and related commercial and educational supplies. Its line of products include globes designed as gifts, world and decorator globes for home and office, home educator maps and programs, educational globes and maps, cultural and historical maps, state maps, curriculum material for the classroom, and social studies materials, including CDs, videos, and atlases. The company has been primarily owned and directed by the Douthit family since 1966, when family patriarch Loren B. Douthit began directing its fortunes as company president and majority stockholder. William L. Douthit took over Cram's reins when Loren Douthit died in 1996.

1867-1920: Evolution of a Map and Atlas Publisher

The George F. Cram Company traces its ancestry back to 1867, when a merchant named Rufus Blanchard, originally from Massachusetts, took his nephew George F. Cram into business with him in Evanston, Illinois, near Chicago. Prior to that, back East, Blanchard had prospered through the sale of globes, maps, and books, but after the Civil War had moved to the Midwest. He brought Cram into the trade as a partner.

Cram, who was born on May 20, 1842, was fairly young at the time. He had served in the Union Army during the Civil War, and, reportedly, had a role as a cartographer for General Ulysses S. Grant. He also wrote several letters while serving under General William T. Sherman and participating in that military commander's celebrated "march to the sea." Years later, Cram's biography and letters would command enough historical interest to find their way into print.

The company of the uncle and nephew, which sold maps and atlases, was named Blanchard & Cram. However, in 1869, Cram took full control of the firm, renamed it George F. Cram, and moved it to Chicago, where, initially, it was a supply house for traveling book salesmen. The great Chicago fire of 1871 destroyed that business, however, and when Cram re-established the company as the Cram Map Depot, he reverted to producing and selling maps and atlases, which he had been doing in his partnership with Blanchard.

By 1875, the Cram Map Depot had begun publishing a wide range of atlases, including its Atlas of the World series. It was a series that, with several modifications and revisions, would remain in print for over 70 years. It was also the core business of the company right through World War I and the 1920s.

1921-65: Merging to Become a Major Globe Manufacturer

In 1921, Cram, at 79, sold the company to E.A. Peterson, who merged it with his own business, the National Map Company. National had previously been Scarborough Company and was originally established in Boston in 1882, but when it merged with Cram, the business moved to East Georgia Street in Indianapolis, Indiana. In 1928, the year in which George F. Cram died, Peterson changed the firm's name to The George F. Cram Company.

It was not until the early 1930s that Cram began making globes, what would become one of the company's core products. These were made for both the home and school markets and came in a range of sizes from 8" to 16" in diameter. The product line included Cram's Universal Terrestrial Globes, political globes featuring a choice of sizes and different mountings. The company also produced a series dubbed Cram's Unrivaled Terrestrial Globes, as well as lighted globes.

In 1936, Loren B. Douthit began his long career with the company, initially working as school sales field manager. Over the next several years he rose through the business, becoming president and majority shareholder in 1966.

In 1940, Cram copyrighted and produced its Self-Revising Globe. With the world at war, the company realized that the restoration of peace would bring geopolitical changes, so it began selling globes with the guaranty that it would supply new map sections for globe owners who, following simple instructions, could update their globes.

Cram introduced one of its best-selling globes, the Tuffy Globe, in 1958. Cram manufactured the globes to hold up under reasonable wear, hence the suggestive name. The Tuffy line would prove very popular. It would also evolve through several versions and eventually carry a ten-year guarantee against the hazards of normal use, even by rambunctious children. The line would also reflect changing techniques in globe making. Models still in production in the next century were vacuum formed and injection molded, and thereafter marketed with the promise that they would not chip, dent, or peel.

1966-89: New Leadership and a Period of Vigorous Growth

In 1966, ownership of the company again changed hands when Loren B. Douthit and other family members bought a controlling interest in the business. Loren became president, and two years later, in 1968, he moved the company to South La Salle Street in Indianapolis, where it would remain into the next century. At about the same time, Douthit expanded the company's educational division, which produced not just globes and maps but also learning programs.

Cram faced difficult times, however, in the late 1960s and 1970s. The educational market started to dry up when geography lost its appeal to students and its status as a core subject in many school curricula slipped. The Soviet Union's successful launch of Sputnik in 1957 brought in its wake a new focus on math and science and, by the 1960s, schools, with their wide-swinging educational pendula, were soon turning out Johnnys who not only could not read or write but who could not locate New York on unmarked world maps, never mind London, Tokyo, Rome, or Rio de Janeiro.

William and John Douthit, Loren's two sons, assumed control of the day-to-day operations of the company when their father retired in July 1978, though Loren remained the titular head of the business as its board chairman. Under their leadership, Cram entered a period of fairly vigorous growth. Also, by the late 1980s, Cram's business market had undergone a major though gradual shift that had started in the 1960s. In 1963, it was selling more than 85 percent of its products to schools, and though that market remained central in the company's expansion, by 1989 commercial sales accounted for almost half of the company's business. In fact, the 1980s were strong growth years for the firm.

One good piece of luck came in 1982, when Target, then a 392-store chain of Dayton Hudson Corporation of Minneapolis, Minnesota, set out to find some new, low-priced Christmas items. Although Cram had been trying to sell items to Target, it was not pursuing that chain's business very vigorously. Neither were its competitors, however. In fact, one of them, Replogle Globes, Inc. of Chicago, was not even trying. The result was, to the company's surprise, that Target placed an order for over 25,000 globes with Cram, a giant order by the company's standards at the time. To fill it, Cram took a considerable risk. Douthit more than doubled his production staff, and even then had to work them many overtime hours to get the job done.

The result was a healthy growth-run by Cram. Its total business tripled between 1983 and 1989, and it enjoyed a particularly strong year in 1988, when sales rose by nearly 30 percent over the previous year. The company also left behind a rather stodgy reputation. Its customers helped encourage it to employ a more modern look, using, for example, bolder colors on its globes and more attractive packaging. The changes made Cram more competitive with Replogle and helped gain it a larger market share. Also, Cram was helped when, in 1987, Rand McNally completely exited the globe-making business. Between 1983 and 1989, Cram's production of globes increased five-fold, reaching close to 500,000 units per year. By that time, its globes were picked up for sale by several large retailers, including Venture, Child World, and Ames. As a result, retail store sales reached about 45 percent of the company's business.

Despite the tilting in its market axis towards increased commercial sales, the company's educational sales soared upward in the same period. One business boon was the 1988 introduction of a major new product: a primary map that blended activity and landscape panels. Cram experienced an enviable miscalculation when an anticipated 18-month supply of the maps sold out long before more were scheduled for printing. By 1988, Cram had also undertaken expansion through the acquisition of other companies. In January of that year it purchased American Geographic, a maker of large-scale state maps and specialty products before buying that Michigan-based firm Cram had acquired two other companies: Visual Craft, an Illinois manufacturer of overhead transparencies and Starlight Manufacturing, a metal spinning and stamping company located in Indianapolis.

1990 and Beyond: Expansion

Expansion continued into the 1990s, starting in 1991, when the company acquired Southwinds Publication. Southwinds, located in Florida, was a publisher of desk map programs. In the following year, Cram also purchased Rath Globe.

With the dissolution of the former Soviet Union in 1992, updating world maps and globes became a priority project for cartographers. Cram quickly produced a color globe, reputedly the first to depict the 15 countries once more independent of the Soviet hegemony.

Cram's guiding genius since the 1960s, Loren Douthit, died in March 1996. William L. Douthit, his son, then became the company's CEO and chairman. The following June, in a cooperative venture with Berkeley, California-based Eureka Cartography, Cram produced the first digital vacuum-formed globe for Explore Technology. Vacuum-formed, illuminated globes had first appeared on the scene in 1991, when World Book, Inc. introduced them to the market.

In the following year, 1997, the company acquired the personal letters of George F. Cram, written to the founder's mother and uncles during the Civil War. Three years later, in a collection edited by Jennifer Cain Bohrnstedt, the letters were issued by the Northern Illinois University Press. That year, the company celebrated its 130th anniversary. It also introduced its all-new and original Explorer political maps of the world and the United States for the educational market. Once again, too, it partnered with Eureka Cartography, this time to produce and market the first fiberglass globes.

Starting in the 1990s and expanding in the new century, Cram tapped into foreign markets for an increasing percentage of its sales. By 2002, it was printing globes in English, Spanish, French, and Mandarin Chinese, and it was exporting them to almost 25 countries. The company's success in expanding into global markets earned the recognition of the U.S. Department of Commerce, which in May 2002 awarded the company with an Export Achievement Certificate. The company was the first Indiana firm to received the honor. Cram had begun working with the U.S. Commercial Service, an agency of the Department of Commerce, in 2001, and as a result had entered nine markets that generated sales of $350,000. Although foreign sales only accounted for about 12 percent of the company's revenue, Cram's prospects for increasing global sales over the next several years looked very good.

Principal Competitors: 1-World Globes Herff Jones, Inc. National Geographic Society Inc. Rand McNally Company Replogle Globes The World of Maps, Inc.

  • Cram, George F., Soldiering with Sherman: Civil War letters of George F. Cram , edited by Jennifer Cain Bohrnstedt, DeKalb.: Northern Illinois University Press, 2000.
  • Davis, Andrea M., "Global Focus Pays Off for Cram," Indiana Business Journal , May 20, 2002, p.1.
  • Harris, John, "Global Warfare," Forbes , October 16, 1989, p. 120.
  • Kronemyer, Bob, "Going Global," Indiana Business Magazine , October 2000, p. 17.
  • Stewart, William B., "The World According to Cram," Indiana Business Magazine , September 1989, p. 24.

Source: International Directory of Company Histories , Vol. 55. St. James Press, 2003.


Coal County, Oklahoma

Coal County was formed at statehood from the former Shappaway County (later renamed Atoka County) of the Pushmataha District of the Choctaw Nation in Indian Territory. A 3.5 miles (5.6 km) strip of Coal County was taken from the Pontotoc District of the Chickasaw Nation. Initially, the Oklahoma legislature named Lehigh as the county seat, but a special election held in 1908 resulted in the citizens choosing Coalgate as the county seat. Lehigh tried to sue because more people voted than were registered, but no court would hear the case. [3]

Mining became a mainstay of the county's economy during the 1870s. The first coal mine opened on Chief Allen Wright's land. The industry activity peaked between 1910 and 1916 but declined sharply after World War I. Many of the mines closed by 1921, due to the refusal of mining companies of the area to unionize. Some mines reopened during World War II, but these closed by 1958, because of the rising cost of refining sulfur out of the coal mined. [3]

Agriculture replaced mining as the main economic activity of the county. Even this business encountered severe difficulty in 1921–3 when a boll weevil infestation wiped out the cotton crop. All five banks in the county failed as a result. [4]

Coal County is in southeastern Oklahoma, in a 10-county area designated for tourism purposes by the Oklahoma Department of Tourism and Recreation as Choctaw Country. [5] According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the county has a total area of 521 square miles (1,350 km 2 ), of which 517 square miles (1,340 km 2 ) is land and 4.7 square miles (12 km 2 ) (0.9%) is water. [6] It is the fifth-smallest county in Oklahoma by area. The eastern part of the county lies in the Ouachita Mountains, while the western part has open prairie and lies in the Sandstone Hills physiographic region. The county is drained by the Clear Boggy and Muddy Boggy creeks. [3]

Major highways Edit

Adjacent counties Edit

Historical population
Census Pop.
191015,817
192018,406 16.4%
193011,521 −37.4%
194012,811 11.2%
19508,056 −37.1%
19605,546 −31.2%
19705,525 −0.4%
19806,041 9.3%
19905,780 −4.3%
20006,031 4.3%
20105,925 −1.8%
2019 (est.)5,495 [7] −7.3%
U.S. Decennial Census [8]
1790-1960 [9] 1900-1990 [10]
1990-2000 [11] 2010-2019 [1]

As of the 2010 United States Census, there were 5,295 people, 2,350 households, and 1,604 families residing in the county. [12] There were 2,810 housing units. [12] The racial makeup of the county was 74.3% White, 0.5% Black or African American, 16.7% Native American, 0.2% Asian, 0.5% from other races, and 7.8% from two or more races. [12] 2.6% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race. [12]

There were 2,350 households, out of which 27.7% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 50.8% were married couples living together, 12.1% had a female householder with no husband present, and 31.7% were non-families. [12] 28.1% of all households were made up of individuals, and 14.6% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. [12] The average household size was 2.50 and the average family size was 3.06. [12]

In the county, the population was spread out, with 25.5% under the age of 18, 7.2% from 18 to 24, 21.7% from 25 to 44, 27.8% from 45 to 64, and 17.8% who were 65 years of age or older. [13] The median age was 41.0 years. [13] For every 100 females there were 97.7 males. [13] For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 91.5 males. [13]

According to the 2013 American Community Survey, the median income for a household in the county was $34,867, and the median income for a family was $44,888. [14] Male full-time, year round workers had a median income of $36,442 compared to $26,450 for female full-time, year round workers. [14] The per capita income for the county was $19,752. [14] About 15.8% of families and 21.6% of the population were below the poverty line, including 35.9% of those under age 18 and 15.7% of those age 65 or over. [14]

According to the 2000 census, 94.6% spoke English, 3.0% Spanish, 1.1% German and 1.1% Choctaw as their first language.


Cramming People Into a Thing: A Photo History

Phone Booth Cramming was a late-1950s fad with a simple premise: cram a phone booth full of dudes (and/or ladies) and take a picture before the people on the bottom suffocate. As you can imagine, this pastime was most popular among college students, and led to international rivalries. Yes, kids, this is the kind of thing we thought was fun back before we had video games. and when we still had phone booths. But this practice of people-packing goes to places weirder than phone booths, as you'll see in the historic (and bizarre) images below.

Phone Booth Cramming

Let's start with phone booths, the first and best-known stuffed space. It all started in 1959 when a group of students in Durban, South Africa crammed 25 students into a booth and submitted the result to the Guinness Book of World Records.* Although the South Africans were first, Americans soon took the world stage as masters of people-packing (and photography): the best-known Stuffed Phone Booth was photographed at St. Mary's College in 1959, when 22 students packed themselves into one phone booth while LIFE magazine photographer Joe Munroe snapped pictures. It took all day to get the right shot, and still the students failed to beat the South African record -- though they beat a group of Canadians who had gotten 19 into a booth (with legs sticking out) earlier in the year. (Reportedly, that South African record still stands, though Guinness World Records doesn't list it on their website.) Interestingly, the "rules" for Phone Booth Stuffing had regional differences. LIFE magazine reported (March 30, 1959, emphasis added):

The competitive squeeze started to sweep the U.S., with each college playing by its own rules. Some used roomy phone cubicles in fraternity houses. Others upended booths and piled into them like boats. Conscientious student stuffers used the sardine, or limbs-in, method [as shown above]. Others took the easier approach that permits legs to dangle on the outside. Competitors agree that the best phone-boothing technique is to round up undersize undergraduates, preferably freshmen, and put them under the supervision of a tough master crammer. One M.I.T. student boasted, “Here we think and calculate about the job. The mathematics of it are challenging.”

Here's a video of those St. Mary's students remembering their stunt. A representative quote: "People at the bottom were really laboring to breathe." Party on, dudes:

If you want to feel like you're part of the (hot, sweaty, crampy) action, here's a 2009 video of St. Mary's College students attempting to repeat the feat, with some of the original stuffees on-hand for color commentary.

Phone Booth Cramming - Ladies-Only Edition

At Memphis State U in 1959, 26 Sigma Kappa ladies gave it the old college try by cramming into their own telephone booth. though as you can see, their cramming rules appear rather lax. (Note: standing at the left of the photo is cheerleader Janis Hollingsworth, who cheered her sisters on throughout the event.)


© Corbis

Phone Booth Cramming - LIFE Edition

LIFE magazine documented the phone booth cramming fad from its inception. Here are a series of images by Robert W. Kelley, a LIFE magazine photographer who documented one "legs-out" attempt by a bunch of college boys in 1959:


© Robert W. Kelley/Time & Life Pictures


© Robert W. Kelley/Time & Life Pictures


© Robert W. Kelley/Time & Life Pictures

Car Cramming

Clowns are well-known for crowding into cars Wikipedia dryly explains: "A common example of [a clown car] routine involves an implausibly large number of clowns emerging from a very small car, to humorous effect." But in the 1950s this practice spread beyond the hallowed halls of Clown College to square schools: regular college kids went the extra mile by cramming themselves into small cars like the famously economical (and tiny) Renault. Witness:

Outhouse Cramming

In 1959, 37 (!) students in Brookings, South Dakota, crammed themselves into a single outhouse, leaving the bum-wiping magazine on top to save space inside. According to South Dakotan rules of the day, half a person's body could remain outside the crammed edifice and still count -- hence the pile of dudes sticking out the front.


© Corbis

Tree Stuffing

In 1961, students at the University of Maine decided to cram inside hollow trees. Yes, really. According to the Bettmann Archive:

A "Tree Stuffing" contest to incite interest in their respective organizations, was held by the Pi Phi Sorority and Lambda Chi Alpha Fraternity at the University of Maine, when they challenged one another to the contest of hollow trees on the campus. The girls, after removing their shoes, stuffed 13 into the tree, the boys 15.

© Corbis

Train Stuffing

In 1962, space on Tokyo trains was at a premium, so "pushmen" were employed to cram commuters into trains, to maximize efficiency. The best part? Reportedly, the pushmen were college students. The original caption for this image noted: "Winter coats complicate the cramming process." (According to some online accounts I've read, this still happens. Any pushmen or Japanese commuters care to comment?)

Photo Booth Stuffing

According to Guinness World Records, in 2009, 27 people crammed into a purikura sticker photo booth designed for 10. Sadly, no photo is available, though you can read a bit about the booths from Wikipedia. Based on this attempt and the St. Mary's attempt (also in 2009), I'd say this fad is coming back!

Go Stuff Yourself

If you can find a phone booth, let us know how many coeds you can get in there -- and if you find one containing an actual working telephone, try following British rules, which require that one stuffee make or receive a phone call during the attempt. Be safe, kids.

Have you been part of a cramming or stuffing feat? Let us know in the comments.

* = It appears the the Durban feat was not granted official World Record status (at least judging from a reading of the 1989 book and some web digging). Regardless, the Durban "record" of 25 people in one booth is broadly considered to be valid, as evidenced by various groups subsequently trying to break it.


Watch the video: Downtown Cleveland - You Are Here


Comments:

  1. Qadir

    Interesting article, respect to the author

  2. Faelkis

    Remember it once and for all!



Write a message