Chef Julia Child among 24,000 spies during World War II

[snopes]

Famed chef Julia Child shared a secret with Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg and Chicago White Sox catcher Moe Berg at a time when the Nazis threatened the world.

They served in an international spy ring managed by the Office of Strategic Services, an early version of the CIA created in World War II by President Franklin Roosevelt.

http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/art...ed0813-ON.html

[rhiandmoi]

I thought this had already been released, at least about Julia Child. When she passed away, I remember it being part of many of the "we'll miss you Julia" very special episodes on Food Network.

[putitinwriting]

I think it was known that she'd worked for them in an administrative function, not that she was actually a spy.

[Ali Infree]

I thought that Julia Child had often said that she had worked for OSS in a clerical capacity in Thailand or India. Was she downplaying her work? It is not clear what these records will reveal, aside from employment.


Ali "Bon Apetite, Adolf!" Infree

[Lainie]

My favorite is Stewart Copeland's father.

[Elkhound]

I'd always imagined her interrogating an enemy agent:

"I'll tell you everything! Just don't make me eat that!"

[Izzy Quigley]

You only THOUGHT you were all alone in the kitchen...

[snopes]

Though Julia Child, with characteristic Yankee modesty, was to disparage, in numerous interviews, her wartime career as "a clerk," Paul Child revealed otherwise. In a letter to his twin brother, he declared her "privy to all messages both incoming from the field or Washington, etc., and outgoing to our agents and operatives all over China-Burma-India."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121910345904851347.html

[Ali Infree]

Well then, Julia was doing more than filing papers! Sounds like she was privy to some high level information. I do have to dispute the WSJ article on this point: Allen Dulles' WW II intelligence role has been pretty well known for more four decades, not news.

Still, Indian and Chinese food eaten during her OSS assignments must have whetted Julia Child's interest in cuisine, before she got to France.

OT: I just bought a 1953 Edition of Joy of Cooking with full chapters on Pressure Cookery and The Electric Blender --it has been an interesting read, so far.

Ali "chicken cordon bleu" Infree

[jimmy101_again]

Originally Posted by snopes

"privy to all messages both incoming from the field or Washington, etc., and outgoing to our agents and operatives all over China-Burma-India."

Well then, Julia was doing more than filing papers! Sounds like she was privy to some high level information.

Wouldn't a person "filing papers", when the papers are high level secret messages, be "privy to all messages"? Kind of hard to file something if you have a blind fold on. Similarly, a lowly private soldier (or secretary) sitting at a typewriter typing secret messages is "privy to some high level information".

[Ali Infree]

and Julia, with a staff of 10 assistants, opened, numbered and directed all forms, devising new systems for code names and filing secret papers.

Given this information in the newer article, I would suggest she had a working knowledge of their operations to be able to direct forms, and to do code names--one wouldn't want to use a code name too descriptive of the source, network, etc--like Doctor Phil for an agent who was a doctor.

Getting information to the right source is a relatively low level, but actual, bit of intelligence gathering. For instance. a friend of mine served in the US Army in the early 1960s along the East-West German border. He was taught enough Russian to recognize and understand it a bit, since his unit was listening for Soviet military radio traffic. He cannot actually speak Russian, but his unit was a first line of information gathering, passing on tapes to those higher up.

Ali "right Chief" Infree

[UEL]

Originally Posted by jimmy101_again

Wouldn't a person "filing papers", when the papers are high level secret messages, be "privy to all messages"? Kind of hard to file something if you have a blind fold on. Similarly, a lowly private soldier (or secretary) sitting at a typewriter typing secret messages is "privy to some high level information".

Originally Posted by Ali Infree

Given this information in the newer article, I would suggest she had a working knowledge of their operations to be able to direct forms, and to do code names...

Getting information to the right source is a relatively low level, but actual, bit of intelligence gathering.

I work as a collector for intelligence. I'm not a spy, although my job has the media calling us spies, but I wear a uniform.

Military Intelligence can be broken down in many ways. I prefer three distinct groups, and one transitional group of people.

First group: the collectors. These are the people who gather the information that is turned into intelligence. They can be anything from someone having a conversation in a bar, to super high tech unmanned aircraft watching the enemy from afar. Their sole purpose is to gather information. They are not the ones, despite what television teaches us, that determine the value of the information. That is left to...

Second group: the analysts. These are the brains behind the operation. They may take the information from that guy in the bar, bring it together with the unmanned aerial vehicle footage, and determine that something of significance has occurred. This is the heart of intelligence. However, they cannot get the information from the collectors without...

Third group: the planners. It's impossible to cover the entire battlespace with an even amount of intelligence gathering and analysis coverage. There would be just too much information to gather and process. The key is to be able to focus the coverage at the right place and time. Intelligence planning is the key. They get their ideas from the analysts, and they then plan the way the collectors will gather the information.

This is the Iron Triangle of intelligence*. Someone plans, someone gathers, someone analyses which leads to new plans. However, binding these three elements together are the people like Julia Childs. A simple term would be the "processors", but we tend to call them operators. Simply put, a low level operator would end up working with one feed (perhaps the unmanned aircraft) and is responsible for ensuring that the information from that aircraft is collated, recorded and passed to the appropriate analysis cell. A second operator would take all aerial reports, unmanned, manned, satellite, etc, and ensure that they covered sectors that needed analysing. Another operator, a bit higher in seniority, would responsible for taking the analyses, and processing them and collating them into a report. Still a fourth type of operator would disemminate the reports, and intelligence and collect the requirements from the units and agencies, which is what I believe Julia Childs did.

She would take in the questions from the military, government, other agencies and see if she had an answer already on file. If not, she would pass this requirement to the intelligence planners who would ensure that a collection asset(s) was tasked. Once the information was collected, the operators would pass it through their chains to the appropriate analysis cell. The analysis would be done, an operator would compile the analysis in a report, and Julia Childs would then verify that it met the original request, and disemminate the report to the agencies etc that could use the information (but mostly to the originator).

This is an important, high stress job. And it fits with what the article says about her. If it is true, she was truly an amazing woman.

*My term.

[DesertRat]

Second group: the analysts. These are the brains behind the operation. They may take the information from that guy in the bar, bring it together with the unmanned aerial vehicle footage, and determine that something of significance has occurred. This is the heart of intelligence. However, they cannot get the information from the collectors without...

That's me.

[DesertRat]

By the way, I'm going to steal your whole "Iron Triangle" concept and use it when I start teaching next year. Thanks once again for contributing to the USMC Air Intelligence course of instruction.

[UEL]

Originally Posted by DesertRat

By the way, I'm going to steal your whole "Iron Triangle" concept and use it when I start teaching next year. Thanks once again for contributing to the USMC Air Intelligence course of instruction.

Sure, DR. Is there any other way possible for me to make your job easier? First, it's my IPB, now it's my Iron Triangle.

What next, my standardised according to Richard aerial reporting?

[Matt H.]

Originally Posted by UEL

I work as a collector for intelligence. I'm not a spy, although my job has the media calling us spies, but I wear a uniform.

Military Intelligence can be broken down in many ways. I prefer three distinct groups, and one transitional group of people.

First group: the collectors. These are the people who gather the information that is turned into intelligence. They can be anything from someone having a conversation in a bar, to super high tech unmanned aircraft watching the enemy from afar. Their sole purpose is to gather information. They are not the ones, despite what television teaches us, that determine the value of the information. That is left to...

Second group: the analysts. These are the brains behind the operation. They may take the information from that guy in the bar, bring it together with the unmanned aerial vehicle footage, and determine that something of significance has occurred. This is the heart of intelligence. However, they cannot get the information from the collectors without...

Third group: the planners. It's impossible to cover the entire battlespace with an even amount of intelligence gathering and analysis coverage. There would be just too much information to gather and process. The key is to be able to focus the coverage at the right place and time. Intelligence planning is the key. They get their ideas from the analysts, and they then plan the way the collectors will gather the information.

This is the Iron Triangle of intelligence*. Someone plans, someone gathers, someone analyses which leads to new plans. However, binding these three elements together are the people like Julia Childs. A simple term would be the "processors", but we tend to call them operators. Simply put, a low level operator would end up working with one feed (perhaps the unmanned aircraft) and is responsible for ensuring that the information from that aircraft is collated, recorded and passed to the appropriate analysis cell. A second operator would take all aerial reports, unmanned, manned, satellite, etc, and ensure that they covered sectors that needed analysing. Another operator, a bit higher in seniority, would responsible for taking the analyses, and processing them and collating them into a report. Still a fourth type of operator would disemminate the reports, and intelligence and collect the requirements from the units and agencies, which is what I believe Julia Childs did.

She would take in the questions from the military, government, other agencies and see if she had an answer already on file. If not, she would pass this requirement to the intelligence planners who would ensure that a collection asset(s) was tasked. Once the information was collected, the operators would pass it through their chains to the appropriate analysis cell. The analysis would be done, an operator would compile the analysis in a report, and Julia Childs would then verify that it met the original request, and disemminate the report to the agencies etc that could use the information (but mostly to the originator).

This is an important, high stress job. And it fits with what the article says about her. If it is true, she was truly an amazing woman.

*My term.

You forgot one group: the ops guys who take credit for everything when intel gives them an easy win.

[DesertRat]

What next, my standardised according to Richard aerial reporting?

Well...sure, if you're willing to share it.

You forgot one group: the ops guys who take credit for everything when intel gives them an easy win.

I've tried very hard to forget them, but they just won't go away. Just remember, there are two types of outcomes to any operation-- operational successes and intelligence failures. (*barf*)

[Matt H.]

Originally Posted by DesertRat

I've tried very hard to forget them, but they just won't go away. Just remember, there are two types of outcomes to any operations-- operational successes and intelligence failures. (*barf*)

Oh, yeah, been hearing that for years. That's why I'm changing branches when I get commissioned--why bust my ass to look good when I can have the other guys do it for me?

[CannonFodder]

Originally Posted by Matt H.

You forgot one group: the ops guys who take credit for everything when intel gives them an easy win.

Hey, that's me!

[Matt H.]

Originally Posted by CannonFodder

Hey, that's me!

Did you finally get a staff position?