Talk:Joseph McCarthy

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Contents

"Who killed Joe McCarthy?" book

Rob, I finished a book last night titled, "Who killed Joe McCarthy?" It was just another anti-McCarthy book among a number of such books. But the real joke about this book is that there isn't one single footnote!! No joke. This guy didn't even bother to give attribution to his comments. At the end of the book, he lists a bunch of books and sources that he used to source his book but he does not say what goes where. The gist of the book is how Eisenhower worked behind the scenes to destroy McCarthy using sleazy methods and violating the U.S. Constitution. The author was actually praising Eisenhower for these acts!! There's a reason why I was able to buy this book used at Amazon for one penny: It wasn't worth any more than that.

I also bought Roy Cohen's book, McCarthy. It's actually a great read. He addresses the subject in a very neutral fashion and doesn't try and screw with the reader. Cohen gives attribution to his sources, aside from his own observations.

While I've read most all of the anti-McCarthy books that have ever been written, I haven't re-read any of them for a number of years so I'm going to endeavor to buy used copies of those books over a short period of time. As I recall, there's really nothing in those books that can negate Buckley's book or certainly none of the Venona info, which they didn't know about anyway. Thought you might be interested. Scorpio 16:48, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

"Victims"

  • While innocent persons may have been abused, many of the truly guilty walked away free under the cloak of "McCarthyism".
This is an extemely important aspect of Venona revelations in relation to McCarthy & McCarthyism. Harry Magdoff, for example, was a Senior Economist in the War Production Board, according to Venona & Soviet Archives had been an active KGB agent working in the U.S. Government since 1938. Much of the information he passed to the KGB was found in Soviet Archives. Here, in a dispute over his biographical entry in WP [1] let me reproduce part of that exchange:
This edit [2], reveals [Chip Berlet, former VP, NLG] is so anxious to insert "McCarthy hearings" into this text, that with a keystroke he has converted a written FBI Deposition of Elizabeth Bentley into oral testimony before a Congressional Committee. Witness:

Original text: "...Elizabeth Bentley who provided this information to the FBI [3]:" (followed by deposition quote).

[Chip Berlet's] doctored text: "...Elizabeth Bentley who provided this information to the FBI and later testified to that same effect during McCarthy era hearings [4]:" (followed by deposition quote).

The following facts were established two months ago:
  • Harry Magdoff left government 30 December 1946.
  • Joseph McCarthy took office the first week of January 1947.
  • Harry Magdoff was never summoned before a Committee chaired by Joseph McCarthy.
  • The circumstances of Magdoff leaving government employment had absolutely nothing to do with Joseph McCarthy.
  • Harry Magdoff was not "hounded out" of government by Joseph McCarthy, and/or "McCarthyism".
  • Joseph McCarthy did not begin his crusade until morethan four years after Magdoff leaving government employment.

Nevertheless, after several months of establishing the facts, and presenting the evidence in carefully crafted language by several editors, in [Chip Berlet's] exuberance to insert references to Joseph McCarthy, and present Magdoff as a "victim" of "McCarthyite" "persecution", [Chip Berlet] with a simple phrase transforms facts into a world that never existed. This fits the definition of Wikipedia:POV. [RobS] 20:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
[RobS] is correct that my original wording about the Bentley testimony was unsatisfactory, which is why I (not [RobS]) changed it on my next edit: [5]. [ed note: This is false, Mr.Berlet did not correct it.] I have no idea why [RobS] has not noticed this, and assume his attack on me for having "doctored" the text was due to inadequate research. I will be happy to accept his apology for this error. We all make mistakes.
RobS 13:24, 30 June 2007 (EDT)


Rob, I'm completely confused as to what you're trying to tell me here. I originally removed the sentence, While innocent persons may have been abused, many of the truly guilty walked away free under the cloak of "McCarthyism". because the "innocent" people that "may have been abused" are not identified. Who are these innocent people? I can't find anyone that was innocent and abused by McCarthy. If you have any names, please post them so that we can adhere to verifiability and truth. There's no citation. I just re-phrased the sentence to simply state that, "Because of the Truman Administration being unaware of Venona, many of the guilty people escaped under the cloak of 'McCarthyism'". Also, we're being redundant in a couple of places.

We're stating the same exact thing in two places. We are stating this in one place:

McCarthy sought to characterize President Truman and the Democratic party as soft on or even in league with the Communists. McCarthy's allegations fell flat with Truman who was unaware of Venona project decrypts which corroborated Elizabeth Bentley's debriefing after her defection from the Communists. While innocent persons may have been abused, many of the truly guilty walked away free under the cloak of "McCarthyism".

And we're stating this in another:

McCarthy was able to characterize President Truman and the Democratic party as soft on or even in league with the Communists. McCarthy's allegations were rejected by Truman who was unaware of Venona project decrypts which corroborated Elizabeth Bentley's debriefing after her defection from the Communists.

The second one obviously doesn't have the "innocent persons" comment, so I'll add back the line I suggested above so that it reads like this:

McCarthy was able to characterize President Truman and the Democratic party as soft on or even in league with the Communists. McCarthy's allegations were rejected by Truman who was unaware of Venona project decrypts which corroborated Elizabeth Bentley's debriefing after her defection from the Communists. Because of the Truman Administration being unaware of Venona, many of the guilty people escaped under the cloak of "McCarthyism".

I think this second one sounds better so I will edit out the first one.

Also, in the section above Venona, I stated:

McCarthy is said by some to have made the claim, "I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party."

You re-added into Venona, McCarthy is said by some to have made the claim, "I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party."

Obviously we're being redundant. That's why I changed the one in Venona to address directly the 205 figure. But you reverted that back so it's now redundant. Now, I changed the wording slightly so it doesn't appear so redundant but still retains the essence of what you are trying to say. Hopefully that covers all aspects of those sections. Scorpio 21:51, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

Solomon Adler

Rob, do you know if Adler ever testified in front of McCarthy's Committee? I can't find info on that in his article. Please let me know. Thanks. Scorpio 22:34, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

Locking of McCarthy article

I posted this on your Talk page:

Rob, what are you doing on the McCarthy article? I have explained all of my work on the Discussion page and urged us to avoid redundant statements. Now you have locked the article so I can't add any further info to the article? Why? Why are you posting redundancy in the article? I have been upfront with all my changes and called your attention to all changes. It's not as if I have been making modifications without talking to you first. And my changes do not affect your work at all. So I'm totally confused about what you are doing. There is no vandalism going on so "protection" of the page is unwarranted. The page was unlocked at my request so I could add info. Can you please explain your reasoning here and unlock the McCarthy page? I would appreciate it. Thank you. Scorpio 11:31, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Why do you keep removing Venona references, and why do you keep removing the summary conclusion? RobS 21:49, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
Rob, can you be a bit more specific? To what references are you speaking? I don't recall removing any Venona references. In fact, the more Venona references, the better. And regarding the summary, to what removal are you addressing? Can you please be specific so I can see what your concern is regarding? Also, are you able to give a citation for the first paragraph under "Venona files"? It makes a serious charge but there is no citation for it. As it stands, it appears as Original Research. And, can you give a citation for this:
While innocent persons may have been abused, many of the truly guilty walked away free under the cloak of "McCarthyism".
Can you cite who the "innocent persons" were that were abused? A citation here would be great.
Lastly, can you cite where Solomon Adler was interviewed by McCarthy? I couldn't find anything right off the top but if you have a source for an interview or maybe something McCarthy said, it would be great as well. I am hoping we can keep working together on this article but since you've locked it, obviously all the additional info that I have to contribute to the article is on hold. Please let me know what we can do to work this out. Thank you. Scorpio 12:53, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
Adler I will review. RobS 17:06, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
  • But even if Adler didn't have anything to do with McCarthy, that's still fine because he is an excellent example of a subverse in govt. that was later identified by Venona
Speaking from memory, I do not think Adler ever testified before the PSI either publicly or in Executive Session, but I do believe I is referenced several times by several witnessess in Executive Session. Also, Adler figures in the Amerasia scandal and the IPR controversy. ANd yes, we agree Adler is an excellant example of a subverse in govt. that was later identified by Venona.
If a dispute is said to exist, it simply is the prominence given to your weblink to the Univ. of Wis of a transcript cited in the 1998 book by Bedforsd that states McCarthy said 54 on the podium in Wheeling. That book, and that citation is fine, and making mention of it is no probably. The "dispute," such that it exists is, you are asking Conservapedia to take a definitive stand that McCarthy did in fact state 54 on the podium in Wheeling West Virginia. Obviously we can't do that. RobS 20:35, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
Rob, have you actually taken the time to look at the links I provided regarding this issue? Also, if you don't have a copy of the Buckley book, I highly recommend getting a copy. This book is the fairest assessment of McCarthy's cases you're ever going to read. The conclusion of that book and that of witnesses is that McCarthy stated "57" (not 54 as you state above) cases. It's a simple matter of looking at the evidence to figure out the truth. For years, the leftists have tried to confuse people regarding this matter and sadly they have been rather effective in their efforts. Nevertheless, the evidence is there for anyone to review it. I'm merely reflecting the existing evidence and refuse to succumb to the propaganda of the Left that has no basis in fact. As you know, verifiable truth is the goal of Conservapedia and in this regard, it has been achieved. Scorpio 17:50, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
The issue of 57 vs 205 would be of interest if it were the issue; Venona has made it moot. Only leftists & commies still harp on it, as if it were determintive of McCarthy's credibility. And it makes sense they would do this, since they have absolutely nothing to refute Venona with. RobS 17:56, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
Rob, the problem with that argument is this is an article about Joseph McCarthy, not Venona. Venona is here merely to support the McCarthy article. It is not the highlight of the article. This article does not revolve around Venona, it revolves around McCarthy and providing verifiable and truthful information. It is incumbent on anyone working on this article to address all the issues related to McCarthy, including his life before being Senator. And, again, you're trying to suggest that since I'm addressing the 57 vs. 205 numbers, that I'm right in there with the "leftists & commies". Do you realize that your statement is insulting, inaccurate, and not at all helpful? You're making me spend more time in this discussion and less time improving the article. Would you do me a favor and think about that for a while before responding? Thank you. Scorpio 23:14, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
Rob, one thing that occurred to me last night after I shut down my computer for the night is that it seems as if you've contributed as much as you can to this article. I think that you are very well informed on Venona and Communist subversion in govt. but you only have a limited knowledge of McCarthy's life and work. On the other hand, I'm a solid McCarthy expert. In fact, I had been in discussions with William Grigg and James Drummey about writing a McCarthy book. I had actually been working on one until I got wind of the fact that Medford Evans was working on the definitive book on McCarthy. Now, if I knew that Evans was going to postpone his release date for years, I could have finished my book. So now instead of writing a book, I'm putting my knowledge to use here at Conservapedia. I probably have around 20 books dealing with McCarthy and a few on Venona but my Venona info was going to be used to back up McCarthy not as a separate subject. You on the other hand probably don't own a single McCarthy book but have some number of books regarding Venona and related issues. So the bottom line is, while I estimate that I have about 100 hours of work to do on the McCarthy article including time needed to fill in the "red links", I don't see what more you can really add. I appreciate anything extra but it seems you are spending more and more time in discussion now than actually contributing to the article itself. You may wish to consider devoting your knowledge to the various other articles regarding Venona, communist subversion, etc. where your efforts can be best allocated. Just a suggestion. (By the way, I just got my copy of "In Denial" by Haynes & Klehr. If you don't already know, it's a great book about Left-wingers still living in denial even after Venona and other former Soviet Union documents have been released. Good book. I was looking for a way to include some of the info into this article.) Thank you. Scorpio 09:16, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Mediation

Per private discussion with several sysops I will be moderating negotiations to end the dispute currently existing. I would like to request that no major/controversial editing take place. As one party is a fellow Sysop, I have unlocked the article to remove a unfair advantage. Where does each side see issues that need to be discussed? Geo.Complain! 12:53, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Hi, Geoff, thank you for unlocking this page and mediating any existing issues. I think Rob has done some great work with the article and we only seem to have had an issue on a few minor things that I would attribute to simple miscommunication.
(1) The first issue is regarding a sentence I removed because it had been in the article for a long time yet had no citation. That sentence is, While innocent persons may have been abused, many of the truly guilty walked away free under the cloak of "McCarthyism". Because the "innocent" people that "may have been abused" are not identified. I asked, "Who are these innocent people? I can't find anyone that was innocent and abused by McCarthy. If you have any names, please post them so that we can adhere to verifiability and truth. I just re-phrased the sentence to simply state that, "Because of the Truman Administration being unaware of Venona, many of the guilty people escaped under the cloak of 'McCarthyism'".
(2) The second issue was about being redundant in a couple of places basically saying the same thing.
We are stating this in one place:
McCarthy sought to characterize President Truman and the Democratic party as soft on or even in league with the Communists. McCarthy's allegations fell flat with Truman who was unaware of Venona project decrypts which corroborated Elizabeth Bentley's debriefing after her defection from the Communists. While innocent persons may have been abused, many of the truly guilty walked away free under the cloak of "McCarthyism".
And we're stating this in another:
McCarthy was able to characterize President Truman and the Democratic party as soft on or even in league with the Communists. McCarthy's allegations were rejected by Truman who was unaware of Venona project decrypts which corroborated Elizabeth Bentley's debriefing after her defection from the Communists.
The second one obviously doesn't have the "innocent persons" comment, so I added back the line I suggested above so that it read like this:
McCarthy was able to characterize President Truman and the Democratic party as soft on or even in league with the Communists. McCarthy's allegations were rejected by Truman who was unaware of Venona project decrypts which corroborated Elizabeth Bentley's debriefing after her defection from the Communists. Because of the Truman Administration being unaware of Venona, many of the guilty people escaped under the cloak of "McCarthyism".
So, I tried to keep this version as the best one.
(3) The third issue was in the section above Venona, where I stated:
McCarthy is said by some to have made the claim, "I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party."
For some reason the essentially same sentence existed in the Venona section. It says, McCarthy is said by some to have made the claim, "I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party."
Obviously we were being redundant. That's why I changed the one in Venona to address directly the 205 figure. I changed the wording slightly so it doesn't appear so redundant but still retains the essence of what Rob was trying to say.
(4) The fourth issue was just asking for a citation regarding Solomon Adler who is listed in this article but there is nothing to indicate that he was either interviewed by McCarthy or if McCarthy ever spoke about him. A simple citation would handle this issue nicely. But even if Adler didn't have anything to do with McCarthy, that's still fine because he is an excellent example of a subverse in govt. that was later identified by Venona. I was just asking if there was some direct connection to McCarthy.
Rob and I have been working very nicely on this article but we seem to have run into some minor issues with which we could not seem to effectively communicate. I look forward to continue working with him. Thank you. Scorpio 13:26, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
What has been taken care of? Geo.Complain! 15:10, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
Geo, can you please elaborate? Are you addressing Rob or me? If me, can you please re-state the question? Thank you for your help. Scorpio 15:19, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Geo, I would like to ask your advice on a Manual of Style issue. Rob has submitted some excellent info to the article that we've named the "Moynihan" info. It begins with the words, "After the collapse of the Soviet Union..." and ends with the words, "...more thoroughly penetrated.'" The only dispute is where to locate that info. Rob believes since it's very important info that vindicates Senator McCarthy, it should be placed in full right in the first section, which is normally identified as the "Executive Summary".

However, I disagree with that placement for a number of reasons.

(1) I believe that the intro section or "Executive Summary" should be brief and not go into detail about any particular item in the biography of the subject.

(2) This article is about Joseph McCarthy's entire life and not just his Senatorial career and that the info Rob posted is far too detailed and far too involved to act as a brief description in relation to the rest of the intro section and as compliant with the format of Manual of Style.

(3) I believe that Manual of Style makes this very clear and affirms my perspective.

(4) I believe the info should be placed in the "Venona" section and fits very nicely as the first paragraph of that section.

That is the essence of my argument. Rob may wish to add some additional perspective on his reasoning, but this is in sum my complete thoughts. Would you please mediate this matter and issue an instruction to place the information in question in the proposed section? I thank you for your time and help. Scorpio 17:47, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

How about a compromise, brief mention "was later proven correct by gov. inquiry" with full info in another section? Geo.Complain! 23:11, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
I agree 100%. The disturbing thing is that Rob removed this from the intro paragraph:
He was noted for claiming and subsequently proving that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the federal government.
It was fine the way it was but Rob changed it without discussion. I have no problem changing to what you suggested. How should we proceed? Do you want to make the change or me or Rob? Your call. Scorpio 23:20, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
Congratulations, Rob, you are now in contempt of a Mediators orders. I'll alert Geo. Scorpio 00:23, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Trim

I suggest we can tighten up this article by moving the Buckley/Bozell footnotes as the basis to create new pages to fill in all the red links. RobS 23:30, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

I had actually considered doing that but the essence of McCarthy's career is based upon those cases and I wanted to make the reader easily able to find this incredibly important information. That's why I have added into the footnote of each case only the bare minimum information that makes the case. Philip Jessup is a perfect example. Jessup has a very extensive biography but I refrained from going into every aspect of his background so that the footnote didn't get ridiculously large. On the subject of Jessup and others who's biographies are more extensive than what I noted in their case footnotes, I did not add biographical info that extended past the McCarthy investigation period because it would seemingly suggest that the case in question was employed in that position during the time before or during McCarthy's investigation. For that reason and for brevity, I did not add the entire employment biography of those cases. But I noticed you added it to the Jessup article so that's good. So, for the sake of consistency, and without some reason to deviate from that format, I think it's best to remove that additional information from Jessup's footnote.
Also, I absolutely agree that we need to fill in the "red links" and I was planning on focusing on that after we had pretty much wrapped up what we were going to put into the article. But, I have recently started filling in the red links. I was planning to work on the Jessup article but you already added my info to it so thanks for handling that. As I mentioned there is still more biographical info for Jessup so I'll add to that article as soon as I can. Scorpio 15:17, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
Oh, so because McCarthy was a crank, a commie gets appointed to the World Court. You'd think this would be news. RobS 15:53, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
Do you realize that does not make any sense at all? As I stated, that information is appropriate to the article on Jessup but in order to be consistent in the footnotes in this article, it would not be appropriate to list the entire biography of every case McCarthy mentioned. Is that more clear? Scorpio 16:50, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
That was probably the discussion in the Kennedy Oval Office over Jessup; someone probably argued McCarthy was a crank, and here's mud-in-the-eye of all those right-wing commie hunters. So they appointed Jessup to the World Court. And President John Kennedy appointing a communist to the World Court would probably be of interest to Conservapedia readers, but somehow, you forgot to mention this fact. RobS 18:01, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
Rob, you're doing it again. You're not understanding what I'm writing. Like I said, that info is great for the Jessup article but it doesn't make sense to stick it in the footnote section that we are trying to keep brief and trying to keep focused on the case itself. The footnotes are not the place for a detailed biography of each person. And, yes, Kennedy appointing a communist to the World Court would be of interest to Conservapedia readers but it should be mentioned in the appropriate place. Scorpio 19:30, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
Ok, so you wish to downplay the areas McCarthy was right on, and emphasize the areas McCarthy was wrong. We at least got that out in the open. The ==securirty risk== subhead is modeled on the ==Venona list== subhead; let's take the case of Frank Coe for example: the evidence placing him on the Venona list predates his appointment to the International Monetary Fund, yet it is included in his credentials. There are other cases we can disucss.
Keep in mind, we a writing a bio based upon historical perspective, not rehashing highly charged partisan arguments widely propagated in the media from 1954 based upon limited knoweldge. RobS 15:13, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
Rob, please tell me that you're joking around. Why are you ignoring what I'm saying? I've broken it down to the extent that it's so very clear what I'm stating. Again, all I'm saying is that for the sake of brevity in the footnotes and so that we can focus on the jobs that any particular person held before and during the time the person was being charged with being a security issue, that we leave out extended biographical info. I've repeated this to you several times now so I'm just wondering if you're not understanding or you're kidding around with me. Again, the whole bio of the person is appropriately placed on the article for that person. The info we should provide in the McCarthy article should be related to McCarthy and frame the resume of the case with that in mind. Scorpio 08:55, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
Right. Ignore the historical record that McCarthy's conspiracy so immense of infamy so black as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man which when finally exposed, its principals shall forever be deserving of the maledictions of all honest men and focus on McCarthy's errors. I understand completely. RobS 12:12, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
OK, now I know you're just kidding with me. You had me going there for a while. :) I appreciate the chuckle. You are officially the "King of Communist Subversion Comedy"!! :) Thanks for breaking the tension between us. Scorpio 13:43, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Ed, yes we're discussing trimming the mainspace here. What we are likely to do is spin the text off from the footnotes into individual articles for all the red links in the Security risk subhead. That a good place to start. RobS 22:27, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

I know we have to come to some conclusion on this. This page is indeed 108 kilobytes long and the Wikipedia article is 99 kilobytes long. Not much difference in size yet this article is far too short in order to properly cover the topic. Rob is right that we should spin off the text from the footnotes at some point. In fact, we should probably create an article dedicated to those footnotes. We will have to eventually summarize more of the sections and spin off the larger issues into related articles. For example, there's no way we can fully address the "censure" debate in this article. It will have to have it's own article. All we can do is keep working at it until we have it right. Scorpio 10:10, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Silvermaster file Summaries

Scorpio, last nite I found an excellent source that may be useful in melding some of the Buckley/Bozell material with known Venona spies. Someone created a summary page for the massive FBI Silvermaster file Silvermaster File Summaries. See for example,

  • Volume 7 late November 1945"
"Interactions of Victor Perlo and Stanley Graze."
  • Volume 14 December 1945—January 1946
"Interactions of Maurice Halperin, Joseph Gregg, Robert Miller, and unidentified woman employed by UNRRA. Contacts recounted among George Perazich of UNRRA staff (Yugoslavia), Irving Kaplan, Edward Fitzgerald. Further details on Perazich. Contacts of Robert Miller with Herman Habicht, John Marsalka, Minter Wood, and, apparently, Alger Hiss. Further background on Mildred Price (Ed note: this is the sister of Mary Price, Walter Lippmann's secretary; I had a short bio on her but its been lost somehere in WP or among wikimirrors). Extensive biographical data on Miller, listing more than 70 individuals known as contacts of Miller and his wife, including Travis Hedrick, Duncan Aikman, Alice and Philip Raine, Maurice Halperin...Haldore Hanson...Howard Fast...plus additional contacts of Russian origin or nationality. Not indexed."
  • Volume 15 December 1945
"...Extensive background on Grace Granich, links to Amerasia group, and report that she was to be contacted by John Stewart Service..."
  • Volume 16 December 1945—January 1946
"...extensive background on Albert Kahn and his reported contacts including Mrs. John Abt (Jessica Smith), Howard Fast, former White House aide David Niles, CP leader Gilbert Green, union leader Harry Bridges, Philip Jaffe...
  • Volume 19 Dec. 1945—January 1946
"...contact between Victor Perlo and Stanley Graze of OSS"
  • Volume 25 (Part I) March 1946
"Summary of investigative results concerning Willard Park (including connection to Louise Bransten)(Ed. note: Louise Branston is the mistress of KGB Rezident Grigory Kheifetz who made initial contact with J. Robert Oppenheimer), Bernard Redmont, William Remington, Peter Rhodes, Ruth Rifkin, Helen Tenney, Cedric Belfrage, Albert Kahn and his contacts, including David Karr, Howard Fast, David Niles, Gilbert Green, Harry Bridges, and Philip Jaffe of Amerasia.
  • Volume 42 April 1946
"...Gustavo Duran..."
  • Volume 58 July 1946
"Extensive section also on James Newman, contacts with Helen Gahagan Douglas, Philleo Nash, Alfred Friendly, Byron Miller, Thomas Emerson, Harold Stein, Myer Cohen of UNRRA."
  • Volume 64 August 1946
"... various interactions and contacts among subjects dating to December 1945. Among items noted are connections of John and Cynthia Dierkes to Robert Miller; contacts of Edward Fitzgeralds and George Silverman with Mrs. Frank Cameron; discussion of Alger Hiss State Department contacts Donald Blaisdell and Chester Williams, the latter formerly with UNRRA and OWI, and brief mentions of Williams employee Esther Brunauer
Volume 65 August 1946
"Summaries of activities, contacts and interactions of subjects during July 1946. Among items covered are ...continued interaction among Maurice Halperin, Theodore Halperin, David Wahl, Philip Dunaway, Maynard Gerstler, Julius Joseph. Contact between Theodore Halperin and identified CP member in DC area; further correspondence of Philip and Mary Jane Keeney, detail on Mary Jane Keeney discussion with Sylvia Schimmel about Just Lunning, notation of Mary Jane Keeney contact with Lois Carlisle.
"Discussions also of Mrs. Keeney’s contacts with Michael Greenberg, Eric Beecroft, and Ursula Wasserman; background on Florence Levy, sister-in-law of Robert Miller, including work at State Department and previous employment at Hemisphere; interactions of George Silverman and David Weintraub, recently fired from UNRRA; contacts of Ursula Wasserman with David Melcher and Philleo Nash formerly of OWI;

AMYWAYS.....altogether there are 162 Volumes, and this is just glancing at it since last nite. I have read most of the Silvermaster file, but this Summary [6] is the first one page online summary with links to the PDF files.

A NOTE ON WHAT YOU ARE READING: This in the ongoing FBI investigation which opened about November of 1945; the FBI was not aware of Army Signals intelligence Venona decrpyts for yet. This is between disbandenment of the OSS, and the creation of CIA in 1947. And there is no knowledge yet by the FBI in 1945-46 of Soviet theft of nuclear secrets. So what the aims of this investigation are is to simply drive security risks out of the State Department and elsewhere, particularly after disbandenment of the OSS, because many were seeking to be reemployed elsewhere. The object is not so much to gather prosecutable evidence, but rather to simply and quietly remove security risks.

By the time McCarthy is introduced on the scene in 1950, most probably at the behest of Hoover, (1) FBI coordination with Venona began; (2) Hiss and others were exposed publicly; (3) the Soviets tested a nuke & this was public knowledge; (4) there still remained a large number of unidentified codenames and known security risks in the government. So the Silvermaster file reveals why so many of McCarthy's cases were suspected in the first place, as you can follow detailed surveillance activity by FBI field investigators in late 1945 and 1946 with others who are now known to be KGB operatives. RobS 13:13, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Rob, that is some incredible information. Nice job finding it. The size of this data is mind-boggling. What are your thoughts as how to incorporate this info into new or existing articles? Scorpio 19:46, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
That link gives us which names from the Buckley/Bozell list to begin with, including the volume from that link as an external link. So those entries will have two sources to begin with, Buckley & Bozell, and the specific volume as cataloged from that site (incidentally, Herbert Rommerstein is connected with that project). It's still gonna be a job to dig out the infromation, cause some volumes have as many as a 165 pages, and the search feature can't be used. But I am somewhat familiar with the Silvermaster file, and this cataloguing and summaries is a big useful step. RobS 19:53, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Copyedit

Scorpio, I proof read the entire article over the past few days, but haven't made any substantive changes (beyond an addition to the intro) til we got our bearings on the process to move forward. Yes, there is one or two redundancies that should be consolidated, and the 205 vs 57, I suggest we momentarilly put it on hold.

There are only two sentences you've added I question"

  • In addition to some of the individuals identified in the Venona project listed above, there are other security and loyalty risks identified correctly by Senator McCarthy included in the following list:
  • This should be clarified, because McCarthy only accused one of being a Soviet spy, Mary Jane Keeney, the rest all came up in a different context.
  • He was noted for claiming and subsequently proving that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the federal government.
  • we need to drop "subsequently proving;" McCarthy didn't prove diddly, as we all know, he's famous for barking up the wrong tree.

There are a few typos, grammatical errors, and links I'd like to copyedit, when you are ready to let me know.

As to the Executive Session transcripts, I suggest you look at the William Henry Taylor article, and read his testimony available from the footnotes. Also Alvin Hall from the Bureau of Printing and engraving, and Elizabeth Bentley's testimony, all three are contiguous. This relates to the stolen occupation currency plates. Taylor, though not identified in Venona, was (a) a memver of the Silvermaster group, and (b) did not plead the Fifth but actually testified. The names of Harold Glasser, Lud Ulman, Silvermaster, Frank Coe, and Harry Dexter White -- all Venona spies -- are discussed in his & Bentley's testimony. This is one instance where McCarthy actually was on a hot trail.

Because Taylor is not identified in Venona, I am hesitant to put him in the list subheaded Venona, yet I'd like to get him into the article. Perhaps we should consider doing a mini-section on the currency plates, as this alos ties in the deceased Harry Dexter White. (And the transcripts also cite that Bentley had testified one time earlier; the Ruth Watt external link on the main page has a little background material about when Bentley testified, how she liked to drink beer, etc., if it helps get some feel for the context. Actually, in reading her testimony, she does sound either hungover or drunk in some places....). RobS 14:13, 9 July 2007 (EDT)


Rob, let me address your points:
You stated, This should be clarified, because McCarthy only accused one of being a Soviet spy, Mary Jane Keeney, the rest all came up in a different context.
What I'm saying is that in addition to the Venona names you have provided, the names in the "Known Security/Loyalty" section were exposed by McCarthy. I'm not saying that the names in the "Known Security/loyalty" section are all spies. If you think we can phrase that better, please post an alternative here and let's talk it through.


You stated, we need to drop "subsequently proving;" McCarthy didn't prove diddly, as we all know, he's famous for barking up the wrong tree.
Are you trying to be funny again? Like I asked you before, have you read the Buckley book and read the Congressional Record? There's a reason so many witnesses took the Fifth when asked if they were a member of the Communist Party. I laugh everytime I'm reading the transcripts and when Cohn or McCarthy ask that question, the person takes the Fifth!! Great stuff. It's all there for you to see. McCarthy was right and Buckley documents it all very nicely as do the transcripts. I loved Carl Bernstein's father's comments about McCarthy being right. And, Ann Coulter talks about that as well. McCarthy did his job, it was up to the appropriate U.S. dept. to deal with dismissals, which many McCarthy-named people did get dismissed.


You stated, There are a few typos, grammatical errors, and links I'd like to copyedit, when you are ready to let me know.
If they are simple errors, please feel free to make the changes. I only ask that you be careful and not change the meaning of a phrase unless there's some compelling reason for doing so.
As for the transcript stuff, by all means, if you have names to add, please add them in the same format that is currently in place. No reason to wait on that. I'm still adding names from McCarthy's initial list but if you have names from the transcripts, go for it!! And, yes, the Ruth Watt article was excellent. She refutes a great many misconceptions and distortions about McCarthy. I loved reading that, so thanks for posting it.
The only thing I would caution is to remember not to get too carried away with adding Venona stuff to the article that doesn't apply. Please keep focused on the fact that we are doing an article on McCarthy here and the Venona stuff added should compliment the article. One criticism I've seen the Left-Wingers make is that much of the Venona stuff doesn't have anything to do with McCarthy. Of course, in this case, they're right. Nevertheless, they miss the point that McCarthy was right about Communists in govt. As you know, there's tons of great Venona stuff out there that has nothing to do with McCarthy. Reading the book, "In Denial", is a perfect example of Venona stuff that is great but is not directly related to McCarthy. And it amazes me to the extent the Left-Wingers will go in order to discredit Venona and related Soviet archive material.
Lastly, that new info you added regarding Moynihan is great but I don't think it should be placed at that part of the article. I think it should be in the Venona section or in a sub-section to Venona. The first part of the article is best for giving an "Executive Summary" rather than getting into specifics of the article. Without any objection, I'll move that info to either Venona or create a sub-section to Venona, whatever looks best. Or, feel free to do it yourself since it was your addition. I'll wait until tomorrow or the following day to give you a chance to think about it. Best Regards. Scorpio 18:37, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
Buckley & Bozell repeatedly say things such as " How Stanley Graze passed the State Department's Review Board remains unexplained." IOW, unlike Venona, (a) the question is inconclusive, and (b) the question is usually on the lower level classification of security risks rather than more vital question of espionage. And the witnesses pleading the Fifth is largley moot, because the questions usually are about CPUSA membership, not espionage.
The Moynihan Secrecy Commission cite up front gets to the heart of the matter--it confirms the conspircay of infamy so black that, when it is finally exposed, its principals shall be forever deserving of the maledictions of all honest men. If we can leave this up front, I would not be averse to citing Rovere's phrase somewhere, (something to the effect of) "McCarthy was the greatest demagogue to ever walk these shores." RobS 20:22, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
Rob, again, it's great to use Venona to back up McCarthy but it's also important to state upon which evidence McCarthy used to nail people like Graze. I have told you repeatedly that Venona is important here as well and should be used at every possible opportunity. And as I stated, I love the Moynihan info, but it should be moved as I think you also now recognize. As for citing Rovere's phrase, it really is funny now looking back at the evidence but sadly people still aren't well educated in this matter and tend to keep believing the real demagogues like Rovere. So as poignant as that statement would be to unmask the liberal stupidity, other than people like you and me, they just wouldn't get it. Scorpio 10:06, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
Bottomline: the Moynihan Commission corroborates McCarthy's "conspiracy of infamy so black", which actually is the common title given to McCarthy's 20 February 1950 Senate floor speech which you have quoted extensivley in the mainspace. RobS 12:36, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
Rob, what do I keep telling you? This is an article about ALLof McCarthy's life, not just the Senatorial aspect of his life. That paragraph would be perfect if we were doing strictly an article on his Senate career but this is not such an article. That info is perfect for the Venona section. So, unless you have a better reason for putting it in the "Executive Summary" section, let's move it to the "Venona" section, OK? Scorpio 12:42, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

From the ==Analysis of the resolution== section, final sentence, paragraph two:

  • Therefore, the first count was a complete fraud and nothing more than a trumped up charge in order to damage Senator McCarthy.

We should probably remove or reword blatant editorial speculation of this nature. Perhaps attributing it to Drummey or Buckley, or wherever it came from. RobS 13:55, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I agree. In fact, that info comes from a couple of good sources but I have a much better analysis from Cohn's book that I was planning to replace that section with so please be patient and let that sit for now and let me replace it as soon as I can.
Also, please consider why when I make a change why I'm doing it. I don't make changes for the laughs, I do it for a reason. Would you please explain why in a biography of a person's whole life, that you place in the "Executive Summary" section a detailed explanation of one aspect of the person's life? It would be one thing to put a one line sentence, which is what already there but such a detailed bit of info goes against the concept of Manual of Style. I realize that the Senate part of McCarthy's life is the most significant but it's important for the article to flow correctly that we adhere to proper form so that the reader does not get confused. Please let me know your thought process on this. Other than placing verifiable truthful information into the article, I'm also concerned about proper structure within each article by not putting details of a person's biography in the wrong place. So, please, let's make sure we're conforming to the appropriate Manual of Style. Thank you. Scorpio 12:42, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
Simple answer: everywhere McCarthy's name is associated with alleged "witchhunts;" the Moynihan Commission finding is directly associated with McCarthy's career and life. RobS 12:49, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
Rob, that still doesn't address my point. This is an article about Joseph McCarthy, not McCarthyism. Please see Manual of Style. You are failing to adhere to the basic layout of Conservapedia MOS. Do you want me ask Geo. to chime in on this? I think it's fairly obvious but if you want another opinion, we could always ask him. It's up to you but I don't think we need him to tell us that we should not violate Conservapedia protocol and that with the current position of the Moynihan comments, that is exactly what is happening. Scorpio 14:15, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
Wow, I thought you wanted to tell the world how misunderstood & slimed McCarthy's has been fro 50 years. There's no better way to exonerate McCarthy's motives than to put the U.S. Government's admission he was correct right up front. RobS 15:55, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
I do want to tell the world the verifiable truth about McCarthy but Conservapedia has a Manual of Style for their articles and I just want to follow protocol. Is that wrong? As a Sysop, I would think you would be a stickler for this sort of thing. Scorpio 16:37, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
Oh, so a per Manual of Style, we couldn't mention George Washington is the Father of the Country in the opening section, right?
LOL!! Yes, of course we could but do you think it would be appropriate to quote anyone or anything in great detail about it in the opening section? Do we place footnotes before a prologue? Of course not. Manual of Style. We are bound to it. You're just messing with me now, right. :) Scorpio 17:11, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
Rob, it seems we've hit an impasse on this Manual of Style matter. So in all fairness, I'm going to submit this matter to Geo for mediation in the above "mediation" section. Please feel free to make your case there. Thank you. Scorpio 16:27, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Rob, doing clean-up is one thing but you're changing material information in the article. Can you please discuss any changes before you do them? I've spent a lot of time with this article and I would like to be included in any changes. I would appreciate it. Thank you. Scorpio 23:25, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

BTW, you seen Soviet spies in America (1921-1948), it's a beauty. It combines Venona, Bentley, Guzenko, Budenz, Gorsky memo, et al into one list. It's still amazing how many names & bios I got that are not yet on the list.
This is a chronology & structure basically from the day Lenin declared "we must establish everywhere illegal apparatuses."
Golos, an NKVD officer, came over in 1921 and started operations. I can't find anything on him in the Ellis Island database under either his birth name, or Golos, or his place of origin. Seems they were operating illegally even before Golos got here. RobS 16:27, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
Rob, that's great stuff. Well done. Scorpio 18:41, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
Rob, thanks for adding "America's Retreat from Victory" to the external links. I listed it alphabetically and added it to the reference section as well. Great link. Scorpio 18:52, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

H. Julian Wadleigh & "The Venona Progeny"

Rob, thanks for linking H. Julian Wadleigh. I didn't know he had an article here. Well done.

Also, please see if you can find another link for "The Venona Progeny" (footnote #79). The existing link at the Naval War College is dead. Simple typo but, the author's name is "Peake" not "Peale". Please see what you can find.

Lastly, before I forget again, is there a good source on the internet that gives the full "Lee List"? I've been looking but haven't found anything other than this one. Please let me know. Thank you. Scorpio 15:44, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes, that is Haynes site, and it's the only one I know of. The entire list would have to be reconstructed from how Haynes displays it, but I think it's possible. Also, Haynes gives a citation where to find it.
Perhaps between Haynes & CP, these are the two best sites available on the internet. Marquette University gives an inventory of the McCarthy Papers [7], and it's cited as "Lee Report, 1948, n.d." The McCarthy Papers remain sealed until 2050, but we do have a list of other files McCarthy was using. Some are quite interesting (like "State Dept. Rifling of Files", "Franz Leopold Neuman", and "Harold Glasser").
Lastly, Whitakker Chambers personal papers will be available soon, so it looks like we'll have some new information shortly. RobS 20:41, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Update

Scorpio: I've been spending a lot of time on Herbert Rommerstein's werbsite. His organization has procured much of the Silvermaster file through FOIA. After the Silvermaster investigation was aborted because of leaks, much of it was incorporated later into the Rosenberg file investigation. What has been declassified of the Silvermaster file must be 40,000 pages (wheeww). Parts are missing, for example SAC Lamphere's files. Lamphere was FBI field investigator laiason with Army Signals Intelligence Venona decyptors.

On a preliminary basis, here's what happened: from the point of Elizabeth Bentley's deposition in December 1945 until about December 1947 the files reflect routine surveillance reports. All information was channelled through Hoover, rather sparingly, to Department heads and the White House. Venona was kept secret even from Silvermaster field investigators. An internal leak occurred when a field investigator began discussing prosecution with DOJ Criminal Division. The Criminal Division learned of Bentley, and wanted to interview her personally. It was at this point Hoover, and other field investigators, realized prosecution was unlikely if not impossible once the investigation was compromised.

Sure enough, after the lower level DOJ Criminal Division prosecutors heard of the investigation, stories began to appear in UPI (United Press International). Congressional investigators became interested. Bentley submitted to an interview with DOJ Criminal Division prosecutors, a full report was summarized internally by the FBI, HUAC and other Congressional Committees began subpeonaing documents and witnesses. By August 1948, three months before the election, Bentley & Chambers testified publicly accusing Hiss & others. Nixon built his career off of this.

Meantime, when the FBI summarized the investigation, an Executive Conference was held between the FBI and the Criminal Division to determine how to proceed. Notifying Department heads of security risks was recommended, but it was obvious that once some members of the underground apparatus knew they were being survielled, all knew they were suspect.

Then in 1949 and 1950 the situation got worse. The Ruskie's exploded the bomb and thier Comintern ally invaded South Korea. Also, who lost China. And the Berlin Crisis, etc. Yet no action had been taken in the State Department and elsewhere to remove security risks. So in early February 1950, Hoover briefed McCarthy on the some of the details, vaguely, McCarthy saw the poltical potential to embarass Truman & the Democrats, took the ball and ran.

McCarthy was working only with files earlier Congressional investigations procured, and what he got from Hoover. Hoover did not give up any valuable material with provenance, only stuff that could be used to compromise the "weaker sister." Given the nature of the CPUSA, and CPUSA underground apparatus, it was a family affair. Whole families were invovled, mother and daughters, in-laws, etc. These were the people who were targeted to get them to compromise someone they might know.

Now, as to the Executive Session transcripts, and VOA investigation, there is really some very interesting things here that could totally destroy some of the myths about McCarthy (still propounded for example, by Wikipedia). I'll update you on that as time allows. Rob Smith 14:50, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

Rob, thanks for that update info. I haven't looked at Conservapedia since I've been on vacation. I'm still going to be away but check out the Edward R. Murrow article. I added a bunch of stuff. I would like to work some of it into this article as well. After I get back, I'll return to assist you with the work on this and the various related articles. Scorpio 14:38, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

Alphabetical listing of Venona cases

Rob, do you have any objection to listing the Venona cases in the Venona section in alphabetical order? They seem to be listed randomly. I thought in keeping with the MOS that they be re-listed in alphabetical order. Any thoughts? Do you want to handle it or do you want me to do it? It doesn't matter to me. Let me know. Scorpio 20:48, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

There is a phenomenal mass of material on Mary Jane Keeney in the Silvermaster file, absolutley phenomenal. She seems to have had a very active social life, and was personally in contact with virtually everyone involved in the CPUSA Underground Apparatus. She singularly is probably the most surveilled and reported on individual in all 164 volumes of the Silvermaster file (I estimate it at 40,000 pages). This is significant, because in sum, Mary Jane Keeney is the only case were McCarthy made an accusation in an open hearing of her being Communist agent, which she denied. Let me do a little more study before alphabetizing, ok?
Also, as to Dan Margolies, I found a Dan Morgolis in the Silvermaster file, but am unsure if its the same. I suspect it is, but need more information. Also, there are several figures in the Silvermaster file which may be spouses or relatives of names on the Lee List, buy again we need more information (there are several Stones, and couple of Hunts, for example).
Interestingly, I discovered former CIA Director Richard Bissell came under surveillance in 1946 in connection with a suspect; it appears he was inquiring about information on a veteran's relief bill or something, and propably got some information to passed to him. Nothing subversive, just your routine everyday Washington Congressional leak.
Another little quirck I may have stumbled upon is, Haynes & Klehr make light of the fact that Charles Flato was never named in Elizabeth Bentley's deposition, and didn't recieve full scrutiny as the other suspects named by Bentley, so it was much of a surprise when Venona documents added him to the Silvermaster group. A document from Soviet Archives corroborates it, misspelling his name as "Floto." I found summaries of FBI wiretaps (in those days wiretaps include reading telegrams), one from Mary Jane Kenney & Philip Kenney to a "Charles Slato." Who knows, a teletypist may have misspelled Flato's name, Bentley didn't ID him, Hoover kept tight lipped about Venona to most of these FBI field investigators in the Silvermaster case, and by a total fluke of history Flato was never fully developed as a suspect and escaped scrutiny and surveillance.
Such is life. Rob Smith 15:27, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
P.S. You know the 1954 version of Buckley/Bozell is online in its entirety, right? Do we have a link to it? Rob Smith 15:27, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
Nice work, Rob. It's incredible what you've been able to find. As for the alphabeticalizing, sure, no problem, take your time with it. I only suggested it because it seemed odd in its' current format but feel free to do what you feel is best. Also, no, I didn't know that Buckley's book is online. Do you have a link? Thanks. Scorpio 21:31, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
I'm not certain what this website is, but it on here [8], along with Budenz, Toladano, Krivistky, and some other interesting things. Rob Smith 22:01, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Block on article

Rob, I've noted this in Geo's Talk page but I also thought it would be appropriate here as well. I'm wondering if there is there any way that it can be arranged so that these blocks do not prevent me from working on the McCarthy article? I realize that the the newest block was put into place to protect against vandals but unfortunately this also affects my ability to add to the article and I don't think my additions are an issue. Can you please work with me to find a solution to this matter? I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Scorpio 10:36, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

National Review article plus we should mention MCCarthy's apparent drinking problem

Here is a helpful article from the conservative magazine National Review: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_24_51/ai_59247144

Next, I think we should acknowledge McCarthy's apparent alcohol problem and some of his possible other shortcomings which the conservative National Review article mentions. I think it is important that Conservapedia does not fail to reveal relevant facts about a person as one of the virtues of the Bible is that is does not fail to reveal the blemishes of its heroes. I think having a article on McCarthy without mentioning his apparent excess drinking is like having an article on Churchill without mentioning his excess drinking. Conservative 14:37, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

The National Review article doesn't mention his (alleged) drinking problem. Do you have any objectives sources that he did have a problem? RSchlafly 15:49, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
Oops, the NR article does say "Alcohol addled McCarthy's wits, which were not that sharp to begin with."[9] But that's all. RSchlafly 17:07, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

Ruth Watt, who worked on the PSI staff [10] is ths best unbiased source on this. In an interview for the Senate hisotrians office she says for example,

Watt: Joe McCarthy was a very kind man, very thoughtful of people working with him, and I was very much taken with the way he treated people. (pg. 140)

Ritchie: You once said that you had watched the program "Tail-Gunner Joe," on television. What was your impression of that program?

Watt: I thought it was terrible. It was not factual. It was an insult to the Marine Corps, I thought, because who in the Marine Corps would allow somebody to go around shooting the way he did? It was completely untrue, I'm sure. I don't believe the girl that did the work did the research in the right places. She did the things she wanted to do, in my opinion. I thought it was very inaccurate. I was disgusted with it. I didn't think it was fair or true. There might have been some things in there that were true, but very few. But I suppose she had to make it interesting for TV, probably.

Ritchie: The portrayal of McCarthy as a senator didn't ring true to you, as a person who knew him?

Watt: Not necessarily, no. They had to exaggerate. Of course, a program like that was not supposed to be a factual thing anyway, was it? If it was, it was not factual. There were just so many things that were not true. I'd have to go through it piece by piece before I could say what. (pgs 154-155)


Ritchie: I've heard that after the censure Senator McCarthy began to drink pretty heavily. Was that noticeable?

Watt: I don't think it was any different then it was before.

Ritchie: He drank heavily before?

Watt: I think he drank before. I don't know that he drank that heavily, but by the end of '55, about '56 he was in pretty bad shape and we knew he had cirrhosis. And about that time someone told me that McCarthy had told Senator McClellan he had just a year to live. He knew that he had something that was not going to get any better. The person who told me this, he never would have said it, but this person knew that he had said it to Senator McClellan. I was told about it in '56 sometime. He died the end of April in '57. (pg. 150)

That is unreliable hearsay. Watt didn't know the answers to the questions, and just recited rumors. If this is the best evidence, then it is better to say nothing. RSchlafly 16:15, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
  • "I think he drank before. I don't know that he drank that heavily, but by the end of '55, about '56 he was in pretty bad shape and we knew he had cirrhosis."
    That doesn't even come close to being a reliable source, factual or worthy of any mention in a scholarly article. Period. It is worthy, however of Wikipedia or the National Inquirer. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 16:16, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Watt attended all the hearings, all of them, public and private, worked with McCarthy outside hearings in routine staff work, and she knew McCarthy as intimately as any living family member could testify, which are few in number, unavailble, or haven't left any written record. She worked closely with him for many years (and all the Senators, Ray Cohn, and Bobby Kenedy), knew them all very personally, and tells us all straight up what has been written and publicized about McCarthy for several decades is untrue.
  • Watt even shed some light on the close relationship between McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy, and Bobby Kennedy's family (McCarthy is the Godfather of two of RFK's kids).
  • Watt talks about the spirit of bipartisanship on the Committee, defined as such,
  • "Everybody worked together and there were no politics involved. It was just an investigating committee and you were for motherhood and against sin!! Everybody was in the same boat. But after the McCarthy problems, why then the senators said we had to have a minority counsel, that was in January 1954. (pgs. 61-62) Rob Smith 17:35, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

P.S. United States Senate Historical Office -- Oral History Project in league with the WP or National Enquirer? I'd rate it a little higher. Rob Smith 17:40, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Rob, I don't think either Roger or I are disagreeing that he might have been a drinker. Or doubting Ruth Watt...however, it is uncorroborated, and she herself said "I don't know that he drank that heavily", so we now have conflicting information, and nary a Doctor to define for us what is "too much" and "not much". Personally I would be surprised if he wasn't drinking, given the number of years he was under constant attack. Her recollections of the committee style is something she is expert on, so that isn't hearsay. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 18:09, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Her testmony is extremely important. It shows (a) all the garbage from Hollywood and elsewhere is untrue, including what it says about his drinking. Much of the stories of his drinking originate from that film, Tailgunner Joe. (b) She says he was a very kind man. She sat through the roughly 600 witnesses who were called to testify. She doesn't say what an animal he was. Rather, she was very taken by his kindness.
  • Watt relates only one instance she feared things might have got out of control. Her husband was a door guard, and a witness who was to testify had threatened McCarthy's life. Her husband had to search the guy for weapons, and if he did sneak a weapon in the room, her husband would have to be the guy to intervene. And he likewise was fearful of her, cause she was in the room with the crazed communist lunatic who the press reported would kill Joe McCarthy if given the chance. She says the hearing went without any trouble, McCarthy was cordial and polite as he always was, and the guy was just chicken, all talk & blather. Given the opportunity to kill the monster, chose to give testimony instead. Rob Smith 21:11, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

thrust of National Review article - Is it accurate?

Is the thrust of National Review article accurate?

The National Review is a conservative magazine. Is this National Review article a generally accurate portrayal of McCarthy:

"Arthur Herman, a program coordinator at the Smithsonian Institution and an adjunct professor at George Mason University, has filed a brief for the defense that is simultaneously audacious in its argument and painstaking in its scholarship. It is a work of vindication all the more powerful for standing so nearly alone, its only company a new novel by William F. Buckley Jr. And it challenges us to rethink our understanding not only of McCarthy's moment, but of our own.

Herman, it should be said straight off, can do only so much with McCarthy the man. Herman freely admits that McCarthy was careless with his facts and reckless in his rhetoric....Herman's McCarthy is crude, ignorant, bullying, and possibly even mentally ill: McCarthy's manic mood swings, his gambling, the chaos in which he worked, his ability to go for days without sleep-these all look to Herman like the symptoms of a hypomanic disorder. But if McCarthy never rose to the marble-statue level of statesmanship, he was, Herman contends, something more than the vicious demagogue he has been made out to be.....

McCarthy is held in odium for his accusations that men like George C. Marshall and Dean Acheson accepted security risks into their department because of some lack of loyalty to the United States. Herman has no more time for those accusations than the severest of McCarthy's detractors. But something hindered those two wise men from acting as vigorously as they ought to have done to protect their department and their country against those risks, and Herman's defense of McCarthy is based on exposing what that something was. He quotes Raymond Moley, one of FDR's early advisers, confessing in 1953 that McCarthy "was the product of the fright and anger of a 'deceived and injured public,' who had been lied to regarding the Soviet threat both at home and abroad.....

Herman's book does a fine job of exploring individual cases and exposing the falseness of the allegation that McCarthyism led to the punishment and humiliation of innocent people. He does a fine job, too, of catching McCarthy's political opponents in behavior every bit as unscrupulous as the junior senator's...."[11]

Conservative 21:38, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

That's right. Herman makes largely the same point I made; the issues McCarthy took up were two decades of Soviet infiltration into the New Deal. The US fought a war as a Soviet ally, and suddenly the US was forced into a nuclear arms race with that same ally because of New Dealers, not because of any technolgical achievements the Soviet Union accomplished in its own right. Our fellow citizens who were responsible for this insane nuclear arms race responded that they just had never stopped fighting fascism, McCarthy and anyone else who question thier motives or methods are considered by them as fascists as well. These are the basic issues. Rob Smith 21:53, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
RobS, you agree with the good things that Herman stated about MCCarthy but do you agree with this: "Herman freely admits that McCarthy was careless with his facts and reckless in his rhetoric.....Herman's McCarthy is crude, ignorant, bullying, and possibly even mentally ill: McCarthy's manic mood swings, his gambling, the chaos in which he worked, his ability to go for days without sleep-these all look to Herman like the symptoms of a hypomanic disorder." Conservative 21:59, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
McCarthy, at the time, did much damage to the cause of anti-Communism. McCarthy it appears was using the issue for short term partisan advantage. When Ike won, what it really looks like is Eisenhower himeself was behind McCarthy's destruction. And if there's a villian, it's probably Hoover, who really just used McCarthy without telling him all the facts. With the picture we have today, we can say McCarthy was right in his basic premise. But then again, it all relates more to the Adminisration of Franklin Roosevelt, who basically it appears, allowed a foreign power to take over his Adminstration.
For example, the Soviet Union manuovered the US into war with Japan, to get the US to destroy the lone obstacle to the Moscow directed plan to spread Communism to China & the Far East. Lend-Lease aid to the Soviet Union is what purchased the enslavement of 100 million people for 50 years in Eastern Europe (350 million at the time of the collapse of the Soviet bloc). The Cold War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, none of these things had to be; it all was the result of CPUSA infiltration and subversion into the Adminstration of Franklin Roosevelt. Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933, bascially to stop the exact same things the CPUSA was doing here in the United States at the exact same time. Rob Smith 22:24, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
I think Hitler probably came to power for different reasons as a whole, but it cannot be denied that Hitler was anti-communist. At the same time, I am not that familar with what the CP was doing in Germany. Conservative 22:40, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

<---

Look at the exact language used here STATEMENT BY JOACHIM VON RIBBENTROP, GERMAN FOREIGN MINISTER, ON THE DECLARATION OF WAR ON THE SOVIET UNION, Berlin, June 22, 1941. New York Times, June 23, 1941, where the Germans explain precisely what prompted the German invasion, and why the Hitler-Stalin pact was ended; no less than three times it is stated:

  • "..Comintern to seek to conduct their subversive activities..."
  • "subversive activities were carried on in territories occupied by Germany"
  • "subversive activity and reconnoitering carried on by the Comintern. "

A pattern develops. So what is the official German version that motivated the German-Soviet War? Comintern subversive activities. How did the Soviert Union obtain atomic weapons knowhow from Los Alamos? Comintern subversive activities. How did the CPUSA & the Soviet Union penetrate the White House, the Manhattan Project, the OSS, the State, Treasury, and War Depts? Comintern subversive activities. What was McCarthy investigating? Comintern subversive activities. Rob Smith 22:54, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

Arthur Herman does a good job when he sticks to facts and relies on the Congressional Record and other official documents. Herman fails when he attempts to make nice with the liberals by spreading the same unsubstantianted rumors that had been making the rounds in the early 1950's. I've noticed that the anti-McCarthy info that Herman cites usually has no citation or is attributed to incredibly unreliable sources. One example is where Herman makes a reference to Oshinsky who makes reference to another source that ultimately is just a rumor. That's how a great deal of these "biographies" have been written and the article here at Conservapedia has done the best job in sticking merely to the facts and avoiding rumor. Scorpio 14:03, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

Flanders role in Senate censure

Regarding Vermont Senator Flanders's role in speaking out against McCarthy and initiating the Senate censure hearings, I request that the italicized passages below be either properly referenced or deleted.

While, over the past few years, Senator McCarthy withstood countless biased and unsubstantiated attacks by Liberals, Communists, etc., the organized effort to remove McCarthy from his Chairmanship and officially condemn him began in the Spring of 1954. It was started by fellow Republican Senator Ralph E. Flanders of Vermont at the behest of a coalition of Communists, Liberals, and Eisenhower Administration officials. Flanders told the Senate that McCarthy's "anti-Communism so completely parallels that of Adolf Hitler as to strike fear into the hearts of any defenseless minority"; accused McCarthy of spreading "division and confusion" and saying, "Were the Junior Senator from Wisconsin in the pay of the Communists he could not have done a better job for them."[97] Flanders had obtained his list of charges against McCarthy from a left-wing group named the National Committee for an Effective Congress.

Regarding the statement that "It was started by fellow Republican Senator Ralph E. Flanders of Vermont at the behest of a coalition of Communists, Liberals, and Eisenhower Administration officials," the citable literature suggests that Flanders felt that McCarthy's emphasis on possible Communists within our borders distracted us from a much greater menace of Communist encroachment abroad. The literature shows Flanders to be a conservative marching to his own drummer and not supported (except for one note from Eisenhower after his March, 1954 speech) by the administration. In his autobiography, Senator from Vermont, Flanders reports a cabinet member taking him aside and suggesting that a majority of other cabinet members wanted him to lay off.

Regarding the statement that "Flanders had obtained his list of charges against McCarthy from a left-wing group named the National Committee for an Effective Congress," given Flanders's confirmed enmity towards the Roosevelt administration, it would be remarkable to suggest that he would be in collaboration with the National Committee for an Effective Congress. Instead, he reports having consulted with Senators Cooper and Fulbright to develop articles of censure that were consistent with previous actions. I've seen no other literature that contradicts this report.

I feel that even without the italicized passages, there's plenty of material to characterize Flanders's role. If there are credible citations supporting those passages, then they should stand.

Norwich 13:49, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Norwich, your reliance on Flanders' own autobiography of the events surrounding Senator McCarthy is not set upon a sufficient factual basis. While the info you dislike is attributed to an appropriate primary source, namely the Congressional Record and the secondary sources of the Heritage Foundation [12] and the recent book by Stanton Evans (pages 586-588). I disagree with your changes and challenge them with the aforementioned NPOV sources. Scorpio 22:59, 22 December 2007 (EST)
Dear Scorpio, Thank you for your interest in this phase of history surrounding the McCarthy era. I'm unclear as to what aspects of the passage you are uncomfortable with. My concern with the previous text was the absence of sources and their citations. As to material that you cite as the basis of your concern, the Heritage Foundation document does not appear to contradict the wording of the subsection. I don't have access to the Stanton Evans book that you cite (I guess that you mean the one cited in the next section), but I'm certainly interested to learn what it says. Perhaps you could post a proposed change of the subsection with proper citations here. Sincerely,--Norwich 11:17, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Book by M. Stanton Evans

Has anyone read the new book, Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies? --Ed Poor Talk 16:23, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Not yet, but User:Scorpio said he'd be back after it came out. According to the Amazon Review,
"the FBI knew as early as 1942 that J. Robert Oppenheimer, the director of the atomic bomb project, had been identified by Communist leaders as a party member; that high-level U.S. officials were warned that Alger Hiss was a Soviet spy almost a decade before the Hiss case became a public scandal; that a cabal of White House, Justice Department, and State Department officials lied about and covered up the Amerasia spy case; and that the State Department had been heavily penetrated by Communists and Soviet agents before McCarthy came on the scene."
We have most of this I think already, but Evans maybe able to shed more light on other cases, and he certainly will be an invaluable, and historically definitve source in the post-Venona/Soviet Archives era. Rob Smith 16:59, 7 November 2007 (EST)
Hi, Rob, as promised, I have stopped by after Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies came out and had a chance to read through half of it. I can only say that Evans did a brilliant job with the book. But honestly, he could have taken some of his work straight from our work here. Evans has done the best job of examining Senator McCarthy's work ever seen. It is a must read for anyone who wants to work on this article or simply better understand the subject. I'm coming across a great deal of substantive information. The book utterly destroys anything that the Left had with which to attack the Senator.
Unfortunately my schedule is such that I have limited time to devote to this article (or any article). (EDIT: I just noticed that the article has been unprotected and also noticed that the "Wikifying" of the article has begun with the addition of Senator Flanders own false perception of the events in question. Sad to see.) But I urge you to read Evan's book and add whatever you feel will bolster this article. Hope all is well and a Merry Christmas to you and everyone here at Conservapedia. All my best. Scorpio 22:10, 22 December 2007 (EST)

McCarthy

First off I'm going to start of saying that I am and always have been a conservative.... but this site makes me feel ill... McCarthy was not a true conservative, he was an opportunist who destroyed any one who got in his way. This is not a model person as the article makes him out to be. And that's another thing I'd like to bring up... why does this site stoop so low as to call people with differing opinions stupid, ignorant, or selfish? They just have a different opinion! That's no reason to distort fact to make your side look better. I honestly expected a LOT more maturity from this site. Just look at the opening description on the Liberal page. That definition was NOT a definition it was some one's opinion and its only purpose was to slander... I wonder sometimes if a liberal made this site to make conservatives look bad with all the playground antics. lex231 13:07, 12 December 2009 (PST)

Bias

This website seems to be one of the most conservative biased sites on the web, the way I see it you are no different from the others.

Um, that's why we're different. --EvanW 13:01, 14 December 2009 (EST)
I don't see how sitting on the other side of the teeter totter makes you anymore "trustworthy" than any other site.
Agreed
Personal tools