Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive1

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

I'd take a look at it now, but I'm going to work soon. MountainDew 23:03, 9 March 2007 (EST)

It seems a shame to mention only the horrid propoganda about this true American hero. Maybe we can work out a compromise. ATB 12:30, 10 March 2007 (EST)

The latest version, although stripped down, is more respectful to this great man. ATB 14:07, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Although the wikipedia article continues to smear and blacken the name of this great American, I was able to use some of it as a base to flesh out this article to provide some more detail about the great Senator. I hope you like it.

Ccbyncsa.png
This comment was left by frijole. This, as well as all contributions by this user, is covered by a Creative Commons Attribution, Non-Commercial, Share-Alike US license. This has important ramifications for your use or reuse of this material. See the license page for more information.
13:40, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Long live the Communist Party of the United States! GodlessLiberal 21:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Contents

General discussion

VENONA Files section should be a separate article in my view.

Well... I hate to go against the grain but the only reason why he's notable is because of the bad things that he did do. And this is the new century, do we really need to keep acting like communism is still the big bad enemy? Last time I checked most communist countries fell out of power, sans China, and democracy still reigns over most of the world. And are the flowery words really needed? Of course it's heroic, what kind of a liberal fool are you to have to be told as such? --Ronnyreg 21:52, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Go ahead and list the specific bad things that he did. Just don't put meaningless generalities, such as saying that he was "discredited". I put in the actual censure finding against him. Someone else put in how he exaggerated his war record. Do you have anything else to add? RSchlafly 22:29, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Would mentioning that he never came forth with his evidence could as a "generality"? I mean he sure made a lot of accusations and ruined a lot of people without really doing anything but either calling them a communist or having them investigated. --Ronnyreg 22:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Basically what happened, IMO, as one who has studied this period at length, the FBI & NSA kept Venona evidence a closely guarded secret for several reasons, so they needed evidence from other sources to go into a court of law. Now, if the FBI led McCarthy to a prime suspect, that would tip the KGB that the US had evidence to suspect such a one. And the Communist conspiracy, which in fact was found to exist based upon several US Government Reports from the 1960s on, was extremely large scale indeed. No fewer than 400 involved, most likely at least 800, and possibly as high as 1200. There were two CPUSA organizations, the "open party", and the "underground apparatus". In my view, the FBI gave McCarthy basically dead-end files.
Here an understanding of the relationship between Hoover & McCarthy is necessary. McCarthy was an ex-judge, and Hoover a cop. So the relationship was not unlike any routine law enforcement official going before a judge asking for a search warrant based upon the evidence in hand. But this was not a Court, and McCarthy was willing to use his Legislative Committee to more or less perform an Executive and quasi-Judicial function. The FBI didn't want to tip its hand regarding its real suspects, and the Communist Party membership was quite often an intimate family affair. So the FBI in many instances would hand McCarthy a file of, say, a brother-in-law to the real suspect. Now the person called before Committee may have been a member of the open party, and may have even known his family relative was involved in some questionable things, and the persons' FBI file may have had some dirt or embarrassing thing in it, so they were essentially being blackmailed -- rat out somebody you know, or all this junk in your file becomes public.
That's moreless my picture of how it worked. The question remains did McCarthy know he was getting bogus info from the FBI, and I would likewise say he did not. This infact explains the Army-McCarthy hearings, cause Army Signals Intelligence is who handled Venona, and I think at some point McCarthy realized the files from the FBI were dead end, and that info originated somewhere in the Army, so it appeared the Army was hiding something, which indeed they were, the Venona project. RobS 23:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Let me give 3 illustrations how this theory works. Communist Party cells worked as cadres often using family members.
(1) Ruth Greenglass's testimony sent her brother and sister-in-law, Julius & Ethel (nee Greenglass) to the electric chair.
(2) Oppenheimer was a member of cadre that consisted of his wife, Kitty Harrison, and his brother Frank Oppenheimer.
(3) Alger Hiss, according to Venona, lead a group "largely consisting of his relatives", i.e. his wife Priscilla Hiss and brother Donald Hiss.
(4) Here's a forth; Flora Wolschin, and her parents, Maria Wicher and Enos Wicher were all Venona spies.
(5) Here's another; John Abt married Harold Wares widow. Abt was a KGB operative identified in Venona and Ware once headed the group Hiss, Chambers and Harry Dexter White all belonged to.
So it very often was a family affair. The FBI decided it would not use VENONA materials to prosecute cause that would reveal to the USSR that the US had broken its codes. The US was faced with two problems: (1) remove security risks, both known & unknown from sensitive jobs; (2) prosecute, if possible, using evidence other than Venona those known to be in the service of the KGB without disclosing in an open courtroom the nature of the proof. But as a matter of priority, given the serious dangers at that time of the Soviet Union gaining nuclear know-how from American citizens, removing them from sensitive jobs was more of a priority than prosecuting for espionage. And there remained the problem that many code names had yet to be identified, i.e. the FBI knew they were there but didn't know who they were.
So this is were my theory of Hoover's relationship to McCarthy comes in. Hoover most probably held back the files on the prominent suspects involved in espionage activity, but often had files on relatives or close friends who in many instances also had been party members at one time though not necessarily invovled in espionage.
The closed door transcripts were released about four years ago. Some are quite interesting, others have remarkably shocking drivel, like it being revealed someone had once been arrested in a public mens room with another man. This sort of stuff, in a closed door hearing, smacks of strongarm intimidation tactics. Though I do not beleive McCarthy knew he was being used by Hoover this way. McCarthy probably got the idea from Hoover that whoever they were investigating was either the big fish or was gonna lead them to the big fish, probably not knowing the FBI had little more evidence other than a certain family member had once been a member of the open, or above ground party, and guilty of some embarassing stuff at one time. Needless to say on the other hand, these sort of intimidation tactics to get somebody to rat-out a family member who perhaps was facing the electric chair, by exposing in a public forum all sorts of things someone may not wish to have known, has generated the intense hatred for McCarthy that still fuses some people with anger at the mention of his name. But the story doesn't end there. There is moral responsibility on the part of cowards who knew the "conspiracy" was real, and let innocent people be abused while pretending to be victims themselves.
One final comment, the perception of the threat of nuclear war was very real, as was the perception the US government under both Truman & Ike (Dem & GOP) was covering something up. And yes, now we know they were covering up the fact the US was reading Soviet codes. But the real threat was to remove all known & suspected security risks.
As Moynihan said, "Ignorant armies clashed by night". RobS 21:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Addendum: McCarthy being ridiculed for not have caught a single spy really should be regarded as a credit to keeping secret the VENONA program of reading Soviet codes. Pity such secrecy failed in keeping secret Atomic bomb secrets which led to the insane nuclear arms race of the Cold War. And the cost in domestic partisan warfare. Richard Nixon rose from an obscure backbencher to the Presidency by putting in jail the first General Secretary of the Hope of Mankind, i.e. United Nations. The vendetta to get Nixon for that is what Watergate is all about.
So how many innocent lives were ruined by McCarthy's false accusations? There are lots of articles that say that McCarthy did harm, but hardly any that specify the harm. If you can specify the harm, then go ahead. Just saying that he ruined people is worthless. RSchlafly 23:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean by "ruined?" As far as I know, there is no point by point, alphabetical list of the names of people whose lives were badly affected by McCarthy's irresponsible accusations, but it's certain that careers were needlessly damaged, some of them ended. The people McCarthy injured include Reed Harris ( lost his job), Dr. Julius Hlavaty (long career in the NY public schools ended), and Raymond Kaplan (suicide). I don't know how many people were in Mr. Kaplan's family, but I'm pretty certain he had a wife and children, so their lives were undoubtedly pretty badly affected. And if I take a page from the entry here and credit to McCarthy people the HUAC investigated, the list of damaged lives expands dramatically. --PF Fox 03:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I am looking for actual facts, not conclusory propaganda. Reed Harris resigned his government job. He was asked about writing an essay that favored Communists teaching in the schools. Raymond Kaplan was not accused of anything, and had not been called to testify. He was an engineer with knowledge of VOA transmitters not functioning properly, and he might have been called if he had lived. But how is McCarthy to blame? Are you saying that the Senate should not have been investigating the VOA transmitter failure? RSchlafly 12:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
"if I take a page from the entry here and credit to McCarthy people the HUAC investigated"
Yes, we had these debates in extensio in Wikipedia. For example, Harry Dexter White who died three days after a HUAC hearing in August of 1948, nevertheless was a "victim of McCarthyism", nevermind the fact that he was (1) dead and burried when McCarthy waved his list of 57 Communists in February of 1950; (2) was dead and burried when McCarthy held hearings; (3) never testified before any Senate hearing chaired by Joseph McCarthy; (4) Joseph McCarthy never served in the House of Representatives. Now, per Wikipedia's own policy of WP:CITE, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:AWT, no one ever produced any evidence Harry Dexter White "denied charges before a McCarty era hearing". I burried Mr. White umteen times only to have him resurrected to deny charges before a "McCarthy era hearing". In this instance, I would suggest Conservapedia implement Wikipedia's own policies which they steadfastly refused to do. RobS 15:46, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

The fact that Harry Dexter White died shortly before McCarthy waved his famous "list" does not make him any less a victim of "McCarthyism" though I would not call him a victim of McCarthy himself. We still use the word "Boycott" to refer to what happened in Montgomery in the 1960s even though Captain Charles Cunningham Boycott had been dead for decades. I've also heard the word "Maverick" used to describe nonconformists who lived and died well before Samuel A. Maverick had his ranch in Texas and nonconformists who lived long after Mr. Maverick himself had died. --PF Fox 16:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, those are good points. So the discussion has gone from writing an accurate historical narrative to "framing issues" for propaganda purposes. I think we need to establish facts (which I have an extensive contribution list in Wikipedia) and deal with propagating interpretive views of facts some other time. Richard Gid Powers 1995 book separates "irresponsible anti-communism" from "responsible anti-communism". The deliberate use of invidious pejoritives after users have been "politically profiled" in Wikipedia is something I do not think is practiced here. Here, by precedent, I hope we can write straight forward historical narritives and leave out conclusionary premises. It simply a matter of employing the historical method, not beginning with a conclusion we intend to end up with. RobS 17:25, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Censure

AmesG has repeatedly removed the actual grounds for censuring McCarthy, leaving the reader the false impression that McCarthy was censured for his anti-communist investigations. In fact he was exonerated McCarthy on all substantive charges. McCarthy was censured for failing to cooperate with the subcommittee that was investigating him, and for insults to the committee that was trying to censure him. If there is some error in my description, then please address it here. RSchlafly 13:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is the actual Senate resolution that passed. RSchlafly 13:25, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Resolved, That the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, failed to cooperate with the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration in clearing up matters referred to that subcommittee which concerned his conduct as a Senator and affected the honor of the Senate and, instead, repeatedly abused the subcommittee and its members who were trying to carry out assigned duties, thereby obstructing the constitutional processes of the Senate, and that this conduct of the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, is contrary to senatorial traditions and is hereby condemned.
Sec 2. The Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, in writing to the chairman of the Select Committee to Study Censure Charges (Mr. Watkins) after the Select Committee had issued its report and before the report was presented to the Senate charging three members of the Select Committee with "deliberate deception" and "fraud" for failure to disqualify themselves; in stating to the press on November 4, 1954, that the special Senate session that was to begin November 8, 1954, was a "lynch-party"; in repeatedly describing this special Senate session as a "lynch bee" in a nationwide television and radio show on November 7, 1954; in stating to the public press on November 13, 1954, that the chairman of the Select Committee (Mr. Watkins) was guilty of "the most unusual, most cowardly things I've ever heard of" and stating further: "I expected he would be afraid to answer the questions, but didn't think he'd be stupid enough to make a public statement"; and in characterizing the said committee as the "unwitting handmaiden," "involuntary agent" and "attorneys-in-fact" of the Communist Party and in charging that the said committee in writing its report "imitated Communist methods -- that it distorted, misrepresented, and omitted in its effort to manufacture a plausible rationalization" in support of its recommendations to the Senate, which characterizations and charges were contained in a statement released to the press and inserted in the Congressional Record of November 10, 1954, acted contrary to senatorial ethics and tended to bring the Senate into dishonor and disrepute, to obstruct the constitutional processes of the Senate, and to impair its dignity; and such conduct is hereby condemned.
Basically, McCarthy was "condemned" for name calling. My we've come along way, I routinely hear Seantors engage in invidious name calling of other Senators or the President on televsion. And many of McCarthy's detractors today have little more than name calling to impugn McCarthy with.
As to discussing "McCarthyism" and its "victims", Venona evidence shows many "McCarthy vicitms" were not victims at all. In fact, now we must judge the moral responsibilty of guilty parties who kept silent and allowed others to be victimized by their silence. This is as important an aspect of the investigation as anything else. If McCarthy was a demon witchhunter, those guilty parties who feign innocence and allowed others to be smeared, basically to save thier own tails, so to speak, are EQUALLY guilty of creating an atmosphere of "hysteria", or however you wish to characterize it. So this whole discussion really begins with examining Comintern activities which started about 1919, and about 1921 in the United States. RobS 17:53, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

What did the Venona Papers say about Annie Moss? Julius Hlavaty? Raymond Kaplan? Reed Harris?

--PF Fox 02:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Rschlafly-- Facts

What happened to Reed Harris, Dr. Julius Hlavaty, and Raymond Kaplan is not "conclusory propaganda, but fact. Reed Harris was not just questioned, but repeatedly attacked by McCarthy for opinions he'd expressed as a student twenty one years before in a book about the commecialization of college sports, KING FOOTBALL. The book had included a defense of the right of Communists to teach. Do you seriously consider the statement "Communists have the right to teach" so outrageous that it calls for someone to be forced to resign from their job? As for Raymond Kaplan, his rather lengthy and detailed suicide note makes it plain that it was being called to testify before McCarthy's committee that terrified him. ""You see, once the dogs are set on you everything you have done since the beginning of time is suspect," he wrote. "I have never done anything that I consider wrong but I can't take the pressure upon my shoulders any more." Given that Harris had been forced to resign for something he'd written more than two decades before, Kaplan's fear was not unfounded. And the VOA hearings were not just some sort of technical inquiry into why a transmitter malfunctioned. McCarthy's contention was that it was part of a dastardly Communist plot within the VOA, and his investigation included questioning witnesses about their church attendance and religious beliefs and purging VOA overseas libraries of such dangerously "subversive" authors as Dashiell Hammett and Theodore H. White. --PF Fox 13:33, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I do believe that it is fair game to ask a govt official about a pro-communist opinion that he expressed in a book. But my opinion is irrelevant. If it is somehow notable that McCarthy asked these questions, then go ahead and insert that into the article. However it is just false left-wing propaganda to say that McCarthy ruined any innocent lives. RSchlafly 13:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

How is it "pro-communist" to say that communists have a right to teach? Are you pro-liberal? Do you think liberals have a right to teach? Does the fact that I think libertarians have a right to teach make me "pro-libertarian," even though I generally disagree vehemently with libertarians?

And yes, in the context of a discussion about McCarthy and what made him so unpopular, the fact that McCarthy got people fired, drove at least one man to suicide, needlessly ended the career of at least one popular and valuable teacher in the New York public school system, purged books by noted and important authors from VOA libraries and grilled people about their religious beliefs in hearings is "notable." Under what circumstances would it NOT be "false left-wing propaganda" to say that a politician had "ruined innocent lives" if not to say it about a politician who repeatedly impugned people's loyalty and ended their careers for simply having political beliefs he disliked? What would McCarthy have had to do to qualify in your mind as "ruining innocent lives?" --PF Fox 14:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

As I said, my opinion about whether public colleges should be promoting communism is irrelevant. I just want facts. McCarthy had no dislike for Kaplan's political beliefs, and did not drive him to suicide. Kaplan's suicide was all the more reason for McCarthy to investigate what VOA did. Whether McCarthy acted "needlessly" is a matter of opinion. Some people think that McCarthy did not do enough to uncover communists.
I am looking for facts here, not just conclusory leftist opinions. RSchlafly 15:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Do you consider it a "fact" that believing communists have a right to teach makes you "pro-communist?" --PF Fox 15:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

There is no need to debate my personal definition of "pro-communist". The facts are that Harris published some communism-related opinions in a book, and McCarthy asked about those opinions. If asking that question was McCarthy's greatest sin, according to his leftist enemies, then go ahead and put it in the article. Just don't put in your leftist propaganda. RSchlafly 16:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

There is nothing unreasonable about asking you to define your terms. --PF Fox 03:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

To answer your question, I was using the term "pro-communist opinion" in the sense of expressing an opinion in support of communists. Harris did that in his book. It doesn't necessarily mean that Harris belonged to the Communist Party or anything like that. RSchlafly 22:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

How does saying "Communists have the right to teach" qualify as an "opinion in support of communists" unless you equate supporting the rights of a group with supporting that group's aims?

Expressing an opinion that Communists have a right to teach in the public schools is obviously expression an opinion in support of those Communists who want to teach in the public schools. McCarthy gave Harris an opportunity to explain his opinion. If you want to know more about Harris's opinion, read the transcripts instead of asking here. RSchlafly 12:12, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Well Joe Stalin, who CPUSA members served under, also "ruined innocent lives". RobS 17:59, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, he did. What's your point? --PF Fox 02:57, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Comparing a mass murderer of 40 million people with someone who allegedly inspired somebody to commit suicide is a bit disportionate, don't you think? RobS 20:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Where and when did I compare McCarthy with Stalin? --PF Fox 11:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

The same language "ruined innocent lives" can be applied to Joseph Stalin and to Joseph McCarthy. Let's not talk past each other. As to the question, "can a Communist teach in a public school?", what is the question? Can a government employee also be a member of the Communist party?, or can a government employee, i.e. a public school teacher, while not being a CPUSA member, nonetheless hold Communist ideology? Please be specific. No need to parse this junk anymore. Most of these people are dead, and we do have a record of facts now. RobS 11:16, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

First of all, I did not introduce the expression "ruined innocent lives" into this discussion. I responded to RSchlafley's question about whose lives McCarthy ruined by asking what he meant by "ruined," whether it applied to getting someone fired or ending their career. Second, you're twisting English usage here in an attempt to ascribe a comparison I would not have made even if I HAD stated "Joseph McCarthy ruined innocent lives." The fact that the expression "ruined innocent lives" could be applied to Stalin as well as McCarthy does not make the statement "McCarthy ruined innocent lives" a comparison with Stalin any more than saying "Bernie Ebbers is a convicted felon" qualifies as comparing the ex-Worldcom CEO to Jeffrey Dahmer. Applying the definition of "comparison" as you have here would make the definition of the word so broad as to be meaningless. If you feel "no need to parse," don't post arguments that defy the basics of common english usage.

I think the question being posed when someone asks "can a Communist teach in a public school?" is pretty clearly "can a Communist teach in a public school." The answer, as far as I know, is "yes," since I am aware of no law that bars people from government service based on their politics. If there are some Red Scare era laws still on the books that bar Communists in this manner, I suspect they would not stand up to a constitutional challenge, any more than some past laws barring atheists from testifying or adopting children or making atheism a criminal offense, or defining Communist parents as legally unfit would stand up. The answer to your other question, "can a government employee, i.e. a public school teacher, while not being a CPUSA member, nonetheless hold communist ideology" is also a "yes." It also prompts the question of what you consider "communist ideology." I've seen advocacy of limited gun control, membership in the ACLU, and support for Howard Dean's run for the presidency described in that manner. --PF Fox 14:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

OK. So that gets to some of the specifics. I don't believe the question here is whether a person can teach today holding those views, and I agree with you on that. Holding those views and communicating them today in a classroom as doctrinal is different discussion for a different time and place. The question for this bio page is, Was it illegal for an employee of a local school district to hold CPUSA membership, as I understand the question to be. Merits of the law is an entirely different matter.
Then I can assume we also may agree using the same language to describe McCarthy that has been used to describe a few recent despicable mass murderers in history is clearly over the top and out of bounds. Was McCarthy a monoster? I don't know, perhaps. Was he human? Yes. McCarthy is the godfather of two of Robert F. Kennedy's living children. Clearly, clearly, the depictions of McCarthy elsewhere as a subhuman, if not inhuman, or non-human really say more about McCarthy's detractors than the do McCarthy.
An editor here in Conservapedia, who identifies himself as being 16 yrs old, told me Arthur Miller testified before McCarthy's Committee. Where did her learn that junk? These are the living lies I hope we can finally put an end to.
Simply put, McCarthy was half right, and half wrong. Likewise many of McCarthy's critics were then, and remain, half right and half wrong. Let's not whitewash the facts that we do know now, any further. "Ignorant Armies clashed by night". RobS 14:22, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, the question is, does getting someone fired and/or ending their teaching career qualify as "ruining" someone's life. I believe it certainly can. At the least it is a detriment. And I don't know why you assume "we may also agree" that saying "McCarthy ruined innocent lives" qualifies as a comparison to Joseph Stalin. I can only assume you missed my response, so I'll repeat it here and italicize it so you'll be sure to see it.:

I did not introduce the expression "ruined innocent lives" into this discussion. I responded to RSchlafly's question about whose lives McCarthy ruined by asking what he meant by "ruined," whether it applied to getting someone fired or ending their career. Second, you're twisting English usage here in an attempt to ascribe a comparison I would not have made even if I HAD stated "Joseph McCarthy ruined innocent lives." The fact that the expression "ruined innocent lives" could be applied to Stalin as well as McCarthy does not make the statement "McCarthy ruined innocent lives" a comparison with Stalin any more than saying "Bernie Ebbers is a convicted felon" qualifies as comparing the ex-Worldcom CEO to Jeffrey Dahmer. Applying the definition of "comparison" as you have here would make the definition of the word so broad as to be meaningless. If you feel "no need to parse," don't post arguments that defy the basics of common english usage.

There was an Arthur Miller mentioned during the McCarthy hearings, though I don't know of Miller himself actually being called before McCarthy. Given that he also called in Howard Fast for grilling, it wouldn't be surprising if he were. Miller did quite definitely get called before HUAC, however, and was convicted of contempt for refusing to name names. His play about the Salem Witch Trials, THE CRUCIBLE is a parable for McCarthyism, drawing some pretty biting parallels between the mentality behind Salem and the mentality behind much of the Red Scare.

The claim "McCarthy was right" presumes, by the way, that at issue was the premise that espionage was taking place. It should be noted that nobody during the Cold War, liberal or conservative, denied the existence of Soviet espionage. At issue was McCarthy's methods which, as I believe I've illustrated, were irresponsible, inhumane, and reckless. --PF Fox 15:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Nobody denied Soviet expionage?! There were plenty of leftists who denied that Alger Hiss or anyone else was a spy. I also don't agree that you have illustrated what you say. RSchlafly 15:35, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

That's hardly the same as denying that espionage itself took place. And how have I not illustrated that McCarthy as reckless, irresponsible, and dishonest? I've described instances where he lied, accused, and misrepresented. The declassification of the Venona papers don't change that behavior. In fact, Venona shows that the majority of those he named as "disloyal" did not deserve the treatment he gave them. --PF Fox 15:48, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Support from Ann Coulter

What the hell is this? Why does this belong in an encyclopedia article? Ha Ha Ha you guys are insane. -- --Jirt 10:29, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Technical problem

I created the Board of Economic Warfare which links from the mainspace but still shows up as a red link. Can anybody help? RobS 16:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

205 or 206

FBI Memo Belmont to Boardman, November 26, 1957

Based on the investigations from [Venona project] information we have identified 206 persons involved in Soviet espionage activities who have at one time been active in the United States or which activity has had some United States ramifications. Of this number we already had received information from other sources including espionage involvement on the part of 87 of these persons. However, 119 persons were not previously known to us as being involved in espionage and have been identified through investigation in this case.

A chart explaining these figures in more detail is set out.

SOVIET ESPIONAGE AGENTS IN [VENONA] CASE
Total Number Involved in Soviet Espionage 206
Number Previously Known to Us from Other Information 87
Number Not Previously Known to Us 119 206
Soviet Officials Not Now in the United States 61
Other Persons Not Now in the United States 40
Persons Deceased 11 (Burd, Duggan, Golos,a. Ivancic, Kournakoff, Lauterbach, Malisoff, Sabatini, Staple, White,b. Briggs)
Persons Now Cooperative with Us 14 (Bentley ,c. D. Greenglass,d. R. Greenglass, Black, Elitcher, Gold,e. Menaker, Miller, Moczulski, Morros,f. Jack Soble, Myra Soble, York, [redacted])
Persons Who Have Been Prosecuted 15 (Brothman, Coplon, Fuchs,g, Gold, Greenglass, Gubitchev,h. Moskowitz, J. Rosenberg, E. Rosenberg, Slack, Sobell, Jack Soble, Myra Soble, Perl, Hiss)
Persons Involved in Silvermaster Network 29
Persons Involved in Mocase 5
Other Persons Now in United States 43 218
Less Those Counted Twice, Described Below 12 206

Pointers

Let me make three pointers to concerned editors & Admins about the army of sockpuppets who will attack this article:

(1) they will try to define McCarthyism and the "McCarthy era" as dating from 1948 onwards;

(2) they will try to define "the Second Red Scare" as dating from 1948 onwards & make it synonymous with McCarthyism.

(3) they will impugn and slander the sources of information in absence of any valid rebuttal.

This blatant propagandizing which they view as a high priority should be resisted. RobS 16:01, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Where am I guilty of #1?

Where am I guilty of #2

Where am I guilty of #3?

And what did I post that was untrue? I'd really like to know.

As I said earlier, if I removed comments it was inadvertant. --PF Fox 16:11, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

There was a section between where you edited and what you deleted. [2] The comment removed specifically refered to an army of sockpuppets who will attack this page. One such sockpuppet attack [3] just occurred as you were adding a volume of content, some of which has been deprecated by its own authors. Pardon me, but this Wiki deja vu all over again.
While the page is protected you can place your proposed inclusions here on Talk. RobS 16:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't remember even seeing a comment about sockpuppets, so if I removed such a comment it was accidental. And I'm not sure what you mean by "sockpuppet" here. My understanding is that it's an online term referring to a post under an alias by someone already taking part in a discussion. I don't do that and I hope you aren't implying that I do.

You still haven't explained what I posted that was untrue, or why you removed, not only that small reference to Schrecker, but references to actual transcripts of the hearings and an audio. I'd really like an answer. --PF Fox 16:36, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

There is an obvious effort by sockpuppets to disrupt editing. You are welcome to propose language for inclusion here. RobS 16:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I suggest you add:

_____

It was McCarthy's charges of Communist infiltration of the State Department that shot him into prominence. During his famous February 9th, 1950 speech in Wheeling, West Virginia at the Colonnade Room of the McClure Hotel he stated:

And ladies and gentlemen, while I cannot take the time to name all the men in the State Department who have been named as active members of the Communist Party and members of a spy ring, 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 and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department.”[6] The State Department denied McCarthy’s claims. In a radio interview in Utah the following day, McCarthy had changed the number to 57, and on February 11, in Reno at the Mapes Hotel, McCarthy again invoked the number 57 instead of 205, and named Robert Service, Gustavo Duran, Mary Jane Keeney and Harlow Shapley as being on the list. Several days later, when McCarthy was speaking to the Senate in Washington DC, the number had changed to 81.

The source for the original number McCarthy offered, “205,” turned out to be a letter written in 1946 by Secretary of State James Byrnes in reply to a question from Democratic Congressman Adolph Sabath about the screening of several thousand federal employees in the wake of post-war reassignments. There was no mention of either Communist party membership or names in that letter. The names McCarthy later offered in Reno came from a 1948 report by an ex-FBI agent Robert E. Lee on “incidents of inefficiencies” in the state department that had subsequently been passed on to the HUAC.

Thomas C. Reeves painstakingly well-documented 1982 biography of McCarthy includes part of the exchange in the Senate between Senator McCarthy and Democratic Majority Leader Scott Lucas on February 20th, during which McCarthy offered evidence for his claims by going through the Lee list. There were marked differences between what the Lee report actually said, and what Senator McCarthy claimed on the Senate floor. For instance, the Lee list read:

“The subject was described in reports by various witnesses as interested in communism as an experiment but his political philosophy is in keeping with liberal New Deal social reform under democratic processes of government; ‘he is a very ardent New Dealer; he is a live liberal;’ but an informant who also lived in the International House at one time said ‘He was one of those accused of being a Red here but the people who do get up and talk communism are refuted.’”

McCarthy read this as “He was described in reports by various witnesses as interested in communism and by his roommate at the International House as a communist.”

Where the Lee list read "This employee is with the office of Information and Educational Exchange in New York City. His application is very sketchy. There has been no investigation. (C-8) is a reference. Though he is 43 years of age, his file reflects no history prior to June 1941. Case is awaiting a report from the New York Office."

McCarthy read: "This individual is 43 years of age. He is with the Office of Information and Education. According to the file, he is a known Communist. I am not evaluating the information myself, I am merely giving you what is in the file. This individual also found his way into the Voice of America broadcast. Apparently the easiest way to get in is to be a known Communist." [8]

___

I have removed the single reference to Schrecker Material. If there is anything here you consider untrue, please point it out.

I suggest you add:

McCarthy made charges of Communist infiltration of the State Department and the administration of President Truman and a United States army research laboratory. In 1953 McCarthy claimed that employees at Voice of America, were engaging in deliberate sabotage, selecting sites for transmitters that would make it easier for the Soviets to jam signals. Attention was also focused on the content of VOA broadcasts, which in Truman’s time had a policy of “balanced presentation” that did not exclude communist writings. VOA overseas libraries were scrutinized, and among the several hundred books that ended up being purged from the libraries at the urging of McCarthy’s staff were works by Dashiell Hammett, Lillian Hellman, Jean Paul Sartre, and Theodore H. White.

The VOA hearings that resulted often involved closely questioning witnesses, not about the transmitters, but about their past and present political or religious orientations. Director of Religious Programming Roger Lyons was asked if he was or had ever been an unbeliever. Lyons insisted “I am not an atheist. I believe in God.” When he mentioned that he had studied in Switzerland under associates of Carl Jung, McCarthy asked if “this professor” attended a church or a synagogue. [9]

Reed Harris, acting chief of the IIA, was repeatedly questioned over three days of testimony about statements he’d made in a book he’d written twenty one years before as a college student at Columbia University. (The offending statement had been the assertion that communists had the right to teach in the public schools.) Harris resigned from his job shortly after appearing before the committee. [10]

Dr. Julius Hlavaty, a teacher of Mathematics at Bronx High School and the first Chairman of that prestigious target school’s mathematics department, was called as a witness because of a broadcast he’d made in 1952. After being questioned about his personal beliefs and asked if he were a Communist, Dr. Hlavaty refused to answer, which resulted in his dismissal from the New York School system. [11]

One potential witness, Voice of America engineer, Raymond Kaplan, was so frightened at being called before McCarthy's committee that he committed suicide after writing a lengthy suicide note, which specifically referenced the issue he was being called to testify about, that being the placement of transmitters. "I guess I am the patsy for any mistakes made," he wrote. “....You see, once the dogs are set on you everything you have done since the beginning of time is suspect,” he wrote. “I have never done anything that I consider wrong but I can’t take the pressure upon my shoulders any more.” [12]

After the VOA investigation, many of its problems were corrected. No evidence of sabotage was found, but hundreds of employees were fired, some overseas libraries were closed, and some foreign language programming discontinued.

___

This used no Schrecker material. If any of this is untrue, please point it out to me.

I suggest you add:

___

McCarthy’s 1953 investigation into the United States Army Signal Corps Center at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, was prompted by a defecting East German Scientist’s claim of having seen microfilmed documents from that center..” [13] An investigation had led officials to the conclusion that he was unreliable, but Senator McCarthy’s subcommittee still began holding hearings on the case, suspending, among others, researcher Aaron H. Coleman. Coleman had been suspended in 1946 for not keeping classified documents he’d taken home in a safe with a three combination lock. Army officials had determined that the documents, which were of little importance, had been used for personal study rather than any attempt at passing on information, but McCarthy declared that Coleman, who was guilty of having been a college classmate of Julius Rosenberg, “may have been the direct link between the laboratories and the Rosenberg Spy Ring. [14]

The Army averred that no documents were missing and its own investigation had found no evidence of a spy ring, maintaining that what the defecting scientist had seen had probably been Signal Corp data that had been shared with the Russians during the War under Lend Lease. Still, the investigation went on. When electrical engineer Carl Greenblum broke down and wept during Roy Cohn’s cross-examination and had to be led, visibly upset, from the closed door session, McCarthy announced to the press that “I have just received word that the witness admits he was lying the first time and now wants to tell the truth.” Greenblum’s name was leaked to the press and he and his family were harassed, a hammer and sickle was painted on the door of their house. Greenblum explained that he'd been upset about the death of his mother two days before, and that after he’d broken down he’d “sent word that I wanted to go back and tell my story from the beginning. That may have been interpreted to mean I was lying but that certainly was not the case.” Greenblum was fired from his job, but reinstated in 1958. [15]

The fifteen hearings resulted in no indictments of any individuals, and established only that a few Communists had worked at Fort Monmouth from 1941 to 1947 – something that was already known by the Army -- and that there had been a small communist cell at one of their subcontractors in Nutley New Jersey. There was no substantive evidence to connect these groups or individuals to espionage.

___

None of this contained any Schrecker material. If there is anything here that is untrue, please point it out to me.

I suggest you add:

What ultimately destroyed McCarthy’s career were the famous Army-McCarthy hearings of 1954. McCarthy had already alienated the Army with his treatment of General Ralph Zwicker, the Commander of Camp Kilmer who had angered McCarthy by refusing to defy an executive order that forbade him to release names to McCarthy during McCarthy’s investigation into the promotion of an army dentist named Irving Peress who had invoked the Fifth Amendment while filling out the military loyalty questionnaire. McCarthy had implied Zwicker was lying and strongly implied that this World War II veteran, who had served at Normandy and the Ardennes and had been awarded the Silver Star, the Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster, the Bronze Star with two Oak Leaf Clusters and Arrowhead, the British Distinguished Service Order, and the French Legion of Honor and Croix de Guerre with Palm, and that he was “not fit to wear that uniform.” [16]

The focus of the Army-McCarthy hearings was the accusation that McCarthy had sought special treatment for an army private named David Schine, a friend of Roy Cohn’s who had been added to McCarthy’s committee as an unpaid consultant and who, it was claimed, had through this association enjoyed special privileges. It is unclear what Schine’s qualifications were for being on McCarthy’s committee other than his friendship with Cohn.

From the day he addressed the Senate in 1950, paraphrasing excerpts from the Lee List, Joseph McCarthy had based much of his momentum on showmanship. In the Army McCarthy hearings he met his match in the army’s counsel, a 62-year-old Republican attorney from Boston named Joseph Welch who succeeded in baiting McCarthy into displays of open sarcasm and malice. As a result, the press coverage that had, before, been McCarthy’s best friend now became his worst enemy.

The most famous exchange from the hearings is the “have you no decency” speech that many people today see as the fatal blow to Senator McCarthy’s public career. It happened while Welch was cross-examining Roy Cohn about the work Schine had had done with Cohn for the committee. When the interrogation seemed to be going badly for Cohn, McCarthy excused himself, left, then returned and, contrary to an agreement earlier made with Welch, launched into an attack on a young law associate of Welch’s, Fred Fisher. Cohn was horrified by this breach, and sent McCarthy a note reading, “This is the subject which I have committed to Welch we would not go into. Please respect our agreement as an agreement because this is not going to do any good.” (The agreement had been that if Welch would not bring up Cohn’s military history, McCarthy would not bring up Fred Fisher.) McCarthy acknowledged this only with the comment, “I know Mr. Cohn would rather it have me go into this," then went on to say:

“In view of Mr. Welch’s request that the information be given once we know of anyone who might be performing any work for the Communist party, I think we should tell him that he has in his law firm a young man named Fisher whom he recommended, initially, to do work on this committee, who has been for a number of years a member of an organization which was named, oh, years and years ago, as the legal bulwark of the Communist Party…I am not asking you t this time to explain why you tried to foist him on this committee. Whether you knew he was a member of that Communist organization or not, I don’t know. I assume you did not, Mr. Welch, because I get the impression that, while you are quite an actor, you play for a laugh, I don’t think you have any conception of the danger of the Communist party.”

This was, as Roy Cohn knew, a miscalculation, likely only to genuinely infuriate an opponent who was not going to become flummoxed or lose control as past opponents had. It was a bit of showmanship – McCarthy knew full well about the agreement and knew Welch was aware of Fisher’s past – being unwisely used against a superior showman.

“Until this moment,” Welch responded, “I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness…” Welch went on to explain that he had discussed Fred Fisher’s membership in the Lawyer’s Guild with Fisher, and had decided not to recommend him for the committee because he feared that membership would be used against Fisher. He concluded with the now famous words, “Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” [17]

___

None of this contains any Schrecker material. If anything here is untrue, please point it out to me.

I suggest you add:

McCarthy’s most enduring legacy may be in giving a name to the conflation of dissent with disloyalty, a tendency to cite criticism of an administration as if it were evidence of treason, or even treason itself – “McCarthyism.” Perhaps an inevitable result of the Cold War era, “McCarthyism” was the acceleration of something that had existed before McCarthy became famous, and waxed and waned long after he had dropped from public sight.

If any of this is untrue, please point it out.

I suggest you add:

The overwhelming majority of those who McCarthy named and whose lives he affected, however, are not mentioned in Venona. Reed Harris is not identified as an agent. Nor is Aaron Coleman, or Gustavo Duran, or Harlow Shapely, or Fred Fisher. Nor are most of the many, many teachers, writers, performers, filmmakers, and workers who lost their job and even careers as the result of McCarthyism.

If any of the above is untrue, please point it out. --PF Fox 16:56, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. I will review it in detail (may take sometime). It is a bit lengthy, and there are several other things that need to be discussed; for example, what does "McCarthy named" mean? There are numerous examples of "being named" a CPUSA member, yet not involved in espionage. Or what does it mean to "be investigated"? Giving testimony is not necessarily "being investigated". And another point, McCarthy primarily was investigating institutions, not persons. So we have about 50 years of much bad information to unravel. So let's try and find some common ground to begin with. Thank you again. RobS 17:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

By "McCarthy named," I mean he either stated outright or announced his suspicions in public, as he did with with Durand and Service, or summoned individuals as witnesses and cited them as possibly disloyal. Yes, indeed, there are numerous cases of people "being named" as communists but not involved in espionage. The resulting damage to an individuals career could still be pretty bad.

As for the word "investigated," giving testimony certainly qualifies as being investigated if that testimony consists of you being interrogated about your beliefs and your personal and professional life, AND having other witnesses being questioned about your beliefs and your personal and professional life. --PF Fox 19:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

(a) "being named" is not specific enough; should read "being named as holding CPUSA membership", or "being named a spy". Those are two entirely different things. (b) giving testimony is not the same as being investigated; the person giving testimony may have been subpoenaed to answer question about the activities within an institution, organization, or of other persons. Further, the fact the person giving testimony may have held CPUSA membership, but was not themself being actively investigated, hardly qualifies them as being a victim. RobS 14:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
(c) Argueing over numbers, i.e. was it 205, 87, 57 etc. is moot at this point. Would you agree?

According to Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, "investigate" means "to observe or study by close examination and systematic inquiry." That most certainly applies to testimony in which the witness is repeatedly questioned about his or her beliefs and his or her personal and professional life.

And I'm not "arguing over numbers." There is no question that McCarthy gave three different numbers within a few days, and no argument about that. It's not "moot to this point" because it was that variation in McCarthy's claims that caused many observers to be skeptical about them. --PF Fox 13:07, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Page protection

I have protected this page because of evidence of trolling. RobS 16:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I am losing track of the changes. I do think that the article should describe some criticism of McCarthy's methods. RSchlafly 17:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Me too. But this above is a bit lengthy. RobS 17:54, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The above was already posted. You could easily have left it in place and removed the single source you objected to earlier. --PF Fox 19:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

PF Fox: I have unlocked the page for editing. For the time being, I propose leaving out all the specualtion regarding "was it 57 or 87?", etc. I hope you will review this information regarding the Lee List [4], and between the two sources we can craft langauge. Thank you. RobS 12:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
But what I included was not "speculation." It is a FACT that McCarthy gave three very different numbers on three different occasions. I don't speculate on WHY he did this, but I simply point it out. Why should that fact not be included? And I've already seen that piece on the Lee list. How would it change anything I posted? --PF Fox 12:59, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm suggesting these are two separate issues. (1) Attacks on McCarthy's credibilty & character regarding the Tydings Committee, etc., and (2) McCarthy's abuse of the Committee's function toward witnesses. Why don't you go ahead and put in some stuff about his mistreatment of witnessess, etc., and I'll work on combining some information regarding the Lee List.
In actual fact, what we know now is that while McCarthy was conducting "witchhunts", KGB Agents were personally and simultaneously argueing cases before the United States Supreme Court. RobS 13:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

How does the fact that these are "two separate issues" justify omitting the facts surrounding the very statements that catapulted McCarthy into national attention? And you still haven't explained what I posted about the Lee list that is untrue. I'd really like to know.

What KGB agents were these, and how would that render people like Annie Moss, Fred Fisher, Julius Hlavaty, and Carl Greenblum less innocent? --PF Fox 13:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, I can see we maybe speaking two different languages. Let me ask again, have you read the Appendix's to the Moynihan Secrecy Commission Report? [5] Specifically, these:
Chairman's Foreword
Loyalty
The Encounter with Communism
The Experience of the Second World War
The Experience of The Bomb
The Cold War RobS 13:36, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm speaking English. I use the OED and Websters. Are you speaking a different language? What dictionaries are you using?

I've read all this. Please point out exactly where it renders something I've posted untrue, and what it renders untrue. You still haven't offered a single specific that shows anything I've posted as being counter to the facts. --PF Fox 13:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, so now we need to summarize information. The above is a bit lengthy, can it be condenced? I offered one solution, please wait on all the "he said/she said" stuff and go ahead and insert some damage McCarthy did to truelly, innocent people.
The Lee List stuff only has been reviewed up to 1952, and that by only a few scholars. And we also must bare in mind somethings still remain classified, or other evidence is missing. This is what I'm refering to as two different issues. Now, if you think this article is gonna be just another cut & pasted hit piece that says McCarthy was third in command behind Satan and Hitler, that's unlikely. RobS 14:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I will certainly reinsert what I already posted about McCarthy's behavior during the VOA, Army Signal Corps, and Army-McCarthy hearings, but before I do that I want to know "he said she said stuff" you're talking about.

What I posted about the Lee List, i.e., the text of the Lee List and the exchange between McCarthy and Lucas on the Senate floor, in which McCarthy fudged what was actually said in the Lee Listk is not classified, is not a matter of dispute, and therefore requires no review by scholars.

I don't post "cut and paste" pieces. My writing is my own. I DO consider it important to back up what I say with cites and that is, I was given to understand, in fact one of the "commandments" for posting here.

Please point out where I stated or implied that "McCarthy was third in command behind Satan and Hitler." --PF Fox 14:43, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

It's a bit lengthy, can you summarize some of it? The he said/she said is the controversy around did he say 87 or 57 etc. Presumably, the 87 refers to Elizabeth Bentley's deposition. Also, the telegram McCarthy sent to Truman at this time reads "known to you". Now, why did McCarthy put those words in writing, "known to you"? RobS 14:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

McCarthy edits

It's a bit lengthy, can you summarize some of it? The he said/she said is the controversy around did he say 87 or 57 etc. Presumably, the 87 refers to Elizabeth Bentley's deposition. Also, the telegram McCarthy sent to Truman at this time reads "known to you". Now, why did McCarthy put those words in writing, "known to you"? RobS 14:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I'll try to edit down some of the army-mccarthy hearing material.

Actually the numbers are 205, 57, and 81, and it's not a matter of "he said/she said." It's strictly HE said, he being McCarthy. The different numbers McCarthy cited were certainly considered important at the time, so important that they became a part of popular culture. The original MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE film starring Frank Sinatra and Angela Lansbury even includes a reference to it.

Exactly what telegram are you talking about? --PF Fox 15:33, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes & no. It's largely depracated and moot, and in the scheme of history, will be forgotten. Ignorant armies clashed by night. RobS 16:36, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

United States Army Signal Corps

Aaron H. Coleman. Coleman had been suspended in 1946 for not keeping classified documents he’d taken home in a safe with a three combination lock. Army officials had determined that the documents, which were of little importance, had been used for personal study rather than any attempt at passing on information, but McCarthy declared that Coleman, who was guilty of having been a college classmate of Julius Rosenberg, “may have been the direct link between the laboratories and the Rosenberg Spy Ring. [11]

What is the relevence of this? RobS 17:02, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

How does "yes and no" answer my question about what telegram you're referring to? And yes, I know that there are many aspects of McCarthy's career that some would like to be "forgotten." They must not be forgotten, and I intend to do my best to ensure that they are not.

The Coleman case was one of the major bones of contention in the Signal Corps hearings. The passage I cited is yet another indication of McCarthy's tendency to inflate his claims. --PF Fox 17:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The telegram I'm trying to retrieve right now; yes & no refers to your comment "certainly considered important at the time" which I assume refers to public perceptions based upon an uninformed media, etc., and is largely irrelevenat cause EVERYBODY was in the dark. Then we have the Rosenbergs; is this to recycle arguements that they were not guilty? Strictly speaking it don't mean diddly-squat that the docs were determined ex post facto of little importance, his actions demonstrate he was a security risk. And the Army is not the final arbiter here anyway. This is moot. RobS 17:28, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I look forward to seeing that cite about the telegram. And the media were quite well informed about McCarthy's behavior given that much of it took place before TV cameras. Nobody was "in the dark" about McCarthy's tendency to exaggerate, and I've posted cites illustrating that tendency, as in the differences between what the Lee List actually said and what he claimed it said, the difference between why a witness had broken down and why McCarthy claimed he'd broken down, etc. And yes, the importance of the documents does mean much more than "diddly squat" when you are conducting an investigation and publicly claiming that the breach of security is on par with a case that ultimatley resulted in two executions. You seem to consider an awful lot of undisputed facts "moot." Sorry, but they're not.

Now, I have reviewed the conservapedia commandments, and I cannot find any that would be broken by my posting the account of McCarthy's inconsistent claims about the number of names on the list. It is true and verifiable. It is not copied from Wikipedia or some other non-public domain source. I have cites on the ready. I do not post things that aren't "family-friendly" or contain "gossip or foul language." And it is not a matter of my personal opinion that McCarthy first gave the number on the list as 205, then as 57, then as 81. It's a matter of public record. If reposting that information violates a rule here, please cite that rule. --PF Fox 12:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Haven't retrieved the photcopy of the Feb. 11 1950 telegram McCarthy to Truman (originated in Reno Nevada) yet. The cite about Coleman IMO may do a disservice to the anti-McCarthy view because it is somewhat labored to make a point that may not even exist (taking the material above at your word); IOW, it discredits the more salient points of the argument. I hope to avoid parsing each jot & tittle, which is a characteristic noticable among McCarthy critics for half a century. We need to summarize some of this information to make the article of encyclopedic quality.
No one's disputing your integrity or motives here, indeed we welcome your valuable close to first-hand knowledge of these events--and it is extremely necessary that this retelling of events be fully, and properly understood and preserved. In McCarthy's case, again IMO, the overkill may even generate sympathy for McCarthy, because often it's nakedly prejudiced. I hope you consider this criticism.
One does not have to work hard to expose McCarthy's flaws as a human being; but one also has to remember that's what he was, a human being, not a monster or animal. And all these tales we read too often directly conflict with the accounts of family and friends, even political opponents who worked closely with him, that personally he was quite different than the way his detractors depict him.
Let's return to my earlier proposal: divide these two issues (1) the Lee List (and other lists); (2) abuse of witnesses. I invite you to write the whole section about "Criticism of methods", keeping in mind some economy of scale for an encyclopedic entry. Then we can collaborate on the Lee List, and this reference doesn't actually have to be more than a few sentences.
What sometimes happens when there is more than one view on a subject, the article turns into an arms race, each side piling up more and more source for thier side or to trash the other; let's set some limits on how far we will go in this direction. As I said before, your close knowledge of this matter is extremely valuable and needs to be articled in a good quality encyclopedic entry. Thank you very much. RobS 14:43, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Here's it is, McCarthy to Truman 11 February 1950. RobS 15:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for your kind words.

Everyone who is the subject of an article here is a human being instead of monster or animal, including Hillary and Bill Clinton and Salvador Allende. Their family and friends, like Joseph McCarthy's, also have accounts that conflict with what their detractors say. And yes, I've heard that in person, even some of his opponents found Joseph McCarthy quite likeable. I've heard the same about Bill Clinton, Fidel Castro, and Patrick Buchanan. Whether these human beings are gracious hosts or can tell a good joke and what their children or siblings or spouses have to say about them is, for the most part, beside the point when describing their public careers, and belongs in a section devoted to their personal life.

Yes there is more than one view on a subject. There is not, however, more than one set of facts, and the inclusion of those facts, whether or not they make the subject of an article look good, is not "moot." Setting aside a separate section of "Criticism" comes across here as an attempt to weed out those facts that are unflattering to Joseph McCarthy and separate them from the whole, as if they were a sort of footnote. I don't notice similar "Criticism" sections in Conservapedia articles on Salvador Allende, John Kerry or Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, and while Hillary Clinton's article has one, Whitewater and other criticisms of her policies mentioned in the article as a whole are not restricted to the Criticism section. For that reason, I am not inclined to put the issue surrounding McCarthy's conflicting statements about numbers or the discripancies in his reading of the Lee List under "Criticism." It belongs in a discussion of how he became a household name, and therefore early in the main body of the piece. It's up to the reader to decide how these facts reflect on Senator McCarthy. I appreciate your concern about a sort of "arms race" building up in the article, but the facts surrounding McCarthy's rise as a public figure are important.

I will comment on the telegram later tonight. --PF Fox 16:14, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

How's this; let's place the Coleman material & whatever else is relevent in United States Army Signal Corps. Here's another good first hand account Transcript of an interview with Ruth Young Watt, via Senate.gov --RobS 17:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

McCarthy to Truman 11 Feb 1950

Well, the telegram you've cited starts out with a flat-out untruth. McCarthy did not say in Wheeling that he had a list of 57 Communists. The figure he gave was 205. This business of only 80 out of 300 state department employees certified for discharge being dismissed -- and that after consultation with Alger Hiss -- is simply nonsense. So far I've seen no evidence that Hiss was "consulted" on this issue and the letter from which McCarthy got those figures was written in 1946. Since McCarthy admits he has no access to the records, how does he know that no more dismissals followed in the years following that letter? I have been unable to find the phrase "known to you" in that telegram, so I can hardly answer your question about why McCarthy put those words (which I'm unable to find) into writing. Care to give it a shot?

I have no problem placing the Coleman material in a section WITHIN THE MCCARTHY PIECE devoted to the US States Army Signal Corps investigation. I notice, however, that you have locked this article for editing. Why? --PF Fox 12:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

OK. The 205 is a leak from the FBI [6] and refers to persons active in Soviet intelligence operations.
I misspoke. The context reads,
"I KNOW [ABSOLUTELY] THAT OF ONE GROUP APPROXIMATELY 300 CERTIFIED TO THE SECRETARY FOR DISCHARGE, HE ACTUALLY DISCHARGED ONLY APPROXIMALTEY 80....THE DAY ...HISS [was exposed]...YOU SIGNED AN ORDER FORBIDDING THE STATE DPEARTMENTS GIVING TO THE CONGRESS ANY INFORMATION...DESPITE THIS STATE DEPARTMENT BLACKOUT, WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO COMPILE A LIST OF 57 COMMUNISTS IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT.THIS LIST IS AVAILABLE TO YOU, BUT YOU CAN GET A MUCH LONGERT LIST BY ORDERING THE ....LIST OF THOSE WHOM YOUR OWN BOARD LISTED AS BEING DISLOYAL....
Analysis of the above.
What McCarthy was referencing as "known to you" is the previous list of 300, of which McCarthy distilled 57 "avalable to you" which supposedly Truman already knew.
In the mainspace article [7] we have a reference to the June 1947 Senate Appropriations Committee communication to George Marshall which I beleive comes from the Moynihan Commission Report. This link [8] uses the same language and gives us more context:
The memorandum listed the names of nine of these State Department officials and said that they were "only a few of the hundreds now employed in varying capacities who are protected and allowed to remain despite the fact that their presence is an obvious hazard to national security." On June 24, 1947, Assistant Secretary of State John Peurifoy notified the chairman of the Senate subcommittee that ten persons had been dismissed from the department, five of whom had been listed in the memorandum. But from June 1947 until McCarthy's Wheeling speech in February 1950, the State Department did not fire one person as a loyalty or security risk. In other branches of the government, however, more than 300 persons were discharged for loyalty reasons alone during the period from 1947 to 1951.
The Hiss reference I could probably dig up a cite if I had to, but its on hold for the time being.
You say, Since McCarthy admits he has no access to the records; untrue. McCarthy didn't have complete records and had gained much in oral briefings from Hoover. McCarthy made the reference to 205 10 February 1950; the source document states,
A total of 206 persons have been identified as having been active in Soviet intelligence operations for the MGB in the United states and a chart breaking this figure down is set forth in this memorandum. This memorandum was initially prepared for the Director on 10-26-50 ... [9]
so one more had been added to the FBI's investigation of persons active in Soviet espionage between 10 February 1950 and 26 October 1950, when this memorandum was initially prepared for J. Edgar Hoover, the Director.
I didn't lock another Admin did; there's persistent vandalism when unlocked. That's why we're using Talk page.  !RobS 22:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The document you reference is "“concerning the activities of the MGB in San Francisco DURING THE 1940S...These messages cover San Francisco-Moscow traffic AND ARE IN THE 1943-1946 PERIOD." (emphasis added) so as an attempt to bolster claims McCarthy that there were 57 "card carrying Communists" in the State Department in 1950 it's pretty useless. In fact, the number "57" had referred to State Department statistics from 1948 which showed that 57 of the 108 on Lee's list (who were not identified as Communists, by the way) were still employed at the State Department, more than half of whom had been investigated and cleared by the FBI, 22 of whom were still being looked into.

The quote you cite about John Peurifoy comes from a plainly partisan source. I rather doubt that the Moynihan report contains language like “Guess what Armas was doing just before he became President of Guatemala?” and if it does that doesn't say much for it as an unbiased cite. And I'm sorry, but until you offer a convincing cite for that Hiss reference, there is no reason for anyone to believe it just because Joe McCarthy said it in a telegram to the president that opens with a falsehood about what he'd said at Wheeling. --PF Fox 13:04, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

(A) the number 205 came from briefings with Hoover prior to A.H. Belmont, author of the memo, putting it down on paper in October 1950;
(B) the 57 number, as the McCarthy to Truman telegram plainly states, "WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO COMPILE A LIST OF 57 COMMUNISTS IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT", i.e. McCarthy and staff extrapolated these 57 from the Lee List (Lee List was the State Departments internal investigation after the Senate Appropriations Committee expressed concerns to Sec. Marshall in June 1947;
(C) in context, "57 COMMUNISTS IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT" is actually understated, becuase the 205 number refers to persons involved in espionage activities, not simply just party members. This is where the confusion lies, and on several levels. Hoover told McCarthy orally something to the effect that the FBI was investigating 205 persons in the communist conspiracy. Whether Hoover told McCarthy (i) there was evidence of espionage activity, or (ii) the 205 were security risks, or (iii) the 205 were CPUSA members, we just don't know. But the evidence now, based upon declassified Venona evidence is the 205 number was very real, and was not talking about simply party membership or security risks. The 205 were very active espionage investigations. And further, this 205 refers to identified persons, i.e. were a true name identification had been made from a codename.
(D) Undersecretary Puerifoy, a Democrat appointed by Truman and confirmed by a Democratic Senate, is defending his reputation in that statement from the Arlington National Cemetary from the alleged "McCarthyite" charge that he was involved in covering up the State Department's failure to disharge known security risks. Hardly partisan when you are defending yourself from McCarthyite smears. Is this the contortions you now are willing to bend into to keep stale points & arguements alive?
Summary analysis: The evidence now shows the controversy around these numbers was not a matter of McCarthy's imagination, and in fact is related to (1) the FBI, and (2) contemporaneous journalists failure to clarify precisely the varying degrees of complicity based upon the difference between (a) espionage activity, (b) CPUSA membership, (c) a generic security risk. RobS 13:32, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

McCarthy himself said in an interview with US News and World Report that the 205 number had come from the Byrnes letter. And even if it’s true that it actually came from Hoover, the memo you’ve cited makes it very clear that it’s referring to THE 1940S – something you seem very intent on ignoring.

As for that cite you posted on Puerifoy, it is NOT from the official Arlington National Cemetery website (which is http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org.) As is plainly indicated by the following note near the bottom of the page: ”This is a privately owned and maintained, not-for-profit, website which is supported privately. AS SUCH IT HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OR THE UNITED STATES ARMY.” (emphasis added)

I’m not sure what “contortions” you’re talking about other than the “contortions’ of noting dates (like the fact that memo you cite refers to the 1940s – not 1950), quoting accurately, examining cites and using the commonly understood meanings of commonly understood words like “investigate.” --PF Fox 12:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

it’s referring to THE 1940S
Not true. Those were active espionage investigation at that point; some of the 205 (or 206) had left government service, some were never employed in government service, and some remained in government service. And most importanly--that number of 205 only refers to persons identified--there remains to this day something on the order of 178 unidentified code names, unidentifed after a 38 year investigation.
Further, the partial decrypts were only a fraction of the total messages sent between 1942 and 1945.
Let me have a cite on the Brynes letter; what is obvious is in Feb 1950 Hoover was talking about information he was getting from the FBI liaison to Venona, but it wasn't summarized on paper until Oct 1950--probably due to the fact the confusion some of these numbers were making in the press.
And the most obvious aspect of all this is, McCarthy was being used by Hoover & the FBI without knowing it. McCarthy probably never realized the FBI was feeding him information on people who the FBI knew it wasnt worth pursueing, but they perhaps could be embarassed or coerced to turn on family members or associates they knew to be involved in the CPUSA#Secret apparatus.
The Puerifoy cite, < http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/jepeurifoy.htm > I would assume was put up by his family, and probably may have been written by Peurifoy himself before his death. RobS 18:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

The memo you’ve cited to support the allegations in McCarthy’s Wheeling speech most certainly DOES refer to the 1940s, and repeatedly refers to that fact. The header reads: “Operations of the MGB Residency at New York, 1944-45” The text twice refers to it as covering that time frame: “This source has been able to furnish us information regarding MGB operations IN THE 1940’s,” “In the Spring of 1954, [Venona project began furnishing data concerning the activities of the MGB in San Francisco DURING THE 1940’”s and “These messages cover San Francisco-Moscow traffic AND ARE IN THE 1943-1946 PERIOD.” (Emphasis Added). And the fact “the partial decrypts were only a fraction of the total messages sent BETWEEN 1942 AND 1945” does not change that. I can’t figure out how you come to the conclusion that it does. The fact remains that if McCarthy was using that memo and not the Byrnes letter as he claimed, it was out of date information.

The reference to the Byrnes letter comes from McCarthy himself, who cited it in a September 7, 1951 interview in US News and World Report. He said:

“Up in West Virginia we read to the audience a letter written by Jimmy Byrnes, the then Secretary of State, to Congressman Sabath, in which he said that out of 3,000 employees screened – employees who were being transferred from other departments into the State Department – they found 284 unfit for government service. He said of the 284 we discharged 79, leaving a total of 205. That night I called upon Acheson and the President to tell us where those 205 were, why they kept them in if the President’s own board says they were unfit.”

As I already observed, and as McCarthy tacitly admits above, the Byrne letter had no reference to Communist Party membership, which renders flatly untrue McCarthy’s claim in the Wheeling speech that “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…”

Why would you assume that the Puerifoy cite from that privately operated NONofficial Arlington Cemetery Website was written by either him or members of his family? What evidence do you have for this? --PF Fox 15:37, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Criticism of McCarthy's methods

The Criticism section is too long and unbalanced, with a lot of false and misleading innuendo. I'd like to pare it down to something with actual facts and criticism. Here is the gist of what's there:

McCarthy has been widely criticized for his aggressive investigations. McCarthy made charges of Communist infiltration of the State Department, the administration of President Truman, Voice of America, and a United States Army research laboratory. The VOA hearings involved the content of broadcasts and transmitter difficulties, and found serious problems. Critics say that McCarthy did not proved deliberate sabotage. Critics also say that McCarthy only uncovered a few Communists in the United States Army Signal Corps Center at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. McCarthy also had an argument with Boston attorney Joseph Welch in televised hearings.

If the exchange with Welch is to be described, then it should also include McCarthy's point of view. If it is to include trivia from witnesses, then it should also explain just what the criticism is, and also give McCarthy's side. RSchlafly 19:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

And exactly what is currently posted in the article that is not an "actual fact?" It sounds like you actually want to remove facts -- not add to them. --PF Fox 19:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

PF Fox, it's not an issue of facts, it's an issue of scale. There's just too much material that makes a redundant point. I suggest a paragraph or two could be moved to United States Army Signal Corps#PSI investigations; other material also may fit elsewhere. Perhaps you may wish to start Joseph Welch and place the famous exchange in there. But this article needs some proportion to it. RobS 20:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
The section is filled with trivia like McCarthy asking the VOA Director of Religious Programming about his religious beliefs. What is the criticism? Do some people think that this was an unfair question? Who? Why?
It describes Kaplan's suicide, but fails to say how this is a criticism of McCarthy. It is not clear how this is a criticism of McCarthy, except to suggest that McCarthy is responsible for Kaplan's death. Who says that? Why? It is irresponsible to put such a suggestion in, without at least giving McCarthy's side of the story.
The Welch incident is completely one-sided and misleading. Welch had asked McCarthy to name someone, and McCarthy named Fisher because his name and history was already known.
The section includes unsupported opinions like, "McCarthy's support and popularity began to fade due to his lack of actual evidence and defendant convictions." Whoever wrote this seems to think that McCarthy was a prosecuting attorney. He was not. McCarthy was a US Senator, and it was not his job to convict defendants.
This whole section perpetuates a lot of false myths, and should be slashed and fixed. If I do it, then I would remove most of it, as it is unbalanced, misleading, and I don't even see the point to most of the so-called criticisms. RSchlafly 20:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
I think the overkill nature of it backfires and generates sympathy for McCarthy. But McCarthy's critics just can't seem to grasp that. RobS 21:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Grilling someone about their personal religious beliefs in an investigation that is supposed to be about sabotage is completely irrelevant and inappropriate. And only someone who has not read the actual transcript of the exchange between McCarthy and Welch would claim that "Welch had asked McCarthy to name someone and McCarthy named Fisher because his name and history was already known." In fact, McCarthy had already agreed to NOT mention Fisher in the course of the hearings. --PF Fox 11:03, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

The VOA investigation was not just about sabotage. I have watched the video of the Welch-McCarthy incident, and the description that was in the article was extremely biased and misleading. I think that it is fine to put the Welch-McCarthy incident in the article, but only if it includes McCarthy's justification for doing what he did. RSchlafly 15:19, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I made some changes to the Criticism section. I think that it is important to summarize the significant criticisms, as McCarthy was criticized a lot. What I don't want is just unsupported statements that McCarthy ruined innocent lives when no one can give an example. The Senate did censure McCarthy, and we have the text of that resolution, so we know what that criticism is. That criticism is described. If there are other specific and significant and documented criticisms that I missed, let's include those also. RSchlafly 02:51, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

You know perfectly well that I have supported and documented my statements. --PF Fox 15:50, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

The description of the Welch-McCarthy exchange comes from transcripts. What in it was untrue? --PF Fox 16:02, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Cropped section placed here for discussion

The source for the original number McCarthy offered, “205,” turned out to be a letter written in 1946 by Secretary of State James Byrnes in reply to a question from Democratic Congressman Adolph Sabath about the screening of several thousand federal employees in the wake of post-war reassignments. There was no mention of either Communist party membership or names in that letter. The names McCarthy later offered in Reno came from a 1948 report by an ex-FBI agent Robert E. Lee on “incidents of inefficiencies” in the state department that had subsequently been passed on to the HUAC.
Thomas C. Reeves 1982 biography of McCarthy includes part of the exchange in the Senate between Senator McCarthy and Democratic Majority Leader Scott Lucas on February 20th, during which McCarthy went through the Lee list. The Lee list read:
“The subject was described in reports by various witnesses as interested in communism as an experiment but his political philosophy is in keeping with liberal New Deal social reform under democratic processes of government; ‘he is a very ardent New Dealer; he is a live liberal;’ but an informant who also lived in the International House at one time said ‘He was one of those accused of being a Red here but the people who do get up and talk communism are refuted.’”
McCarthy read this as “He was described in reports by various witnesses as interested in communism and by his roommate at the International House as a communist.”
Where the Lee list read "This employee is with the office of Information and Educational Exchange in New York City. His application is very sketchy. There has ben no investigation. (C-8) is a reference. Though he is 43 years of age, his file reflects no history prior to June 1941. Case is awaiting a report from the New York Office."
McCarthy read: "This individual is 43 years of age. He is with the Office of Information and Education. According to the file, he is a known Communist. I am not evaluating the information myself, I am merely giving you what is in the file. This individual also found his way into the Voice of America broadcast. Apparently the easiest way to get in is to be a known Communist." [1]
In 1953 McCarthy claimed that employees at Voice of America, were engaging in deliberate sabotage, selecting sites for transmitters that would make it easier for the Soviets to jam signals. Attention was also focused on the content of VOA broadcasts, which in Truman’s time had a policy of “balanced presentation” that did not exclude communist writings. VOA overseas libraries were scrutinized, and among the several hundred books that ended up being purged were works by Dashiell Hammett, Lillian Hellman, Jean Paul Sartre, and Theodore H. White.
The VOA hearings often involved closely questioning witnesses about their past and present political or religious orientations. Director of Religious Programming Roger Lyons was asked if he was or had ever been an unbeliever. Lyons insisted “I am not an atheist. I believe in God.” When he mentioned that he studied in Switzerland under associates of Carl Jung, McCarthy asked if “this professor” attended a church or a synagogue. [2]
Reed Harris, acting chief of the IIA, was repeatedly questioned over three days about a book he’d written twenty one years before as a college student at Columbia University. (The offending passage was the assertion that communists had the right to teach in the public schools.) Harris resigned from his job shortly after appearing before the committee. [3]
Dr. Julius Hlavaty, a teacher of Mathematics at Bronx High School and the first Chairman of that prestigious target school’s mathematics department, was called as a witness because of a broadcast he’d made in 1952. After being questioned about personal beliefs and asked if he were a Communist, Dr. Hlavaty refused to answer, which resulted in his dismissal from the New York School system. [4]
One potential witness, Voice of America engineer, Raymond Kaplan, was so frightened to testify that he committed suicide. In a lengthy suicide note which specifically referenced the placement of VOA transmitters he wrote, "I guess I am the patsy for any mistakes"...."You see, once the dogs are set on you everything you have done since the beginning of time is suspect," and “I have never done anything that I consider wrong but I can’t take the pressure upon my shoulders any more.” [5]
No evidence of sabotage of VOA tranmitters were found, but hundreds of employees were fired, some overseas libraries were closed, and some foreign language programming discontinued.
During Senate debate on the Communist Control Act of 1954, Senator Hubert Humphrey proposed making membership in the CPUSA a felony. [6][7] If implemented this proposal would have resulted in the United States openly prosecuting individuals strictly for their political views.
What ultimately destroyed McCarthy’s public career were the famous Army-McCarthy hearings of 1954. The focus of the Army-McCarthy hearings was the accusation that McCarthy had sought special treatment for an army private named David Schine, a friend of Roy Cohn’s who had been added to McCarthy’s committee as an unpaid consultant and who, it was claimed, had through this association enjoyed special privileges. It is unclear what Schine’s qualifications were for being on McCarthy’s committee other than his friendship with Cohn.
The most famous exchange from the hearings is the “have you no decency” speech that many people today see as the fatal blow to Senator McCarthy’s public career. It happened while Boston attorney Joseph Welch was cross-examining Roy Cohn about the work Schine had had done with Cohn for the committee. When the interrogation seemed to be going badly for Cohn McCarthy, contrary to an agreement earlier made with Welch that he would not bring up the subject if Welch did not bring up Cohn's military history, launched into an attack on a young law associate of Welch’s, Fred Fisher:

“In view of Mr. Welch’s request that the information be given once we know of anyone who might be performing any work for the Communist party, I think we should tell him that he has in his law firm a young man named Fisher whom he recommended, initially, to do work on this committee, who has been for a number of years a member of an organization which was named, oh, years and years ago, as the legal bulwark of the Communist Party…I am not asking you t this time to explain why you tried to foist him on this committee. Whether you knew he was a member of that Communist organization or not, I don’t know. I assume you did not, Mr. Welch, because I get the impression that, while you are quite an actor, you play for a laugh, I don’t think you have any conception of the danger of the Communist party.”

“Until this moment,” Welch responded, “I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness…” Welch went on to explain that he had discussed Fred Fisher’s membership in the Lawyer’s Guild with Fisher, and had decided not to recommend him for the committee because he feared that membership would be used against Fisher. "Little did I dream you would be so reckless and so cruel as to do an injury to that lad. It is true he is with Hale & Dorr. It is true that he will continue to be with Hale & Dorr. It is, I regret to say, equally true that I fear he shall always bear a scar needlessly inflicted by you..." Welch added the now famous words, “Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” [8]

Some of this material may good for Army-McCarthy hearings or other articles. Some was placed in United States Army Signal Corps. Let's see if we can find a home for it.

I have reprotected the page from editing. RobS 22:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Moving it seems like a good solution for now, but I really don't think that any page should have innuendo that McCarthy caused Kaplan's suicide when McCarthy was conducting a legitimate investigation of VOA problems. I do think that the McCarthy page should have a criticism section that explains that a lot of people hated McCarthy for exposing the problem of Communists in the govt, and there should be some representative sampling of the dispute. RSchlafly 22:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Given the amount of innuendo I've found in the article devoted to Hillary Clinton -- "Hillary Clinton's best friend Eric Bauman supervised the defense of the litigation, but died under SUSPICIOUS mysterious circumstances at the height of the controversy; the death was officially ruled a suicide," why do you object to the inclusion of the FACT that Ray Kaplan's suicide was the result of being called before the McCarthy Committee? --PF Fox 10:58, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

PF Fox, valid complaint about the Hillary article which bares scrutiny. As to the suicide, this is not the only alleged case. Recently it has been postulated Sen. Robert Lafollette committed suicide [10] in fear of being subpoenaed before the PSI. I would dispute the claim that Lafollette feared McCarthy personally. Lafollette feared having to testify publicly, under oath, to the fact that (A) he did in fact have no less than four underground CPUSA operatives on his staff since 1938, and (B) he knew he had no less than four underground CPUSA operatives on his staff since 1938. As a Wisconsin native, I find this extremely interesting, and view the entire Communist controversy, or second Red Scare, as claiming the lives of no less than two United States Senators, both from Wisconsin. Further, while there is strong evidence McCarthy knew of these relationships on Lafollette’s staff, there is no evidence McCarthy intended to sadistically abuse his predecessor, an opponent he had already beaten, in a public hearing. And I will go so far as to state McCarthy's knowledge of Lafollette knowing and tolerating KGB operatives on Lafollette’s staff for nearly a dozen years explains much about own motivations as an elected representative of the people of Wisconsin. RobS 15:06, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

So what if the Kaplan suicide is not the only "alleged" case? It is certainly the most well documented given that the note he wrote left little room for doubt about his motives. --PF Fox 15:48, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Analysis of obsolete sources

Specific objections to above material: I am going to invoke WP:ATTFAQ/What kinds of sources are generally regarded as unreliable? [11] , which states

  • An obsolete source is one that is out-of-date, or has been officially withdrawn or deprecated by its author(s) or publisher. Editors of articles on fast-moving subjects such as law, science, or current events should ensure they use the latest sources. Let's examine these passages:
  • "...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 "

Venona now makes it known (a) the 205 number came Hoover; (b) Hoover did on earlier occasions similarly manipulate the source of his information (Venona) by adding other names [12] which were not implicated in Venona, to wit,

"on May 29, 1946, [Hoover] sent George E. Allen, a confidant of the President and head of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, a four-page letter... The Director reported that [Venona] had revealed “an enormous Soviet espionage ring in Washington.” Of some fourteen names listed, Alger Hiss was there, as was Nathan Gregory Silvermaster. But these names were well down the list. The name at the top was “Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson.” The third name was “Former Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy.” Further on was “Bureau of the Budget—Paul H. Appleby.” ...Further, that it automatically discredited the other accusations..." (Chairman's Forward, Moynihan Secrecy Commission Report [13] (Hoover to Allen Letter, May 29, 1946, pages 1 and 2); Benson and Warner continue:
"The tacit decision to keep the translated messages secret carried a political and social price for the country. Debates over the extent of Soviet espionage in the United States were polarized in the dearth of reliable information then in the public domain. Anti-Communists suspected that some spies—perhaps including a few who were known to the US Government—remained at large. Those who criticized the government’s loyalty campaign as an over-reaction, on the other hand, wondered if some defendants were being scapegoated; they seemed to sense that the public was not being told the whole truth about the investigations of such suspects as Julius Rosenberg and Judith Coplon. Given the dangerous international situation and what was known by the government at that time, however, continued secrecy was not illogical. With the Korean war raging and the prospect of war with the Soviet Union a real possibility, military and intelligence leaders almost certainly believed that any cryptologic edge that America gained over the Soviets was too valuable to concede—even if it was already known to Moscow.19

(c) Venona makes it known McCarthy understated the reference regarding "members of the Communist Party" because the 205 figure from Hoover referred specifically to active espionage investigations, not simple party membership.

  • McCarthy had changed the number to 57

Objection: redundant and no mystery because the McCarthy to Truman 11 February 1950, specifically states :”we have been able to compile a list of 57” which came from the earlier 1947 Congressional investigation of Security risks in the States Department and internal Lee List. This was not information from the Hoover and the FBI, yet comparing both lists there is overlap. Here the qualification of (i) an active espionage investigation (ii) CPUSA membership, which ‘’’was’’’ illegal among federal employees, and (iii) a Security risk, is necessary.

And further examination is necessary to understand what precisely was the US Governments goals at this time. The “Tensions of the Times” subhead lays out the background, how the United States was at war with a former ally; how the former ally obtained nuclear weapons know-how from American citizens and federal government employees in the service of a foreign government during wartime. And most specifically, it was determined by the decision makers in the United States Government that prosecution of individuals involved in the conspiracy was virtually impossible; so the FBI & McCarthy’s primary concern was to remove Security Risks from sensitive US Government positions which had (a) subverted the foreign policy to Roosevelt, and (b) transmitted nuclear weapons technology know-how to the Soviet Union. IOW, meeting the standards of proof of evidence before a jury of one’s peers was not the standard employed [14] to remove security risks from these sensitive positions.

McCarthy was dead on with this, and only missed naming her husband, Philip Keeney as well (another example of a family unit in the CPUSA secret apparatus).

  • The source for the original number McCarthy offered, “205,” turned out to be a letter written in 1946 by Secretary of State James Byrnes in reply to a question from Democratic Congressman Adolph Sabath about the screening of several thousand federal employees in the wake of post-war reassignments.

This information is obsolete based upon recent Venona scholarship.

  • Thomas C. Reeves painstakingly well-documented 1982 biography of McCarthy..."

Same as above; obsolete and deprecated material. 1982 is pre-Venona. Any material as a source that pre-dates 1995 is suspect, and to characterized it as "painstakingly well-documented" only applies to the state of knowledge at that time, i.e. 1982. RobS 14:16, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Please cite that specific "deprecation." How was Reeves' biography "deprecated," and by whom? And how does Venona render invalid and inaccurate actual TRANSCRIPTS from the McCarthy hearings? --PF Fox 15:46, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Overall evaluation

My take is that McCarthy has been demonized. His name has been made synonymous with overzealous rooting out of evil - or mean-spirited and partisan intimidation of innocent dissent.

All of this is a smokescreen. Communists murdered tens of millions of people. Support of communism is support of murder.

The way they slam Joe McCarthy makes him (in Liberal eyes) as bad as Hitler. Yet it is the Communists who are as bad as Hitler, or worse. Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, etc. If anyone needs demonization, these men do. Not McCarthy.

And guess who else used to round people up and intimidate them into ratting out their friends and coworkers? The Communists themselves. And these betrayals cost people their lives. --Ed Poor 14:39, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

here here! McCarthy was a great man. Richard 14:43, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Was Augusto Pinochet a Communist? Rios Montt? D'Aubisson? --PF Fox 15:40, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

IMHO, McCarthy & McCartyism is viewed as a onetime aberration in the early 1950s of partisan excess. This is not true. McCarthy was a pioneer in modern mindless partisan warfare,and his tactics & techniques have become the mainstay of Washington media and other rabidly partisan types.
'McCarthy's objective was basically threefold. (1) to remove Security Risks from an opposition Executive Branch at a point in time when the US was at war with enemies who had gained nuclear weapons & know-how from American citizens inside the US Government. (2) Demonize opposition POVs as untrustworthy and anti-American. (3) Payback or a vendetta for twenty years in the wilderness as the minority party.
McCarthy largely accomplished the first two, but created lasting vendettas with the third. But numerous illustrations are available today to show how McCarthyite tactics are employed regularly in Washington. Ten years ago, for instance, Gingrich appointed a new Historian to the House of Representatives. Unproven McCarthyite smears were used to tar her as an anti-Semite. She was forced to withdraw, and months later recieved a clean bill of health from the Anti-Defamation League. But the damage was done, and the purpose of the wreckless smear was to grandstand, create headlines, demonize Gingrich as allegedly supporting fascists, force an innocent person disprove a negative, etc. So the perpetrators of this vile smear accomplished what they intended--that's all that mattered. Ten years after the fact, the vile smear was still being repeated in Wikipedia, and only after it was brought to the attention of an Arbitrator, the Epopt, did Wikipedia then see fit to rectify the slander.
In this regard, McCarthy is the teacher and mentor of all contemporary partisan political operatives. Learning the lesson about the blowback engendered by such methods should be equally important as any short-term advantages that can be gained. RobS 15:58, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

McCarthy and McCarthyism is only viewed as "a onetime aberration in the early 1950s of partisan excess" by those who have not troubled to research the subject. Since I have never made such a claim, what is your point in bringing it up here? --PF Fox 16:05, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

McCarthy was a drunk, scaremongering reprobate who got exactly what he deserved from the judgement of history. And it says a lot about the fallen state of the Republican Party that a man like this is the latest saint of the Right.--Dave3172 16:16, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
I wasn't refering to PF Fox specifically; those who allege the Iraq War is about profits for Halliburton, name names and demonize people, etc. are practicing McCarthyism. IOW, these methods serve short term goals, muddy the waters of intelligent discussion surrounding real issues, create resentment and hostility, grandstand and grab headlines, and who really cares if Iraq democracy is destroyed in the process, or if the Iraqi people fall under another 30 years of fascism. Demonizing and destroying domestic partisan enemies is all that matters. RobS 16:23, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't know whether McCarthy was a saint or a devil, but I do think that this article on him should recite specifics on why was liked and disliked. In this case, there is a fairly complete record on what McCarthy said and did, and what he was censured for. I'd like to omit any demonization unless it is grounded in actual fact. I just added a reference to the dropped censure charges. RSchlafly 17:03, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree. Truelly he made lasting enemies. But on the fundemental premise he was correct. And what needs to be understood is removing Security Risks as that time of emergency was more of a priority than getting a conviction in a Court of Law. This really seems to be the only issue that keep recurring. RobS 17:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Complaints about Halliburton profiteering, etc. would be a form of McCarthyism only if they made without any evidence offered beyond the fact that the accuser disliked Halliburton's politics and if they resulted in Halliburton employees being hauled before committees, interrogated about their personal beliefs, and very publicly fired and blacklisted based solely on the fact that they had said at some point to someone that they liked working for Halliburton. Here you're attempting to broaden the definition of "McCarthyism" so that it includes ANY criticism or accusation or even just political disagreement. Sorry, but that's not what McCarthyism is.

As for the question about "whether McCarthy was a saint or a devil," I've never said he was either.

What fascinates me is that this seems to be part of a consistent pattern here at Conservapedia in which the mistreatment of people deemed "liberals" or leftists is treated as forgiveable, even laudable. You can cite the Venona papers all you want, but the transcripts of McCarthy hearings -- and the Venona papers themselves -- reveal Joseph McCarthy as an irresponsible confabulator who damaged and destroyed the careers of people who were not involved in espionage and did not deserve such treatment. Citing the Rosenbergs or Hiss or the Keeneys does not make Fred Fisher, or Annie Lee Moss, or Julius Hlavaty guilty. And the "fundamental premise" McCarthy apologists keep bringing up, the reality of Soviet espionage, was not what was contested in McCarthy's day. It was his methods, and nothing revealed in the Venona papers changes that.

Do you understand that the effects of "McCarthyism" can go beyond just wrecking someone's professional life, even beyond "merely" driving someone to suicide, as in the case of Raymond Kaplan or Philip Loeb? Ever heard of the Peekskill riot? Robert Now? The Goldmark family? --PF Fox 13:06, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Complaints about Halliburton ...only if they made without any evidence ...and if they resulted...being hauled before committees, interrogated about their personal beliefs....
See now you are narrowing the definition to "being hauled before committeees", etc. whereas we've already proven Harry Dexter White's corpse was allegedly hauled from the grave to McCarthy's committee, Los Alamos nuke engineers wound up on the Hollywood Blacklist which had nothing to do with HUAC and/or McCarthy, etc.
McCarthyism, then and now, is character assassination in the media for short term political advantage, and knows no political ideology.
reveal Joseph McCarthy as an irresponsible confabulator
Well, despite the evidence, you are demonizing McCarthy when the real villian appears to be Hoover, who manipulated and betrayed the trust even McCarthy put in him. And again, you refuse to acknowledge the frightening and very real emergency that existed at that time.
Do you understand that the effects of "McCarthyism" can go beyond just wrecking someone's professional life, even beyond "merely" driving someone to suicide..
I am of the opinion McCarthy himself was a victim, and basically drank himself to death ("alchoholic suicide", as this hilarious parody site [15] calls it, which has more than an element of truth to it). RobS 13:24, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Once again, you're playing around with the commonly understood meaning of commonly used words. No, I was not confining the definition of McCarthyism to "being hauled before committees without evidence." I was citing that as an example of how McCarthyism manifests itself. "McCarthyism" is defined in Websters as ""tactics involving personal attacks on individuals b means of widely publicized indiscriminate allegations esp. on the basis of unsubstatiated charges." Merely stating a strong disagreement with someone's politics or presenting evidence of wrongdoing does not qualify.

I am still waiting for you to cite convincing evidence that Fred Fisher or Annie Lee Moss or Julius Hlavaty deserved their treatment by McCarthy. Citing the rationalization that was offered at the time, that Commie spies were under every bed and oh mercy sakes we were all so A-SCARED, does not qualify as "convincing evidence," especially since Venona shows that most of those people McCarthy targetted were NOT commie spies. And while I am no fan of Hoover, I've seen no evidence that he was standing behind McCarthy with a sharp stick and forcing him to make up stuff while reading through the Lee list before Congress.

The fact that McCarthy died of alcoholism -- as pitiable as that is, for both him and his family -- does not render him so much a "victim" that he deserves to be regarded with as much sympathy as the people whose lives he damaged. As for that website you've offered, I don't see much evidence that it's intended as a "hilarious parody." The person seems to be citing the standard current revisionist mythology about McCarthy, which is that the objections raised to McCarthy were based on the assumption that there were NO American communists and NO Soviet espionage. Anyone old enough to remember the McCarthy era -- or even the two decades afterwards when McCarthy was so widely discussed and rememebered -- knows that's not true. I mean, for pete's sake, citing LILLIAN HELLMAN and ARTHUR MILLER as Communists McCarthy "exposed" as if the political views of these writers were some sort of secret? That comes across not as parody, but as standard revisionist ignorance posted by a youngster. --PF Fox 14:18, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Let's look at this document, In the Enemy’s House: Venona and the Maturation of American Counterintelligence, John F. Fox, Jr., FBI Historian, Presented at the 2005 Symposium on Cryptologic History, 10/27/2005, particularly footnote 21, cited as,
J. Edgar Hoover, Testimony before House Appropriations Committee, 2/7/1950
THREE DAYS before McCarthy’s Wheeling speech. Extracted,
"Wisely, the Bureau did not look to prosecution as the only, or most important, factor in a [Foreign Counter Intelligence] investigation. Director Hoover told a House Committee in February 1950 that counter-espionage requires "an objective different from the handling of criminal cases." It is more important is to ascertain his contacts, his objectives, his sources of information and his methods of communication" as "arrest and public disclosure are steps to be taken only as a matter of last resort." He concluded that "we can be secure only when we have a full knowledge of the operations of an espionage network, because then we are in a position to render their efforts ineffective."
Thus, this testimony, along with much other evidence given right here on this Talk page, demonstrates Hoover was behind a counterintelligence investigation which did not have as its objective criminal prosecution, or simply removing security risks. It included ascertaining "contacts....objectives...sources of information and...methods of communication".
When McCarthy made his Wheeling speech three days later, it was "public disclosure ...as a matter of last resort", of names on the Lee List.
In studying this entire sad episode of American history, it is time now to move past analysis based upon the personalities of individuals involved, and whether we like them or not, or who's a good guy and who's a bad guy, etc. All that misses the point about the valuable lessons we can learn from this period in time. While the personalities shaped events, and had a huge impact, they are not determinative of what we need to learn from this experience. And I will never, never, never understand how an individual losing his job because he refused to co-operate with US Government investigators during a wartime emergency that involved the frightening prospect of nuclear holocaust somehow is more important than the widespread fear of nuclear Armageddon engendered by CPUSA operatives, actively serving the interests of a foreign government in wartime, who handed them nuclear technology know-how.
You don't see the humor in this,
Dead for fifty years, McCarthy's body has now been tarred, feathered, crucified, cremated, and his ashes shot into space by a leftist media who cannot handle the truth of their own miserable existence. RobS 15:18, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

First of all, the cites you're offering do nothing to explain why McCarthy fudged the reading of the Lee List on the floor of congress, padding and exaggerating, describing someone as a "known Communist" when the Lee list merely said that his records were sketchy. Second only one of the people named by McCarthy in his Wheeling List, Mary Keeney, is named in Venona as an agent. Neither Gustavo Duran, nor Harlow Shapely, nor Robert Service are so identified in Venona. And third, the only person named McCarthy in that Wheeling speech who was still "working and shaping policy in the State Department" was Robert Service. That's the problem, you see, with using information that's out of date, like an FBI memo covering information from at least two years before.

This is becoming redundant; the FBI & Hoover had 300+ codenames; by 1980 only 172 had been identified. There was an immediate emergency to remove security risks known to be in the government, but unidentified. So Hoover & Mcarthy harassed them out through intimidation tactics. As to the ethicy of McCArthy using his Committee in a quasi-executive and quasi-judicial way, true--perhaps any other Senator would have refused. So this is one of those quircks of history. And lastly, very importantly, while it appears evident McCArthy & Hoover worked very closely on this, there is no disecernible evidence McCarthy ever suspected Hoover was feeding him bad information.RobS 13:28, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

This entire "sad episode of human history" is based on the "personality" of Joe McCarthy inasmuch as the personality of this powerful man included a tendency to exaggerate, demonize, and confabulate that resulted in books being banned and the lives damaged of people “guilty” of little more than having politics McCarthy disliked.

You talk about freedom of speech and association here as though they are not rights, but luxuries, indulgences granted to dissenters in times of relative "peace" but rescinded at any whiff of insecurity. If, indeed the "frightening prospect of a nuclear holocaust" is so daunting that speech must now be curtailed, we might as well just cut out the First Amendment of our constitution now and forever, because the very existence of nuclear weapons makes the prospect of nuclear war an inescapable reality from here on. Is that something you would support?

Perhaps what you don't understand is exactly what being blacklisted or identified as a Communist meant during the Red Scare. “Cooperating with the Committee” involved “naming names,” that is, offering up friends, relatives, co-workers, neighbors, etc. so THEY could be hauled before the Committee, THEY could be blacklisted, THEY could no longer write, teach, perform, etc., THEIR homes might be vandalized, THEIR children harassed, and THEY would be asked to continue that ugly cycle by naming names. It may sound strange to you, but many people had a moral objection to doing this. Some even preferred going to prison.

I've heard a thousand times how the advocacy of violent overthrow of existing governments by American Communists was benign; we just have to differ on this point. RobS 13:28, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Do you really imagine that McCarthyism actually eliminates all that troublesome dissent that disturbs you so deeply? Do you imagine that in such an atmosphere, people become silent because they’ve changed their minds? They don’t. If you stop hearing certain political or religious opinions in such an atmosphere of paranoia and distrust, it’s not because that kind of disagreement has vanished. It’s because people are afraid of being fired, blacklisted or even jailed for speaking their minds. It’s because the price of being honest about your beliefs has become too high for the average person to bear.

Do you consider that desirable?

Frankly, I haven't a clue what your talking about now. You refer to "dissent"; if a "dissenter" can make a case about what he is "dissenting" about, I have great respect for that. More often than not today we see mindless partisans who haven't a clue as to what they beleive in, other than nihilism. RobS 13:28, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I can certainly see an attempt at humor in that quote you've offered, but for me to find it funny, I'd have to consider it to contain at least a grain of truth. It doesn't. And it certainly does not qualify the website as a "hilarious parody." Do you understand what the word "parody" means? --PF Fox 13:09, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I've heard a thousand times how the advocacy of violent overthrow of existing governments by American Communists was benign; we just have to differ on this point. RobS 13:28, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I’m sorry, Rob, but I don’t see much connection between what you’ve posted here and what you are presumably responding to. Are you saying, in all seriousness, you don’t understand why someone who had been fired and/or blacklisted and/or hauled before a committee and grilled about his personal beliefs, would object to subjecting his friends and relatives and neighbors, etc. to the same treatment?

I think we addressed all this above when discussing dead end files and family connections. RobS 17:03, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Frankly, I haven't a clue what your talking about now. RobS 13:28, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

It’s quite a simple question. Do you consider it desirable for liberals and leftists to refrain from speaking their minds, not because they’ve been convinced they are wrong, but because they fear the consequences of speaking out? \

Seriously, what you refer to as "liberal" and "leftist", in my observation many, many, many may self describe themselves as that, but DO NOT have a clue what it means and cannot define it. RobS 17:02, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

And I’m still curious -- Do you understand what the word "parody" means? --PF Fox 14:29, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

yah, and that site is a parody. RobS 17:02, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
I think we addressed all this above when discussing dead end files and family connections. RobS 17:03, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

No, I'm sorry Rob, I don't see the answer there. Are you claiming that EVERYONE who got called before McCarthy's Committee and/or the HUAC were involved in familial espionage rings?

Seriously, what you refer to as "liberal" and "leftist", in my observation many, many, many may self describe themselves as that, but DO NOT have a clue what it means and cannot define it. RobS 17:02, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I consider a liberal to be someone who believes in progress, the essential goodness of man, the autonomy of the individual, and the protection of political and civil liberties. These days what that means is that a liberal is someone who supports racial equality, Affirmative action, limited gun control, gay rights, the free exchange of ideas, Habeas Corpus, the checks and balances that limit the power of the executive branch, and a capatalist society with some limited government control over the marketplace. A leftist is generally someone who rejects capitalism and embraces either socialism or Communism.

I've answered your question. Please return the courtesy and answer mine. Again:

Do you consider it desirable for liberals and leftists to refrain from speaking their minds, not because they’ve been convinced they are wrong, but because they fear the consequences of speaking out?

yah, and that site is a parody. RobS 17:02, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

A parody is defined as "a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect and ridicule." What at the site has led you to believe the writer is doing this? --PF Fox 22:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

McCarthyism

I think that the article needs a definition of McCarthyism. I have a proposal here for comment.

McCarthy is remembered today with the terms McCarthyism, McCarthyist, and McCarthyite. McCarthyism refers to Sen. McCarthy's campaign to investigate problems associated with Communists working in sensitive US government jobs. His campaign infuriated the American Left, and they often use the term to mean aggressive questioning of someone's background or personal beliefs, or making accusations of disloyalty. It is a derogatory term. It is often used to refer to HUAC or the Hollywood Blacklist, even though those weren't really part of McCarthy's campaign. RSchlafly 23:28, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Your definition is inaccurate. The term "McCarthyism" does not refer to simply "investigating problems associated with Communists working in sensitive US government jobs," and it is imprecise to say it means "aggressive questioning of someone's background or personal beliefs, or making accusations of disloyalty." McCarthyism is defined in Websters as "a mid-20th century political attitude characterized chiefly as opposition to elements held to be subversive and by the use of tactics involving personal attacks on individuals by means of widely publicized indiscriminate allegations, esp. on the basis of unsubstantiated charges." And yes, as such the term does apply not only to campaigns McCarthy waged, but the HUAC and the Hollywood blacklist, just as the term "boycott" applies to something other than Irish renter strikes, and the term "Maverick" applies to something other than unbranded cattle owned by a Texas rancher named Maverick. --PF Fox 00:22, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Do you want to suggest a definition, other than reciting the dictionary? This is an article on McCarthy, so the naive reader will think that McCarthyism means doing what McCarthy did. But as you say, the term has taken on a broader meaning among the American Left. My suggestion is to define the root meaning -- McCarthy's famous anti-Communist campaign, and then to the define the broader meaning. The dictionary definition is inadequate because it blurs what McCarthy did, and perceptions of what HUAC and others did, and how the word had adopted a meaning of its own. RSchlafly 00:51, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I see no problem with referring to dictionaries for definitions. I will grant you that the "naive reader" will not get an accurate view of McCarthyism from reading this article, since accounts of what McCarthy did to coin the term -- his irresponsible and inconsistent accusations, his inaccurate claims, his purging of libraries of such "subversives" as Dashiell Hammett and Lillian Hellman, the innocent people whose lives he damaged, like Julius Hlavaty or Annie Lee Moss -- were carefully excised by the editors. I don't think it's right to compound these omissions by offering to very young and unknowledgable an inaccurate definition of McCarthyism.

The dictionary definition is more than adequate. It is much more precise than the biased definition you've offered and reflects common usage of the term, which covers not just what McCarthy did, but what the HUAC and others did. Don't you advise your students to consult dictionaries when faced with a word they don't understand? Or are you seeking to alter common usage by teaching the young readers here your own version of English? --PF Fox 03:00, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't know what you are talking about. I put a summary of your criticisms in the article myself. You say McCarthy was "irresponsible" to conduct his investigations, but that is just your opinion. Any criticism of McCarthy should be grounded in actual facts, and not just have an unsupported statement that he was irresponsible.
Yes, dictionaries are useful. I was trying to give a more precise definition by connecting the word McCarthyism to McCarthy. There is room for more than one sentence. I put in the paragraph as above.
As for Julius Hlavaty and Annie Lee Moss, do you really think that they were good examples of bad behavior on McCarthy's part? If so, please spell it out for me, so I don't get you wrong. Why do you say they were innocent? Were they falsely accused of something? Of what? Were they Communists? And just exactly what did McCarthy do to them that was so horrible? RSchlafly 03:40, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

The definition you offered is not "more precise" than the one offered in most dictionaries. It is of a piece with the article, which has carefully omitted the details about why McCarthy gave his name to "McCarthyism," and why the term is a perjorative.

Yes, I think that hauling Dr. Julius Hlavaty, a teacher with over two decades of service in the public school system before a committee because of a VOA broadcast he'd made a year or two before, questioning him not about that broadcast but about his religious beliefs, and then effectively ending his career with the New York Public School system by asking him "Are you now or have you ever been a Communist" so that he invoked the fifth, which resulted in his automatic dismissal, is an example of "bad behavior." I say Hlavaty innocent because there's not a shred of evidence that he was guilty of any crime. Do you have something on Dr. Hlavaty we don't know about? What do you imagine he was "guilty" of? And yes, I do think it is horrible to unneccessarily end someone's tenure in the public school system in that manner.

Yes, I think that hauling Annie Lee Moss, a communications relay machine operator, before the committee, accusing her of being a Communist and announcing that she had worked in the code room (she had not worked in the Code Room. She was a very low-paid clerk typist and there is little evidence that she was a Communist beyond the word of an informant) was an example of bad behavior on McCarthy's part. Yes, I think she was probably innocent of espionage, and if she was indeed the same Annie Moss who had been listed on Communist party rolls (there was more than one Annie Moss living in NYC at the time) her name had been dropped from the rolls as far back as 1945. As far as I know she is not listed in Venona as an agent, and the Army was confident enough about her to reinstate her some time afterwards.

And yes, I think it's also horrible that McCarthy had state department libraries purged of books by "subversive" writers like Dashiell Hammett and Howard Fast and Theodore White. I think it's horrible that the McCarthyism of the HUAC and the Hollywood blacklist resulted in Philip Loeb's suicide and the blacklisting of gifted people like Zero Mostel, Walter Bernstein, Ring Lardner Jr., and Dalton Trumbo. I think the violent fruits of McCarthyism -- the murder of Robert Now in 1948, the Peekskill riot in 1949, the murder of Thomas Parkinson in 1961, the murders of the Goldmark family in 1985, are also horrible and show just how dire can be the consequences of such irresponsible and indiscriminate accusations. --PF Fox 13:50, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

There is another definition of McCarthyism that is unrelated to anything discussed so far. And that is the abuse of Congressional Committee processes. Certain reforms have taken place, nonetheless these abuses still can occur.
In 1948, two years before McCarthy's Wheeling speech, Elizabeth Bentley appeared before a Senate panel after her HUAC testimony. She had no control over what was to asked, and was prepared to continue along the lines of her House testimony. However, the case of William Remington just happened to be the latest scuttlebutt making the rounds of the D.C. media & Congress. Bentley was asked about it and the whole questioning focued on it. The following Sunday on Meet the Press questioning continued, and she ended up being sued for libel. This is what McCarthyism is--in it's truest distillation--abusing or neglecting the rights and protections a witness has in a non-criminal, Congressional Investigation, and usually for the purpose of the investigator to grandstand and grab headlines.
We saw this again during the Congressional Enron investigations. Everyone knew Ken Lay was going to plead the Fifth; so Chairman Ernest Hollings alloted ten minutes each to eight Democratic Senators who pummelled Lay in an open Congressional Hearing prior to him even being sworn in. After the 90 minute round-robin of abuse ended, Chairman Hollings then asked "Kenny boy" to stand and be sworn in, after which Lay finally could excercise his rights. This is classic McCarthyism, by all Senators involved, and the Master would have been proud of these proteges. RobS 14:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Okay, I suggest putting the following 3 paragraphs in the Criticism section.
A teacher named Julius Hlavaty testified at the VOA hearings, and refused to answer whether he had been a Communist or had tried to recruit students to the Communist Party. [9] He lost his job as a public school teacher. Critics say that McCarthy should have ignored commies making anti-American broadcasts on VOA because exposing them might have personally embarrassed them.
McCarthy questioned the security clearance for a Communist named Annie Lee Moss who worked in the US Army Signal Corps. Critics say that she was just a low-level clerk, and she may not have actually been a Communist spy.
Critics blame McCarthy for objecting to the state department stocking subversive novels that have nothing to do with its mission. They also blame McCarthy for exposing the commie propagandist Dalton Trumbo, even though McCarthy had nothing to do with it. RSchlafly 14:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Those would be fair, but in the case of Moss if she indeed was a Party member while in government employ which should cite that it was illegal. RobS 14:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
See WP [16] for evidence that Moss was a commie. It is pretty damning. She had a job requiring a very high security clearance. It seems clear to me that no one like that should have gotten a security clearance. But that's just my opinion. PF Fox objects to her even being questioned. Frankly, I can't make sense of his argument. But regardless, a lot of people hate McCarthy and it seems reasonable to document their stated grounds for hating him. RSchlafly 14:55, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Joined the party in '43, this would certainly be a Smith Act [17] violation. I have access to the Reports of the Subversive Activities Control Board, if necessary. RobS 15:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

No, they would not be fair. Nothing in that piece indicates that Hlavaty was a "commie" who had delivered an "anti-American broadcast." There does not, in fact, appear to have been anything controversial about Hlavaty's radio message and saying otherwise is nothing moer than an attempt to continue the smear of this man. (Who by the way, was much more than a public school teacher. He was chairman of the mathmatics department at the Bronx School of Science, a prestigious target school.) Declaring as fact that Annie Lee Moss was a Communist is also grossly inaccurate. Whether or not she was a member of the party is very much open to question.

The State Department libaries involved were overseas VOA libraries which included, as policy "any book whatsoever of United States origin which may be of use to the program." This would certainly include books popular at the time, like the words of Hammett or Fast, the plays of Lillian Hellman, as well the works of historian Theodore White, author of THUNDER OUT OF CHINA, and the writings of Walter Wright, head of the NAACP, all of which were part of McCarthy's purge. I'd be interested to know how THE MALTESE FALCON qualifies as "subversive." Maybe we should have all videotapes of that famous Bogart film yanked from public libraries? What do you think? Or the Bette Davis film based on Hellman's THE LITTLE FOXES? What subversiveness do you think lurks within that play? How about Kubrick's film, SPARTACUS, which is based on Fast's novel and includes a screenplay by (horrors!) "commie propagandist" Dalton Trumbo? Should that go too? --PF Fox 15:07, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Interesting you should bring up Howard Fast; the link from the mainpage to Office of War Information gives the connection in the FBI's counterintelligence investigation. Note the last five names, Philip Keeney, Irving Lerner, Peter Rhodes, Christina Krotkova and Flora Wovschin, all American citizens involved in espionage on behalf of the KGB. Flora Wovschin is particulalry interesting, to escape prosecution she fled to North Korea and died serving as a nurse during Korean War. These people certainly were dedicated. RobS 15:30, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

So should all copies of both the book SPARTACUS and the film be "purged" from libraries? And how about THE MALTESE FALCON? THE LITTLE FOXES? --PF Fox 15:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Then please explain your objections. Do you think that it was okay for commies to be broadcasting on VOA? And not okay for McCarthy to ask about it?
Yes Hlavaty was more than a public school teacher. But he doesn't seem to have suffered too much either. I read that he got a job with Columbia University afterwards.
Even if you are not convinced that Moss was a commie, don't you think that there was enough evidence to at least ask her some questions? Do you think that someone in a sensitive job at the Signal Corp should be able to subscribe to commie newspapers without raising eyebrows?
Did state dept workers have to read Hammett and Hellman to do their jobs? Why is this any worse than an employer blocking access to YouTube.com or Sex.com? RSchlafly 15:37, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

There was no VOA rule against communists broadcasting, and yes, I think it was okay. No, it's not okay to accuse someone of epionage -- as McCarthy did -- based soley on the fact that you dislike their politics.

If Dr. Hlavaty had wanted to work at Columbia University and not in the New York public school system to which he'd devoted so much of his professional life, he'd have gone to work at Columbia before losing his job. Surely you realize that it's no small thing to interrupt someone's career in that manner?

There was nothing wrong with simply asking Annie Moss questions about whether or not she'd ever been a communist. There was a lot wrong with doing it in front of TV cameras, treating that communist party membership as a given and accusing her lawyer of being a communist into the bargain.

And yes, if a radio broadcast is going to be on the subject of modern novels, films or plays, Hammett and Hellman are two writers you would have needed to read at that time. Removing books from research library shelves is in no way comparable to "an employer blocking access to YouTube or Sex.com" to keep employees from wasting company time on such sites. (Are you, in all seriousness, comparing the works of Lillian Hellman, Dashiell Hammet, Theodore White, etc., to online porn?) The very purpose of a library is to make such works available. Purging library shelves in that manner -- something both the Soviet Union and the Third Reich did -- defeats that purpose and is not the act of a free and open society.

Rschlafly, please note that I've made the effort to answer your questions. Kindly return the courtesy --

Do you have some evidence that Julius Hlavaty was a communist who had taken part in an "anti-American broadcast?"

Are you equating the works of Dashiell Hammett, Lillian Hellman and Theodore White with online porn?

Do you think all copies of both the book SPARTACUS (written by Howard Fast) and the film (written by Dalton Trumbo) be "purged" from libraries? And how about Hammett's THE MALTESE FALCON? Hellman's THE LITTLE FOXES? --PF Fox 11:45, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

  • No, it's not okay to accuse someone of epionage
Let's assume you simply misspoke with this above posting. We are making a serious, untiring effort to sort through one half century of misinformation. We have established on this Talk page the varying degrees culpability, ranging from (a) security risks, to (b) CPUSA membership, and the most serious of offenses (c) espionage activity. We have demonstated how in McCarthy's Wheeling Speech he actually understated the seriousness of the charges, by refering to "card carrying Communists", i.e. CPUSA membership, when in fact the source of his information were active espionage investigations. RobS 12:07, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

No, let's acknowlege that you carefully omitted most of that statement, which read in its entirety, " It's not okay to accuse someone of epionage --AS MCCARTHY DID -- BASED SOLELY ON THE FACT THAT YOU DISLIKE THEIR POLITICS." (emphasis added) It doesn't say much for your "serious, untiring effort to sort through one half century of misinformation" when you engage in this kind of creative editing. --PF Fox 12:22, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Now, what you have done with this posting, is engage in McCarthyism. You have blanketly accused McCarthy of accusing every subject he investigated as being involved in espionage. RobS 12:07, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Exactly where did I do this? --PF Fox 12:22, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

This is degenerating into some sort of ideological debate; personally I don't give a rip. It's obvious nothing is every going to convince you that Joseph McCarthy was perhaps just a flawed human being who drank too much and abused his office; or that in 1950 there really was an international crisis that was engendered by Comintern activities and CPUSA operatives; or that the threat of nuclear annihilation pales in comparison to some poor shmuck who lost his job. RobS 12:30, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I "give a rip" about the truth. If that renders this an "ideological debate," so be it. Sure, McCarthy was a flawed human being who drank too much and abused his office. I've never denied that. Nor, in spite of your attempts to ascribe these arguments to me, have I ever said there was no cold war, or that there was no "international crisis" in the 50s, or that the Soviets played no part in that crisis. The problem is, this "flawed human being" you describe, Joseph McCarthy, was given the power to run roughshod over human beings who were "guilty" of nothing more than having political beliefs that McCarthy disliked and you dislike.

What's revealing here, Rob, is not just your willingness to misrepresent what I've said by quoting me incompletely, not just your eagerness to ascribe to me arguments I've never made, and not even just your obvious fear of answering direct questions. It's the fact that you consider the rights of dissidents disposable, something to be tossed aside because you're frightened. It's the contempt you reveal for the rights of the individual by referring to "some poor schmuck who lost as job" as if that were no big deal. Plainly you also consider it "no big deal" for us to become a society in which people are afraid of expressing even moderate disagreement with a conservative administration or policy because they simply can't afford the damage it can do to their ability to support themselves and their families. And your unwillingness to directly address questions I've asked about this strongly implies that not only do you consider intimidating liberals and leftists into silence no big deal, you consider it downright desirable.

It is not desirable. It is not in keeping with what this country is about, or with what the writers of our constitution had in mind when they included the First Amendment. --PF Fox 12:46, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

It still appears you haven't bothered to read the Appendix's & Chairman's forward to the Moynihan Secrecy Commission Report yet. Examine these at a minimum, please. They are not that lengthy to read. Thank you. [18][19][20]
Then we can move onto the Venona Monographs. This quote from Benson & Warner, if you stop and think about it for a moment, is one of the most powerful paragraphs penned by anyone, anywhere, over the past 60 years:
"The tacit decision to keep the translated messages secret carried a political and social price for the country. Debates over the extent of Soviet espionage in the United States were polarized in the dearth of reliable information then in the public domain. Anti-Communists suspected that some spies—perhaps including a few who were known to the US Government—remained at large. Those who criticized the government’s loyalty campaign as an over-reaction, on the other hand, wondered if some defendants were being scapegoated; they seemed to sense that the public was not being told the whole truth about the investigations of such suspects as Julius Rosenberg and Judith Coplon. Given the dangerous international situation and what was known by the government at that time, however, continued secrecy was not illogical. With the Korean war raging and the prospect of war with the Soviet Union a real possibility, military and intelligence leaders almost certainly believed that any cryptologic edge that America gained over the Soviets was too valuable to concede—even if it was already known to Moscow.[21]

I've already read this. It does not in any way justify McCarthy exaggerating data in his speech to the senate, getting a respected and popular teacher fired from the NY Public School system, purging state department libraries of writers like Hellman, White, Hammett, etc., or implying on national television that a young attorney is a communist after he'd privately agreed not to do this.

Nor does it justify the McCarthyISM of that era, the blacklisting of writers like Dalton Trumbo and Arthur Miller (Is DEATH OF A SALESMAN another one of those "subversive" works you'd like to see purged? How about THE CRUCIBLE?) and performers like Zero Mostel (Should recorderings of the Broadway production of FIDDLER ON THE ROOF be tracked down and destroyed?) and Philip Loeb. The latter by the way was one of those "poor schmucks" who lost his job and career -- and committed suicide as a direct result.

Is it your claim that the world has become so dangerous, so uncertain, that the right to dissent should be tossed out? --PF Fox 13:54, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Debates over the extent of Soviet espionage in the United States were polarized in the dearth of reliable information then in the public domain
What does this sentence mean? RobS 13:57, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

It means that the public did not have all the information about Soviet espionage at that time. So what?

What information since revealed justifies McCarthy exaggerating data in his speech to the senate, getting a respected and popular teacher fired from the NY Public School system, purging state department libraries of writers like Hellman, White, Hammett, etc., or implying on national television that a young attorney is a communist after he'd privately agreed not to do this? What information since revealed justifies the blacklisting of Dalton Trumbo, Arthur Miller, Zero Mostel, and Phil Loeb? Did the world become safer for Democracy after Loeb killed himself? Would it be safer if Trumbo's films were locked away where nobody could see them? If DEATH OF A SALESMAN and THE CRUCIBLE were no longer read or performed?

I'm not afraid to answer your questions. What scares you about mine? --PF Fox 14:12, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

So are you inferring McCarthy himself had all the facts? RobS 14:19, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I'll answer your question after you answer mine.

Again. What information since revealed justifies McCarthy exaggerating data in his speech to the senate, getting a respected and popular teacher fired from the NY Public School system, purging state department libraries of writers like Hellman, White, Hammett, etc., or implying on national television that a young attorney is a communist after he'd privately agreed not to do this? What information since revealed justifies the blacklisting of Dalton Trumbo, Arthur Miller, Zero Mostel, and Phil Loeb? Did the world become safer for Democracy after Loeb killed himself? Would it be safer if Trumbo's films were locked away where nobody could see them? If DEATH OF A SALESMAN and THE CRUCIBLE were no longer read or performed? --PF Fox 14:23, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

What information can he "exaggerate" when he didn't have the correct, and/or full information then? RobS 14:26, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I've already described at length his exaggerations about the Lee list before the senate. Now, I've made a patient and good faith effort to answer your questions, Rob. I'll not answer any more until you make a similar effort and answer mine.

Again. What information since revealed justifies McCarthy exaggerating data in his speech to the senate, getting a respected and popular teacher fired from the NY Public School system, purging state department libraries of writers like Hellman, White, Hammett, etc., or implying on national television that a young attorney is a communist after he'd privately agreed not to do this? What information since revealed justifies the blacklisting of Dalton Trumbo, Arthur Miller, Zero Mostel, and Phil Loeb? Did the world become safer for Democracy after Loeb killed himself? Would it be safer if Trumbo's films were locked away where nobody could see them? If DEATH OF A SALESMAN and THE CRUCIBLE were no longer read or performed? --PF Fox 14:30, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I'll not answer any more until you make a similar effort and answer mine
Succinctly, I am a research historian. My only concern is to discern facts. You appear to be on an ideological crusade, and new information does not deter you from an obsessive hatred of Joseph McCarthy. I do not understand this, and I'm not certain understanding it would matter anyway. RobS 14:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

And yet you seem oddly unwilling to share those facts.

Most of the research historians I've known have had no trouble answering simple questions. In fact, they welcome such questions and tend to be quite direct and lucid in their responses. I do wonder where you got your degree in history, whether it is a graduate or undergraduate degree, and where, aside from here, you have been published as a research historian.

Again, I've made a point of answering your questions. You seem afraid of answering mine. Your unwillingness to answer leaves me with no choice but to draw the most logical -- and sadly, unflattering -- conclusions about how you view dissent in this country, how deeply you fear it, and how eager you are to throw away the rights that Thomas Jefferson considered so important. --PF Fox 15:48, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

This is just more nonsense; how members of the majority coalition for 20 years are considered "dissenters" I haven't a clue. [22] RobS 16:24, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I was talking specifically about the people McCarthy targeted, not about the Democratic party as a whole. But I suspect you knew that. --PF Fox 18:27, 31 March 2007 (EDT)


Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found
Personal tools