679
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 439:
Line 439: + + + + +
no edit summary
: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 [http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/watt_interview_3.pdf Transcript of an interview with Ruth Young Watt], via Senate.gov --[[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:17, 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 [http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/watt_interview_3.pdf Transcript of an interview with Ruth Young Watt], via Senate.gov --[[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
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?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)