Changes

:(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;

:(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;

:(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 of 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.

:(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 byu 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 dicharge 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?

:(D) Undersecretary Puerifoy, a Democrat appointed by Truman and confirmed byu 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 dicharge 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 imagiantion, 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.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:32, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Summary analysis: The evidence now shows the controversy around these numbers was not a matter of McCarthy's imagiantion, 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.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:32, 22 March 2007 (EDT)