Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
296,243
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 507:
Line 507: − +
→Cropped section placed here for discussion: typo
::I think the overkill nature of it backfires and generates sympathy for McCarthy. But McCarthy's critics just can't seem to grasp that. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:03, 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. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
==Cropped section places here for discussion==
==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.
: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.