How do Americans today view Joseph McCarthy - Page 3 - Historum

HammockHank · April 7th, 2012, 04:26 AM

Joe McCarthy was a damned good baseball manager. He led the Chicago Cubs to the World Series in 1929 losing to the "Mack AttacK' Athletics in five games.

"Marse Joe" moved to the Yankees in 1931 and led the "Bronx Bombers" to eight World Series titles in nine tries in the years 1931 through 1945. After managing the Yankees for 35 games in 1946 he resigned do to health issues but most probably due to differences with team GM Larry McPhail.

In 1948 "Marse Joe" returned to MLB as manager of the Red Sox where he led the beantowners to a one game playoff with the Yankees for the AL pennant in 1949.

He finished his managerial career in 1950 with the Red Sox and still holds the all time winning percentage of .614. He was inducted to the Baseball HOF in 1957.

**diddyriddick** · April 7th, 2012, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shinobu Sensui

I'm behind your back! As Nicholas Von Hoffman said in Washington Post back in 1996: McCarthy "was closer to the truth than those who ridicule him".

Having said that though, I genuine do feel he went overboard at times when he accused with little or no evidence to the contrary.

Call me naive, but I still believe in the presumption of innocence until PROVEN guilty.

The bottom line is that McCarthy accused people of being communist without a shred of evidence. That he MAY have exposed a few communists is strictly coincidental. He ruined lives on the altar of personal ambition.

monsieurdl · April 7th, 2012, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike McClure

But he was getting that evidence from J. Edgar Hoover.

He said he had this huge list of names, and in the end that was a bald faced lie.

monsieurdl · April 7th, 2012, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by okamido

Then prove it incorrect, point by point, and without citing Navasky and The Nation. Otherwise I think that classifying these men as you have is somewhat unfair, especially based off of Venona being documented outside of Klehr and Haynes, whom I have never heard of as 'psuedo-historians' till right at this point. That is unless I was to count the opinion of Communist Party USA, which I do not.

My problem is the fact that they have taken the record of one source like Vassiliev's notebooks and made an open and shut case when this is impossible to do. No one without an agenda could possibly do such a thing... what competent historian takes one source and makes definitive claims, particularly a source that has code names and fragments of information? I have every right to be highly suspicious of these men and what they are trying to do- they are just as guilty as McCarthy was of clouding the real truth, and it makes me mad.

Quote:

This is one of a series of work-in-progress dossiers intended to help American scholars and students in their use of Alexander Vassiliev’s Notebooks as a historical source. Unfortunately, “Vassiliev Notebooks Concordance,” compiled by historian John Earl Haynes and posted at Woodrow Wilson Institute’s website does not provide the necessary background information. Moreover, in a number of cases the information it provides may be misleading, confusing and simply not true.

In this dossier you may find discussion of some of the most obvious cases of misidentification of some of the cover names that appear in Vassiliev’s notebooks.

» Alexander Vassiliev

Quote:

Despite the importance and authenticity of this historical source, its reading and interpretation is best undertaken with extreme caution. First, with all due respect for the outstanding work of the Venona translators, some of the English translations are not quite accurate to a Russian eye – particularly the re-translations of Russian translations from English. Second, some problems that are obvious to a Russian may have originated at the time a document was written, due to a combination of objective and subjective factors, such as an operative’s erroneous claim or judgment, or an attempt to enhance the perceived importance of his/her assets or achievements. Third, most, if not all, of the cables were decrypted only partially – with the result that, too often, a considerable part of a cable remained un-decrypted and its content hidden. And last but not least, the Soviet intelligence cables decrypted during the course of the Venona operation represented only a tiny portion of the overall World War II-period traffic, which totaled more than one million cables. Hence, there is a possibility that an exculpating cable, an alternative report, or an important clue could be lurking in the un-decrypted 99 percent or so of the overall traffic.

Quote:

In Vassiliev’s notes on more than two dozen World War II-period documents, Harry Dexter White appears under three pseudonyms, “Jurist,” “Richard” and “Reed.” Since Vassiliev never saw a file dedicated to White (“for unexplained reasons,” as he said 2), his notes do not provide an unequivocal answer about the nature of White’s relationship to Soviet intelligence. The record is too convoluted, ambiguous and largely circumstantial to be considered grounds for “closing the case.” However, it does shed new and important light on White’s relationship with Soviet intelligence and, rather than closing the case, puts the existing body of evidence to a serious test.

Harry Dexter White in SPIES: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America (2009)
The story of Harry Dexter White, as it appears in the notes Vassiliev took on more than two dozen KGB foreign intelligence documents, got little attention from Vassiliev’s second American co-authors, historians John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr. This is particularly striking in view of the fact that a lengthy opening chapter of their book, entitled “Alger Hiss: Case Closed,” is devoted to another landmark story, that of Alger Hiss. For an impartial historian this choice of emphasis is puzzling: the story of Alger Hiss has commonly been viewed in the United States as an important part of the narrative about Soviet military intelligence, and this book is devoted to the history of KGB operations in the United States. At the same time, the story of Harry Dexter White – a key figure in the creation of the post-World War II economic order known as the Bretton Woods system – is considered part and parcel of the history of KGB operations during the World War II period. Yet while the Alger Hiss chapter takes up 32 pages in SPIES, White gets only a three-and-a-half page section in a chapter entitled “Infiltration of the U.S. Government” (pp. 258-262). There are also a few references to White cited in other chapters.

» Alexander Vassiliev’s Notes and Harry Dexter White - DocumentsTalk.com

Pirate of the Caribbean · April 7th, 2012, 06:43 AM

Unfortunately, more people than I would like to think view him as a decent guy. I view him as yet another reason that America fueled the fire that we couldn't be allies with the USSR. We pretty much started it by refusing to recognize the USSR in 1917.

**Mike McClure** · April 7th, 2012, 06:46 AM

What gets missed in the story of Joseph McCarthy is that McCarthy was not behind it all. Several more important men were behind the red scare but McCarthy was the one that took the fall. McCarthy was a patsy.

monsieurdl · April 7th, 2012, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike McClure

What gets missed in the story of Joseph McCarthy is that McCarthy was not behind it all. Several more important men were behind the red scare but McCarthy was the one that took the fall. McCarthy was a patsy.

You cannot seriously believe that, can you? So now there should be another conspiracy theory, like Oswald, that now McCarthy was a poor pawn in the game of anti-Communism?

Wheeling, WV, 1950:

Quote:

Ladies and gentlemen, tonight as we celebrate the one hundred forty-first birthday of one of the greatest men in American history, I would like to be able to talk about what a glorious day today is in the history of the world. As we celebrate the birth of this man who with his whole heart and soul hated war, I would like to be able to speak of peace in our time—of war being outlawed—and of world-wide disarmament. These would be truly appropriate things to be able to mention as we celebrate the birthday of Abraham Lincoln.
Five years after a world war has been won, men’s hearts should anticipate a long peace—and men’s minds should be free from the heavy weight that comes with war. But this is not such a period—for this is not a period of peace. This is a time of “the cold war.” This is a time when all the world is split into two vast, increasingly hostile armed camps—a time of a great armament race.
Today we can almost physically hear the mutterings and rumblings of an invigorated god of war. You can see it, feel it, and hear it all the way from the Indochina hills, from the shores of Formosa, right over into the very heart of Europe itself.
The one encouraging thing is that the “mad moment” has not yet arrived for the firing of the gun or the exploding of the bomb which will set civilization about the final task of destroying itself. There is still a hope for peace if we finally decide that no longer can we safely blind our eyes and close our ears to those facts which are shaping up more and more clearly . . . and that is that we are now engaged in a show-down fight . . . not the usual war between nations for land areas or other material gains, but a war between two diametrically opposed ideologies.
The great difference between our western Christian world and the atheistic Communist world is not political, gentlemen, it is moral. For instance, the Marxian idea of confiscating the land and factories and running the entire economy as a single enterprise is momentous. Likewise, Lenin’s invention of the one-party police state as a way to make Marx’s idea work is hardly less momentous.
Stalin’s resolute putting across of these two ideas, of course, did much to divide the world. With only these differences, however, the east and the west could most certainly still live in peace.
The real, basic difference, however, lies in the religion of immoralism . . . invented by Marx, preached feverishly by Lenin, and carried to unimaginable extremes by Stalin. This religion of immoralism, if the Red half of the world triumphs—and well it may, gentlemen—this religion of immoralism will more deeply wound and damage mankind than any conceivable economic or political system.
Karl Marx dismissed God as a hoax, and Lenin and Stalin have added in clear-cut, unmistakable language their resolve that no nation, no people who believe in a god, can exist side by side with their communistic state.
Karl Marx, for example, expelled people from his Communist Party for mentioning such things as love, justice, humanity or morality. He called this “soulful ravings” and “sloppy sentimentality.” . . .
Today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between communistic atheism and Christianity. The modern champions of communism have selected this as the time, and ladies and gentlemen, the chips are down—they are truly down.
Lest there be any doubt that the time has been chosen, let us go directly to the leader of communism today—Joseph Stalin. Here is what he said—not back in 1928, not before the war, not during the war—but 2 years after the last war was ended: “To think that the Communist revolution can be carried out peacefully, within the framework of a Christian democracy, means one has either gone out of one’s mind and lost all normal understanding, or has grossly and openly repudiated the Communist revolution.” . . .
Ladies and gentlemen, can there be anyone tonight who is so blind as to say that the war is not on? Can there by anyone who fails to realize that the Communist world has said the time is now? . . . that this is the time for the show-down between the democratic Christian world and the communistic atheistic world?
Unless we face this fact, we shall pay the price that must be paid by those who wait too long.
Six years ago, . . . there was within the Soviet orbit, 180,000,000 people. Lined up on the antitotalitarian side there were in the world at that time, roughly 1,625,000,000 people. Today, only six years later, there are 800,000,000 people under the absolute domination of Soviet Russia—an increase of over 400 percent. On our side, the figure has shrunk to around 500,000,000. In other words, in less than six years, the odds have changed from 9 to 1 in our favor to 8 to 5 against us.
This indicates the swiftness of the tempo of Communist victories and American defeats in the cold war. As one of our outstanding historical figures once said, “When a great democracy is destroyed, it will not be from enemies from without, but rather because of enemies from within.” . . .
The reason why we find ourselves in a position of impotency is not because our only powerful potential enemy has sent men to invade our shores . . . but rather because of the traitorous actions of those who have been treated so well by this Nation. It has not been the less fortunate, or members of minority groups who have been traitorous to this Nation, but rather those who have had all the benefits that the wealthiest Nation on earth has had to offer . . . the finest homes, the finest college education and the finest jobs in government we can give.
This is glaringly true in the State Department. There the bright young men who are born with silver spoons in their mouths are the ones who have been most traitorous. . . .
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. . . .
As you know, very recently the Secretary of State proclaimed his loyalty to a man guilty of what has always been considered as the most abominable of all crimes—being a traitor to the people who gave him a position of great trust—high treason. . . .
He has lighted the spark which is resulting in a moral uprising and will end only when the whole sorry mess of twisted, warped thinkers are swept from the national scene so that we may have a new birth of honesty and decency in government.

Quote:

Joseph McCarthy to President Harry Truman, February 11, 1950

Quote:

In the Lincoln Day speech at Wheeling Thursday night I stated that the State Department harbors a nest of Communists and Communist sympathizers who are helping to shape our foreign policy. I further stated that I have in my possession the names of 57 Communists who are in the State Department at present. A State Department spokesman promptly denied this, claiming that there is not a single Communist in the Department. You can convince yourself of the falsity of the State Department claim very easily. You will recall that you personally appointed a board to screen State Department employees for the purpose of weeding out fellow travelers—men whom the board considered dangerous to the security of this Nation. Your board did a painstaking job, and named hundreds which had been listed as dangerous to the security of the Nation, because of communistic connections.
While the records are not available to me, I know absolutely of one group of approximately 300 certified to the Secretary for discharge because of communism. He actually only discharged approximately 80. I understand that this was done after lengthy consultation with the now-convicted traitor, Alger Hiss. I would suggest, therefore, Mr. President, that you simply pick up your phone and ask Mr. Acheson how many of those whom your board had labeled as dangerous Communists he failed to discharge. The day the House Un-American Activities Committee exposed Alger Hiss as an important link in an international Communist spy ring you signed an order forbidding the State Department’s giving any information in regard to the disloyalty or the communistic connections of anyone in that Department to the Congress.
Despite this State Department black-out, 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 longer list by ordering Secretary Acheson to give you a list of those whom your own board listed as being disloyal and who are still working in the State Department. I believe the following is the minimum which can be expected of you in this case.
1. That you demand that Acheson give you and the proper congressional committee the names and a complete report on all of those who were placed in the Department by Alger Hiss, and all of those still working in the State Department who were listed by your board as bad security risks because of their communistic connections.
2. That you promptly revoke the order in which you provided under no circumstances could a congressional committee obtain any information or help in exposing Communists.
Failure on your part will label the Democratic Party of being the bedfellow of international communism. Certainly this label is not deserved by the hundreds of thousands of loyal American Democrats throughout the Nation, and by the sizable number of able loyal Democrats in both the Senate and the House.

"Enemies from Within": Senator Joseph R. McCarthy's Accusations of Disloyalty

**diddyriddick** · April 7th, 2012, 07:22 AM

Thanks for the information, Monsieurdl.....You saved me some trouble. While there may have been money men urging McCarthy on, he was up to his elbows in the witch hunt.

monsieurdl · April 7th, 2012, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by diddyriddick

Thanks for the information, Monsieurdl.....You saved me some trouble. While there may have been money men urging McCarthy on, he was up to his elbows in the witch hunt.

I feel sometimes like instead of seeking better answers in historical research, we're trying to totally rewrite everything just for the sake of it, to sell books based on new information to shock rather than to analyze with a neutral eye, and I am concerned.

I would love to be able to find the absolute truth, but unfortunately in most cases we may never find it. We shouldn't allow some to mold it like Play-Doh with a cookie cutter and obscure this quest, you know?

Robespierre · April 7th, 2012, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike McClure

But he was getting that evidence from J. Edgar Hoover.

No.

Most of the information that McCarthy had, specifically from the Wheeling Speech, was from a report from the State Department. He basically used old reports and distorted the information over and over again. In a sense, some of what he said had some merit (they were from government documents) but the way he used them were entirely political.

There is historical fact that communists were in the government. But like I said, he distorted information for his own benefit.