![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I have no vested interest in this issue. I am a libertarian, and I believe people should be free to hold any opinions they wish. I just have one little fact that I'd like to clarify because I think it is central to this whole topic and that is, 'Was anybody ever WRONGFULLY ACCUSED by McCarthy'? Of all the people McCarthy insinuated, was even one 'not' a communist? If somebody could clarify this matter for me, I'd appreciate it.
For lack of a better place to ask, I'll put this question here: Could someone please elucidate on the utter disregard shown for the constitutional prohibition against "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble" demonstrated at almost all levels of government during this period? I've often wondered where these so-called "protections" went during this process (other than out-the-window...) In theory, shouldn't each and every one of the people targetted by this witchhunt have been able to simply hand him a copy of the Bill of Rights, point to #1, then flip him the bird and walk out? In any event, it seems that the willingness of the "establishment" to ignore such a basic tenant of its core beliefs is an important aspect of the essential evil that McCarthyism represents, and as such I would think that it would deserve some kind of comment in the main article. The greatest irony about this entire episode (which is, ironically, unstated in either of the sections below that are dedicated to irony...) was McCarthy's eager willingness to violate the American Constitution in order to "protect America". In any event, I would appreciate hearing from someone who would be able to "speak" authoritatively on these things, and (hopefully) be willing to post their insights.
I think this is the better way to go, rather than a redirect to Joseph McCarthy. The subject which goes under McCarthyism is much broader and longer lived than his activities but I'm not sure the Red Scare would be that good a title. Anti-communism is much broader and covers international issues and much discussion of why communism is opposed. I would be open to a redirect to red scare should that seem appropriate, but not to a reversion to a redirect to Joseph McCarthy. User:Fredbauder
I would prefer the term "McCarthyism" to "the red scare", at least for the discussion of things like the House Un-American Activities Committee. (The term "red scare" sounds rather journalistic.) In fact, a better term than "red scare" would be "Anti-Communism" or "Anti-Comunist movement" or "Anti-Communist witchhunts" (maybe a bit non-NPOV) or "Anti-Communist hysteria" (again, maybe not NPOV). -- SJK
Anti-communism is an existing article, right now it is pretty broad. Perhaps the McCarthy era? Anyway the intended scope of the article is the intense episode from the end of World War II through the fifties. User:Fredbauder
Weren't several duly elected Socialists denied their seats in 1919?
Jesus, trying to find reliable secondary sources on this topic on the internet is quite possibly the most futile thing i've ever done. Having been reduced to being a proper historian and actually *gasp* reading the primary sources (the Venona releases that are available online), and tried to get a reasonable sampling of what's out there, i'm inclined to agree with Ortolan's (implied) assessment that most sane people seem to think the cases against Hiss and the Rosenbergs were justified, but i'm going to email the guy who supervised me for modern American history and see what his take on this is.
To discuss the historiography, Ortolan, I don't think anyone reputable (yes, i'm being happily subjective here, because this is a talk page and we're allowed) has ever seriously denied that there were Communist spies in the American government (although there were a hell of a lot more in the British government, which is where the USSR got most of its info. Fuchs did most of his spying in the UK, not the US.). There's basically two debates. One is - did the wider elements of McCarthyism (government tests, HUAC, SISS, the little HUACs, all the loyalty test nonsense) actually do anything useful against Communist espionage? Just about everyone agrees that some elements were pointless and harmful, the debate is how many (right-wingers would say the internal government probes were useful, left-wingers would say the lot were wrong and useless) and how far they were all controlled by central governments for sinister political purposes. The other debate is, did the trials catch the right people? This is (was) the contention of Hiss, and of his and the Rosenberg's supporters - they wouldn't deny there were spies in the government, they simply say that the FBI got the wrong people. There's not actually much to link the two debates, despite surface appearances - the Hiss / Rosenberg thing is basically a whodunnit story, it's not got a lot of politics behind it, except later-day politics.
If someone wants to vet my stuff for NPOV, i'm a classic pinko, in that I think just about all the manifestations of mccarthyism were bizarre and wrong, unconstitutional and dangerous, though there were indeed a rather small number of not particularly successful USSR spies whom the FBI probably did quite well to root out, though if I were a citizen at all concerned with legal and constitutional proprieties I wouldn't look too hard at their methods. Most of the rest (in my view) was simple exploitation of public fear for political ends, the oldest trick in the book of democratic politics. The tougher you looked on Reds, regardless of whether what you were doing was actually remotely productive in terms of protecting the US nation, the better you looked as an electoral prospect, and this is what drove HUAC, SISS, McCarthy's committee, the little HUACs, the prosecution of CPUSA (who were probably quite harmless, and didn't have very strong links at *all* to the USSR or to the Communist spies - the USSR sent them cash every now and again and that was basically it, they knew there was bog all chance of a revolution in the US so it was more for appearances' sake than anything else) and all that jazz.
Whew, that was long.
P.S. Oh yeah, Ortolan, the existence of strongly anti-communist liberals like yourself in the McCarthyist period is a well-known historical fact, one of the standard textbooks on the matter notes that one of the most unusual elements of the whole mess politically was that pretty much every faction, except the Communists themselves, were united in denouncing the Communists. You wouldn't have found this in, for instance, the early to mid 1940s, the 1960s, or much of the 1970s (but probably again in the 1980s).
I am unlikely to really get up to speed on the actual guilt or innocence of individuals like Hiss. We can say here that they were convicted and sometimes characterize the strength of the evidence. The case against Ethel Rosenburg was strikingly weak. The KGB turned to paying spies, and generally avoided contact with American radicals. As to the Communist party, until Gus Hall defied Gorbachev and got cut off from funds it was to a certain extent funded by the Soviet government and was expected to conform to the line established in Moscow, but all that was more a source of weakness rather than strength as the events of history took their toll on the loyalty and enthusiasm of members and potential supporters. Fred Bauder
What about a mention of The Crucible by Arthur Miller?
I was disappointed to see that, in the process of doing a total rewrite, the little bit that I added about Edward R. Murrow in the earlier version was removed from the article as it now stands. I actually think that some mention of Murrow is germane to the topic.
soulpatch
Hi soulpatch, I moved this section:
My reasoning is that this article is on the subject of "McCarthyism", which is a fairly specific movement at a fairly specific time in history. There have been many times (including now) that opponents of one thing or another have attempted to label it a "modern McCarthyism", but putting all those in sort of dilutes the real meaning of the article. Could what you wrote get worked into one of the current events articles on the iraq situation, instead of putting it here where it implies it is an important part of the definition of McCarthyism?
Okay, how about this? I added a new section that described the concept of "McCarthyism" as having been generalized to refer to any similar kind of persecution, and I included my example of the SAG pronouncement as falling under that heading. soulpatch
Er, forgive my naivety here, but in what way is "From the viewpoint of people who were caught up in the conflict without having done anything objectionable, it was a massive violation of civil and Constitutional rights." more NPOV than "From the viewpoint of the thousands of innocents who were caught up in the conflict it was a massive violation..."? Isn't "objectionable" POV?
Chips Critic
22:04, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
and making a monkey out of yourself by accusing innocent people
The opening sentence depicts "McCarthyism" as an era. I wish someone would explain this. Thx.
Nobs 15:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(I moved this from "Critique" where I'd originally placed it):
18:27, May 13, 2005 User:Mister Farkas (removed false quotation (I checked transcript+audio) & added link to new Army-McCarthy Hearings)
I think we should avoid drawing our own conclusions about McCarthyism. If these are true, maybe it would be better to include them in the relevant places in the article, and let readers spot the irony on their own. Do we doubt some people we persecuted by McCarthy? If not, we shouldn't use that term in quotes. Also, are we sure that guilty people went free due to an overreaction against McCarthyism? That seems like a surmise that would be difficult to prove. - Willmcw 00:40, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Let me describe the ironies along Republican/Democratic lines, though this probably should not go into the article. Republicans are known for their paranoia regarding government leaks ( Pentagon Papers, White House Plumbers etc), yet Mccarthy's ticket to fame for his crusade against government leakers was bought with a government leak. FBI report referencing "206" Soviet espionage agents, pages 20, 74 & 75 . By contrast, Democrats are often known as the proponents of openness in government, yet a secret cabal of 5 FBI agents, 3 Army crpytographers and few higher ups in this Mitilary-FBI collusion made a political decision with enormous consequences on domestic politics for 50 years, and many of the guilty benefitted from this. Nobs01 20:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In response to inquiry:
That is correct. McCarthy did not Chair the Army-McCarthy Hearings. pg. 8 nobs 21:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Which people walked away free under the cloak of being McCarthy victims? It'd be better if we named them. Otherwise this sentence shold probably be removed. - Willmcw 19:43, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
The word "irony" is what the Moynihan Commission Report uses in Appendix A, 7 The Cold War [3]
It may be very good NPOV language. Well worth reading its entire context. nobs 19:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Would someone educated in the history of the US please tell me if it would be adequate do call the McCarthyism era a fascist-like period in the US? LtDoc 03:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, chairman of the Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy, was asked in 1996 to write a new Introduction to the reissue of Sociologist Edward Shils 1956 book The Torment of Secrecy: the Background and Consequences of American Security Policies. Richard Gid Powers says Shils book set Moynhian thinking about how secrecy damaged the United States during the Cold War. Shils book analyzed McCarthyism and the loyalty programs of the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. It considered them "populist, anti-intellectual rituals of symbolic secrecy", intended to "stigmatize and silence an elite inconveniently skeptical about the threat of domestic Communism and opposed to the right-wing anti-Communist goal of repressing the radical Left". Moynihan, a liberal anti-Communist, shared Shil's contempt for McCarthyism, but also began wondering about the flipside of McCarthyism: a reaction that took the form of modish anti-anti-Communism, that considered any discussion of the very real threat Communism posed to Western values and security as impolite. Moynihan believed less secrecy could perhaps have prevented the liberal overreaction to McCarthyism as well as McCarthyism itself.
Link to Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States#Anti-Americanism for discussion on what McCarthyism is. nobs 03:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
The Note on the page is not properly referenced or sourced to the text and needs to be done so. It may be regarded as extraneous at this point if it is not properly cited and clarified as to relevency. nobs 20:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
The essence of McCarthyism was the persecution of individuals based on their supposed associations. Are we doubting that individuals were perecuted? Every entry on this list has an article which discusses their persecution: David Bohm, Charlie Chaplin, Aaron Copland, Dashiell Hammett, Lillian Hellman, Arthur Miller, Paul Robeson, Waldo Salt, the "Hollywood Ten" and others on the Hollywood blacklist. The Hollywood Blacklist did exist and it was part of McCarthyism. To contend otherwise is being argumentative. - Willmcw 20:19, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
What does this mean?:
Are we saying that we now know that people weren't persecuted, due to newly discovered info in the KGB archives? That it was all a misunderstanding and that people were not actually blacklisted after all? I don't understand how the KGB archives affect the Hollywood blacklist. - Willmcw 07:42, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
I never said that everyone on the list was part of the Hollyoowd blacklist. My questions to you are why don't you believe people were persecuted under McCarthyism, and what bearing does the new evidence have on the cases of those persecuted? - Willmcw 20:20, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
Again, "McCarthyism" is not a slander on McCarthy. If anything it is an indictment of American political culture. I'm not asserting that thousands were blacklisted - I was copying your assertion. Obviously, some number were blacklisted or the whole thing was just a mass delusion in which people just imagined that they were suddenly unable to get employment. What is the U.S. Congress' definition of McCarthyism? You refer to it above. Thanks, - Willmcw 17:43, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
The user nobs states in one his interventions: I am assuming first off, that this in an unqualified list, being there are no citations on any of the biogarphies. Is nobs expecting that the wikipedia page on McCarthyism itself should refer to the various biographies of the individuals cited? But I don't think it is necessary or advisable because, as Willmcw rightly says, the relevant information is availble in the respective pages.
Yet, on David Bohm I would like to quote Martin Gardner, the eminent American skeptic: Bohm was born in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, in 1917. When he obtained his doctorate in physics under J. Robert Oppenheimer, at the University of California, Berkeley, Bohm was a dedicated Marxist and a strong admirer of Lenin, Stalin, and the Soviet system. These opinions drew the fire of Senator Joseph McCarthy. Bohm's refusal to name names resulted in his indictment for contempt of Congress. Princeton University, which had hired him, let him go. No other university in America wanted him. After brief periods of teaching in Brazil, Israel, and England, he finally became a professor at London's Birkbeck College where he remained until he retired. (David Bohm and Jiddo Krishnamurti - Skeptical Inquirer, July, 2000). MANOJTV 07:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps laying out some basic ideas will help gain some understanding of the magnitude of the problem. Let's begin with the difference between CPUSA membership and espionage. Also, persons employed in government and government contractors vs private citizens. Also wartime activities vs pre-War & post-War activities.
Membership in CPUSA was never legal among government employees, or employees of government contractors, pre-War, wartime, and post-War. However, membership does not imply espionage, unless a person had some knowledge of it without being actually involved.
The extent of Soviet espionage in the United States, and CPUSA secret apparatus assistance, spans a timeframe of at least 27 years (1921 - 1948). The number of persons involved over that timespan was somewhere between 800 and 1200. The number of known cases of Americans who had some sort of covert laiasons with Soviet intelligence is 523. The number of Americans identified, as of 2005, who engaged in espionage activity on behalf of the Soviet Union, is ~ 311.
Now, the various Congressional and Executive branch investigations of the 1940s and 1950s present a host of problems. While membership in the CPUSA does not constitute espionage, it does not absolve a person employed in government or employed by a government contractor. In fact, they are to a limited extent complicit, in that often times the purpose of their involvement in various Communist front organizations was simply to confuse counterintelligence investigators and consume resources, to aid & assist those actively involved in espionage by confusing the trail for investigators. Too often, the various investigative bodies focused too much on membership, and those involved in espionage escaped detection. This is a testament to the effectiveness of Soviet, and Communist subversion; that they were able to send counterintelligence investigators spinning in circles.
These are some basic points to consider, by no means all. I invite criticism & refutations, which I'm sure will happen. But if we can agree upon a method of approach, then deal with each claimant to "victimhood" or "persecution" on a case by case basis, it may be time saving for all interested parties. Thank you. nobs 20:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
The user nobs writes: It would be a shame to spend too much time on repeating these lies only to have it all deleted as the documention emerges, which it will.
Even though the user doesn't have sufficient information at present to exonerate McCarthy, he is cocksure that such information will emerge. While his/her enthusiasm is understandable to a certain extent, the user doesn't stop there. In his/her attempt to white wash McCarthy, the user maligns through convoluted arguments, in true McCarthyite fashion I would say, every individual associated with not only CPUSA but even its frontal organizations! Have a look at the user's words:
In fact, they are to a limited extent complicit, in that often times the purpose of their involvement in various Communist front organizations was simply to confuse counterintelligence investigators and consume resources, to aid & assist those actively involved in espionage by confusing the trail for investigators
What evidence the user has to claim that the very purpose (often times!) of people joining these groups was to confuse investigators and actively assist those involved in espionage? Nothing. But it will emerge!
No doubt, McCarthy's name should be cleared if he were not guilty. But as things stand today, historical evidence is heavily loaded against him, inspite of nobs. MANOJTV 07:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Response to question regarding "limited extent complicit" (in this regard, the discussion is focusing on CPUSA members employed in government & members of Comintern affiliate organizations but who were not actively involved in espionage). Numerous source citations can be developed regarding the general nature of espionage activity, and particularly Soviet & Communist espionage activity since the 1920s, both worldwide and within the United States.
Again, membership does not absolve a government employee or government contract employee from at least two violations of U.S. law. The question here will depend upon whether or not an individual was "witting" or "unwitting" as to being used to confuse the limited resources of counterintelligence. What I would propose we do, is not reargue much the same B.S. that created partisan division in the 1950s; I propose a focus to be made on espionage activity, others questions can be dealt with later.
In 1954, Hubert H. Humphrey, often regarded as the paragon of the Democratic Party's commitment to human rights, proposed making simple membership in the CPUSA for anyone, government employee or not, a felony. So it is ridiculous to assume that anti-Communist sentiment in America was limited to right-wing, neo-fascist neanderthal McCarthyites. But let me remind once again, the purpose now, as it should have been then, is not to crucify those who held mere membership; it is to separate those actively involved in espionage from those, I will call, more naive simple members.
Membership for government employees & government contractors basically falls into two groups: (a) those ideological members who beleived in the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, did not respect the democratic process of a two party regime, etc., and (b) those who joined because it was the fashionable thing to do at the time & it just seemed all thier friends were members, so they felt peer pressure to do so. But in both cases, unless it can be proved they were working for the violent removal of the United States constitutional basis of government, it's not that big a deal. nobs 18:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
The political cartoon on the page was so NPOV, it was disgusting. Portraying McCarthy or "McCarthyism" in a bad light is not only POV, its also wrong. Its strange how nobody ever points out that mccarthy was trying to (and did) do a GOOD thing for america. Nobody points out that the people he suspected turned out to ACTUALLY BE SOVIET SPIES. nobody points out that mccarthy didnt want to go public with his info, that he was virtually forced to. Nobody points out these things.
If your gonna put a picture in an article, make sure it objectivly relates to the article. That one didnt, and now its gone.
-- NightDragon 03:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
This article is by no means encyclopedic, it is just BibbleBeltBarBabble. GOSH. (rs)
This article is now 25% fiction. So if we take the 37.5% POV, 37.5% NPOV, and 25% fictional allussions of McCarthyism, the neutral reader knowing nothing of its background, can clearly see it for what it is. nobs 00:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
An anonymous user 65.25.223.175 has made a series of edits to the Joseph McCarthy and McCarthyism articles. I showed up at some point in the middle just to read the articles, fixed a couple of spelling mistakes, and then noticed that I "interrupted" this user. I had a look at the edits and there are a lot of spelling mistakes and some statements that do not seem to be from a NPOV. There are probably people more qualified and knowledgeable than me on this topic, so when this user has finished his/her edits, perhaps someone can have a look at them and either just fix the spelling, or decide whether there needs to be discussion about POV. Thanks! -- Craig ( t| c) 10:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
The introduction to the article as it stands lacks NPOV, lending credence, as it does, to the McCarthyist assumption that communist subversion is or was in some past era the big issue. My understanding of NPOV would admit of dangers of subversion from a variety of political directions - including, topically, the McCarthyist subversion of freedom and democracy. Etaonsh 19:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Have therefore altered to 'alleged American Communist Party subversion.' Etaonsh 22:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Can we have some specifics here? - Willmcw 00:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
So, to take one example, you are asserting that Volkov was guilty but walked free due to his cloak of being a victim of McCarthyism. That is not reflected in your link. - Willmcw 01:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Reverted Anon and placed here,
Sourcing is required that any name on the list (or for that matter anyone else) was "jailed", etc. Also, note: the above reference is to the pre-McCarthy HUAC, and not to either Joseph McCarthy and/or the PSI. nobs 02:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I removed some irrelevant information from "contemporary use of the term." NotSuper 19:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Are a pundit's opinions on McCarthyism really something that needs to be listed, though? The only reason they support or denounce things is to advance their agenda. I wasn't trying to add POV, I just feel that it might be better to list someone that is actually objective about the matter. Surely there are people that supported McCarthy who have some credibility to them. That's what my concern was about, it had nothing to do with not wanting people that support McCarthy to be listed. But if no one has a problem with her being on there I won't pursue it further. NotSuper 02:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't really have any comment on whether the material that Pokey5945 copied from the Churchill article to this one is really useful here. I think it might indeed be a good example of some recent events, but it probably needs some more context here and backlinking. But unfortunately, the abovementioned editor really seems to have put it here as a ploy to impose a "no dissent, all anti-Churchill" agenda over on the Ward Churchill article. He's been very active with putting in largely POV material there, and recently deleted the same material he put here, in an effort to prevent the Churchill article from containing any material that puts Churchill's reception in context, or that might be seen as not anti-Churchill enough.
Anyway... if I can tempt any editors of this page over to that one, I would really welcome the help over there. It attracts a lot of POV warriors, as you might expect. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the bit about there actually being Soviet Union Agents in place should be in the intro?-- Samuel J. Howard 12:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
direct sources are needed for nearly all information in the Soviet Archives section. ASN 23:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
This article needs to make clear exactly which of McCarthy's accusations were true and which were not ... -- Nerd42 23:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
McCarthyism wasn't only internal US problem and this Wikipedia isn't an internal US text. I have presented the point of view of many in Eastern Europe: "From the viewpoint of many people living under Soviet regime the main problem of McCarthyism was that it was ineffective. Soviet spies and sympathizers in the United States acted against victims of Soviet oppressions, slandered them, helped to finance the crimes and wars e.g. by transfering technologies. Several anti-McCarthy movies have been produced. I don't know any one showing crimes of the evil system the US Communists supported - Collectivisation, Holodomor, forced deportations, mass executions." This text was removed as "silly". What is silly - millions of Soviet victims? US politicians supporting Katyn lies? Walter Duranty's prize? Xx236 15:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
You're Polish and you're pushing Anti-Soviet (by which you mean Anti-Russian) POV here as you do everywhere else.
"McCarthy began with a half truth, that a large foreign espionage ring existed within the government and the Truman administration was doing nothing about it; the other half truth was that the Truman administration was doing nothing about it because it did not know of the existence of the Venona project." This makes no sense to me. Someone please revise this sentence so people can tell what it means. TheTruth12 08:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The "Tensions of the times" section seems a bit long at 360 words. Do we need that much detail about the Cold War? - Will Beback 06:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
What makes this page so inviting for vandals? I mean, I can understand fuck, poop, and other such words, but McCarthyism!? PrometheusX303 04:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I have no vested interest in this issue. I am a libertarian, and I believe people should be free to hold any opinions they wish. I just have one little fact that I'd like to clarify because I think it is central to this whole topic and that is, 'Was anybody ever WRONGFULLY ACCUSED by McCarthy'? Of all the people McCarthy insinuated, was even one 'not' a communist? If somebody could clarify this matter for me, I'd appreciate it.
For lack of a better place to ask, I'll put this question here: Could someone please elucidate on the utter disregard shown for the constitutional prohibition against "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble" demonstrated at almost all levels of government during this period? I've often wondered where these so-called "protections" went during this process (other than out-the-window...) In theory, shouldn't each and every one of the people targetted by this witchhunt have been able to simply hand him a copy of the Bill of Rights, point to #1, then flip him the bird and walk out? In any event, it seems that the willingness of the "establishment" to ignore such a basic tenant of its core beliefs is an important aspect of the essential evil that McCarthyism represents, and as such I would think that it would deserve some kind of comment in the main article. The greatest irony about this entire episode (which is, ironically, unstated in either of the sections below that are dedicated to irony...) was McCarthy's eager willingness to violate the American Constitution in order to "protect America". In any event, I would appreciate hearing from someone who would be able to "speak" authoritatively on these things, and (hopefully) be willing to post their insights.
I think this is the better way to go, rather than a redirect to Joseph McCarthy. The subject which goes under McCarthyism is much broader and longer lived than his activities but I'm not sure the Red Scare would be that good a title. Anti-communism is much broader and covers international issues and much discussion of why communism is opposed. I would be open to a redirect to red scare should that seem appropriate, but not to a reversion to a redirect to Joseph McCarthy. User:Fredbauder
I would prefer the term "McCarthyism" to "the red scare", at least for the discussion of things like the House Un-American Activities Committee. (The term "red scare" sounds rather journalistic.) In fact, a better term than "red scare" would be "Anti-Communism" or "Anti-Comunist movement" or "Anti-Communist witchhunts" (maybe a bit non-NPOV) or "Anti-Communist hysteria" (again, maybe not NPOV). -- SJK
Anti-communism is an existing article, right now it is pretty broad. Perhaps the McCarthy era? Anyway the intended scope of the article is the intense episode from the end of World War II through the fifties. User:Fredbauder
Weren't several duly elected Socialists denied their seats in 1919?
Jesus, trying to find reliable secondary sources on this topic on the internet is quite possibly the most futile thing i've ever done. Having been reduced to being a proper historian and actually *gasp* reading the primary sources (the Venona releases that are available online), and tried to get a reasonable sampling of what's out there, i'm inclined to agree with Ortolan's (implied) assessment that most sane people seem to think the cases against Hiss and the Rosenbergs were justified, but i'm going to email the guy who supervised me for modern American history and see what his take on this is.
To discuss the historiography, Ortolan, I don't think anyone reputable (yes, i'm being happily subjective here, because this is a talk page and we're allowed) has ever seriously denied that there were Communist spies in the American government (although there were a hell of a lot more in the British government, which is where the USSR got most of its info. Fuchs did most of his spying in the UK, not the US.). There's basically two debates. One is - did the wider elements of McCarthyism (government tests, HUAC, SISS, the little HUACs, all the loyalty test nonsense) actually do anything useful against Communist espionage? Just about everyone agrees that some elements were pointless and harmful, the debate is how many (right-wingers would say the internal government probes were useful, left-wingers would say the lot were wrong and useless) and how far they were all controlled by central governments for sinister political purposes. The other debate is, did the trials catch the right people? This is (was) the contention of Hiss, and of his and the Rosenberg's supporters - they wouldn't deny there were spies in the government, they simply say that the FBI got the wrong people. There's not actually much to link the two debates, despite surface appearances - the Hiss / Rosenberg thing is basically a whodunnit story, it's not got a lot of politics behind it, except later-day politics.
If someone wants to vet my stuff for NPOV, i'm a classic pinko, in that I think just about all the manifestations of mccarthyism were bizarre and wrong, unconstitutional and dangerous, though there were indeed a rather small number of not particularly successful USSR spies whom the FBI probably did quite well to root out, though if I were a citizen at all concerned with legal and constitutional proprieties I wouldn't look too hard at their methods. Most of the rest (in my view) was simple exploitation of public fear for political ends, the oldest trick in the book of democratic politics. The tougher you looked on Reds, regardless of whether what you were doing was actually remotely productive in terms of protecting the US nation, the better you looked as an electoral prospect, and this is what drove HUAC, SISS, McCarthy's committee, the little HUACs, the prosecution of CPUSA (who were probably quite harmless, and didn't have very strong links at *all* to the USSR or to the Communist spies - the USSR sent them cash every now and again and that was basically it, they knew there was bog all chance of a revolution in the US so it was more for appearances' sake than anything else) and all that jazz.
Whew, that was long.
P.S. Oh yeah, Ortolan, the existence of strongly anti-communist liberals like yourself in the McCarthyist period is a well-known historical fact, one of the standard textbooks on the matter notes that one of the most unusual elements of the whole mess politically was that pretty much every faction, except the Communists themselves, were united in denouncing the Communists. You wouldn't have found this in, for instance, the early to mid 1940s, the 1960s, or much of the 1970s (but probably again in the 1980s).
I am unlikely to really get up to speed on the actual guilt or innocence of individuals like Hiss. We can say here that they were convicted and sometimes characterize the strength of the evidence. The case against Ethel Rosenburg was strikingly weak. The KGB turned to paying spies, and generally avoided contact with American radicals. As to the Communist party, until Gus Hall defied Gorbachev and got cut off from funds it was to a certain extent funded by the Soviet government and was expected to conform to the line established in Moscow, but all that was more a source of weakness rather than strength as the events of history took their toll on the loyalty and enthusiasm of members and potential supporters. Fred Bauder
What about a mention of The Crucible by Arthur Miller?
I was disappointed to see that, in the process of doing a total rewrite, the little bit that I added about Edward R. Murrow in the earlier version was removed from the article as it now stands. I actually think that some mention of Murrow is germane to the topic.
soulpatch
Hi soulpatch, I moved this section:
My reasoning is that this article is on the subject of "McCarthyism", which is a fairly specific movement at a fairly specific time in history. There have been many times (including now) that opponents of one thing or another have attempted to label it a "modern McCarthyism", but putting all those in sort of dilutes the real meaning of the article. Could what you wrote get worked into one of the current events articles on the iraq situation, instead of putting it here where it implies it is an important part of the definition of McCarthyism?
Okay, how about this? I added a new section that described the concept of "McCarthyism" as having been generalized to refer to any similar kind of persecution, and I included my example of the SAG pronouncement as falling under that heading. soulpatch
Er, forgive my naivety here, but in what way is "From the viewpoint of people who were caught up in the conflict without having done anything objectionable, it was a massive violation of civil and Constitutional rights." more NPOV than "From the viewpoint of the thousands of innocents who were caught up in the conflict it was a massive violation..."? Isn't "objectionable" POV?
Chips Critic
22:04, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
and making a monkey out of yourself by accusing innocent people
The opening sentence depicts "McCarthyism" as an era. I wish someone would explain this. Thx.
Nobs 15:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(I moved this from "Critique" where I'd originally placed it):
18:27, May 13, 2005 User:Mister Farkas (removed false quotation (I checked transcript+audio) & added link to new Army-McCarthy Hearings)
I think we should avoid drawing our own conclusions about McCarthyism. If these are true, maybe it would be better to include them in the relevant places in the article, and let readers spot the irony on their own. Do we doubt some people we persecuted by McCarthy? If not, we shouldn't use that term in quotes. Also, are we sure that guilty people went free due to an overreaction against McCarthyism? That seems like a surmise that would be difficult to prove. - Willmcw 00:40, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Let me describe the ironies along Republican/Democratic lines, though this probably should not go into the article. Republicans are known for their paranoia regarding government leaks ( Pentagon Papers, White House Plumbers etc), yet Mccarthy's ticket to fame for his crusade against government leakers was bought with a government leak. FBI report referencing "206" Soviet espionage agents, pages 20, 74 & 75 . By contrast, Democrats are often known as the proponents of openness in government, yet a secret cabal of 5 FBI agents, 3 Army crpytographers and few higher ups in this Mitilary-FBI collusion made a political decision with enormous consequences on domestic politics for 50 years, and many of the guilty benefitted from this. Nobs01 20:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In response to inquiry:
That is correct. McCarthy did not Chair the Army-McCarthy Hearings. pg. 8 nobs 21:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Which people walked away free under the cloak of being McCarthy victims? It'd be better if we named them. Otherwise this sentence shold probably be removed. - Willmcw 19:43, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
The word "irony" is what the Moynihan Commission Report uses in Appendix A, 7 The Cold War [3]
It may be very good NPOV language. Well worth reading its entire context. nobs 19:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Would someone educated in the history of the US please tell me if it would be adequate do call the McCarthyism era a fascist-like period in the US? LtDoc 03:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, chairman of the Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy, was asked in 1996 to write a new Introduction to the reissue of Sociologist Edward Shils 1956 book The Torment of Secrecy: the Background and Consequences of American Security Policies. Richard Gid Powers says Shils book set Moynhian thinking about how secrecy damaged the United States during the Cold War. Shils book analyzed McCarthyism and the loyalty programs of the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. It considered them "populist, anti-intellectual rituals of symbolic secrecy", intended to "stigmatize and silence an elite inconveniently skeptical about the threat of domestic Communism and opposed to the right-wing anti-Communist goal of repressing the radical Left". Moynihan, a liberal anti-Communist, shared Shil's contempt for McCarthyism, but also began wondering about the flipside of McCarthyism: a reaction that took the form of modish anti-anti-Communism, that considered any discussion of the very real threat Communism posed to Western values and security as impolite. Moynihan believed less secrecy could perhaps have prevented the liberal overreaction to McCarthyism as well as McCarthyism itself.
Link to Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States#Anti-Americanism for discussion on what McCarthyism is. nobs 03:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
The Note on the page is not properly referenced or sourced to the text and needs to be done so. It may be regarded as extraneous at this point if it is not properly cited and clarified as to relevency. nobs 20:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
The essence of McCarthyism was the persecution of individuals based on their supposed associations. Are we doubting that individuals were perecuted? Every entry on this list has an article which discusses their persecution: David Bohm, Charlie Chaplin, Aaron Copland, Dashiell Hammett, Lillian Hellman, Arthur Miller, Paul Robeson, Waldo Salt, the "Hollywood Ten" and others on the Hollywood blacklist. The Hollywood Blacklist did exist and it was part of McCarthyism. To contend otherwise is being argumentative. - Willmcw 20:19, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
What does this mean?:
Are we saying that we now know that people weren't persecuted, due to newly discovered info in the KGB archives? That it was all a misunderstanding and that people were not actually blacklisted after all? I don't understand how the KGB archives affect the Hollywood blacklist. - Willmcw 07:42, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
I never said that everyone on the list was part of the Hollyoowd blacklist. My questions to you are why don't you believe people were persecuted under McCarthyism, and what bearing does the new evidence have on the cases of those persecuted? - Willmcw 20:20, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
Again, "McCarthyism" is not a slander on McCarthy. If anything it is an indictment of American political culture. I'm not asserting that thousands were blacklisted - I was copying your assertion. Obviously, some number were blacklisted or the whole thing was just a mass delusion in which people just imagined that they were suddenly unable to get employment. What is the U.S. Congress' definition of McCarthyism? You refer to it above. Thanks, - Willmcw 17:43, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
The user nobs states in one his interventions: I am assuming first off, that this in an unqualified list, being there are no citations on any of the biogarphies. Is nobs expecting that the wikipedia page on McCarthyism itself should refer to the various biographies of the individuals cited? But I don't think it is necessary or advisable because, as Willmcw rightly says, the relevant information is availble in the respective pages.
Yet, on David Bohm I would like to quote Martin Gardner, the eminent American skeptic: Bohm was born in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, in 1917. When he obtained his doctorate in physics under J. Robert Oppenheimer, at the University of California, Berkeley, Bohm was a dedicated Marxist and a strong admirer of Lenin, Stalin, and the Soviet system. These opinions drew the fire of Senator Joseph McCarthy. Bohm's refusal to name names resulted in his indictment for contempt of Congress. Princeton University, which had hired him, let him go. No other university in America wanted him. After brief periods of teaching in Brazil, Israel, and England, he finally became a professor at London's Birkbeck College where he remained until he retired. (David Bohm and Jiddo Krishnamurti - Skeptical Inquirer, July, 2000). MANOJTV 07:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps laying out some basic ideas will help gain some understanding of the magnitude of the problem. Let's begin with the difference between CPUSA membership and espionage. Also, persons employed in government and government contractors vs private citizens. Also wartime activities vs pre-War & post-War activities.
Membership in CPUSA was never legal among government employees, or employees of government contractors, pre-War, wartime, and post-War. However, membership does not imply espionage, unless a person had some knowledge of it without being actually involved.
The extent of Soviet espionage in the United States, and CPUSA secret apparatus assistance, spans a timeframe of at least 27 years (1921 - 1948). The number of persons involved over that timespan was somewhere between 800 and 1200. The number of known cases of Americans who had some sort of covert laiasons with Soviet intelligence is 523. The number of Americans identified, as of 2005, who engaged in espionage activity on behalf of the Soviet Union, is ~ 311.
Now, the various Congressional and Executive branch investigations of the 1940s and 1950s present a host of problems. While membership in the CPUSA does not constitute espionage, it does not absolve a person employed in government or employed by a government contractor. In fact, they are to a limited extent complicit, in that often times the purpose of their involvement in various Communist front organizations was simply to confuse counterintelligence investigators and consume resources, to aid & assist those actively involved in espionage by confusing the trail for investigators. Too often, the various investigative bodies focused too much on membership, and those involved in espionage escaped detection. This is a testament to the effectiveness of Soviet, and Communist subversion; that they were able to send counterintelligence investigators spinning in circles.
These are some basic points to consider, by no means all. I invite criticism & refutations, which I'm sure will happen. But if we can agree upon a method of approach, then deal with each claimant to "victimhood" or "persecution" on a case by case basis, it may be time saving for all interested parties. Thank you. nobs 20:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
The user nobs writes: It would be a shame to spend too much time on repeating these lies only to have it all deleted as the documention emerges, which it will.
Even though the user doesn't have sufficient information at present to exonerate McCarthy, he is cocksure that such information will emerge. While his/her enthusiasm is understandable to a certain extent, the user doesn't stop there. In his/her attempt to white wash McCarthy, the user maligns through convoluted arguments, in true McCarthyite fashion I would say, every individual associated with not only CPUSA but even its frontal organizations! Have a look at the user's words:
In fact, they are to a limited extent complicit, in that often times the purpose of their involvement in various Communist front organizations was simply to confuse counterintelligence investigators and consume resources, to aid & assist those actively involved in espionage by confusing the trail for investigators
What evidence the user has to claim that the very purpose (often times!) of people joining these groups was to confuse investigators and actively assist those involved in espionage? Nothing. But it will emerge!
No doubt, McCarthy's name should be cleared if he were not guilty. But as things stand today, historical evidence is heavily loaded against him, inspite of nobs. MANOJTV 07:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Response to question regarding "limited extent complicit" (in this regard, the discussion is focusing on CPUSA members employed in government & members of Comintern affiliate organizations but who were not actively involved in espionage). Numerous source citations can be developed regarding the general nature of espionage activity, and particularly Soviet & Communist espionage activity since the 1920s, both worldwide and within the United States.
Again, membership does not absolve a government employee or government contract employee from at least two violations of U.S. law. The question here will depend upon whether or not an individual was "witting" or "unwitting" as to being used to confuse the limited resources of counterintelligence. What I would propose we do, is not reargue much the same B.S. that created partisan division in the 1950s; I propose a focus to be made on espionage activity, others questions can be dealt with later.
In 1954, Hubert H. Humphrey, often regarded as the paragon of the Democratic Party's commitment to human rights, proposed making simple membership in the CPUSA for anyone, government employee or not, a felony. So it is ridiculous to assume that anti-Communist sentiment in America was limited to right-wing, neo-fascist neanderthal McCarthyites. But let me remind once again, the purpose now, as it should have been then, is not to crucify those who held mere membership; it is to separate those actively involved in espionage from those, I will call, more naive simple members.
Membership for government employees & government contractors basically falls into two groups: (a) those ideological members who beleived in the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, did not respect the democratic process of a two party regime, etc., and (b) those who joined because it was the fashionable thing to do at the time & it just seemed all thier friends were members, so they felt peer pressure to do so. But in both cases, unless it can be proved they were working for the violent removal of the United States constitutional basis of government, it's not that big a deal. nobs 18:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
The political cartoon on the page was so NPOV, it was disgusting. Portraying McCarthy or "McCarthyism" in a bad light is not only POV, its also wrong. Its strange how nobody ever points out that mccarthy was trying to (and did) do a GOOD thing for america. Nobody points out that the people he suspected turned out to ACTUALLY BE SOVIET SPIES. nobody points out that mccarthy didnt want to go public with his info, that he was virtually forced to. Nobody points out these things.
If your gonna put a picture in an article, make sure it objectivly relates to the article. That one didnt, and now its gone.
-- NightDragon 03:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
This article is by no means encyclopedic, it is just BibbleBeltBarBabble. GOSH. (rs)
This article is now 25% fiction. So if we take the 37.5% POV, 37.5% NPOV, and 25% fictional allussions of McCarthyism, the neutral reader knowing nothing of its background, can clearly see it for what it is. nobs 00:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
An anonymous user 65.25.223.175 has made a series of edits to the Joseph McCarthy and McCarthyism articles. I showed up at some point in the middle just to read the articles, fixed a couple of spelling mistakes, and then noticed that I "interrupted" this user. I had a look at the edits and there are a lot of spelling mistakes and some statements that do not seem to be from a NPOV. There are probably people more qualified and knowledgeable than me on this topic, so when this user has finished his/her edits, perhaps someone can have a look at them and either just fix the spelling, or decide whether there needs to be discussion about POV. Thanks! -- Craig ( t| c) 10:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
The introduction to the article as it stands lacks NPOV, lending credence, as it does, to the McCarthyist assumption that communist subversion is or was in some past era the big issue. My understanding of NPOV would admit of dangers of subversion from a variety of political directions - including, topically, the McCarthyist subversion of freedom and democracy. Etaonsh 19:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Have therefore altered to 'alleged American Communist Party subversion.' Etaonsh 22:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Can we have some specifics here? - Willmcw 00:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
So, to take one example, you are asserting that Volkov was guilty but walked free due to his cloak of being a victim of McCarthyism. That is not reflected in your link. - Willmcw 01:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Reverted Anon and placed here,
Sourcing is required that any name on the list (or for that matter anyone else) was "jailed", etc. Also, note: the above reference is to the pre-McCarthy HUAC, and not to either Joseph McCarthy and/or the PSI. nobs 02:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I removed some irrelevant information from "contemporary use of the term." NotSuper 19:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Are a pundit's opinions on McCarthyism really something that needs to be listed, though? The only reason they support or denounce things is to advance their agenda. I wasn't trying to add POV, I just feel that it might be better to list someone that is actually objective about the matter. Surely there are people that supported McCarthy who have some credibility to them. That's what my concern was about, it had nothing to do with not wanting people that support McCarthy to be listed. But if no one has a problem with her being on there I won't pursue it further. NotSuper 02:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't really have any comment on whether the material that Pokey5945 copied from the Churchill article to this one is really useful here. I think it might indeed be a good example of some recent events, but it probably needs some more context here and backlinking. But unfortunately, the abovementioned editor really seems to have put it here as a ploy to impose a "no dissent, all anti-Churchill" agenda over on the Ward Churchill article. He's been very active with putting in largely POV material there, and recently deleted the same material he put here, in an effort to prevent the Churchill article from containing any material that puts Churchill's reception in context, or that might be seen as not anti-Churchill enough.
Anyway... if I can tempt any editors of this page over to that one, I would really welcome the help over there. It attracts a lot of POV warriors, as you might expect. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the bit about there actually being Soviet Union Agents in place should be in the intro?-- Samuel J. Howard 12:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
direct sources are needed for nearly all information in the Soviet Archives section. ASN 23:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
This article needs to make clear exactly which of McCarthy's accusations were true and which were not ... -- Nerd42 23:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
McCarthyism wasn't only internal US problem and this Wikipedia isn't an internal US text. I have presented the point of view of many in Eastern Europe: "From the viewpoint of many people living under Soviet regime the main problem of McCarthyism was that it was ineffective. Soviet spies and sympathizers in the United States acted against victims of Soviet oppressions, slandered them, helped to finance the crimes and wars e.g. by transfering technologies. Several anti-McCarthy movies have been produced. I don't know any one showing crimes of the evil system the US Communists supported - Collectivisation, Holodomor, forced deportations, mass executions." This text was removed as "silly". What is silly - millions of Soviet victims? US politicians supporting Katyn lies? Walter Duranty's prize? Xx236 15:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
You're Polish and you're pushing Anti-Soviet (by which you mean Anti-Russian) POV here as you do everywhere else.
"McCarthy began with a half truth, that a large foreign espionage ring existed within the government and the Truman administration was doing nothing about it; the other half truth was that the Truman administration was doing nothing about it because it did not know of the existence of the Venona project." This makes no sense to me. Someone please revise this sentence so people can tell what it means. TheTruth12 08:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The "Tensions of the times" section seems a bit long at 360 words. Do we need that much detail about the Cold War? - Will Beback 06:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
What makes this page so inviting for vandals? I mean, I can understand fuck, poop, and other such words, but McCarthyism!? PrometheusX303 04:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)