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 |
This article should focus on the Red Scare, from 1919 to 1921. McCarthyism is already covered in well... McCarthyism. It would be prudent to put italics at the top pointing out the era known as the Red Scare and pointing to a link to the McCarthyism article. Also, all those who have contributed to the McCarthyism article shouldn't also need to contribute to this one too, there should be one for Red Scare and one for McCarthyism... this current organization is bad.-- So Hungry
I'm going to reorganize this article pretty soon to only cover the Red Scare from 1918 to 1921. If anyone objects, say so now. And if you do object, just provide some source (not at all from wikipedia) stating how the word "red scare" even refers to anywhere after 1940... I have this feeling that because some wikipedian said that it did, everyone else believes this.
The McCarthyism article's description of the "second red scare" conflits with the on in this article... showing that some wikipedians have definetly contributed errounous information about the "second red scare"-- So Hungry 22:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
ť== subscriptions? ==
in the following paragraph you added that "subscriptions of which contributed revenue directly to the source".
These laws made it illegal to speak out against the U.S. government as well as giving the Postmaster General power to deny mail of citizens suspected of being dissenters (ie: censorship of communist, socialist and anarchist related mail, subscriptions of which contributed revenue directly to the source). However, the United Sates later repealed both of these acts in 1921.
From what source did yout cite this?-- So Hungry 21:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
While people may disagree about the content, it is inaccurate to say that it is not adequately sourced. I'm removing the citation tag. BCorr| Брайен 02:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Did a minor edit to the page to get the educational packet under the publications heading.
Then wondered why I was able to edit this page so freely as a guest. I did some reading and now I realize what exactly wikipedia is. What an awesome thing.
-- Misha
== The Second Red Scare ==
Causes
Added the following sentence to "The Second Red Scare", Causes" :
"The release by the U.S. government in 1995 of secret Soviet-era cables decoded by the Venona Project confirmed that, in fact, there were hundreds of Soviet spies employed in high levels of government during that time." I also provided a link to the "Venona Project" page.
I thought that it was important to point out, as the article on Venona Project states, that there was a re-evaluation of the Red Scare as a result of the discovery of these cables. It seems that it was not largely "hysteria" and that there was factual justification for the investigations.
-- Bsod 2 July 2005 17:04 (UTC)
I have changed 'the fall of China' to 'the Communist revolution in China' as I felt the former represent a non-empirical viewpoint. This also provides a link to the 'Communist revolution' article.
134.219.164.85
23:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I suspect the 2nd paragraph in the TOP of this article is over broad. Does anyone have any information showing that the 2nd Red Scare included any fears of anarchism? I believe it was all anti-Communism at this time. Thanks Hmains 18:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone else think the picture of the anarchist tyring to destroy the statue of liberty is POV, although the Cold War is over and everyone is on the West's side, it does seem portray the belief that communists were evil people. Akupta321 01:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
This article is technically about two different time periods and two nearly unrelated parts of American history: one after World War I, and the other after World War II. I don't see why this article shouldn't be split up into the First Red Scare and the Second Red Scare. I realize that some people may argue that both were parts of ongoing American isolationism at the time, but in that case, it could technically be argued that both World Wars should be put together into a single article because one led into the other and because they were both parts of an ongoing hostility between America and the communist powers. It would seem absurd to do that, wouldn't it? Then why should this article be any different? Besides, there's enough information for both to be separate articles.
And if it's not split, then this article should be broadened to a more worldwide scale, because I know that more countries than just the US had scares like this. Yay or nay?-- BigShock 20:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The article states 'A series of bombings in June of 1919 sparked the FBI to more aggressive actions.' I don't think the FBI existed in 1919!
I noticed this statement by User:Andyluciano on September 3, 2005 when he was discussing this page. He said:
I have to make a comment regarding this statement. It has been proven that the Communist Party of America was directly taking orders from the Soviet Union! If someone was a "good" CP member then they would be following orders from their cell leader. These people were not just a bunch of innocent people. They were fervently working for an over throw of the capitalist system so that they would be in full communion with Mother Russia! A good example is the so-called radical muslims of today. We know that members of some of these enemy groups are over here, members of secret cells, working as ordinanry people, passing intel back to their leaders for the day that they are called to do their duty.
And just like the Muslims held by the US in Cuba, these Communists all claimed they were innocent and being discriminated against. Dwain 23:33, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
blah, blah, blah doesn't matter if they were discriminated against!! No, it doesn't mean all tolerance of thought regarding pinko's! Another sympathizer! no once can just run to the first amendment when they are obviously a security risk. For decades it was like that. All of the sudden in this day and age we now don't know which was is up! RomanYankee ( 24.75.194.50 20:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC))
I made sure that the 'First Red Scare' article contains all the text that was in this article on the First Red Scare. I went into other WP articles and where appropriate changed the links to the First Red Scare article. I then removed the First Red Scare content from this article and pointed to the First Red Scare article for thayt information. WHY: the first and second Red Scare were really very different events from different periods of US history and involved different sets of people and facts. In other words, they have little in common. Having the First Red Scare as the only article that contains the information on the First will also aid editors who are probably interested in either the First or the Second Red Scare, but not both. Thanks Hmains 21:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
We have an article called 'First Red Scare'. Why should any material at all on the 'First Red Scare' be in this article. Now we have two articles that must be maintained on the same subject, two articles that have to be kept in sync, two places to maintain comments, etc. This makes no sense. Move all the material to the First Red Scare article and leave this just a referral as it was before all this material was added.
Hmains
04:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
This article is too much focused on the U.S.A. " Red Menace" redirects here, but the idea of a "Red Menace" was international, and in other countries its history of ebb and flow as a fear (and a reality, to the extent the fear was justified) does not truly follow that in the United States. My impression is somewhat that "Red Scare" is more of an American term, in particular, so perhaps it is not so bad if an article on "Red Scare" concentrates on the U.S. However, either the equivalent phenomenon in other countries needs to be given proper coverage here, or a separate article, perhaps entitled "Red Menace", is needed, in which to cover the topic more globally. -- Lonewolf BC 08:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I am thinking this should just be a disambiguation page pointing to separate article on the First Red Scare and Second Red Scare. I fail to see the point in having duplicated/contradictory material in this article and the existing First Red Scare article. Hmains 04:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I cannot see any mention of vandalism on the talk page nor anything else that would require SP. Can anyone clarify why this is in place? For information regarding the SP policy see WP:SPP-- FearedInLasVegas 13:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The communist revolution in Russia and the ensuing Russian Civil War and worldwide revolutionary wave from 1917 to 1923 inspired a widespread campaign of violence in the U.S. by various anarchist groups and aggressive labor unions...
I don't know of a single example of violence by an "aggressive labor union" inspired by the above, let alone a "campaign" of violence. Can someone please justify this sentence to me? Sources and details, PLEASE. Otherwise, it should be removed.
Or better, reversed-- there was a tremendous amount of violence directed at the Industrial Workers of the World. Lynchings, tar & feathers, union halls ransacked, shootings... Richard Myers 01:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I added a trivia section and if anybody has anything interesting to contribute, or anything currently in it to edit, please be my guest.
If there is a debate on whether or not the section is worth-while then please post that as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Etni3s ( talk • contribs) 09:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
I marked one unreferenced statement and one plainly-non-neutral-point-of-view statement in the First Red Scare section. They should be self-explanatory, but some editors remove them unless mentioned here. 72.83.190.183 ( talk) 00:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
(revising my own comment, it didn't explain the edits very well, and IMO this situation needs attention)
I noticed a significant deletion of content, the Second Red Scare (1949-1960) section's content was removed entirely, and vandalism content inserted in the same edit, here:
The deletion and vandalism were made by 65.29.206.140
Notice that the vandalism content was removed here,
But (except for a link to main article) the deletion of all that original content was allowed to stand.
This appears to have been an oversight. However, because of discussion of reorganization on this talk page, i am not reverting, but inquiring. Is it appropriate to leave all of that material deleted? I'm inclined to recommend re-inserting the information, but i'm not a regular editor of this article, and so invite discussion.
Richard Myers ( talk) 13:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC) revised, Richard Myers ( talk) 04:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
First, the title is pejorative. Since the US survived and the USSR didn't, the implication is that there was nothing to be afraid of.
The second is the line " The fear was provoked with red-baiting and blacklisting". I think the word "provoked" is a bit pov. More like these political activities were the result (reaction) to the scare. Yes, some people used them to their advantage, but that is the way of politics in any event, good or evil. There is always someone out front ready to lead a charge and gain political leverage whatever the cause. Is your "worthy" cause any different? Come on! Student7 ( talk) 12:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
A statement says, 'the Red Scare didn't distinguish among communist, socialist, or Social Democrat — because all were "foreign" (European) "ideologies", thus, "un-American" ' This was probably true of the first "red scare", but not of the second.
I'm not sure what the author was driving at. The Socialist Party of America ran a candidate nationwide for office in 1952, as it had for many years. The US was fighting the Korean War with the help of the United Kingdom with a Socialist Government. Without their support in the UN, there would have been no resistance to the North Korean invasion. All European governments were socialist in fact, regardless of what they were in name, so the statement is a bit silly and clearly incorrect.
I wonder what was intended? Student7 ( talk) 22:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Since the article is entirely focused on the US, wouldn't be " Anti-communism in the United States" a better title? I think too many articles on American topics are not properly named and the reader expects to find a general article, that covers the whole world in many cases. Hobartimus ( talk) 17:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I have a couple of questions:
1. Does anyone have an accurate name for the anti-socialism reaction of the early 1920s? What was it called then?
2. The reaction against communism in the late 1940s and early 1950s was called the "Red Menace" by people who were worried (nearly everyone). After Herblock drew his famous cartoon, it was called "McCarthyism" by disbelieving liberals. When was the term "Red scare" first coined?
3. When were the two very different eras: anti-socialism of the 1920s and anti-communism of the 1950s first lumped together? (In other words, is there a scholarly un-- WP:BIASed WP:RELY source for having both in this article? Student7 ( talk) 20:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
A respected editor rm the following material: "Some evidence suggests, however, that the term "Red Scare" is itself biased in favor of those who stress a leftist interpretation of history. Although the Nazis' atrocities are well-documented, one rarely hears the term "Fascist Scare" used to describe those who oppose fascism, nor do their beliefs tend to be framed as "fear," "hysteria," or "paranoia." Extensive evidence demonstrates that the Second "Red Scare" coincided with the existence of Maoist and Stalinist governments that were killing people in the tens of millions. Black Book of Communism."
The above may be true but needs rewording. The rebuttal goes on the attack with a counterexample which is perhaps not allowable in this context. Seems stated as "fact" rather than author's opinion. Appears WP:OR as written. Footnote should be from the book directly, not from Wikipedia. (There may be other issues that dissenting editors may have :). Good luck! :) Student7 ( talk) 01:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The expression "intensely patriotic" fits fairly well as a description of the WWI era. Here's just one example:
State and federal anti-syndicalist and anti-espionage laws were used to justify serious infractions of people's rights. People were thrown in jail for expressing any anti-war sentiment whatsoever. As evidence, see this:
And also, this:
"Intensely patriotic" is quite neutral language for the sentiments of the period. I would opt for stronger language, if i were writing this history. But also, this referenced sentence follows immediately, and clearly offers support for the expression:
The existing expression should be kept and/or improved, not deleted. Richard Myers ( talk) 17:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Calling the Rosenbergs spies overstates the case. It is evident that Julius was a spy; there appears to be no hard evidence that Ethel was involved, or even aware of the details. The text referring to their trial is non-controversial, and adequate. There is no point in casting collective responsibility, when there is so much uncertainty about one of the two individuals. Richard Myers ( talk) 17:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
When choosing article titles on Wikipedia, "[t]here will often be several possible alternative titles for any given article; the choice between them is made by consensus."
An example in actual practice: In spite of the fact that an event in Colorado had been referred to simply as the Columbine Massacre for seven decades, the article title Columbine Mine massacre was satisfactorily explained, after some back and forth editing, with this first sentence: "The first Columbine Massacre, sometimes called the Columbine Mine massacre to distinguish it from the Columbine High School massacre, occurred in 1927..."
My point in making this observation: IF the terms FIRST red scare and SECOND red scare originated here on Wikipedia for clarification purposes, or if they did not originate here, but are not in common usage, then i think that fact should similarly be briefly mentioned in the article, with a similar clarification about the reason for this usage. (I'm not sure if this information has been included anywhere aside from talk pages.)
A related issue: there may be some confusion about the articles as well as misunderstanding about the (presumed) origins of the terminology, for the main article link for the First Red Scare (1919–20) section of the Red Scare article goes to an article entitled First Red Scare, but the main article link for the Second Red Scare (1947–57) section of the Red Scare article goes to an article entitled McCarthyism. Then the Second Red Scare link from the McCarthyism article links back to the Second Red Scare (1947–57) section of the Red Scare article.
Curiously, there is no similar link from the First Red Scare article to the Red Scare article.
This seems a little convoluted and possibly confusing. Similar titling and linking treatment for the two external articles might make more sense. And i think reworking these links/titles might fit in with what Bmclaughlin envisions above. Richard Myers ( talk) 18:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I note that there has been disagreement concerning what year the First Red Scare started. I invite commentary on that question.
Personally, i believe it should date from 1917, when the IWW was first attacked across the U.S., and also in Australia and Canada, by a combination of government/corporate/vigilante action. I believe this coincided with fears related to what was happening in Russia at the time, although there didn't seem to be any significant relationship between the IWW and the Bolsheviks (Haywood excepted, of course, but that was later...) Richard Myers ( talk) 21:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I removed a statement which falsely asserted the loss of membership by the communists and the IWW. I don't know the history of the communists, but i do know the history of the IWW. The IWW continued to grow until 1923, which was after the first red scare had ended. The IWW lost membership after 1924, primarily due to a split. Richard Myers ( talk) 10:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
An editor reverted the following material germane to the Vermona project without giving a reason why. "In 1995, the American government revealed details of the Venona Project indicating intelligence gathering by Americans for the benefit of the Soviet Union from 1940 through 1980. While some have argued that people involved were clearly spying, others believe that these people had no malicious intent."
Why was this reverted? It is germane to the topic and verifiable. Student7 ( talk) 18:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Should there not be mention of the Venona project, which proves that the "Red Scare" was not as "Over Blown" as previously thought? I guess we don't want to offend far left liberals, I mean, communists.
"....Among this group we now know to have been working for the KGB and its predecessors, and for the GRU - Soviet military intelligence - were prominent Americans who in the war years infiltrated every major agency of the U.S. government, from the State and Treasury Departments to the Manhattan Project.
The Venona project files - thousands of decrypted 1940s cables between the KGB in Moscow and its agents in New York, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., and elsewhere, only released to the public beginning in 1995 - makes the evidence overwhelming. Thanks to Venona, we have definitive proof of the guilt of Alger Hiss and Julius Rosenberg, as well as the most important American atomic spy, Theodore Hall.
But Venona also revealed that the KGB had among its agents such people as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Harry Dexter White; the chief of the State Department's Division of American Republics, Laurence Duggan; the head of the State Department's Latin American Division, Maurice Halperin; and Lauchlin Currie, administrative aide and State Department liaison to Presidents Roosevelt and Truman.
Venona in fact confirmed what anti-Communists had argued at the time, and which their detractors, the anti anti-Communists, had always denied: There was a successful and dangerous Soviet penetration of our government, as well as a network of spies working for the KGB.
It also has been established that many of them were recruited directly out of the ranks of the American Communist Party. Contrary to what the left of the time had maintained - that the Communists were small, insignificant and hardly a danger - there was in fact good reason to view them not simply as members of an unpopular but legal political party, but as potential spies in waiting. The CP-USA was, as scholars Harvey Klehr and John Haynes have written, 'indeed a fifth column working inside and against the United States in the Cold War.'..."
The Red 'Scare' Was Real By Ronald Radosh
The New York Post July 10, 2002
Of all the newspapers in the world, you had to choose the Murdoch Post.
Please cite How did it end in 1957? I don't see why this date is so definitive. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I find this article to reflect a clearly non-neutral, largely right-wing, point of view. Where are the mentions of the massive negative social consequences, such as decades of large-scale, organised suppression of social dissent? What about the use of this ideologically-driven fear stirred up in the populace as a tool to fight against the civil rights movement, feminism, gay rights, and the expansion of the social safety net? Sixty years later, right-wing politicians still regularly attempt to use "socialist" as a slur to create fear to try to get people to close their ears and minds to the arguments and perspectives of their political opponents. Let's have some mention of these things in the article! As it stands now, I find it colossally unbalanced. It reads like a well-scripted justification for those attitudes and actions, without real mention of their very substantial negative effects or of the often-militant ideology which underlay them. (Or can only authoritarian communists have a militant, expansionist ideology?) Heavenlyblue ( talk) 00:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I propose a section entitled Negative Social and Political Consequences or even just Social and Political Consequences. I think, too, that another section might be desirable: The Red Scare as a Moral Panic, with a link in the first line to
Moral panic.
Heavenlyblue (
talk)
00:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Could someone add the fact that the only reason god was added to our money and our pledge is because of the red scare ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.86.119 ( talk) 16:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
A report in The New York Times of 19 May 1930, carries the headline “’Red Scare’ Protest Issued by Liberals”. The article refers to “100 Writers, Educators and artists [who warn] of Dangers in ‘Hysteria’ and ‘Persecution’”, and “Says 1,600 Have Been Wrongfully Arrested in 2 months”. Can anyone explain why isn't this dealt with here? Rwood128 ( talk) 15:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
This whole article is a POV that has an emotional appeal to certain segments of society. The scolarly content is suspect due to vague, narrow secondary sources used. Witness the constant re-editing of different people (including myself) to try to balance the article.
The revisionist writers quoted for the most part have a specific agenda they wish to promote. The article is reduced to a propaganda piece for the left. -- runchummey 04:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm always too lazy to log in until after, when I decide to let the editors know at least who's responsible. Aside from the intentionally snarky "citation needed" I hope these edits are seen as more in-line with what's reflected in the related articles. Anyway -- The language I found in the intro squarely strove to dignify that era's toxic nationalistic paranoia, which has, in basically all other places, been thoroughly discredited by history. People scanning this lede and moving on would think they'd learned that we saved ourselves from Soviet government invasion 100 years ago rather than barely, eventually, putting the brakes on a misguided and destructive political witch hunt. I mean fer eff-sakes, it said the Red Scare was a time when the country was protecting itself against a threat from the American labor movement. Apparently a Kochtopus was here before me. Nathan hawks ( talk) 17:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Red Scare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Is there any discussion yet of the possible start of the third Red Scare? There has been a lot in our media in the recent year or two about communists running our government, communist/socialism agenda's being pushed in our government that are viewed as a threat. These messages have been effective as well. There are major Media Outlets such as FoxNews along with their commentator Glenn Beck who has endorsed McCarthy and talks consistently of Communism in government. (Youtube: FoxNews June 25, 2010, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zfq6URia1Zw). I am not scholarly but it seems something that is worth at least discussion. There have been common place portrayals of our president as being socialist. ( http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/dems-socialist-health-plan-saps-obamas.html) The Tea Party Movement often has rally depicting Obama as a Marxist or Socialist who is destroying our country. Obama has defended his record as not being socialist himself after facing questions circulating that he is a Socialist/Communist/Marxist ( http://reason.com/blog/2009/03/09/obama-i-am-not-a-socialist-bec)
Questions to ask are we in the 3rd Red Scare? If so When did it begin? What are the underlying factors behind the discussion on communism in our media today? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.32.27 ( talk) 22:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree there are not many good sources regarding the idea of another wave of the red scare, however I think it is more so due to the fact that it is a fresh debate. None the less wikipedia is not ready to host the debate at this time. The only page I found on google was http://www.cracked.com/forums/topic/63802/the-modern-red-scare. (not very scholarly)...or a google search of "red scare modern "glenn beck"". Although I didn't review these articles before launching this discussion, thus proving to me that the debate is not limited to my imagination there certainly is not enough (worthy) sources for such a article. Maybe we are in the midst of history, maybe it is a fluke flashback that will be short lived. What I can say for sure is something is going on out there. The only part of where you comment I disagree with is the focus on xenoism and the Muslim faith. I don't think I was intending to direct the discussion in that rout but to instead solely focus on the communist references in modern media of political leaders, of actions of government, and of commentary. (opinion to follow) Although I can see the comparison between the rise of Hitlers fears of communist take over of Germany and his linkage to blaming "Jews" for the communists and national issues as a flimsy at best link to the anti-communist leaders of today such as Glenn Beck and his xenophobia towards Muslims to practice their freedom of religion and instilling a fear of impending sharia law in America. All in all if communist fear were to take a more mainstream presence maybe at that point there would be more sources to site and a article to become practical. Perhaps that is just a fear of mine. At least hopefully someone enjoyed the discussion and gained some ideas for other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.32.27 ( talk) 04:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
In the same spirit that there's a wiki page for World War III for a hypothetical future World War, and publications' usage of the term, I think there's enough material to support a potential article documenting ongoing anti-communist rhetoric in the USA entitled "Third Red Scare" Mapmaker345 ( talk) 22:16, 27 August 2019 (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 |
This article should focus on the Red Scare, from 1919 to 1921. McCarthyism is already covered in well... McCarthyism. It would be prudent to put italics at the top pointing out the era known as the Red Scare and pointing to a link to the McCarthyism article. Also, all those who have contributed to the McCarthyism article shouldn't also need to contribute to this one too, there should be one for Red Scare and one for McCarthyism... this current organization is bad.-- So Hungry
I'm going to reorganize this article pretty soon to only cover the Red Scare from 1918 to 1921. If anyone objects, say so now. And if you do object, just provide some source (not at all from wikipedia) stating how the word "red scare" even refers to anywhere after 1940... I have this feeling that because some wikipedian said that it did, everyone else believes this.
The McCarthyism article's description of the "second red scare" conflits with the on in this article... showing that some wikipedians have definetly contributed errounous information about the "second red scare"-- So Hungry 22:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
ť== subscriptions? ==
in the following paragraph you added that "subscriptions of which contributed revenue directly to the source".
These laws made it illegal to speak out against the U.S. government as well as giving the Postmaster General power to deny mail of citizens suspected of being dissenters (ie: censorship of communist, socialist and anarchist related mail, subscriptions of which contributed revenue directly to the source). However, the United Sates later repealed both of these acts in 1921.
From what source did yout cite this?-- So Hungry 21:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
While people may disagree about the content, it is inaccurate to say that it is not adequately sourced. I'm removing the citation tag. BCorr| Брайен 02:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Did a minor edit to the page to get the educational packet under the publications heading.
Then wondered why I was able to edit this page so freely as a guest. I did some reading and now I realize what exactly wikipedia is. What an awesome thing.
-- Misha
== The Second Red Scare ==
Causes
Added the following sentence to "The Second Red Scare", Causes" :
"The release by the U.S. government in 1995 of secret Soviet-era cables decoded by the Venona Project confirmed that, in fact, there were hundreds of Soviet spies employed in high levels of government during that time." I also provided a link to the "Venona Project" page.
I thought that it was important to point out, as the article on Venona Project states, that there was a re-evaluation of the Red Scare as a result of the discovery of these cables. It seems that it was not largely "hysteria" and that there was factual justification for the investigations.
-- Bsod 2 July 2005 17:04 (UTC)
I have changed 'the fall of China' to 'the Communist revolution in China' as I felt the former represent a non-empirical viewpoint. This also provides a link to the 'Communist revolution' article.
134.219.164.85
23:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I suspect the 2nd paragraph in the TOP of this article is over broad. Does anyone have any information showing that the 2nd Red Scare included any fears of anarchism? I believe it was all anti-Communism at this time. Thanks Hmains 18:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone else think the picture of the anarchist tyring to destroy the statue of liberty is POV, although the Cold War is over and everyone is on the West's side, it does seem portray the belief that communists were evil people. Akupta321 01:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
This article is technically about two different time periods and two nearly unrelated parts of American history: one after World War I, and the other after World War II. I don't see why this article shouldn't be split up into the First Red Scare and the Second Red Scare. I realize that some people may argue that both were parts of ongoing American isolationism at the time, but in that case, it could technically be argued that both World Wars should be put together into a single article because one led into the other and because they were both parts of an ongoing hostility between America and the communist powers. It would seem absurd to do that, wouldn't it? Then why should this article be any different? Besides, there's enough information for both to be separate articles.
And if it's not split, then this article should be broadened to a more worldwide scale, because I know that more countries than just the US had scares like this. Yay or nay?-- BigShock 20:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The article states 'A series of bombings in June of 1919 sparked the FBI to more aggressive actions.' I don't think the FBI existed in 1919!
I noticed this statement by User:Andyluciano on September 3, 2005 when he was discussing this page. He said:
I have to make a comment regarding this statement. It has been proven that the Communist Party of America was directly taking orders from the Soviet Union! If someone was a "good" CP member then they would be following orders from their cell leader. These people were not just a bunch of innocent people. They were fervently working for an over throw of the capitalist system so that they would be in full communion with Mother Russia! A good example is the so-called radical muslims of today. We know that members of some of these enemy groups are over here, members of secret cells, working as ordinanry people, passing intel back to their leaders for the day that they are called to do their duty.
And just like the Muslims held by the US in Cuba, these Communists all claimed they were innocent and being discriminated against. Dwain 23:33, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
blah, blah, blah doesn't matter if they were discriminated against!! No, it doesn't mean all tolerance of thought regarding pinko's! Another sympathizer! no once can just run to the first amendment when they are obviously a security risk. For decades it was like that. All of the sudden in this day and age we now don't know which was is up! RomanYankee ( 24.75.194.50 20:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC))
I made sure that the 'First Red Scare' article contains all the text that was in this article on the First Red Scare. I went into other WP articles and where appropriate changed the links to the First Red Scare article. I then removed the First Red Scare content from this article and pointed to the First Red Scare article for thayt information. WHY: the first and second Red Scare were really very different events from different periods of US history and involved different sets of people and facts. In other words, they have little in common. Having the First Red Scare as the only article that contains the information on the First will also aid editors who are probably interested in either the First or the Second Red Scare, but not both. Thanks Hmains 21:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
We have an article called 'First Red Scare'. Why should any material at all on the 'First Red Scare' be in this article. Now we have two articles that must be maintained on the same subject, two articles that have to be kept in sync, two places to maintain comments, etc. This makes no sense. Move all the material to the First Red Scare article and leave this just a referral as it was before all this material was added.
Hmains
04:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
This article is too much focused on the U.S.A. " Red Menace" redirects here, but the idea of a "Red Menace" was international, and in other countries its history of ebb and flow as a fear (and a reality, to the extent the fear was justified) does not truly follow that in the United States. My impression is somewhat that "Red Scare" is more of an American term, in particular, so perhaps it is not so bad if an article on "Red Scare" concentrates on the U.S. However, either the equivalent phenomenon in other countries needs to be given proper coverage here, or a separate article, perhaps entitled "Red Menace", is needed, in which to cover the topic more globally. -- Lonewolf BC 08:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I am thinking this should just be a disambiguation page pointing to separate article on the First Red Scare and Second Red Scare. I fail to see the point in having duplicated/contradictory material in this article and the existing First Red Scare article. Hmains 04:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I cannot see any mention of vandalism on the talk page nor anything else that would require SP. Can anyone clarify why this is in place? For information regarding the SP policy see WP:SPP-- FearedInLasVegas 13:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The communist revolution in Russia and the ensuing Russian Civil War and worldwide revolutionary wave from 1917 to 1923 inspired a widespread campaign of violence in the U.S. by various anarchist groups and aggressive labor unions...
I don't know of a single example of violence by an "aggressive labor union" inspired by the above, let alone a "campaign" of violence. Can someone please justify this sentence to me? Sources and details, PLEASE. Otherwise, it should be removed.
Or better, reversed-- there was a tremendous amount of violence directed at the Industrial Workers of the World. Lynchings, tar & feathers, union halls ransacked, shootings... Richard Myers 01:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I added a trivia section and if anybody has anything interesting to contribute, or anything currently in it to edit, please be my guest.
If there is a debate on whether or not the section is worth-while then please post that as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Etni3s ( talk • contribs) 09:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
I marked one unreferenced statement and one plainly-non-neutral-point-of-view statement in the First Red Scare section. They should be self-explanatory, but some editors remove them unless mentioned here. 72.83.190.183 ( talk) 00:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
(revising my own comment, it didn't explain the edits very well, and IMO this situation needs attention)
I noticed a significant deletion of content, the Second Red Scare (1949-1960) section's content was removed entirely, and vandalism content inserted in the same edit, here:
The deletion and vandalism were made by 65.29.206.140
Notice that the vandalism content was removed here,
But (except for a link to main article) the deletion of all that original content was allowed to stand.
This appears to have been an oversight. However, because of discussion of reorganization on this talk page, i am not reverting, but inquiring. Is it appropriate to leave all of that material deleted? I'm inclined to recommend re-inserting the information, but i'm not a regular editor of this article, and so invite discussion.
Richard Myers ( talk) 13:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC) revised, Richard Myers ( talk) 04:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
First, the title is pejorative. Since the US survived and the USSR didn't, the implication is that there was nothing to be afraid of.
The second is the line " The fear was provoked with red-baiting and blacklisting". I think the word "provoked" is a bit pov. More like these political activities were the result (reaction) to the scare. Yes, some people used them to their advantage, but that is the way of politics in any event, good or evil. There is always someone out front ready to lead a charge and gain political leverage whatever the cause. Is your "worthy" cause any different? Come on! Student7 ( talk) 12:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
A statement says, 'the Red Scare didn't distinguish among communist, socialist, or Social Democrat — because all were "foreign" (European) "ideologies", thus, "un-American" ' This was probably true of the first "red scare", but not of the second.
I'm not sure what the author was driving at. The Socialist Party of America ran a candidate nationwide for office in 1952, as it had for many years. The US was fighting the Korean War with the help of the United Kingdom with a Socialist Government. Without their support in the UN, there would have been no resistance to the North Korean invasion. All European governments were socialist in fact, regardless of what they were in name, so the statement is a bit silly and clearly incorrect.
I wonder what was intended? Student7 ( talk) 22:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Since the article is entirely focused on the US, wouldn't be " Anti-communism in the United States" a better title? I think too many articles on American topics are not properly named and the reader expects to find a general article, that covers the whole world in many cases. Hobartimus ( talk) 17:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I have a couple of questions:
1. Does anyone have an accurate name for the anti-socialism reaction of the early 1920s? What was it called then?
2. The reaction against communism in the late 1940s and early 1950s was called the "Red Menace" by people who were worried (nearly everyone). After Herblock drew his famous cartoon, it was called "McCarthyism" by disbelieving liberals. When was the term "Red scare" first coined?
3. When were the two very different eras: anti-socialism of the 1920s and anti-communism of the 1950s first lumped together? (In other words, is there a scholarly un-- WP:BIASed WP:RELY source for having both in this article? Student7 ( talk) 20:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
A respected editor rm the following material: "Some evidence suggests, however, that the term "Red Scare" is itself biased in favor of those who stress a leftist interpretation of history. Although the Nazis' atrocities are well-documented, one rarely hears the term "Fascist Scare" used to describe those who oppose fascism, nor do their beliefs tend to be framed as "fear," "hysteria," or "paranoia." Extensive evidence demonstrates that the Second "Red Scare" coincided with the existence of Maoist and Stalinist governments that were killing people in the tens of millions. Black Book of Communism."
The above may be true but needs rewording. The rebuttal goes on the attack with a counterexample which is perhaps not allowable in this context. Seems stated as "fact" rather than author's opinion. Appears WP:OR as written. Footnote should be from the book directly, not from Wikipedia. (There may be other issues that dissenting editors may have :). Good luck! :) Student7 ( talk) 01:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The expression "intensely patriotic" fits fairly well as a description of the WWI era. Here's just one example:
State and federal anti-syndicalist and anti-espionage laws were used to justify serious infractions of people's rights. People were thrown in jail for expressing any anti-war sentiment whatsoever. As evidence, see this:
And also, this:
"Intensely patriotic" is quite neutral language for the sentiments of the period. I would opt for stronger language, if i were writing this history. But also, this referenced sentence follows immediately, and clearly offers support for the expression:
The existing expression should be kept and/or improved, not deleted. Richard Myers ( talk) 17:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Calling the Rosenbergs spies overstates the case. It is evident that Julius was a spy; there appears to be no hard evidence that Ethel was involved, or even aware of the details. The text referring to their trial is non-controversial, and adequate. There is no point in casting collective responsibility, when there is so much uncertainty about one of the two individuals. Richard Myers ( talk) 17:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
When choosing article titles on Wikipedia, "[t]here will often be several possible alternative titles for any given article; the choice between them is made by consensus."
An example in actual practice: In spite of the fact that an event in Colorado had been referred to simply as the Columbine Massacre for seven decades, the article title Columbine Mine massacre was satisfactorily explained, after some back and forth editing, with this first sentence: "The first Columbine Massacre, sometimes called the Columbine Mine massacre to distinguish it from the Columbine High School massacre, occurred in 1927..."
My point in making this observation: IF the terms FIRST red scare and SECOND red scare originated here on Wikipedia for clarification purposes, or if they did not originate here, but are not in common usage, then i think that fact should similarly be briefly mentioned in the article, with a similar clarification about the reason for this usage. (I'm not sure if this information has been included anywhere aside from talk pages.)
A related issue: there may be some confusion about the articles as well as misunderstanding about the (presumed) origins of the terminology, for the main article link for the First Red Scare (1919–20) section of the Red Scare article goes to an article entitled First Red Scare, but the main article link for the Second Red Scare (1947–57) section of the Red Scare article goes to an article entitled McCarthyism. Then the Second Red Scare link from the McCarthyism article links back to the Second Red Scare (1947–57) section of the Red Scare article.
Curiously, there is no similar link from the First Red Scare article to the Red Scare article.
This seems a little convoluted and possibly confusing. Similar titling and linking treatment for the two external articles might make more sense. And i think reworking these links/titles might fit in with what Bmclaughlin envisions above. Richard Myers ( talk) 18:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I note that there has been disagreement concerning what year the First Red Scare started. I invite commentary on that question.
Personally, i believe it should date from 1917, when the IWW was first attacked across the U.S., and also in Australia and Canada, by a combination of government/corporate/vigilante action. I believe this coincided with fears related to what was happening in Russia at the time, although there didn't seem to be any significant relationship between the IWW and the Bolsheviks (Haywood excepted, of course, but that was later...) Richard Myers ( talk) 21:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I removed a statement which falsely asserted the loss of membership by the communists and the IWW. I don't know the history of the communists, but i do know the history of the IWW. The IWW continued to grow until 1923, which was after the first red scare had ended. The IWW lost membership after 1924, primarily due to a split. Richard Myers ( talk) 10:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
An editor reverted the following material germane to the Vermona project without giving a reason why. "In 1995, the American government revealed details of the Venona Project indicating intelligence gathering by Americans for the benefit of the Soviet Union from 1940 through 1980. While some have argued that people involved were clearly spying, others believe that these people had no malicious intent."
Why was this reverted? It is germane to the topic and verifiable. Student7 ( talk) 18:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Should there not be mention of the Venona project, which proves that the "Red Scare" was not as "Over Blown" as previously thought? I guess we don't want to offend far left liberals, I mean, communists.
"....Among this group we now know to have been working for the KGB and its predecessors, and for the GRU - Soviet military intelligence - were prominent Americans who in the war years infiltrated every major agency of the U.S. government, from the State and Treasury Departments to the Manhattan Project.
The Venona project files - thousands of decrypted 1940s cables between the KGB in Moscow and its agents in New York, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., and elsewhere, only released to the public beginning in 1995 - makes the evidence overwhelming. Thanks to Venona, we have definitive proof of the guilt of Alger Hiss and Julius Rosenberg, as well as the most important American atomic spy, Theodore Hall.
But Venona also revealed that the KGB had among its agents such people as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Harry Dexter White; the chief of the State Department's Division of American Republics, Laurence Duggan; the head of the State Department's Latin American Division, Maurice Halperin; and Lauchlin Currie, administrative aide and State Department liaison to Presidents Roosevelt and Truman.
Venona in fact confirmed what anti-Communists had argued at the time, and which their detractors, the anti anti-Communists, had always denied: There was a successful and dangerous Soviet penetration of our government, as well as a network of spies working for the KGB.
It also has been established that many of them were recruited directly out of the ranks of the American Communist Party. Contrary to what the left of the time had maintained - that the Communists were small, insignificant and hardly a danger - there was in fact good reason to view them not simply as members of an unpopular but legal political party, but as potential spies in waiting. The CP-USA was, as scholars Harvey Klehr and John Haynes have written, 'indeed a fifth column working inside and against the United States in the Cold War.'..."
The Red 'Scare' Was Real By Ronald Radosh
The New York Post July 10, 2002
Of all the newspapers in the world, you had to choose the Murdoch Post.
Please cite How did it end in 1957? I don't see why this date is so definitive. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I find this article to reflect a clearly non-neutral, largely right-wing, point of view. Where are the mentions of the massive negative social consequences, such as decades of large-scale, organised suppression of social dissent? What about the use of this ideologically-driven fear stirred up in the populace as a tool to fight against the civil rights movement, feminism, gay rights, and the expansion of the social safety net? Sixty years later, right-wing politicians still regularly attempt to use "socialist" as a slur to create fear to try to get people to close their ears and minds to the arguments and perspectives of their political opponents. Let's have some mention of these things in the article! As it stands now, I find it colossally unbalanced. It reads like a well-scripted justification for those attitudes and actions, without real mention of their very substantial negative effects or of the often-militant ideology which underlay them. (Or can only authoritarian communists have a militant, expansionist ideology?) Heavenlyblue ( talk) 00:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I propose a section entitled Negative Social and Political Consequences or even just Social and Political Consequences. I think, too, that another section might be desirable: The Red Scare as a Moral Panic, with a link in the first line to
Moral panic.
Heavenlyblue (
talk)
00:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Could someone add the fact that the only reason god was added to our money and our pledge is because of the red scare ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.86.119 ( talk) 16:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
A report in The New York Times of 19 May 1930, carries the headline “’Red Scare’ Protest Issued by Liberals”. The article refers to “100 Writers, Educators and artists [who warn] of Dangers in ‘Hysteria’ and ‘Persecution’”, and “Says 1,600 Have Been Wrongfully Arrested in 2 months”. Can anyone explain why isn't this dealt with here? Rwood128 ( talk) 15:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
This whole article is a POV that has an emotional appeal to certain segments of society. The scolarly content is suspect due to vague, narrow secondary sources used. Witness the constant re-editing of different people (including myself) to try to balance the article.
The revisionist writers quoted for the most part have a specific agenda they wish to promote. The article is reduced to a propaganda piece for the left. -- runchummey 04:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm always too lazy to log in until after, when I decide to let the editors know at least who's responsible. Aside from the intentionally snarky "citation needed" I hope these edits are seen as more in-line with what's reflected in the related articles. Anyway -- The language I found in the intro squarely strove to dignify that era's toxic nationalistic paranoia, which has, in basically all other places, been thoroughly discredited by history. People scanning this lede and moving on would think they'd learned that we saved ourselves from Soviet government invasion 100 years ago rather than barely, eventually, putting the brakes on a misguided and destructive political witch hunt. I mean fer eff-sakes, it said the Red Scare was a time when the country was protecting itself against a threat from the American labor movement. Apparently a Kochtopus was here before me. Nathan hawks ( talk) 17:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Red Scare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Is there any discussion yet of the possible start of the third Red Scare? There has been a lot in our media in the recent year or two about communists running our government, communist/socialism agenda's being pushed in our government that are viewed as a threat. These messages have been effective as well. There are major Media Outlets such as FoxNews along with their commentator Glenn Beck who has endorsed McCarthy and talks consistently of Communism in government. (Youtube: FoxNews June 25, 2010, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zfq6URia1Zw). I am not scholarly but it seems something that is worth at least discussion. There have been common place portrayals of our president as being socialist. ( http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/dems-socialist-health-plan-saps-obamas.html) The Tea Party Movement often has rally depicting Obama as a Marxist or Socialist who is destroying our country. Obama has defended his record as not being socialist himself after facing questions circulating that he is a Socialist/Communist/Marxist ( http://reason.com/blog/2009/03/09/obama-i-am-not-a-socialist-bec)
Questions to ask are we in the 3rd Red Scare? If so When did it begin? What are the underlying factors behind the discussion on communism in our media today? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.32.27 ( talk) 22:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree there are not many good sources regarding the idea of another wave of the red scare, however I think it is more so due to the fact that it is a fresh debate. None the less wikipedia is not ready to host the debate at this time. The only page I found on google was http://www.cracked.com/forums/topic/63802/the-modern-red-scare. (not very scholarly)...or a google search of "red scare modern "glenn beck"". Although I didn't review these articles before launching this discussion, thus proving to me that the debate is not limited to my imagination there certainly is not enough (worthy) sources for such a article. Maybe we are in the midst of history, maybe it is a fluke flashback that will be short lived. What I can say for sure is something is going on out there. The only part of where you comment I disagree with is the focus on xenoism and the Muslim faith. I don't think I was intending to direct the discussion in that rout but to instead solely focus on the communist references in modern media of political leaders, of actions of government, and of commentary. (opinion to follow) Although I can see the comparison between the rise of Hitlers fears of communist take over of Germany and his linkage to blaming "Jews" for the communists and national issues as a flimsy at best link to the anti-communist leaders of today such as Glenn Beck and his xenophobia towards Muslims to practice their freedom of religion and instilling a fear of impending sharia law in America. All in all if communist fear were to take a more mainstream presence maybe at that point there would be more sources to site and a article to become practical. Perhaps that is just a fear of mine. At least hopefully someone enjoyed the discussion and gained some ideas for other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.32.27 ( talk) 04:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
In the same spirit that there's a wiki page for World War III for a hypothetical future World War, and publications' usage of the term, I think there's enough material to support a potential article documenting ongoing anti-communist rhetoric in the USA entitled "Third Red Scare" Mapmaker345 ( talk) 22:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)