Talk:McCarthyism

Discussion

Latest comment: 20 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

I vote for "McCarthy era" or "McCarthyism," as this was a very specific portion of US history. It might be considered as the apex (or nadir) of the "red scare," which really lasted from the end of WWII to the end of the Soviet Union. (The documentary The Atomic Cafe provides a good summary via footage). Only under the McCarthy-led spasm of hysteria did it enter the legeslative arena. If "Anti-communism" doesn't discuss the "red scare," though, it probably should. -- April

It is worth remembering, that in spite of the silliness and destructiveness of McCarthy, there were, in fact, a number of moles in the US government, hidden spies who were devoted to the interests of a foreign power.

Alger Hiss, for one, for all the fervency of his defenders, was hiding his secret activities and continued to hide them after being discovered behind the distaste many Americans, including me, feel for witchhunts. In his case, it wasn't a witchhunt because he was the genuine article.

There is an attempt in House Un-American Activities Committee and Joseph McCarthy to distinguish between a legitimate self-protection against secret espionage and an illegitimate hounding of Americans for their political beliefs. The funny thing, to me, about HUAC is that they actually found a few spies (imagine, Richard Nixon (!) found a few spies), but they were totally discredited by McCarthy, and, in fact, slavishly followed in his footsteps to their own doom along with his.

But there were spies in the government and whatever we write ought to reflect this, or we will be be rightfully discredited and discounted as a source. McCarthy couldn't have caught a communist if one bit him in the ass. He was nothing but a cynic, and the HUAC a bunch more (see the Hollywood Ten), but still, they were there, in government, in the labor unions (attempted assasination of Walter Reuther of the UAW), and elsewhere. I am not a knee-jerk anti-communist by any means, but I am an anti-totalitarian, and I don't like it wherever I see it. Ortolan88

I agree with you. I've added a link from a 1999 U.S. News & World Report story about McCarthyism, which cites declassified KGB documents confirming that there were, in fact, some Soviet spies in the State Department (though most appear to have left by 1948). Funnyhat 19:35, 30 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

It's important to recognize that there has been more than one "red scare" in American history. The McCarthy era was just one instance of it. There was also a red scare in the US after the Russian revolution, circa 1919. One thing that came out of that particular red scare, for example, was that the IWW (the wobblies), a radical trade union, was suppressed by the government. I think there were a lot of other repressive measures taken during that period, but I can't recall them off the top of my head. So perhaps there should be a general article on "red scare" that generically discusses the topic, and with a link to the article on McCarthyism. -- soulpatch

Weren't several duly elected Socialists denied their seats in 1919?

Many reds were rounded up and deported during World War I and the terrible oppression of the IWW is a blot on the United States that will never be wiped out. I am old enough to have participated in protests against the Smith Act and HUAC, and once hosted a debate over HUAC between James Roosevelt and J. Fred Schlafly (the only brush with fame that ever happened to the husband of the notorious Phyllis Schlafly), and I've seen Operation Abolition and the counter film made by the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee a dozen times each (and bloody boring they both were). I hated McCarthy and McCarran then, and I hate Richard Nixon to this day, but I assure you, that despite all these wrongs, there really were spies in the government, and HUAC and Nixon, and the FBI (dammit) were instrumental in uncovering some of them. It is possible that the worst of McCarthy's crimes was trivializing and siscrediting the hunt for real spies with his ugly, harmful, and stupid crusade against unorthodoxy. There were plenty of left-wingers, again me among them, who hated the communists as much as we hated the fascists, and with just as much reason. Ortolan88

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).

AW

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

Fred - it would be best to split that up, then, since you're quite right that the evidence on which the Rosenbergs were convicted is questionable at best, but I think Ortolan is right in that later released evidence shows that the convictions were actually probably correct. --AW

What about a mention of The Crucible by Arthur Miller?

Hmm, maybe a set of links to cultural stuff that resulted from McCarthyism? Films, plays, books etc?

Excellent, jump right in and do that. Don't forget High Noon. Fred Bauder

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

Huh? I can't see anything about Murrow in this history of this article. Do you mean the one on McCarthy himself? That's the one that's been rewritten. I'll go and look at it. --AW

There was an addition by an IP address to the article on McCarthy with stuff about Murrow - I assume that was it. I put the info back into the current version of that article - apologies for missing it out :) --AW

Yes, sorry, it was in the article about McCarthy himself, and I added it either before I gave myself a username or without logging in. Thanks for adding it back in. soulpatch

Hi soulpatch, I moved this section:

In 2003, there were fears of a renewal of McCarthyism, as intolerance arose against those in the film and television industry and elsewhere who opposed war with Iraq. Many were accused of being "anti-American" or "unpatriotic" for taking public stands on matters of conscience. The Screen Actors Guild issued a statement stating "We deplore the idea that those in the public eye should suffer professionally for having the courage to give voice to their views. Even a hint of the blacklist must never again be tolerated in this nation."

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?

The word has been used to describe various similar witchhunts. How about a paragraph saying that it has been used in other contexts, with links to articles about the specific McCarthyesque periods in history? (Satanic ritual abuse comes to mind) Tuf-Kat

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

Thanks - I think that is a good way to handle it without diluting the main meaning.

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)Reply

Hello everyone, I just started doing research on McCarthy, McCarthyism, Red Scare, HUAC, Venona Project, and such. I'll have to admit that most i learned in school on such matters is completly different than what I have been able to find. But one strange thing i have found is people thinking McCarthy and his people had anything do to with the Red Scare and witchhunts with the entertainment industry. I have done research do find the truth and haven't found incredible amount of facts that point to that he didn't have anything to do with them.

Well untill i saw on Joseph McCarthys biograph on Wikipedia which stated McCarthy and his staff did witchhunts on government officials and the entertainment industry. But than I read down and saw "His committee, unlike the House Un-American Activities Committee and the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, focused on government institutions." I know that doesn't directly say McCarthy just delt with government institutions but says what he focused on. But I did more research and I still came up with the same answer. So I corrected it on McCarthy's biograph and it was fixed. But than I saw on McCarthyism biograph "Hollywood and the entertainment industry in general came under particular fire from McCarthy and his allies." So before I fixed that I was wondering if anyone knew if McCarthy ever attacked Hollywood or if he did at what degree did he did do it at.

I'm sorry if i sound like I am nitpicking or anything, it just seems this is a very common misundering of McCarthy. But I still must admit I am new at this, with only beginning the research on McCarthy so i know there is a chance I am wrong. I was wondering if it is true should maybe McCarthyism entry talk about this misunderstanding. And I am sorry just one more question in my research I came to a fact I have no way of knowing its truth... I dont have the name of the site I receieved the fact of hand but i remember reading that the committe invesigating if McCarthy said 205 or 57, and the committee came to the conclusion that he said 57. I was wondering if anyone knew of the truth to this matter of the committee's conclusion?

What occurs to me about McCarthyism is:-

You suspect there are spies in your civil service and military.

Do you

(1) mount a public witch-hunt, casuing the real spies to burn their codebooks and so on,

and making a monkey out of yourself by accusing innocent people

(2) monitor the suspects in secret, possibly allowing them to continue, but now feeding false information?

Exile 22:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I came on this discussion because when I read the article, I instantly thought "Man, this is a biased and completely one-sided view of McCarthyism!" I mean, I understand that, according to history, McCarthy went to some extreme lengths to catch suspected and real communists, including Sean Penn's father (real). Anyway, there needs to be mentions of and links to the Venona Project (which proves that the Rosenbergs were guilty--another thing I was always taught was untrue in pre-Venona college, and somewhat proves the guilt of Alger Hiss and 347 other spies, including also one of the top leaders of the OSS.) There also MUST be a mention of famous real communists caught by McCarthyism. (cf. http://www.alexa.com/search?amzn_id=colinandbetha-20&q=%22leo+penn%22+mccarthy&p=TBChrome)

There also needs to be an overt separation of Joseph McCarthy from the sociological/historical movement called McCarthyism.

The opening sentence depicts "McCarthyism" as an era. I wish someone would explain this. Thx. Nobs 15:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That reflects common knowledge. The exact phrase "maccarthy era" brings up 113k Google hits. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:08, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Bed stand

To which he replied, "I'm sorry, but I seem to have left it on your mother's bed stand."

18:27, May 13, 2005 User:Mister Farkas (removed false quotation (I checked transcript+audio) & added link to new Army-McCarthy Hearings)

Unless someone comes up with a source this quote should be considered spurious. -Willmcw 04:13, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Ironies

The first irony is McCarthy went on a crusade against leaks of government information when it appears his knowledge of 205 known Communists came itself from a partial leak of classified information. Another irony is that while innocent persons may have been "persecuted", many of the truely guilty walked away free under the cloak of "McCarthyism".

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)

Well, it's an attempt to put the past 50 years in perspective in lite of Venona, cause the true significance of Venona itself I don't think is clearly understood. It does not necessarily "vindicate" McCarthy, it is certainly does not vindicate many of the high level accused. To a limited extent, Venona does vindicate the Truman administration regarding McCarthy's (and the other accusers) charges that it knowingly persisted in allowing Soviet espionage agents to occupy positions like the head of the International Monetary Fund. While by rights Truman should have known that allegations appearing in FBI memorandum where factual, yes, it's true he had cause to be suspicious of J. Edgar. But the material did not originate with J. Edgar, it was filtered through him to conceal the work being done on decryption within the Army. McCarthy did in fact realize at somepoint, that is wasn't the FBI engaged in a "cover up" to conceal Communists, that the Army was hiding something. Now we have a much clearer picture of the whole affair, and the big disappointment is, it doesn't really feed rabid partisans on either side. Nobs01 00:56, 22 Jun 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)

Army-McCarthy

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In response to inquiry:

Is it not true that the statements by Mr. Welch were made during the Army-McCarthy hearings and not during any hearings held by Sen. McCarthy

That is correct. McCarthy did not Chair the Army-McCarthy Hearings. pg. 8 nobs 21:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Cloak

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

While innocent persons may have been persecuted, some who may have been 'guilty' walked away free under the cloak of being McCarthy victims.

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)

It may be a process of subtracting names from this list, [1] (by no means complete) from this list, [2] on a case by case basis, with a fair, close attention to detail (there are "unwitting" agents who were assigned code names). As you once said, Wikipedia is a work in progress. nobs 20:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Irony

Latest comment: 20 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

The word "irony" is what the Moynihan Commission Report uses in Appendix A, 7 The Cold War [3]

And so to an irony that only now begins to emerge. It would appear that by the onset of the Cold War the Soviet attack in the area of espionage and subversion had been blunted and turned back. There would be episodic successes in the years to come, but none equal to earlier feats. New York of the 1930s. Los Alamos. Some unions. The State Department. The Treasury Department....

It may be very good NPOV language. Well worth reading its entire context. nobs 19:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Good source. I've added a mention of the Commission's "irony" to the "Critique" section. Thanks, -Willmcw 20:12, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

The real irony That needs to be introduced is, that was while McCarthy (blindly) made accusations that have proven in part to be true, the other irony was that Truman denied any validity, but ironically Truman himself wasn't lying, he genuinely did not know that there was real substance to the charges. Moynihan says in his Chairman's Forward,

"President Truman was almost willfully obtuse as regards American Communism." nobs 20:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Irony is POV. If we can find a notable critic addressing the irony that you refer to than it'd be OK to add it with attribution. Otherwise we should just list the verifiable info and let readers judge the irony for themselves. I don't see "irony" in the "Chairman's Forward". -Willmcw 20:43, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

The reference is to the overall ironies that government secrecy has created regarding public perceptions and misperceptions. Ironically, this cannot be expressed in one sentence or a paragraph. "And so to an irony that only now begins to emerge", which challenges those misperceptions. These are the major relevent sections of the Commission report Chairmans Forward The Encounter with Communism The Experience of the Second World War The Cold War Loyalty, and perhaps a few other sections (previous Commissions, etc). nobs 21:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Maybe the way to handle this is to expand the sentence about the commission into a paragraph summarizing their relevant findings. -Willmcw 21:27, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Some help

Latest comment: 20 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)Reply

A partisan McCarthy-hater would say yes; it should be noted, Senator McCarthy was only 1 Senator of 100 in half of the Legislative branch which is only 1/3 of the government, hence his power was limited, and I don't beleive anybody was arrested, sent to a gulag, labor camp or exterminated, as was the case under both fascism and communism. So in that sense, no, the McCarthy era was not akin to an American fascist era. However, since the release of the Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy report in 1997, and other recent releases of classified government documents from 50 years ago, we discover much of American history dating back to at least the 1930's needs a thorough revision, including the subject of Joseph McCarthy, because as it turns out, his basic charges were in fact 100% true. McCarthy just took it upon himself to do the job the FBI should have done, but he probably did so because he may have suspected the FBI was infested with Communists and was only covering up, too. Truthfully, there are much, much larger issues that must be reassesed than Joseph McCarthy in light of the new evidence. nobs 17:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Moynihan

Latest comment: 20 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

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.

Willmcw: yah but in meaning that is what Moyhnihan is refering to as per his book, Secrecy: The American Experience. If you read both Commission Report, and Moynihan's book, you will find things like this; for example, the Commission Report says a "there was a Communist conspiracy", Moynihan takes the same sentence and says "there was a Communist constituency. nobs 00:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Link to Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States#Anti-Americanism for discussion on what McCarthyism is. nobs 03:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I saw my name but I don't know what you are responding to. -Willmcw 03:32, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

That was over the L.A.-Hollywood reversion. nobs 03:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

That quotation in question said "Los Angeles". There is no reason to change a direct quotation. If you want to add a note that Moynihan may have meant "Hollywood" when he said "Los Angeles", and if there is some source to support it, then go ahead. I don't see anything about it in the text above. -Willmcw 03:49, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Moynihan was smart, he got the taxpayers to pay to research a book he wrote & sold privately. Much of the material is cut and pasted straight out of Commission Report, with a few changes like "Communist conspiracy" becomes "Communist constituency" (although he kicks the living crap out of Alger Hiss, which the Commisson Report only refers to twice). As per his book, the "Communist constiuency" was Hollywood, not Los Angelas. I think the Hollywood must have had a Congressman on the Commission to keep that reference out. nobs 04:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

If you want to quote from the other book instead then do so. But taking words or phrases from the books and mixing-and matching them into quotations would not be correct. -Willmcw 04:19, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Notes

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)Reply

Blacklist

Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

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)

I'm saying even some sources that may be cited now are in error, in light of new evidence. Clearly there is a much stricter standard now regarding the definition. Case by case, any claimant will need to prove what was the charge, who made the charge, and how were they persecuted, seeing there is enough evidence now to conclusively demonstrate that many who made the claim, and/or others who made the claim on behalf of certain persons, were false claims of "persecution" or being a "victim". nobs 20:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Who changed the standard, and what new evidence? Are you saying that the Hollywood blacklist didn't exist? -Willmcw 20:35, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

What does this mean?:

...although much of the sourcing information on their alleged persecution is now suspect in light of the opening of Comintern Archives, KGB Archives, and NSA Archives.

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 am assuming you are refering strictly to the so-called MPAA "blacklist" (commonly refered to as Hollywood Blacklist); this introduces a note of confusion into the discussion: David Bohm's bio says he's a quantum physicist; many of the others cited in the article are Broadway playwriters or worked in New York literary circles; Aaron Copeland is considered a "Classical" composer (Hollywood is not known for its receptivity of Classical composers); Waldo Salt appears to be the only name who ever wrote Hollywood scripts, however Salt was a member of the CPUSA while serving in the OWI, which does not qualify him for "victim" status.

The question needs to tempered and clarified, are you asking about so-called "Hollywood" victims, which then could be expanded to include New York literary & cultural personalites, or a broad catchall category of alleged victims of "McCarthyism"? nobs 16:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

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)

I am assuming first off, that this in an unqualified list, being there are no citations on any of the biogarphies. Secondly, the case for Waldo Salt, for example, has not been made, seeing that he was a member of the CPUSA while employed in the government, as preliminary research reveals. Thirdly, the sources cited to allude to some alleged persecution may now be in doubt, as for example Ellen Schreker's post-Venona release book, "Many Are the Crimes" alleges Byron Darling was a victim of "McCarthyism", only to have that theory shot down with the recent release of the Gorsky Memo from Soviet Archives which reveal him as previously unidentified agent "Guron" (or "Huron"). Fourth, the acceptance of these unqualified, unresearched assertions, opens the door to hundreds if not thousands of similiar claims. Too many cases have now been found of persons who were alleged to have been persecuted victims. What's more, the definition of McCarthyism needs to be stated clearly, because now it seems to even include gay bashing. Even given its supposed definition of making an unfounded charge, unless someone is "bashing" a person who is not gay, it's quite a stretch to claim "bashing" a gay, who in fact is gay, is McCarthyism. But this is the evident ridiculous extreme the misuse of this term has reached. Simple question: Is Wikipedia's mission to further perpetuate myths & distortions, or be a resevoir of well researched, established facts. nobs 20:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

The material on specific people should be handled in the biographies. If it is incorrect then it should be removed from those articles. Until it is, we shold consider other Wikipedia articles as fair sources. Regarding Salt, persecution for being a member of the CPUSA is still persecution. As for Darling, he's not on the list, though he could be because you have a source, and he'd only fail to qualify if he was specifically being persecuted for being a spy. Certainly, the definition of McCarthyism needs to be stated clearly. That's the point of this article. Also, what is the relevance of Robeson being a "Stalin Prize" winner. Does that mean he was not persecuted, or that his persecution was justified? -Willmcw 21:12, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't fully investigated the case of Salt, but this is what appears to be the case: he was employed by the government while illegally being a member of the CPUSA. To obtain government employment, one must "bare truth faith and alligiance to the same", not to an organization which advocated the violent overthrow of the U.S. government. A second violation of law must have occured here, lying on an application to obtain employment with the U.S. government. So if Salt's alleged persecution consists of losing his government job, or being disqualified from further government employment based on findings of the above two stated willful violations, that hardly qualifies as persecution or victimhood (many other cases will fall into this same category).

Further comments on use of the term: Most, if not all of these persons were called before HUAC, for various reasons and that discusssion properly belongs on the HUAC Talk page (for example, the issue of naming names of others is not covered by the fifth ammendment, etc.). Specifically as to the use of the term "McCarthyism": the PSI only has power to investigate persons or entities of the United States Government, or persons & entities that do business with the United States Government. Thus a huge myth was borne & perpetrated, that the PSI investigated and/or "persecuted" private persons, i.e. persons outside government employment and government contractors.

The real meaning of "McCarthyism" has to do with a reckless disregard of an individuals rights while testifying before a Congressional Committee. Hence, hundreds, if not thousands of persons who were (a) blacklisted by the non-governmental MPAA (b) investigated by the FBI (which is an Executive Branch bureau), and (c) other alleged qualifiers, have purported for decades to be "victims" of McCarthyism. Both Senate & House have instituted reforms to their rules regarding witness rights, and witness protections, since the abuses of "McCarthyism", and the United States Congress's definition and meaning of the term bares' little resemblance to the common misused, and abused use (I could expand, if necessary).

In reality, before the PSI, there were only 83 persons who refused to answer questions in public hearings about espionage and subversive activities on constitutional grounds, and their names were made public. Nine additional witnesses invoked the Fifth Amendment in executive session, and their names were not made public. So the actual number of persecuted victims is = or > 83, depending on certain qualifiers.

Much has been made about slander, disrepute, ill-fame and the like of these alleged victims & their reputations. According to the personal testimonies of people who knew Joseph McCarthy and worked with him, he was not the monster that decades of abuse has heaped upon him (though he probably did go berserk in the end). So in some limited way, Joseph McCarthy's name will be partially rehabilitated, the guilty will be finally fingered, and the true persecuted victims identified (subtext: and the purveyors of lies then & now exposed). nobs 22:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

David Bohm and McCarthyism

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)Reply