• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Venona Cables - McCarthy absolved?

The idea that Hoover was involved in a subtle operation to discredit McCarthy at the same time that he was actively looking for moles in the British Secret Service (he came within a hair's breadth of catching Philby, and did catch MacLean) defies credibility. If Hoover hadn't been genuinely committed to anticommunism, he wouldn't have bothered looking for the much more valuable British moles. If he was committed to anticommunism, he wouldn't have set up McCarthy in the way you describe.

To say that the scenario you describe defies credibility is to understate it.
Sorry, I was not clear. I didn't mean Hoover as a 'perp'. When I said 'perps', I was trying the scenario that, in line with the Venona perspective, there were sufficient perpertrators of the Soviet spy kind, that assuming they were sufficiently entrenched, could have and would have (if they could) set up someone and McC was perfect for the pick. ...still not plausible?
 
Sorry, I was not clear. I didn't mean Hoover as a 'perp'. When I said 'perps', I was trying the scenario that, in line with the Venona perspective, there were sufficient perpertrators of the Soviet spy kind, that assuming they were sufficiently entrenched, could have and would have (if they could) set up someone and McC was perfect for the pick. ...still not plausible?

Still not plausible. Again, why couldn't/didn't "they" do anything to protect MacLean and Philby? That would have been a lot more effective in both the short and the long term, and a lot easier than trying to stage the massive conspiracy. (Philby, in particular, was scheduled to become the head of the British Secret Service, with a power group of his own on the Hill.) Why couldn't they have shut down HUAC, which was also committed to the task of anticommunism, and doing a much better job of it?

If you're assuming that McCarthy got his information from Hoover, then presumably Hoover got it from somewhere. If Hoover didn't believe the information he got, then why would he pass it on to one of his staunchest allies on the Hill? If he did believe the information he got, then why didn't his sources pass more useful disinformation on? And why did HUAC, which got more or less the same information as McCarthy, have a substantially better track record?

I'm afraid that all the information points to genuine incompetence (and nastiness) on McCarthy's part. Otherwise, you don't get consistent character readings on anyone else in the picture.
 
So when are you going to start arguing that Hitler may have been right? I mean, everyone pretty much says "Hitler sucks", maybe its just programming.


(BTW, I'm not trying to say McCarthy was anywhere near the monstrosity of Hitler, I'm just trying to make a point, that sometimes we vilify someone because they deserve it, not because of groupthink.)
The majority answer is that he was vilified because it was well deserved. But I ask, does the constant reminder of how terrible were the messengers distract from the message? If it DOES distract from the message, I suggest that is logically consistent with the idea that a communist conspiracy was succussful in the US. So you are nestled safely within the mass numbers of the majority to say McC sucked. You guys are convincing me that he sucked. But are we programmed to say 'he sucked' first, and then forget to mention what it was really all about?

You brought up Hitler: I knew a Soviet emigree who was part of the underground is the USSR but escaped around '79. He said that the underground had a belief that 60,000,000 people were killed under Stalin (mostly through intentional starvation). Many were Jews and they believed more Jews were killed under Stalin than were killed due to Hitler. (just an interesting bit of hearsay) Anybody think that Stalin was worse than Hitler?
 
So, are you suggesting another CT? You know, where one very powerful nutcase can't screw things up.??(look around you.)
Take out the Razor-While it may be logically consistent to suppose McC was brought down by the "powerful enemy", it is much simpler to examine the man for the reasons of his downfall.
And what would make you suppose that the hunt for subversives stopped when ol'Joe got censured? Don't think so!
The hunt is just a little quieter,now.
Have you ever listened much to Rush Limbaugh. Something that cracks me up about Rush is that he will never discuss the Federal Reserve system. Always says Conspiracy Theorists are nut cases. ...says conspiracies are impossible. I don't know if he figures that if there is a conspiracy/ies, he best keep a low profile because he wants to stay on the air. ...or if he thinks it has become a tantamount equation that CT=NUT and therefore doesn't want that poop smeared on him? Or does he really believe conspiracies are impossible.

Doesn't matter. I think that it is logically consistent that to say "conspiracies are impossible" is the first thing a conspiracy would love that you believe:) .

It is too much of a hot button to use the term so it is best to just try to be more specific in the discussion. I can say that I don't believe in conspiracies because conspiracies, by definition, are secret, and most things people call CT are really about some cooperation that is happening out in public view. How can it be a conspiracy if we all know it is happening and let it happen - whatever it is.

But about Occam's Razor... I'm not sure I agree. It might actually be simpler to see McC's demise as part of the same strategy of commie takeover. I cannot defend McC as to whether he was not as bad as people say but it seems moot, to me.
 
Yes. But was it due to "McCarthy sucks" or was it due to a cunning display made against McCarthy, to demonstrate to other would-be-heroes "lay off exposing the infiltration"? The latter seems logically consistent to me. The former merely appears to be "what everybody is supposed to say".

There's no evidence at all of any real, serious infiltration. What's more, McCarthy's "examinations" went far beyond government individuals, and impinged seriously on the rights of political speech of private (non-government) individuals.

Ergo, your question is invalid, as it does not reflect the actual occurances of the time. As such, I suspect that you've constructed it in an attempt to get people to admit tacitly to "facts" not in evidence.
 
In a way, even when McCarthy was right, he was wrong. Even if he did help catch Communist spies, that wouldn't change the fact that he used vile, depraved witch-hunt tactics to do so.

In short, used the same tactics as the KGB, which he insisted was the enemy. Well, it was the enemy, but he wasn't any different than they were.
 
The majority answer is that he was vilified because it was well deserved. But I ask, does the constant reminder of how terrible were the messengers distract from the message? If it DOES distract from the message, I suggest that is logically consistent with the idea that a communist conspiracy was succussful in the US. So you are nestled safely within the mass numbers of the majority to say McC sucked. You guys are convincing me that he sucked. But are we programmed to say 'he sucked' first, and then forget to mention what it was really all about?

I personally would never vilify someone based on hearsay. When I read history, and the evidence shows me someone really was a douchebag, then I'll gladly vilify them. I try to avoid programmed responses because I really don't trust other people too much.

Thats just me, but I'm sure it goes for many people here on these boards.
 
I personally would never vilify someone based on hearsay. When I read history, and the evidence shows me someone really was a douchebag, then I'll gladly vilify them. I try to avoid programmed responses because I really don't trust other people too much.

Thats just me, but I'm sure it goes for many people here on these boards.

What definition of "hearsay" are you using that all reported history doesn't qualify?
 
In short, used the same tactics as the KGB, which he insisted was the enemy. Well, it was the enemy, but he wasn't any different than they were.
During my high school history courses, we didn't cover all that much of Stalin, but we did touch on McCarthy. Later, one of my college literature courses touched on how Stalin was filling up the gulags with cheap/free labor. It was much the same as McCarthy, except with sort of an opposite sentence: Forced labor, instead of forced non-labor.
 
What you say here seems to me to be just another facet of the irony. It is ironic that he resulted in what you called a "net loss to ...anti-communism". Yet I think I understand you concur there was an abundant threat to the US, within, and you also say few were rooted out?

Do you always try to put words in other people's mouths?

There is no, zero, zip evidence that McCarthy rooted out a single communist. There is lots of evidence that he took over the investiation machinery and destroyed a lot of innocent people, and that as a result, he put people trying to do real investigations in a hard position.

And the irony of course is that it wasn't illegal to be a communist. Idiotic, perhaps, on multiple grounds, but not illegal.
 
There's no evidence at all of any real, serious infiltration. What's more, McCarthy's "examinations" went far beyond government individuals, and impinged seriously on the rights of political speech of private (non-government) individuals.

Ergo, your question is invalid, as it does not reflect the actual occurances of the time. As such, I suspect that you've constructed it in an attempt to get people to admit tacitly to "facts" not in evidence.
It would be great if we did have all the facts. Discussion allows people each to bring what they think are facts to the table. You bring to the table that "there's no evidence at all of any real, serious infiltration."

Lets start with that "fact" of yours. I presented Venona Cables as evidence to the contrary of your statement. Do you doubt the veracity of Venona Cables? Admittedly, I took Venona at face value, but if you think it is false, let me hear it.:)
 
Lets start with that "fact" of yours. I presented Venona Cables as evidence to the contrary of your statement. Do you doubt the veracity of Venona Cables? Admittedly, I took Venona at face value, but if you think it is false, let me hear it.:)

Please explain what this had to do with the persecution of Marshall. Please explain what this had to do with the persuit of a whole bunch of journalists.

You seem to be missing something here, and that's that McCarthy didn't do anything to rid government of communists, covert or otherwise, but he did attack the politically active part of the entertainment sector. Why, almost like following some particular shock jock around and repeatedly fining the stations that play him even though everyone here hears those words every day in the course of life.
 
Please explain what this had to do with the persecution of Marshall. Please explain what this had to do with the persuit of a whole bunch of journalists.

You seem to be missing something here, and that's that McCarthy didn't do anything to rid government of communists, covert or otherwise, but he did attack the politically active part of the entertainment sector. Why, almost like following some particular shock jock around and repeatedly fining the stations that play him even though everyone here hears those words every day in the course of life.
I'd have to find some evidence that McC did persecute Marshall and that he did smear the entertainment sector. I'd have to do some reading and get back with you.
 
Please explain what this had to do with the persecution of Marshall. Please explain what this had to do with the persuit of a whole bunch of journalists.

You seem to be missing something here, and that's that McCarthy didn't do anything to rid government of communists, covert or otherwise, but he did attack the politically active part of the entertainment sector.

What does any of that have to do with your statement that

There's no evidence at all of any real, serious infiltration.
?

VonNeumann's argument appears to be that the Venona cables supply evidence for such infiltration; how does your response address that?
 
Later, one of my college literature courses touched on how Stalin was filling up the gulags with cheap/free labor.

Sidonote: It wasn't actually cheap labor when all factors are included. Sure, the prisoners were not paid but the guards and bureaucrats were and barbed wire doesn't grow on trees, either. The Gulag operated at loss for its whole existence and it was kept up only by pouring ever-increasing amounts of money to it.
 
Ow. Good points. Guess Stalin should have read The Impending Crisis of the South or whatever that banned book was called.
 
I'd have to find some evidence that McC did persecute Marshall and that he did smear the entertainment sector. I'd have to do some reading and get back with you.

How brave was McCarthy? What effect did he have on the political debate in the United States? You say you need proof that McCarthy went out after George C. Marshall...this from an Eisenhower site....

http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/stories/Ike-Wisconsin.htm

"One of the best known and most notorious members of the conservative faction within the Republican Party was Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin. Through his position as a member of the Senate Un-American Activities Committee, he had become nationally famous by publicly denouncing various people as “communist sympathizers” or “downright traitors.” Eisenhower was repulsed by McCarthy’s reckless claims. Ike lamented the Senator’s abusive treatment of witnesses before the Committee. But Eisenhower also believed he needed the electoral votes of Wisconsin to win the presidency, and he did not speak publicly about McCarthy’s activities.

Silence worked for a time, but Eisenhower was trapped by circumstances he should have avoided. Early in the presidential campaign Senator McCarthy issued a scathing condemnation of George Marshall, who had served as President Truman’s Secretary of State after retiring from the Army. The Senator said the former Chief of Staff was, “part of a conspiracy so immense, an infamy so black, as to dwarf any in the history of man.” This was absurd, but in 1952 it was dangerous to point out how absurd McCarthy’s charges were, especially if you were the Republican candidate for president.

Working in his campaign train in Illinois, on his way to make a September 2nd speech in Milwaukee, Eisenhower amended his campaign speech to include a paragraph soundly denouncing the junior Senator from Wisconsin for having bizarrely defamed George Marshall. One of the campaign staffers notified McCarthy of Ike’s intentions. The Governor of Wisconsin, Walter Kohler, and Senator McCarthy flew to Peoria, Illinois, to confront Eisenhower before he got to Wisconsin. Ike met privately with McCarthy and the General told his staff that he had made no commitment to delete the paragraph condemning the attack on George Marshall.

The next day Eisenhower’s future Chief of Staff, Sherman Adams, met with Eisenhower after Governor Kohler told him that including the paragraph in the speech would cause serious problems for the Republicans in Wisconsin. When he sat down with Eisenhower, Adams urged him to take out the paragraph rebuking McCarthy. Adams, whom Ike respected for his political acumen, managed to convince Ike to make his statement on behalf of Marshall later in the campaign -- in a state other than Wisconsin.

But the trap had already closed. Unbeknownst to Eisenhower or Sherman Adams the original text of the speech had already been given to reporters. They waited in Milwaukee, eagerly composing headlines to use about Eisenhower’s stinging condemnation of McCarthy. With Kohler and McCarthy on the platform behind him, Eisenhower delivered his usual campaign speech without the paragraph he had written or any words about either Marshall or McCarthy. His single reference to the matter was a lame and oblique sentence, “The right to question a man’s judgment carries with it no automatic right to question his honor.” When the speech was over, McCarthy was photographed shaking hands with Eisenhower."
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the reference. OK. ...same question to you, then... is it plausible that Mc was set up as a fall guy to squelch would-be whistle blowers? Is it logically consistent?

It's possible, I suppose. However, it seems to me that McCarthy's ego played a significant role in what he did. I don't think that Hoover or anyone else involved was really bright enough to manipulate him, though some might have been able to use him in some capacity as a "useful idiot."

BTW: (I'm not a tad paranoid. I am a contrarian. I sniff out where I see "thou protesteth too much" and other tell-tale signs that things may be different than they seem, or that a sacred cow is at stake).

I was referring, specifically, to your statements about how you are being treated in this forum. They're a bit over-the-top. Not all of the people here are really bright either, but really, we're not just a bunch of lock-step McCarthy-hating PC liberals, either.
 
There's no evidence at all of any real, serious infiltration.


I'm afraid I may have to disagree with you here. My understanding is that Alger Hiss, Julius Rosenberg, Donald MacLean, and Kim Philby were all highly placed Soviet agents with access to high level American secrets. (Of course, there's a partial irony in that two of them were actually British nationals, and thus outside of the US government's formal remit. MacLean was head of the American desk of the British Foreign Office, Philby was the Anglo-American intelligence liason.)
 

Back
Top Bottom