• 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?

VonNeumann

Muse
V
Joined
Jan 25, 2006
Messages
914
Here is some CT/anti-CT bait:
I am curious to what extent it is believed around here that the US Army Signal Corp's Venona Cable expose (1995) of Soviet secret message interceptions (1940s) has changed anyone's viewpoint about what McCarthy alleged. We all know McCarthy's credibility was unanimously debunked by mainstream in the 50s and is heretofore the icon of "paranoia" or "accusor without evidence", and the like. Since the Venona cables might be interpreted to mean that what McCarthy alleged was not only true, but perhaps even significantly underestimated by McCarthy, what do you think of that? I think the only thing I saw in the news was certainly not on the front pages but radio dude Paul Harvey is the only one I think I ever heard say "McCarthy was right". Did I miss a big revelation in the news? ...if not, then why would this be inconsequential: if McCarthy is accused of being the false accuser, but we are false in accusing McCarthy of same (for 50 years straight), since (re: Venona) McCarthy was right, are we committing McCarthyism by falsely accusing McCarthy?
 
Was anyone who McCarthy specifically smeared found to be in the Verona Cables? I don't think so.

He might have been right in a big picture kind of way, but what he did probably aided and comforted the enemy more than threatened them by making everyone look suspicious.

And then there is the whole loyalty oath thing...
 
Luke T. said:
Was anyone who McCarthy specifically smeared found to be in the Verona Cables? I don't think so.

He might have been right in a big picture kind of way, but what he did probably aided and comforted the enemy more than threatened them by making everyone look suspicious.

And then there is the whole loyalty oath thing...
Click to expand...
BTW, the reason I did not post this under politics is because I saw a lot of CT stuff on this forum wrt 9/11.

Your question about "who McCarthy specifically smeared" should be answered before we speculate further. Who did McCarthy smear? I assume by 'smear' you mean 'falsely accuse'. If he pegged a communist - that was his job.

The House Commitee on UnAmerican Activities, originated by Congressman Martin Dies of Texas, is often confused with McCarthy (McCarthy was a US Senator from Wisconsin). The HCUA was active from 1945 into the 70s. I think the Hollywood inquistion was run by HCUA, not by McCarthy. McCarthy was after State Dept and other high ranking US gov officials.

What do you mean about McCarthy possibly being "right in a big picture kind of way"? Do we know if he accused anyone that was NOT communist?
 
VonNeumann said:
BTW, the reason I did not post this under politics is because I saw a lot of CT stuff on this forum wrt 9/11.

Your question about "who McCarthy specifically smeared" should be answered before we speculate further. Who did McCarthy smear? I assume by 'smear' you mean 'falsely accuse'. If he pegged a communist - that was his job.

The House Commitee on UnAmerican Activities, originated by Congressman Martin Dies of Texas, is often confused with McCarthy (McCarthy was a US Senator from Wisconsin). The HCUA was active from 1945 into the 70s. I think the Hollywood inquistion was run by HCUA, not by McCarthy. McCarthy was after State Dept and other high ranking US gov officials.

What do you mean about McCarthy possibly being "right in a big picture kind of way"? Do we know if he accused anyone that was NOT communist?
Click to expand...

Don't forget the Army hearings. That was McCarthy.

So how about we start with Annie Lee Moss. Was she in the Venona Cables? Was she spying for the Soviet Union?

And remember, being a Communist and being a spy are two different things.
 
Some of the most well known US spies for the USSR were not Communists. More like greedy a-holes.
 
Luke T. said:
Some of the most well known US spies for the USSR were not Communists. More like greedy a-holes.
Click to expand...
That's pretty much true for spies for any other country (if security briefings are to be believed).

Since when was it ever illegal to be a Communist?
 
Ririon said:
Poetic unjustice. How alanic. Or not. :confused:
Click to expand...
Personally, I'd say:
poetic injustice - yes
alanic - no
ironic - yes

So if Venona Cables are not counterfeit, and are accurate, then McCarthy was/is right...

Isn't it more than mere irony? Ask yourself if communists had indeed infiltrated our government in a big way and high levels of power, then why have Venona Cables not absolved McCarthy in history (in the news, in what teachers teach, etc). It is logically inconsistent that Venona is true and McCarthy was wrong - but it IS logically consistent that McCarthy was right and he has still not been absolved.

In other words, if Venona is false, then McCarthy is wrong, and there is nothing to clean up - history is correct. But if Venona is true, then McCarthy was right, and then history is WRONG. If history is wrong, there is plenty of history and teaching to revise and adjust. But since there has been no adjustment, presumably few people reading this have ever HEARD of Venona (!), then I say that is logically CONSISTENT with that McCarthy IS right.
 
Last edited:
VonNeumann said:
Its not. I would wonder how a communist could swear to uphold the US constitution. Seems contradictory, to say the least.
Click to expand...

Out of curiousity, what specific part of the Constitution do you feel would be contradictory for a communist to support?
 
VonNeumann said:
So if Venona Cables are not counterfeit, and are accurate, then McCarthy was/is right...
Click to expand...

Not at all.

Were any of McCarthy's victims actually mentioned in the Venona cables? To the best of my knowledge, the answer is "no," but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

If I go hunting for bear and come back with a rabbit, it doesn't make me any better a hunter to point out that there actually were bears in the woods where I was hunting.
 
VonNeumann said:
What do you mean about McCarthy possibly being "right in a big picture kind of way"? Do we know if he accused anyone that was NOT communist?
Click to expand...

I'd ask it in a different way, since it's hard to prove a negative.

Do you know of any one whom he accused who was a Communist?

But in particular, I would like to cite Val Lorwin (#54) as someone who was NOT Communist, but was indicted by McCarthy. In particular, his name does not appear in the Venona transcripts.
 
VonNeumann said:
So if Venona Cables are not counterfeit, and are accurate, then McCarthy was/is right...
Click to expand...

I'm a little over my head here, but it's an interesting topic. Since the answer to your question hinges on the veracity of the Verona Cables, can you point me to a good analysis or two of that issue? Thanks.
 
Hagrok said:
That's pretty much true for spies for any other country (if security briefings are to be believed).

Since when was it ever illegal to be a Communist?
Click to expand...

That's my point. McCarthy was associating "Communist" with "spy". With no proof.
 
Luke T. said:
That's my point. McCarthy was associating "Communist" with "spy". With no proof.
Click to expand...

And that's what was so monstrous about McCarthy. There wasn't evidence against the bulk of the people he went after. The whole business of HUAC, and Senator McCarthy's hearings, is one of the reasons that even when there's a real threat, people start to worry about what civil liberties we're going to be asked to surrender, for how long, and to what effect.
 
VonNeumann said:
Isn't it more than mere irony? Ask yourself if communists had indeed infiltrated our government in a big way and high levels of power, then why have Venona Cables not absolved McCarthy in history (in the news, in what teachers teach, etc). It is logically inconsistent that Venona is true and McCarthy was wrong - but it IS logically consistent that McCarthy was right and he has still not been absolved.

In other words, if Venona is false, then McCarthy is wrong, and there is nothing to clean up - history is correct. But if Venona is true, then McCarthy was right, and then history is WRONG. If history is wrong, there is plenty of history and teaching to revise and adjust. But since there has been no adjustment, presumably few people reading this have ever HEARD of Venona (!), then I say that is logically CONSISTENT with that McCarthy IS right.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry. I still don't understand. McCarthy was right or wrong about what?
 
drkitten said:
I'd ask it in a different way, since it's hard to prove a negative.

Do you know of any one whom he accused who was a Communist?

But in particular, I would like to cite Val Lorwin (#54) as someone who was NOT Communist, but was indicted by McCarthy. In particular, his name does not appear in the Venona transcripts.
Click to expand...

Harry Dexter White.
On July 31st 1948, Elizabeth Bentley told the House Committee on Un-American Activities that White had been involved in espionage activities on behalf of the Russia during World War II.(1) Whittaker Chambers subsequently testified on August 3 of his association with White in the Communist underground secret apparatus up to 1938.(2) Bentley said White's colleagues passed information to her from him. While Chambers claimed he received documents from White, he also said that White was the least productive of his contacts. White testified on August 14 before HUAC. White, recovering from a series of heart attacks, denied being a Soviet agent.

Senator William Jenner's Interlocking Subversion in Government Departments Investigation by the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee looked extensively into the problem of unauthorized, uncontrolled and often dangerous power exercised by nonelected officials, specifically White. Part of its report looked into the implementation of Roosevelt administration policy in China and was published as the Morgenthau Diary.(4) The report stated, "The concentration of Communist sympathizers in the Treasury Department, and particularly the Division of Monetary Research, is now a matter of record. White was the first director of that division; those who succeeded him in the directorship were Frank Coe and Harold Glasser. Also attached to the Division of Monetary Research were William Ludwig Ullman, Irving Kaplan, and Victor Perlo. White, Coe, Glasser, Kaplan, and Perlo were all identified as participants in the Communist conspiracy…"

In 1953, Senator Joseph McCarthy and Attorney General Herbert Brownell, Jr. alleged that Truman had known White was a Soviet spy when he appointed him to the IMF.(6)However, this has now been refuted by declassified documents through the Freedom of Information Act which attest President Truman and the White House had not known of the existence of the Venona project.(7) Long after his death, the Justice Department publicly disclosed the existence of conclusive evidence confirming White had indeed been involved in espionage activities. White's family still protests his innocence, however.
Wikipedia open source
Click to expand...

HDW was the undersecretary of Treasury. He worked with the Silvermaster ring and placed other communist spies and fellow-travellers into sensitive jobs at Treasury.

I've read a couple books on VENONA, Elizabeth Bentley, and McCarthy himself. It is my opinion that McCarthy serves a historical purpose as America's "Ugly American". But seeing as how McCarthy was truly a miserable human being I believe that there are few interested in riding in on a white horse to salvage his legacy.

Can we leaven his record by pointing to VENONA? I believe we can...and maybe even (if we want to be honest in our history) we should. But are we ready to let go of McCarthy as bad example? I don't think so. Besides...as bad example McCarthy has finally assumed a role that has positive merit. Perhaps "bad example" is really all McCarthy is good for by now? Should we be so callous as to remove from him the one thing his life was actually good for? ;)

As for me I had this discussion and I tried to ride to McCarthy's rescue since I thought (as did the OP) that old Joe had been wronged by history. I found that although he has been villified (unjustly in a few cases) he has earned much of his reputation. He was just not a good person...and when you ride to has rescue your pretty white horse gets very dirty.

-z

PS: Thanks Cleon...maybe I do need to participate in meaningless debates again? I feel a little better. Thanks friend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom