Venona Cables - McCarthy absolved?

[drkitten]

But I ask, does the constant reminder of how terrible were the messengers distract from the message?

No, of course not.

But the constant reminder that the message itself was wrong should detract from the message.

 

[jj]

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.)

Oh, absolutely.

But they were clearly individuals, not a connected network of "reds" who "organized" etc, etc.

Unless I'm very wrong, they didn't know each other existed (which would make sense if they were individual agents, rather than a conspiracy...).

And, I'm sure that we had nothing like that in Moscow, right? (no, that does not mitigate the fact they had some here) There is absolutely no doubt that there was a great deal of spying and espionage, but I still don't see any evidence for McCarthy, or HUAC's, great conspiracy, especially the bit about the 57, etc...

 

[Banbury]

When reading this thread I found it mildly disconcerting, that some of the arguments seem to insinuate, that McCarthy would be justified, if a single communist or spy was found on his list. Even if that wasn't the intention (?), I want to point out that the usual interpretation of the law contains the rule:
'It's better to set 100 criminals free, than to convict one innocent'.

If the Church could produce one genuine witch, would their burning of thousands of innocent poeple be justified?

Greetings

Banbury

 

[drkitten]

But they were clearly individuals, not a connected network of "reds" who "organized" etc, etc.

Unless I'm very wrong, they didn't know each other existed (which would make sense if they were individual agents, rather than a conspiracy...).

Well, MacLean and Philby certainly knew each other existed and helped cover for each other; they were part of a specific spy ring sometimes called the "Cambridge Five." But there was no connection between the Cambridge Five and the American spies, nor was there ever any evidence linking the Hiss case with the Rosenbergs.

Oh, and Banbury -- I hope I'm not one of the people you're reading as saying "that McCarthy would be justified, if a single communist or spy was found on his list." My point is simply that McCarthy would have better justification if he had managed to find a single spy.

Still utterly insufficient. But there would at least be some positive contribution to put against his overall negatives. As is, McCarthy did no good whatsoever, not even in an isolated-incident sort of way. He can't even be justified in a neo-Fascist "Yes, but he made the trains run on time" kind of argument.....

 

[headscratcher4]

Indeed, there were real Soviet directed spies infiltrating the government...not just the Brits. Clearly, Rosenberg was an honest to Stalin Soviet Agent who whole-heartedly embraced the cause of Communism. He had, at the request of the Soviets, left the U.S. Communist Party and was working a network he created on behalf of the Soviets.

The point remains, however -- and has already been made -- McCarthy wasn't going after the actual spies. Indeed, to the questionable extent that he went after people who were "party" members or "fellow travelers," he completely missed the boat. As noted above, the Soviet spy-service (later to become the KGB) didn't want its operatives to be party members. The Brits -- Philby, McClean, Burgess and Blunt -- all disassociated themselves from open "Communists" specifically so they would not draw attention to their politics and so that they could better inflitrate the powers that be.

Rosenberg very much did the same...

The point is, for every sad, misguided "party" member that McCarthy publically berated, got onto a black-list or denied basic Constitutional protections to, there were numerous real Soviet spies continuing to operate (some with the knowledge of the FBI).

As noted above, if you want to look backward to justify McCarthy, you have to justify what he did and said about true heros like George Marshall and the political compromises that otherwise honorable men like Ike made to stay on McCarthy's good side.

Finally, I fully agree with the sentiment that it is better that the guilty go free than for one innocent man to be imprissoned. However, the tactics McCarthy employed, however, seem not too distant from the Soviet show-trials of the 30's.

 

[Upchurch]

The CPUSA has a candidate every presidential election, don't they? But atleast we KNOW they are communist. HOw about they ones who don't admit it?

What about them? Is it illegal to not admit to being a communist?

Zell Miller won't admit to being a Republican. How about him?

 

[Bronze Dog]

When reading this thread I found it mildly disconcerting, that some of the arguments seem to insinuate, that McCarthy would be justified, if a single communist or spy was found on his list. Even if that wasn't the intention (?), I want to point out that the usual interpretation of the law contains the rule:
'It's better to set 100 criminals free, than to convict one innocent'.

If the Church could produce one genuine witch, would their burning of thousands of innocent poeple be justified?

Greetings

Banbury

That's one thing I'm trying to keep in the open: It's true that McCarthy was a failure who resorted to ghastly methods. The emphasis on his failure is supposed to be just one point that magnifies the harm he did. We shouldn't lose sight of his fell methods of persecution. Even if he did succeed at exposing a Soviet spy, he'd still be unjustified.

 

[VonNeumann]

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.

I wish I could express myself plainer - its my fault. I did not mean people on this forum were specifically lock-stepping. Thanks to you and some other poster who reacted to what I said.

This is what I was thinking: if we entertain that the USA was infiltrated and subjected to a commie plot, it is logically consistent that...
1. McCarthy or whoever else would blow the whistle, would be put down,
2. That history would demonize said whistleblowers.
3. That government schools would teach in such a way as to play down discussion of a communist conspiracy and, instead, dwell on some distraction, vis a vis the distraction of "McCarthy Sucks".
4. That American students grow up to remember not much more about the communist conspiracy other than that "McCarthy Sucks."

And finally, it is logically consistent that, if the conspiracy were successful, that all the above would stick, and the majority would be in seeming lock-step on it (not just we here).

Examples of lockstep:
1. How many shoes did Emelda Marcos possess in her closet (come on, you all know the answer)? But do you know how much of a military presence USA lost in the Philipines?
2. What do you remember about Iran-Contra? How much do you know about that if we lost access to Panama Canal we could build a canal through Nicaragua easier than it ever was to build Panama Canal - and that is what we would probably have to do (but we lost our ally in Nicaragua making it harder for us to have secondary access across the isthmus if we lost Panama)?
3. Speaking of Panama, what do you remember about news about Panama? What should you have paid attention to (see #2, canal zone used to be controlled by US Military)?
4. How much do you remember about Mandela and Cape of Africa? How much do you think that our lost relationship with South Africa affects our power in that region should hell break loose?

See? I wonder if we are all in lockstep and "newspeak" when it comes to loss of US ability to defend its sovereignty throughout the world, especially at critical passageways like isthmuses (isthmi?) and capes and straits, because all we know about is:
1. 3000 Shoes
2. Guns for Hostages
3. Noriega the drug dude
4. Apartheid

I deny these thoughts have anything to do with a conspiracy/ies because conspiracies are, by definition, secret. These things happened while we watched CBS 60 Minutes tell us what to think, but the information was all there.

 

[VonNeumann]

What about them? Is it illegal to not admit to being a communist?

Zell Miller won't admit to being a Republican. How about him?

Yes, I see. But I think most Republicans should admit they are Democrats! Man look at the spending they are doing now! Kripe!

About ALL you can judge them on is how they VOTE in Senate/Congress. But then, as someone already pointed out here, everyone seems to vote for pork. Its obsene.

Hey, if you are libertarian bent as I am, they ALL look like commies!

 

[VonNeumann]

That's one thing I'm trying to keep in the open: It's true that McCarthy was a failure who resorted to ghastly methods. The emphasis on his failure is supposed to be just one point that magnifies the harm he did. We shouldn't lose sight of his fell methods of persecution. Even if he did succeed at exposing a Soviet spy, he'd still be unjustified.

'Dog, look at your signature that says:
The significance of a tale is inversely proportional to its sound and fury.

THAT is so cool, man! See? The significance of the McCarthy tale is inversely proportional to its sound and fury.

...and your post that I quoted here is an example of one small component of the myriad sounds, reverberating 50 years after the event. Is the volume loud enough and sustained long enough and furious enough for us to apply the rule: it is not significant? Contrarily, is the amount of sound and fury of a communist conspiracy quiet enough and calm enough to apply the rule: it is significant?

No ill wishes to single you out, friend, but it just seemed so good an illustration.

 

[trvlr2]

VN- given that there were Soviet/communist spies in our government.
given also that none were exposed by ol'Joe.(You will allow?)
-that we had spies in Soviet/communist government as well.(later)

What bothers me now, is that a careful reading of the posted sites indicates that the monitoring of Soviet dispatches began in 1939. This would imply that many were in our posession by 1947. Yet only a partial list has been made available. One can only speculate why.
Your point seems to be that we "killed the messenger" and paid no attention to the message. I don't think so.

 

[VonNeumann]

VN- given that there were Soviet/communist spies in our government.
given also that none were exposed by ol'Joe.(You will allow?)
-that we had spies in Soviet/communist government as well.(later)

OK.

What bothers me now, is that a careful reading of the posted sites indicates that the monitoring of Soviet dispatches began in 1939. This would imply that many were in our posession by 1947. Yet only a partial list has been made available. One can only speculate why.
Your point seems to be that we "killed the messenger" and paid no attention to the message. I don't think so.

I'm not sure I understand. A partial list was made available of what and when? I don't know if Venona Cables released in 1995 was partial or not, but who knew about the cables before, besides being military secret, I don't know.

My title to the OP was whether McCarthy should be absolved and I think I have seen enough to concur that McC and others really did handle things in a very un-American way, to say the least. Several have said here that he is not to be excused even if the general idea of what he was after, was true. Others say that it is not illegal to be a communist - OK on that, too. So all that, I am not going to argue against.

I appreciate having the opportunity to see what kinds of things people say about this, particularly with the one whose grandfather was harmed and the other who was an apologist, in some way, for the McCarthy side, who was swayed and now has changed heart.

Even with all that, I still feel something that bothers me about the whole thing. The closest thing I could come to expressing it was in my previous few posts which addresses something about ourselves and how we respond to "sound bites".

This brings me to want to say some general thing that I discovered about myself a long time ago. I noticed that I sometimes would say "I believe that ...XXX" ...and I started to recognize that XXX was not at all my own thought but a snippet out of a magazine or book or more likely TV or radio. I've tried to learn how to change that to "I have heard that XXX and I believe that is ...[true/false/whatever]." We need to be in touch with what we believe and what we are just parroting. If any think you never do that, start watching yourself closely. ....that's my tiny little contribution, for what it might be worth.

 

[epepke]

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.

Didn't Whittaker Chambers translate Bambi?