OT: A Quote and a Link - Two Turncoats?

“In a noble effort to liberate the human race from violence and oppression, we broke all records for mass slaughter … we have a disquieting number of corpses to account for.”

American historian Eugene Genovese, a former Communist who turned against Communism

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/05/nyregion/05STRA.html?pagewanted=print&position=

I tested the link and it worked, but the NYT usually requires registration. Let me know if it doesn’t work. Oh, what the hell, here’s the article:

January 5, 2004
Michael Straight, Who Wrote of Connection to Spy Ring, Is Dead at 87
By CHRISTOPHER LEHMANN-HAUPT

ichael Straight, the patrician former magazine publisher who described in a political memoir his lingering involvement with Soviet spies whom he had first met when they were all students at Cambridge University, died yesterday at home in Chicago. He was 87 and also had a home on Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts.

The cause was pancreatic cancer, said Arthur Mahon, his lawyer.

In a life of rubbing shoulders with the privileged, Mr. Straight went through a series of identities, from Communist during his student days at Trinity College, Cambridge, to reluctant Soviet agent in New Deal Washington to liberal anti-Communist during the cold war. He also went through a series of jobs, including economist at the State Department, editor and publisher of The New Republic magazine and, in the Nixon and Ford administrations, deputy chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts.

He confessed all in his memoir, “After Long Silence” (1983), citing his hesitancy to spy when ordered to do so in 1937 by Anthony Blunt, then a young Cambridge don, and insisting that upon taking a job with the State Department under Roosevelt, the only papers he passed to the Soviet agent he knew as Michael Green were political and economic analyses written by himself.

He added that in 1951, a decade after he had turned against the Communist Party, apparently over his objections to the Nazi-Soviet pact, he ran into Guy Burgess, once his fellow student at Cambridge, on a Washington street corner and assumed he must be running a spy ring out of the nearby British Embassy. He said he warned Burgess to stop and go home or he would expose him. Shortly after, Burgess defected to the Soviet Union with his colleague and lover, Donald Maclean.

Mr. Straight’s own exposure came finally in 1963 when he was offered a top arts post in the Kennedy Administration. Fearing a background check, he went to Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., a special assistant to the president, who in turn directed him to the Justice Department. His talks with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and British intelligence led to the unmasking of Blunt, by then knighted and the curator of Queen Elizabeth’s art collection. Mr. Straight turned down the Kennedy Administration post, although some years later he took the position of deputy chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts.

Although avowedly written as an apology and explanation, “After Long Silence” was not greeted with great sympathy. Critics on the right accused Mr. Straight of confessing to the F.B.I. only to clear his career path and speculated whether blowing the whistle sooner might not have saved lives. Gentler reviewers acknowledged the book’s well-meaning thoughtfulness but accused the author of sentimentality and narcissism. Mr. Straight himself wondered in the book why his life had not added up to more.

Michael Whitney Straight was born Sept. 1, 1916, in New York City, the third and youngest child of Willard D. Straight, an investment banker with J. P. Morgan & Company, and Dorothy Payne Whitney Straight, an heiress. Together in 1914 the couple had started The New Republic. Their elder two children were Whitney, who became a racing-car driver and head of British Overseas Airway Corporation, and Beatrice, who became a distinguished actress.

Mr. Straight was educated at the Lincoln School in New York City and at Dartington Hall, the progressive English school founded and run by his mother and her second husband, Leonard Knight Elmhirst, whom she had married in 1925. Her first husband died in 1918 of septic pneumonia while serving with the American Expeditionary Forces in France.

After Dartington Hall Mr. Straight spent a year at the London School of Economics to offset literary tendencies in himself that he saw as useless to a world in political crisis. Going on to Cambridge in 1934, he became a member of the circle around John Maynard Keynes, socialized with young radical patricians like himself and joined the Communist Party, he said in his memoir, mostly in sympathy with its Popular Front objectives of supporting democrat governments against the rising tide of Nazism.

Moving from Cambridge to Washington in 1937 — after spurning Blunt’s order that he take a job on Wall Street — he worked as an economist for the Department of State. He continued to pursue both politics and his stratospheric social life, sharing a house with Joseph Alsop, drafting speeches for and dining with the Roosevelts, and writing his analytic memorandums, some of which he passed on to Soviet intelligence.

In September 1939 he married Belinda Crompton, a child psychiatrist. They had five children, David, Michael, Susan Straight, Dina Krosnick and Dorothy Straight, all of whom survive him, as do four grandchildren. The couple divorced in 1969, and in May 1974 Mr. Straight married Nina Gore Auchincloss Steers, a half-sister of Gore Vidal and stepsister of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. They subsequently divorced. In 1998 he married Katharine Gould, a child psychiatrist. She, too, survives him.

In 1940, Mr. Straight returned to the State Department and then became Washington correspondent for The New Republic, which his mother still financed. He assumed the magazine’s editorship in 1941 and shifted its stance from neutrality toward Europe to support for fighting Hitler and Fascism.

He served in the Army Air Forces from 1942 to 1945, a period when he learned to fly a B-17 but to his disappointment was stationed the whole while in the American Midwest. In 1946 he returned to The New Republic and became its publisher, remaining in that post until 1956. He enlisted Henry A. Wallace as the magazine’s editor until Wallace, the left-leaning former vice president, became the Progressive Party’s presidential candidate in 1948. Mr. Straight shifted editorial policy to a position opposing Stalinism and supporting the Marshall Plan. Yet he fought Senator Joseph R. McCarthy’s brand of anti-Communism, publishing a book critical of both the senator and Communism, “Trial by Television” (1954).

After his mother’s withdrawal of support of the magazine he enlisted new patrons and gradually ended his connection, reverting to his youthful interest in the arts. He turned to novel writing, publishing “Carrington” (1960) and “A Very Small Remnant” (1963), both westerns that received respectful reviews, as well as “Happy and Hopeless” (1979), a love story set in the Kennedy administration that he published himself. His memoir “On Green Spring Farm: The Life and Times of One Family in Fairfax County, Va., 1942 to 1966” is to be published in March by Devon Press.

From 1969 to 1977 he was deputy chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts.

But his association with the Cambridge left never ceased to haunt him, and he went on defending his actions for the remainder of his life. To the end he insisted, as he put it in a 1995 letter to The London Review of Books responding to a reference to him as “a Cambridge Spy,” “I was not a spy in the accepted usage of that word.”

bump

Today, it seems that supporting so-called McCarthyism is as much a crime in popular opinion, as supporting Communism was then.

I think we have Joseph Stalin as sufficient proof the Communism was very bad. Thank God it’s nearly gone from this earth. That said, what is the big fuss over a long-dead, and ambitious senator who became too wrapped up in the fight against Communism, and stepped on too many people’s toes in the process?

Those who hate McCarthy so vehemently might want to balance their disapproval of his methods with a little more recognition of the bigger picture, so it doesn’t sound like they are defending Communism.

I always get the impression that those who hate McCarthy so vehemently do so because they love the USA and the values of liberty and free speech upon which the USA are built.

The sort of things Bolshevism would’ve crushed.

Here’s the question that troubles me.
Suppose it’s the 30s and Hitler is on the rise.
Many American intellectuals believe that Nazism
is the hope of the future. There is an American
Nazi Party which is, in fact, directed from
Berlin. Also there are underground secret
cells of Nazis: at Hitler’s directions
the members join labor unions, pretending
not to know each other, and slowly work their
way up into the leadership, so that if there
is war they can foment labor unrest
and strikes that will cripple American
war production. They are, of course, under
orders to deny that they are Nazis.
Many intellectuals are Nazis–quite a few
writers, including script writers in Hollywood.
They are under orders to write scripts
portraying Jews as scheming usurers and
conspirators, and blacks as little more
than animals… Of course there are
plenty of Nazi spies. Nazis are moving into
the universities, denying under party discipline
that they are Nazis, covertly slandering
professors who oppose Hitler, and
trying to enlist students to the Nazi cause…
And they are finding there way into
various roles in government, as ordered.

What do we do?

Well, first, weren’t there a great many overt and covert Nazi sympathisers in powerful positions in The United States in the '30s? Didn’t it take Pearl Harbour to get an effective response from America to Hitler? Why was there no McCarthy on the loose in the US in the '30s looking for fascist threats to freedom?

To the extent that organised communism was a ever a threat to the United States, it was surely just as much a threat to Britain. Britain didn’t need a McCarthy to see it off, and neither did America. Actually, albeit with hindsight, the idea that creeping Stalinism from within was ever a serious threat to Britain seems to me faintly ludicrous. The major problem with the thinking of those who believe otherwise is to overlook, as though incidental, the idealism of '30s communists. Once the evidence started coming in of Stalin’s atrocities, support for Stalinism throughout the west pretty much evaporated.

But I wonder if you’ll answer my question,
which wasn’t rhetorical.

To my knowledge, the situation I described
in my post above, was never duplicated
with Nazism, in fact. What I described goes
well beyond people having sympathy for Nazism,
overt or covert; or even the occasional spy.
It’s an attempt, directed by
a hostile foreign power, to covertly
infiltrate central institutions, and it’s succeeding.
But suppose what I
said was going on was going on concerning
Nazis.

As to the truth about Stalinism destroying
the allegiance to Mother Russia of American
Communists, under party discipline,
and a large number of fellow travellers,
not that I could see in the 50s or 60s.
I knew quite a few of these people.
Best

Here, of course, is a bit of context:

September 28, 1915: Ethel Greenglass Rosenberg born

March 1917: The Russian Revolution begins

1917: Espionage Act that the Rosenbergs are convicted of violating is enacted

May 12, 1918: Julius Rosenberg born

1929: Communist Party of the United States is founded

Early 1930’s: Julius Rosenberg is member of Young Communist League; campaigns for Scottsboro Boys

1934: Julius Rosenberg enters City College of New York; is involved in radical politics

Summer 1939: Julius and Ethel Rosenberg married

December 7, 1941: United States enters World War II after the attack on Pearl Harbor

1942: Julius Rosenberg becomes member of U. S. Signal Corps

1943: Rosenbergs cease open activities with Communist Party; Daily Worker subscription stops

1943: Soviet spymaster Feklisov first meets with Julius Rosenberg

July 1944: David Greenglass chosen to work on the Manhattan Project

November 1944: Julius Rosenberg recruits aid of Greenglasses in obtaining information about the Manhattan Project

December 1944: Julius Rosenberg provides Soviets with a proximity fuse

January 1945: David Greenglass provides his own notes and a sketch of a high-explosive lens from the Manhattan Project

June 1945: Harry Gold meets with Greenglass in Albuqurque

July 16, 1945: United States explodes first Atom bomb at Alamogordo, New Mexico

August 6, 1945: United States drops Atom bomb at Hiroshima

September 2, 1945: World War II ends with the Japanese surrender

September, 1945: Greenglass meets with Rosenberg while on forlough in New York

1945: Julius Rosenberg is dismissed from U. S. Signal Corps

1946: Feklisov meets with Julius Rosenberg for the last time

Late 1946: The Venona Code is broken

1947: Rosenberg’s machine shop business fails

June 30, 1948: Max Elitcher and Morton Sobell drive to Catherine Slip where Sobell met with Julius Rosenberg to exchange microfilm

August 28, 1949: Soviets detonate their first Atom bomb

January 21, 1950: Alger Hiss convicted of perjury in denying that he passed secret documents to Communist agent Whittaker Chambers

February 2, 1950: Klaus Fuchs arrested

March 1950: Julius Rosenberg warns Greenglass to flee country

May 1950: Rosenberg asks his physician about what kind of shots are necessary for trip to Mexico

May 22, 1950: Harry Gold confesses to the FBI

May or June 1950: Rosenbergs visit a photographer to obtain passport photos

June 15, 1950: David Greenglass names Julius as the man who recruited him to spy for the Soviet Union

June 16, 1950: Julius Rosenberg is first interviewed by FBI; Joel Barr disappears in Paris

June 30, 1950: United States forces engage in the Korean War

July 17, 1950: Julius Rosenberg arrested while shaving

August 11, 1950: Ethel Rosenberg arrested

August 1950: Sobell and family are kidnapped by Mexican thugs and delivered to U. S. authorities at border

January 31, 1951: Grand jury indicts Rosenbergs, Sobell, David Greenglass, and Yakolev

February 1951: Greenglasses change their story, implicating Ethel Rosenberg in spy activities

March 6, 1951: Trial begins

March 15, 1951: William Perl is arrested on espionage charge

March 28, 1951: Trial ends

March 29, 1951: Jury returns verdict: Guilty of conspiracy to commit espionage

April 5, 1951: Judge Kaufman imposes the death sentence on Rosenbergs, sentences Sobell to 30 years

January 10, 1952: Appeal before the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

February 25, 1952: Appeal denied by Second Circuit Court of Appeals in opinion by Judge Jerome Frank

October 13, 1952: Supreme Court announces that it ruled against granting certiorari on the Rosenberg’s appeal

June 13, 1953: Supreme Court denies stay of execution

June 17, 1953: Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas grants stay of execution

June 19, 1953: Supreme Court, in special session, vacates Justice Douglas’s stay of execution

June 19, 1953: Julius and Ethel Rosenberg are executed

June 21, 1953: Funeral of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg

1960: Proximity fuse enables Soviets to shoot down American U-2 spy plane over Soviet territory

1969: Martin Sobell is released from prison

1970- 1974: Khrushchev tape records his memoirs containing observations on the Rosenbergs spy role

1985: Barr and Sarant flee to Soviet Union

1990: Khrushchev memoirs are published, suggesting that Rosenbergs helped Soviets acquire the A-bomb

July 11, 1995: Decoded Venona cables indicating Rosenberg’s involvement in espionage are released by NSA and CIA

1997: Soviet spymaster Feklisov admits in interviews that he met with Julius Rosenberg between 1943 and 1946

2001: David Greenglass admits that the trial testimony of the Greenglasses concerning Ethel Rosenberg’s role in the conspiracy was perjured.

ROSENBERGS TRIAL PAGE

Here is one of the most remarkable movie reviews
in history, Ayn Rand’s testimony before HUAC concering
the WWII movie, "Song of Russia.’

Now, here is what the picture Song Of Russia contains. It starts with an American conductor, played by Robert Taylor, giving a concert in America for Russian war relief. He starts playing the American national anthem and the national anthem dissolves into a Russian mob, with the sickle and hammer on a red flag very prominent above their heads. I am sorry, but that made me sick. That is something which I do not see how native Americans permit, and I am only a naturalized American. That was a terrible touch of propaganda. As a writer, I can tell you just exactly what it suggests to the people. It suggests literally and technically that it is quite all right for the American national anthem to dissolve into the Soviet. The term here is more than just technical. It really was symbolically intended, and it worked out that way. The anthem continues, played by a Soviet band. That is the beginning of the picture.
Now we go to the pleasant love story. Mr. Taylor is an American who came there apparently voluntarily to conduct concerts for the Soviets. He meets a little Russian girl from a village who comes to him and begs him to go to her village to direct concerts there. There are no GPU agents and nobody stops her. She just comes to Moscow and meets him. He falls for her and decides he will go, because he is falling in love. He asks her to show him Moscow She says she has never seen it. He says, ?I will show it to you.?
They see it together. The picture then goes into a scene of Moscow, supposedly. I don?t know where the studio got its shots, but I have never seen anything like it in Russia. First you see Moscow buildings ? big, prosperous-looking, clean buildings, with something like swans or sailboats in the foreground. Then you see a Moscow restaurant that just never existed there. In my time, when I was in Russia, there was only one such restaurant, which was nowhere as luxurious as that and no one could enter it except commissars and profiteers. Certainly a girl from a village, who in the first place would never have been allowed to come voluntarily, without permission, to Moscow, could not afford to enter it, even if she worked ten years. However, there is a Russian restaurant with a menu such as never existed in Russia at all and which I doubt even existed before the revolution. From this restaurant they go on to this tour of Moscow. The streets are clean and prosperous-looking. There a! re no food lines anywhere. You see shots of the marble subway ? the famous Russian subway out of which they make such propaganda capital. There is a marble statue of Stalin thrown in. There is a park where you see happy little children in white blouses running around. I don?t know whose children they are, but they are really happy kiddies. They are not homeless children in rags, such as I have seen in Russia. Then you see an excursion boat, on which the Russian people are smiling, sitting around very cheerfully, dressed in some sort of satin blouses such as they only wear in Russian restaurants here.
Then they attend a luxurious dance. I don?t know where they got the idea of the clothes and the settings that they used at the ball and ?

Mr. Stripling: Is that a ballroom scene?

Miss Rand: Yes, the ballroom ? where they dance. It was an exaggeration even for this country. I have never seen anybody wearing such clothes and dancing to such exotic music when I was there. Of course, it didn?t say whose ballroom it is or how they get there. But there they are ? free and dancing very happily.
Incidentally, I must say at this point that I understand from correspondents who have left Russia and been there later than I was and from people who escaped from there later than I did that the time I saw it, which was in 1926, was the best time since the Russian revolution. At that time conditions were a little better than they have become since. In my time we were a bunch of ragged, starved, dirty, miserable people who had only two thoughts in our mind. That was our complete terror ? afraid to look at one another, afraid to say anything for fear of who is listening and would report us ? and where to get the next meal. You have no idea what it means to live in a country where nobody has any concern except food, where all the conversation is about food because everybody is so hungry that that is all they can think about and that is all they can afford to do. They have no idea of politics. They have no idea of any pleasant romances or love ? nothing but food and fear.
That is what I saw up to 1926. That is not what the picture shows.
Now, after this tour of Moscow, the hero ? the American conductor ? goes to the Soviet village. The Russian villages are something ? so miserable and so filthy. They were even before the revolution. They weren?t much even then. What they have become now I am afraid to think. You have all read about the program for the collectivization of the farms in 1933, at which time the Soviet Government admits that three million peasants died of starvation. Other people claim there were seven and a half million, but three million is the figure admitted by the Soviet Government as the figure of people who died of starvation, planned by the government in order to drive people into collective farms. That is a recorded historical fact.
Now, here is the life in the Soviet village as presented in Song Of Russia. You see the happy peasants. You see they are meeting the hero at the station with bands, with beautiful blouses and shoes, such as they never wore anywhere. You see children with operetta costumes on them and with a brass band which they could never afford. You see the manicured starlets driving tractors and the happy women who come from work singing. You see a peasant at home with a close-up of food for which anyone there would have been murdered. If anybody had such food in Russia in that time he couldn?t remain alive, because he would have been torn apart by neighbors trying to get food. But here is a close-up of it and a line where Robert Taylor comments on the food and the peasant answers, ?This is just a simple country table and the food we eat ourselves.?
Then the peasant proceeds to show Taylor how they live. He shows him his wonderful tractor. It is parked somewhere in his private garage. He shows him the grain in his bin, and Taylor says, ?That is wonderful grain.? Now, it is never said that the peasant does not own this tractor or this grain because it is a collective farm. He couldn?t have it. It is not his. But the impression he gives to Americans, who wouldn?t know any differently, is that certainly it is this peasant?s private property, and that is how he lives, he has his own tractor and his own grain. Then it shows miles and miles of plowed fields.

The Chairman: We will have more order, please.

Miss Rand: Am I speaking too fast?

The Chairman: Go ahead.

Miss Rand: Then ?

Mr. Stripling: Miss Rand, may I bring up one point there?

Miss Rand: Surely.

Mr. Stripling: I saw the picture. At this peasant?s village or home, was there a priest or several priests in evidence?

Miss Rand: Oh, yes, I am coming to that, too. The priest was from the beginning in the village scenes, having a position as sort of a constant companion and friend of the peasants, as if religion was a natural accepted part of that life. Well, now, as a matter of fact, the situation about religion in Russia in my time was, and I understand it still is, that for a Communist Party member to have anything to do with religion means expulsion from the party. He is not allowed to enter a church or take part in any religious ceremony. For a private citizen, that is a nonparty member, it was permitted, but it was so frowned upon that people had to keep it secret, if they went to church. If they wanted a church wedding they usually had it privately in their homes, with only a few friends present, in order not to let it be known at their place of employment because, even though it was not forbidden, the chances were that they would be thrown out of a job for being known as practicing any kind of religion.
Now, then, to continue with the story, Robert Taylor proposes to the heroine. She accepts him. They have a wedding, which, of course, is a church wedding. It takes place with all the religious pomp which they show. They have a banquet. They have dancers, in something like satin skirts and performing ballets such as you never could possibly see in any village and certainly not in Russia. Later they show a peasants? meeting place, which is a kind of a marble palace with crystal chandeliers. Where they got it or who built it for them I would like to be told. Then later you see that the peasants all have radios. When the heroine plays as a soloist with Robert Taylor?s orchestra, after she marries him, you see a scene where all the peasants are listening on radios, and one of them says, ?There are more than millions listening to the concert.?
I don?t know whether there are a hundred people in Russia, private individuals, who own radios. And I remember reading in the newspaper at the beginning of the war that every radio was seized by the Government and people were not allowed to own them. Such an idea that every farmer, a poor peasant, has a radio, is certainly preposterous. You also see that they have long-distance telephones. Later in the picture Taylor has to call his wife in the village by long-distance telephone. Where they got this long-distance phone, I don?t know. Now, here comes the crucial point of the picture. In the midst of this concert, when the heroine is playing, you see a scene on the border of the U.S.S.R. You have a very lovely modernistic sign saying ?U.S.S.R.? I would just like to remind you that that is the border where probably thousands of people have died trying to escape out of this lovely paradise. It shows the U.S.S.R. sign, and there is a border guard standing. He is listening to the co! ncert. Then there is a scene inside kind of a guardhouse where the guards are listening to the same concert, the beautiful Tschaikowsky music, and they are playing chess. Suddenly there is a Nazi attack on them. The poor, sweet Russians were unprepared. Now, realize ? and that was a great shock to me ? that the border that was being shown was the border of Poland. That was the border of an occupied, destroyed, enslaved country which Hitler and Stalin destroyed together. That was the border that was being shown to us ? just a happy place with people listening to music.
Also realize that when all this sweetness and light was going on in the first part of the picture, with all these happy, free people, there was not a GPU agent among them, with no food lines, no persecution ? complete freedom and happiness, with everybody smiling. Incidentally, I have never seen so much smiling in my life, except on the murals of the world?s fair pavilion of the Soviets. If any one of you have seen it, you can appreciate it. It is one of the stock propaganda tricks of the Communists, to show these people smiling. That is all they can show. You have all this, plus the fact that an American conductor had accepted an invitation to come there and conduct a concert, and this took place in 1941 when Stalin was the ally of Hitler. That an American would accept an invitation to that country was shocking to me, with everything that was shown being proper and good and all those happy people going around dancing, when Stalin was an ally of Hitler.
Now, then, the heroine decides that she wants to stay in Russia. Taylor would like to take her out of the country, but she says no, her place is here, she has to fight the war. Here is the line, as nearly exact as I could mark it while watching the picture: ?I have a great responsibility to my family, to my village, and to the way I have lived…What way had she lived? This is just a polite way of saying the Communist way of life. She goes on to say that she wants to stay in the country because otherwise, ?How can I help to build a better and better life for my country.? What do you mean when you say better and better? That means she has already helped to build a good way. That is the Soviet Communist way. But now she wants to make it even better. All right.
Now, then, Taylor?s manager, who is played, I believe, by Benchley, an American, tells her that she should leave the country, but when she refuses and wants to stay, here is the line he uses: he tells her in an admiring friendly way that ?You are a fool, but a lot of fools like you died on the village green at Lexington.?
Now, I submit that that is blasphemy, because the men at Lexington were not fighting just a foreign invader. They were fighting for freedom and what I mean ? and I intend to be exact ? is they were fighting for political freedom and individual freedom. They were fighting for the rights of man. To compare them to somebody, anybody fighting for a slave state, I think is dreadful.
Then, later the girl also says ? I believe this was she or one of the other characters ? that ?the culture we have been building here will never die.? What culture? The culture of concentration camps.
At the end of the picture one of the Russians asks Taylor and the girl to go back to America, because they can help them there. How. Here is what he says, ?You can go back to your country and tell them what you have seen and you will see the truth both in speech and in music.? Now, that is plainly saying that what you have seen is the truth about Russia. That is what is in the picture.
Now, here is what I cannot understand at all: if the excuse that has been given here is that we had to produce the picture in wartime, just how can it help the war effort. If it is to deceive the American people, if it were to present to the American people a better picture of Russia than it really is, then that sort of an attitude is nothing but the theory of the Nazi elite ? that a choice group of intellectual or other leaders will tell the people lies for their own good. That I don?t think is the American way of giving people information. We do not have to deceive the people at any time, in war or peace.

I can’t answer it Jim. It’s too underdescribed; you say nothing about how successfully America is spying on Nazi Germany nor whether American spies have managed to infliltrate the Nazi inner sanctum. Are they trying? If not, why not? Further, I don’t know what the specific threat is that you see. Are armed American Nazis going to stage a Pinochet-style coup? Are they going to somehow pave the way for a German invasion force? To put it succinctly, I need to hear both sides of the story and I need to know in precisely what way democracy is threatened, if at all.

I don’t think American communisim was succeeding on quite the scale you think it was. On the other hand, I’ve seen some fairly chilling evidence of high-level support for Nazism in America but can’t put my hands on it now—maybe someone else will know. Passing on information about the A-bomb, whilst serious enough, seems to have been an isolated major success and, in any event, surely only hastened the inevitable. (I won’t broach the issue of how healthy it would have been had nuclear power been concentrated in only one power.) If this (aid with nuclear weapons) had happened with the Nazis it would not have been good but it would have been no more likely, under your scenario, than it would have been under an orthodox ‘isolated spy gets lucky’ scenario.

My parallel with Britain raises a challenge you haven’t met. It would appear that the royal family in Britain protected both Nazi and communist spies and sympathisers. To the best of my knowledge, whilst there is considerable disapproval of these actions, nobody has suggested that it would have been helpful to do a McCarthy on the British royals.

It’s hard to measure how much damage traitors do, but usually it doesn’t seem to be very great. If I’m right about the acquisition of nuclear capability simply being hastened, at best, by information passed by Americans to Russians, then the list of subversive activities of American communists looks pretty harmless. Indeed, I think Timothy McVeigh did more damage to America in a few seconds than American communisits did in over 50 years. A lot of people believe that McVeigh acted with the approval, and perhaps the active support, of a wide network of paramilitary groups opposed to the U.S. government. Now there’s a war on terror going on right now. I’m not suggesting that another witch hunt would be desirable. I’m only suggesting that America seems to have been a bit selective about just which dangers warrant careful investigation.

I don’t know why we’re going by each other.I’ve described a hypothetical situation concerning
Nazis. One of the dangers is mentioned above,
that if/when it comes to war, our ability to
produce arms will be crippled by industrial
unrest. Let’s add that Nazi operatives who are
scientists have been giving secrets concerning
our best weapons to Hitler who is busy duplicating
them; some of these are of awesome power;
also that we know that
important members of the government are
covert Nazis commiting espionage. Others government
officials, not involved in espionage, may well
be taking orders from the Nazi party
concerning what policies to support. Meanwhile
suppose that movies are coming out
glorifying Hitler and fomenting anti-Semitism.
And Nazis, as mentioned, are covertly
infiltrating the unions. Also they are (covertly)
recruiting in the universities, especially
elite universities the graduates of which
become part of government.

If you can’t answer the question, well, I’m not
sure I know the answer myself. Perhaps you are
reading more into my question than I meant.
As I said, the question troubles me.
This much strikes me as plain, anyhow: I wouldn’t ignore
the situation. Without detailing the moves that
lead to checkmate, the red lights are
certainly going on.

The relevance of the question is this:
it wasn’t unreasonable after WWII to assess
our domestic situation along similar lines,
whatever hindsight does (or doesn’t)
reveal. Best

Wombat, what is the relevance of the UK, in this matter? In what way were the situations similar? What military secrets were at stake? What populist movements were being infiltrated? What internationally distributed mass-entertainment industries were being manipulated? These are relevant questions to be addressed, if your points are to be understood.

As for the unbalance of only the United States having nuclear weapons capability, they only used it to end World War II, and, rather than building an empire, divested some of it, in that time period, such as the Philippines, which had long been part of Spain’s empire.

Ayn Rand, Jim? Ugh.

Did I approve of her or dissaprove?
But it’s worth reading her movie review, I think,
and it does seem to be
coming from her heart. She is obviously
sincere and highly intelligent.
I saw a lot of her at Brooklyn College
when I was a student; I remember
we mocked her. Later I recalled some
of the positions she championed that I
so destested, e.g. she was opposed to
the draft…

[quote=“Walden”]Wombat, what is the relevance of the UK, in this matter?

Well Blunt,Burgess,McLean et al have already been mentioned.
A lot of show business types ‘blacklisted’ under McCarthyism ended up working in the British film and T.V. industries-I seem to recall that the T.V. version of ‘Robin Hood’.that great hero of the downtrodden peasant classes(played by Richard Green) - a childhood favourite of mine, was scripted by an American ‘mcCarthyite exile’.

Making a hero of a common thief like, Robin Hood! Tsk tsk!

Walden skips off singing a Robin Hood ballad…

Robin was a proud outlaw,
Whiles he walked on the ground;
So courteous an outlaw as he was one
Ain’t never none been found.
Down, a down, a down, a down,
Down, a down, a down.

Revised opinions of McCarthy seem to be cropping up all over. This doesn’t surprise me in the current political climate. He probably would have loved all the anti-terrorist posturing going on these days.

The fact is that McCarthy wasn’t in any position to find real Soviet moles. He found people who were once members of the Communist party. Big deal. Many of these people were idealists, looking for a better way during trying economic times. Many more were just young and foolish.

It seems to me that McCarthy target Hollywood types in order to generate publicity for himself. Calling ordinary citizens before the committee wouldn’t attract the cameras or the reporters like calling a celebrity. So he called forward the people who would attract attention.

The thing that really makes me sure of McCarthy’s false motives is the fact that he used the methods of his supposed enemies to reach his ends. Due process, free speech, freedom of association, and many other liberties guaranteed in the Constitution were thrown out the window. Hmmm…
Now why did he hate communism so much? It couldn’t be because the Soviet system didn’t allow for due process, free speech, freedom of association, etcetera, could it?

I don’t doubt that there was a real threat, and that the goal of the Soviet Union for a long, long time was the spread of world socialism. But McCarthy wasn’t doing much about that. Lots of other folks were doing things about it. If you want a disgraced cold warrior whose life you can revisit to make him a hero, read up on James Jesus Angleton. That poor guy was really a believer, and despite his flaws and his sometimes questionable methodology, recently revealed facts show that he was right about many things. In addition, he did his work without want of personal gain and publicity.

I don’t have an answer to Jim’s question, but I do know what I would not do if I thought there was a threat against our freedom: I would not use methods that compromised that freedom in order to stop it.

don’t have an answer to Jim’s question, but I do know what I would not do if I thought there was a threat against our freedom: I would not use methods that compromised that freedom in order to stop it.

Makes sense to me. On the face of things, one would
want to shine a light on what was going on. Congressional
investigations would be a way of doing that, but the
CP was legal, and Congress demanding that people
testify under oath about their legal political activities
seems plainly illegal.

Interestingly McCarthy was never part of HUAC.
The latter was created in 1938 to investigate
subversive propaganda in the USA, and began
by going after Nazis. Sen. McCarthy was on a separate
track.

The Communists managed successfully to drape
themselves in the flag of the civil liberties
they were murdering in their own countries.
I believe that a good deal of what was being
said to HUAC, especially the legal defenses made,
were being dictated to the people involved
by the party. It’s interesting to tell the story
in terms of Nazis–plainly many leftwingers
during the 30s and 40s would have felt
that Congressional investigations would have
been far too mild in that case, except during
the non-aggression pact between
Stalin and Hitler.

I had the experience of being in jail for a
month in 1966 with maybe 100 radicals,
due to civil rights arrests, most of whom spent
their time calling each other ‘fascists.’
Communists called socialists ‘social fascists.’
These were not the sort of people you would
ever want to have political power. I do think I
know the sort of people Lenin and Trotsky were.

I’m sure a fair number of idealistic people
went through the communist party, but I do
think that a good deal of what motivated the
left during that era was the will to power.
Also once you were in at any depth, getting out
again wasn’t necesarily so easy. Best

The relevance is that the UK faced much the same sort of communist activity as the US but didn’t require the methods of a McCarthy to manage it. The question of how to deal with Nazis and neo-Nazis was and remains a continuing problem in Britain. Grass roots vigilance and opposition is the preferred method. It isn’t perfect but it has contained the threat with moderate effectiveness for a long time now.

Someone able to discover and pass on military secrets is in espionage and is to be dealt with in the manner in which spies are usually dealt with, ie, in whatever way best serves the interests of those who uncover them. Espionage is a dirty game and nobody pretends that any country refrains or that some play clean and others dirty. A show trial would not be of much use here. They might be fed disinformation, they might be blackmailed into becoming a double agent or they might simply disappear. I wouldn’t much like to be in espionage. Everybody thinks they benefit from the existence of spies and everybody tolerates double agents. Populist movements have little or nothing to do with this.

I disagree. We are constantly manipulated from above and below, from left and right and from inside and out. At one time, an organised communist party makes an effort to become more influential in America without the general population noticing. At another, three multi-billionaire media tycoons who own all the significant media outlets in a country have dinner in a private club and decide to support this rather than that candidate in an upcoming election. Heaven forbid, one of them might even be Australian born. Both ways, the community gets fed disinformation or at least potentially misleading spin and, both ways, they might not get to find this out. What then should we do about media magnates?

In part I agree, up to a point, with jim_mc that once you resort to McCarthyite tactics you’ve lost the battle; to the extent that you employ them, you are already what you are trying to prevent your country from becoming. The only thing that gives me pause is the thought that sometimes you can be in a position where tit-for-tat is the only winning strategy. For example, I do not think that strict pacifism is the best way to minimise violence, although I do think that it should be an ideal the realistic pacifist should aspire to live up to in all but exceptional circumstances. But maybe McCarthy was justified by exceptional circumstances. jim_mc gave pretty much the reasons I would give to doubt this. But I’d go further. I think that a robust and vigilant grass roots democracy, bolstered perhaps by an array of constitutionally guaranteed rights, is as well equipped to deal with movements that involve infiltration and subversion as any system can be. To flourish, the communists had to stay under cover and recruit. That isn’t easy. Much easier for the rich and powerful to manipulate sucessfully than for foreign powers relying primarily on populist movements. I simply think that in America, as in Britain and Australia, socialism would either have been rejected outright or contained (as in Britain and Australia) in a way that makes it no threat to democracy. Healthy grassroots institutions and instincts don’t guarantee this, nothing does, but they make it extremely likely. Isn’t it odd that I should think American grassroots democracy is healthier than many Americans seem to?

Just one final point. There is an old joke about the Russian communist who once remarked that democracy is fine except that one never knows in advance of an election who will win. Sometimes we are in danger of forgetting why this is funny. In a true democracy, if the people want a few years of socialism, then that is what they should get. By all means ask: were they manipulated? Of course they were. Has there ever been an election in which the punters weren’t lied to and deceived in countless ways?