Category Archives: Joe McCarthy

No Sense of Decency, The Army McCarthy Hearings—Part II

Posted on by

The first half of the review of this book discusses the early days of McCarthy’s attacks on communists in the U.S. government beginning with a speech in 1950 to a Wheeling West Virginia women’s club when he announced he was holding a list of communists or suspected communists in the State Department. This part will talk about the expansion of his attacks and the gathering of forces that eventually tore him down. I’ve suggested that anyone reading this book should also read “Blacklisted by History,” which presents strong defenses of McCarthy and his actions.

The rebuff by his colleagues did not deter McCarthy, and he continued his attacks on powerful people. He called Secretary of State Dean Acheson the “…great Red Dean.” He declared Truman was a drunkard, and that “The son of a bitch should be impeached,” after Truman dismissed General Douglas MacArthur. Truman commented after McCarthy’s attack on General Marshall, “The man who made that attack isn’t fit to shine General Marshall’s shoes.” Edward R. Murrow said that he hadn’t always agreed with Truman, but said “…we are obliged to applaud his choice of shoeshine boys.”

McCarthy would announce on television that presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson and five of his key advisors were supporters of communism. He broadened his attack by declaring, “…those who wear the label Democrat wear it with the stain of a historic betrayal.” He later angered Eisenhower with his lengthy speech attacking the Army. Eisenhower told his brother Milton, “I am not going to get into a pissing contest with that skunk.”  Richard Nixon, who had gained fame interrogating suspected communists as a member of HUAC, said “When you go out and shoot rats you have to shoot straight…you might hit someone else who is trying to shoot rats too.” Continue reading →

Joe McCarthy

Posted on by

Joe is probably the most vilified politician in U.S. history, although a good argument could be made for Richard Nixon to hold that distinction. Negative reports have even been written Joe’s military service despite the fact he resigned from being a judge to enlist in the Marines in World War II. He would later campaign for office as “Tail gunner Joe,” and would limp around complaining of the shrapnel in his leg. His detractors say that he never flew in a combat mission, and that the stiff leg was from an accident during a shipboard ceremony while traveling to the South Pacific. He was elected to the Senate in 1946 and spent several unremarkable years there. He was said to be a popular D.C. party guest, but unpopular with other senators because of his quick temper and the ease with which he became voraciously critical.

Joe became the center of public attention after he gave a speech to a Wheeling West Virginia women’s club in 1950 where he said he held in his hand a list of communists in the U.S. State Department. That speech eventually attracted attention across the country, and politicians who would be embarrassed by what he said began to vilify McCarthy.

I’ve read several books about Joe, and most of them describe him as a despicable, drunken bully. “Blackmailed by History, the Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy” by M. Stanton Evans, which I reviewed in three parts on this web site, presents the other side of the story, and it is the book I will use for most of the references in this posting.

Probably the strangest accusation against Joe is that he had something to do with the Hollywood Blacklist. It is true that many Hollywood personalities suffered as the result of investigations following the “Red Scare.”The House Un-American Activities (HUAC) chaired by Democrat Martin Dies beginning in 1938 was looking for Nazi and Communist influences in government. Richard Nixon was on the committee in the later 1940s when several Hollywood personalities were “blacklisted.” Many references to “McCarthyism” will mention the McCarthy and the HUAC-imposed blacklists in the same passage, even though Senator McCarthy had nothing to do with actions of that House committee. As what I consider a fascinating aside, Congressman Samuel Dickstein had vied with Dies to be the chairman of HUAC, but was relegated to be the vice-chairman. Dickstein is the only U.S. Congressman proven by Venona and NKVD archives to be a paid Soviet agent. The Soviets apparently had little if any respect for Dickstein, since they gave him the code name “Crook.”

A charge in the eventual indictments of McCarthy was that he lied about the number of people on the list he was holding when he gave the Wheeling speech. McCarthy would say he mentioned 57 as the number, but his detractors claimed he said 205. Eva Ingersoll, a political activist from Wheeling would testify in front of Congress that Joe had said there were 205 people being investigated and 57 were “card-carrying Communists.” An editorial in the Wheeling Intelligencer the day after the speech mentions “over fifty” suspects of Communist affiliation. The headline of a Denver Post article reads, “57 Reds Help Shaping U.S. Policy:  McCarthy.” Historical references about Joe continue to contend that he lied about the numbers regardless of the information confirming McCarthy’s statements. (There is no recording or written documentation of the speech.) I find it fascinating that the number Joe McCarthy had used in a speech is what the focus of investigation became. That was apparently more important than the accusation there were several people suspected of being communists shaping U.S. foreign policy. The Venona Project was declassified in the mid-1990s and would confirm there were hundreds of communist sympathizers and spies in the U.S. government and military.

The movie Goodbye and Good Luck is about the Edward R. Murrow news reports that damaged McCarty’s image. One scene was a young woman suspected of being a communist who is being interrogated by McCarthy in a hearing. She mentions that there are three people including her who have a similar name in the phone book, and the media jumped on the story saying that McCarthy had accused the wrong person. History has shown that the woman, whose job was to decode classified messages, was a communist. The most famous episode shown by the movie was lawyer Joseph Welch asking McCarthy “Have you no sense of decency” after McCarthy mentioned a young lawyer who had been on Welch’s staff and had belonged to a “far left” organization. Welch himself had revealed the affiliation to the New York Times six weeks before the hearings, and perhaps that is how McCarthy learned of it. However the theatrical rants by Welch accusing McCarthy of having no shame in “ruining a young-man’s life” in front of the cameras with tears rolling down his face is what the movie shows and what most people remember when McCarthy is mentioned.

I’ve done a two part review of the book “No Sense of Decency by Robert that presents the negative side of Joe McCarthy and the book is both well-documented and presented. Reading that book and the Evan’s book “Blackmailed by History” reminds me of the comment that “history is interpretive.” I believe that Joe McCarthy was a political opportunist, that he bullied people, and that he made a huge political error when he accused General George Marshall of making decisions to give advantage to the Soviets and Chinese Communists. The decisions are easy to criticize, but there are few people who distrust the loyalty of Marshall.

Joe McCarthy’s accusations resulted in few if any communists being uncovered during his life. However, several of the people he accused were confirmed to have communist affiliations or were confirmed to be Soviet spies by the Venona project and/or by the archives opened after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The biggest mistake Joe made was that he severely underestimated the magnitude of Soviet espionage penetration of the U.S. government and military in the years during and after World War II. It isn’t difficult to see the negative impact from the failures of U.S. policy that resulted. The Soviets were able to steal all the Manhattan Project plans needed to make and detonate an atomic bomb. The U.S. military did halt their advance into Germany to allow the Soviets to take Berlin. The Soviets did dominate Eastern Europe after the war. The Chinese Communists did take over China and expelled the Nationalists to Formosa. There was a long and costly Cold War. Too bad Joe didn’t do a better job of warning us.

Blacklisted by History, the Untold Story of Joe McCarthy—Part II

Posted on by

Part one of the review about the book “Blacklisted by History” by M. Stanton Evans gives the background for Joe McCarthy’s original accusations about the infiltration of communist agents in the U.S. Government in general and the State Department in particular and the early attempts to discredit him and his accusations. This part will focus on the friction between those concerned about Soviet spying, including Joe, and reactions of other politicians, including the Presidents.

I’ve read several books that make it clear that Franklin Delano Roosevelt never wanted to hear negative things about the Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin. He had paved the way to provide diplomatic immunity to the Soviets. He didn’t want to hear that action had opened a broad pathway for the Soviets to establish a massive espionage network in the United States that sent its tentacles into just about every aspect of government and the military. Roosevelt made a rude remark to Adolph Berle when Berle tried to brief FDR about a Soviet espionage ring revealed by Whitaker Chambers. The author summarizes in biting terms the Roosevelt administration’s mood “…during the ‘gallant allay’ daze of wartime, when FDR, Harry Hopkins, and their minions were lauding Stalin, letting Earl Browder out of prison, and strewing roses along the path that led comrades to the federal payroll.”

Truman, I had always thought, took a much less conciliatory tone toward Stalin and the Soviets. I also had read that the generals who had control of who would be briefed about the magnitude of Soviet espionage as learned by the Venona project decided that Truman would not be given that information. The FBI is often blamed for the failure to identify and prevent Soviet penetration, and that blame often includes the allegation that that agency withheld information from Truman. However, the author observes that “…all of this is moonshine and will be so perceived by anyone who bothers to check the official records. As has been seen, the FBI was neither fooled by nor indifferent to Soviet penetration efforts in the 1940s…Nor did the Bureau withhold its knowledge of such matters from the Truman White house.” The author offers the opinion, “That he (Truman) was a visceral anti-Communist is not in doubt. However, he did seem to know little about the way the Soviets and their U.S. agents functioned, or their presence in the government he headed, and didn’t show much interest in learning.” Continue reading →

Blacklisted by History, the Untold Story of Joe McCarthy

Posted on by

I was given this book by a friend who thought I would find it interesting, and the Joe McCarthy story is certainly interesting. What most people know about him is that the term “McCarthyism,” is used anytime someone wants to accuse another of an unfair accusation. I’ve read a few of the numerous books written about McCarthy’s investigations of communists and communism in the federal government in the early 1950s. Few of the books have anything good to say about him. If you can think of a derogatory term, that term has probably been used to describe him. Joe McCarthy is often portrayed as one of the most evil men to set foot on the floor of the United States Senate.

“Blacklisted by History” by M. Stanton Evans paints a completely different picture, and it is filled with references. It also has copies of memos, letters, hearing records, etc. reproduced in the book that often debunk the common allegations against McCarthy.  Some of the debunking is quite straight-forward. He has been accused of being responsible for the House Un-American Activities Committee persecution of people in Hollywood. It would be quite unusual, perhaps even idiotic, to think a Senator would have anything to do with a House of Representatives committee.

I think it would be worthwhile to quote someone who didn’t like Joe McCarthy (and I think I’ll begin calling him “Joe”). Garrison Keillor wrote on December 17, 2005 in an article titled “McCarthy had a gift of graceful speech,” “It is exhilarating to discover the truth and to find out you were off the mark…There was a Soviet espionage network in our government and the fact that Joseph McCarthy was a drunk, a bully, and a cynical opportunist doesn’t change that. Along with a lot of other Democrats, I’ve wasted a lot of time on these issues that I was in fact wrong about. I’m glad to be set straight.” History has shown that Joe’s quest to expose the extent of communist penetration of the U.S. government and military in the 1940s was only incorrect in one important respect. He severely underestimated the extent of the problem. However, he stepped on many powerful political toes, and paid a huge price for the irritation he created.

Joe began his firestorm of political controversy February 9, 1950 with a speech to a Republican Women’s Club in Wheeling, West Virginia. He announced that there was a serious problem of Communist infiltration of the State department, that the problem hadn’t been dealt with, and that strong measures were needed to correct the problem. He said “I hold in my hand…” a list of Communists in the State Department. I find it fascinating that the McCarthy detractors then and now did not and do not dispute the underlying accusation. However, there were extensive investigations about the number of people he said were included on his list. He later said his list included 57 names, and there were Congressional investigations based on allegation he used a different number (usually 205) in the speech. The investigations weren’t focused on Communist infiltration of the government, but on the number McCarthy mentioned. I will write cynically that it wasn’t important whether there was Communist infiltration. It seems incredible that what was important was whether the infiltration involved 57 officials spying for the Soviets or 205. Joe would deny under oath that he had used the number 205, and would eventually be accused of perjury because of that denial.

The tape of the speech was erased, so there is no way of confirming what Joe said. However, the Wheeling newspaper had an editorial the day following the speech referring to “over fifty” suspects of Communist affiliation. The Denver Post had an article the same day with the headline, “57 Reds Help Shaping U.S. Policy: McCarthy.”

Samuel Klaus had drafted a confidential memo in August 1946 detailing the suspected Soviet agents in the State Department. A similar report was generated in 1947 by Robert E. Lee (no relation to the Confederate General). Several of the people named on those lists were on McCarthy’s list and were confirmed to be Soviet spies by the Venona project and by archives that were made public after the collapse of the Soviet Union,

All copies of the Klaus memo would disappear from public records. What has not disappeared from the public record is that the Soviets had a massive network of spies in the U.S. government and military during and after World War II. They obtained everything they needed to build their own atomic bomb from espionage operations inside the Manhattan Project. The U.S. State Department did everything possible to assure that a Communist government took over control of China. North Korea was positioned to invade South Korea and was later supported by the Chinese Communists. Joe might have come late to the party of figuring out why these things happened, but it is undisputed history that they did happen.  The author offers the opinion, “If McCarthy had killed someone during a spree of drunken driving, or been caught in adultery with a student intern, he would have been denounced and gone into history books as a scoundrel (or maybe not). But he wouldn’t have been rhetorically embalmed, placed on exhibit as an “ism,” or have his effigy dragged around the public square forever after. All too obviously, such nonstop derogation has occurred, not to blacken the memory of an individual, but to serve a broader purpose.” Perhaps the focus should be on why McCarthy was destroyed “…to serve a broader purpose,” instead of how many people were on his list.

The FBI had investigated communist infiltration for decades before Joe made his speech. Chief Special Agent Guy Hottel wrote in a 1946 memo to Hoover, “It has become increasingly clear in the investigation of this case that there are a tremendous number of person employed in the United States government who are Communists and strive daily to advance the cause of Communism…” The House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) began investigating for both Nazis and Communists in 1938. However, it was Joe McCarthy that “…blew the lid off some major security cases, foremost among them the long-buried Amerasia scandal, in which hundreds of official documents had been funneled to this pro-Communist publication and the facts about the matter hidden from the public.” “Officials at the White House, State Department, and elsewhere in government weren’t eager to have the unvarnished facts about the level of Communist penetration on their watch, and their failure to do much about it, set forth clearly before the nations. Joe McCarthy…managed to focus the blazing spotlight of public notice on these issues in a way nobody had done before him. He and his charges were thus viewed in certain quarters as a serious menace to be dealt with quickly, and in most decisive fashion. And so in fact they would be.” This book does a well-documented job of telling the story of how Joe McCarthy was destroyed to protect the guilty. Newsweek reported that the objective was the “…total and eternal destruction of McCarthy.”

Many of the books about Joe include a challenge to “Name one Communist (or Soviet agent) ever by identified by him in his sensational speeches and investigations.” The authors of that challenge apparently haven’t done much research. It is true that none of those charged in Joe’s lists were definitely proven to be Communists or Soviet agents in his lifetime, perhaps because most of the effort expended by investigators was to discredit Joe instead of looking into what he was saying. However Venona and the opening of the Soviet archives confirmed several of the people on his lists to be Communists, Soviet agents, or both. There is a list of ten people named by McCarthy on page 39 of the book that were later identified by Venona decryptions of Soviet cables (see the review about Venona for details). Chapter 26 lists a few of the people that Joe investigated and provides incriminating details about their associations and activities.

The origin of the derogatory term, “McCarthyism,” is quite interesting. Joe had resisted announcing names on his list public, observing that he did not believe it would be fair to name suspects until further investigation confirmed the suspicions. He repeatedly said hearings should be in executive session and steadfastly refused demands to provide names to the Senate. He said, “The names are available. The senators may have them if they care for them. I think, however, it would be improper to make the names public until the appropriate Senate committee can meet in executive session and get them.” He continued to refuse to “…indict them before the country, without giving them a chance to be heard.” He and his Republican colleagues on the Senate subcommittee that was to hear his charges voted to have the hearings in executive (secret) sessions. The subcommittee chairman and the majority of the subcommittee voted to hold the hearings in public sessions and announced there would be no executive sessions. Joe, in my opinion, made a mistake by believing the hearings were more important than the secrecy of the names, and began to name names. Thus, he became guilty of “McCarthyism.”

Joe, who was often characterized as a bully, was often bullied by his opponents. He was called to testify to a Senate committee, and was interrupted repeatedly as he attempted to read a prepared statement. Henry Cabot Lodge finally interceded, asking, “Why cannot the senator from Wisconsin get the normal treatment and be allowed to make his own statement in his own way, and not be cross-questioned before he has had a chance to present what he has?”

I’ll close this part of the review with an incredible story of Senator Millard Tydings, who was instrumental in the interrogation and criticism of Joe McCarthy. Page 244 of the book has a picture of Tydings displaying a phonograph record and player that he displayed to the Senate saying that the record was a recording of Joe’s Wheeling speech that was proof that Joe had lied about the number of people on the list he held that day. There was no record of Joe’s speech, and the record and player were nothing more than theatrical props. Tydings was called to give testimony in a libel suit between McCarthy and William Benton. He danced around the question successfully for a while, but was eventually forced to admit under oath that he did not have a recording of the Wheeling speech. The speech on record turned out to be a radio interview in Salt Lake City that substantiated Joe’s claim that he had used the number 57. However, of course Joe’s detractors don’t mention this “inconvenient fact.”

There is more to follow in part two.