Difference between revisions of "Talk:Joseph McCarthy"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Update: edit)
(Replacing page with 'ppppppppppppprrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!')
Line 1: Line 1:
−
{{protect|Geo.plrd}}
+
ppppppppppppprrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
−
 
 
−
*[[Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive1]] (March 10 2007 - March 31 2007)
 
−
*[[Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Archive2]] (March 31 2007 - June 29 2007)
 
−
 
 
−
This article is horrendously written.  Truly.  Would someone with some good sources tear it apart?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 23:03, 9 March 2007 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
== "Who killed Joe McCarthy?" book ==
 
−
 
 
−
Rob, I finished a book last night titled, "Who killed Joe McCarthy?" It was just another anti-McCarthy book among a number of such books. But the real joke about this book is that there isn't one single footnote!! No joke. This guy didn't even bother to give attribution to his comments. At the end of the book, he lists a bunch of books and sources that he used to source his book but he does not say what goes where. The gist of the book is how Eisenhower worked behind the scenes to destroy McCarthy using sleazy methods and violating the U.S. Constitution. The author was actually praising Eisenhower for these acts!! There's a reason why I was able to buy this book used at Amazon for one penny: It wasn't worth any more than that.
 
−
 
 
−
I also bought Roy Cohen's book, ''McCarthy''. It's actually a great read. He addresses the subject in a very neutral fashion and doesn't try and screw with the reader. Cohen gives attribution to his sources, aside from his own observations.
 
−
 
 
−
While I've read most all of the anti-McCarthy books that have ever been written, I haven't re-read any of them for a number of years so I'm going to endeavor to buy used copies of those books over a short period of time. As I recall, there's really nothing in those books that can negate Buckley's book or certainly none of the Venona info, which they didn't know about anyway. Thought you might be interested. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 16:48, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
=="Victims"==
 
−
*''While innocent persons may have been abused, many of the truly guilty walked away free under the cloak of "McCarthyism".''
 
−
:This is an extemely important aspect of Venona revelations in relation to McCarthy & McCarthyism.  [[Harry Magdoff]], for example, was a Senior Economist in the [[War Production Board]], according to Venona & Soviet Archives had been an active [[KGB]] agent working in the U.S. Government since 1938.  Much of the information he passed to the KGB was found in Soviet Archives.  Here, in a dispute over his biographical entry in WP  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Venona_project&diff=next&oldid=23941675#NPOV] let me reproduce part of that exchange:
 
−
 
 
−
<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
 
−
This edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage&diff=23856282&oldid=23851850], reveals [Chip Berlet, former VP, [[NLG]]] is so anxious to insert "McCarthy hearings" into this text, that with a keystroke he has converted a written FBI Deposition of Elizabeth Bentley into oral testimony before a Congressional Committee.  Witness:<br><br>
 
−
 
 
−
Original text: "...[[Elizabeth Bentley]] who provided this information to the FBI [http://foia.fbi.gov/silversm/silversm2c.pdf]:" (followed by deposition quote).<br><br>
 
−
 
 
−
[Chip Berlet's] doctored text: "...[[Elizabeth Bentley]] who provided this information to the FBI and later testified to that same effect during [[McCarthy era]] hearings [http://foia.fbi.gov/silversm/silversm2c.pdf]:" (followed by deposition quote).<br><br>
 
−
 
 
−
The following facts were established two months ago:
 
−
*Harry Magdoff left government 30 December 1946.
 
−
*Joseph McCarthy took office the first week of January 1947.
 
−
*Harry Magdoff was never summoned before a Committee chaired by Joseph McCarthy.
 
−
*The circumstances of Magdoff leaving government employment had absolutely nothing to do with Joseph McCarthy.
 
−
*Harry Magdoff was not "hounded out" of government by Joseph McCarthy, and/or "McCarthyism".
 
−
*Joseph McCarthy did not begin his crusade until morethan four years after Magdoff leaving government employment.<br><br>
 
−
 
 
−
Nevertheless, after several months of establishing the facts, and presenting the evidence in carefully crafted language by several editors, in [Chip Berlet's] exuberance to insert references to Joseph McCarthy, and present Magdoff as a "victim" of "McCarthyite" "persecution", [Chip Berlet] with a simple phrase transforms facts into a world that never existed.  This fits the definition of [[Wikipedia:POV]].  [RobS] 20:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 
−
 
 
−
:'''[RobS] is correct that my original wording about the Bentley testimony was unsatisfactory''', which is why I (not [RobS]) changed it on my next edit: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage&diff=next&oldid=23889258]. [ed note: This is false, Mr.Berlet did not correct it.] I have no idea why [RobS] has not noticed this, and assume his attack on me for having "doctored" the text was due to inadequate research. I will be happy to accept his apology for this error.  We all make mistakes.
 
−
</blockquote> [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:24, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
Rob, I'm completely confused as to what you're trying to tell me here. I originally removed the sentence, ''While innocent persons may have been abused, many of the truly guilty walked away free under the cloak of "McCarthyism".'' because the "innocent" people that "may have been abused" are not identified. Who are these innocent people? I can't find anyone that was innocent and abused by McCarthy. If you have any names, please post them so that we can adhere to verifiability and truth. There's no citation. I just re-phrased the sentence to simply state that, "Because of the Truman Administration being unaware of Venona, many of the guilty people escaped under the cloak of 'McCarthyism'". Also, we're being redundant in a couple of places.
 
−
 
 
−
We're stating the same exact thing in two places. We are stating this in one place:
 
−
 
 
−
''McCarthy sought to characterize President Truman and the Democratic party as soft on or even in league with the Communists. McCarthy's allegations fell flat with Truman who was unaware of [[Venona project]] decrypts which corroborated [[Elizabeth Bentley]]'s debriefing after her defection from the Communists. While innocent persons may have been abused, many of the truly guilty walked away free under the cloak of "McCarthyism".''
 
−
 
 
−
And we're stating this in another:
 
−
 
 
−
''McCarthy was able to characterize President Truman and the Democratic party as soft on or even in league with the Communists. McCarthy's allegations were rejected by Truman who was unaware of [[Venona project]] decrypts which corroborated [[Elizabeth Bentley]]'s debriefing after her defection from the Communists.''
 
−
 
 
−
The second one obviously doesn't have the "innocent persons" comment, so I'll add back the line I suggested above so that it reads like this:
 
−
 
 
−
''McCarthy was able to characterize President Truman and the Democratic party as soft on or even in league with the Communists. McCarthy's allegations were rejected by Truman who was unaware of [[Venona project]] decrypts which corroborated [[Elizabeth Bentley]]'s debriefing after her defection from the Communists. Because of the Truman Administration being unaware of Venona, many of the guilty people escaped under the cloak of "McCarthyism".''
 
−
 
 
−
I think this second one sounds better so I will edit out the first one.
 
−
 
 
−
Also, in the section above Venona, I stated:
 
−
 
 
−
''McCarthy is said by some to have made the claim, "I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party."''
 
−
 
 
−
You re-added into Venona, ''McCarthy is said by some to have made the claim, "I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party."''
 
−
 
 
−
Obviously we're being redundant. That's why I changed the one in Venona to address directly the 205 figure. But you reverted that back so it's now redundant. Now, I changed the wording slightly so it doesn't appear so redundant but still retains the essence of what you are trying to say. Hopefully that covers all aspects of those sections. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 21:51, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Solomon Adler ==
 
−
 
 
−
Rob, do you know if Adler ever testified in front of McCarthy's Committee? I can't find info on that in his article. Please let me know. Thanks. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 22:34, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Locking of McCarthy article ==
 
−
 
 
−
I posted this on your Talk page:
 
−
 
 
−
Rob, what are you doing on the McCarthy article? I have explained all of my work on the Discussion page and urged us to avoid redundant statements. Now you have locked the article so I can't add any further info to the article? Why? Why are you posting redundancy in the article? I have been upfront with all my changes and called your attention to all changes. It's not as if I have been making modifications without talking to you first. And my changes do not affect your work at all. So I'm totally confused about what you are doing. There is no vandalism going on so "protection" of the page is unwarranted. The page was unlocked at my request so I could add info. Can you please explain your reasoning here and unlock the McCarthy page? I would appreciate it. Thank you. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 11:31, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
:Why do you keep removing Venona references, and why do you keep removing the summary conclusion?  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:49, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::Rob, can you be a bit more specific? To what references are you speaking? I don't recall removing any Venona references. In fact, the more Venona references, the better. And regarding the summary, to what removal are you addressing? Can you please be specific so I can see what your concern is regarding? Also, are you able to give a citation for the first paragraph under "Venona files"? It makes a serious charge but there is no citation for it. As it stands, it appears as Original Research. And, can you give a citation for this:
 
−
 
 
−
::::''While innocent persons may have been abused, many of the truly guilty walked away free under the cloak of "McCarthyism".''
 
−
 
 
−
::Can you cite who the "innocent persons" were that were abused? A citation here would be great.
 
−
 
 
−
::*Been cited several times; here's one [[Talk:Joseph_McCarthy#.22Victims.22]].  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:06, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::Lastly, can you cite where Solomon Adler was interviewed by McCarthy? I couldn't find anything right off the top but if you have a source for an interview or maybe something McCarthy said, it would be great as well. I am hoping we can keep working together on this article but since you've locked it, obviously all the additional info that I have to contribute to the article is on hold. Please let me know what we can do to work this out. Thank you. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 12:53, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::Adler I will review.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:06, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::::*''But even if Adler didn't have anything to do with McCarthy, that's still fine because he is an excellent example of a subverse in govt. that was later identified by Venona''
 
−
:::::Speaking from memory, I do not think Adler ever testified before the [[PSI]] either publicly or in Executive Session, but I do believe I is referenced several times by several witnessess in Executive Session.  Also, Adler figures in the [[Amerasia]] scandal and the [[IPR]] controversy. ANd yes, we agree Adler is an excellant example of a subverse in govt. that was later identified by Venona.
 
−
 
 
−
::::If a dispute is said to exist, it simply is the prominence given to your weblink to the Univ. of Wis of a transcript cited in the 1998 book by Bedforsd that states McCarthy said 54 on the podium in Wheeling.  That book, and that citation is fine, and making mention of it is no probably.  The "dispute," such that it exists is, you are asking Conservapedia to take a definitive stand that McCarthy did in fact state 54 on the podium in Wheeling West Virginia.  Obviously we can't do that.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:35, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::::Rob, have you actually taken the time to look at the links I provided regarding this issue? Also, if you don't have a copy of the Buckley book, I highly recommend getting a copy. This book is the fairest assessment of McCarthy's cases you're ever going to read. The conclusion of that book and that of witnesses is that McCarthy stated "57" (not 54 as you state above) cases. It's a simple matter of looking at the evidence to figure out the truth. For years, the leftists have tried to confuse people regarding this matter and sadly they have been rather effective in their efforts. Nevertheless, the evidence is there for anyone to review it. I'm merely reflecting the existing evidence and refuse to succumb to the propaganda of the Left that has no basis in fact. As you know, verifiable truth is the goal of Conservapedia and in this regard, it has been achieved. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 17:50, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::::::The issue of 57 vs 205 would be of interest if it were the issue; Venona has made it moot.  Only leftists & commies still harp on it, as if it were determintive of McCarthy's credibility. And it makes sense they would do this, since they have absolutely nothing to refute Venona with.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:56, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::::::Rob, the problem with that argument is this is an article about '''Joseph McCarthy''', not Venona. Venona is here merely to support the McCarthy article. It is not the highlight of the article. This article does not revolve around Venona, it revolves around McCarthy and providing verifiable and truthful information. It is incumbent on anyone working on this article to address all the issues related to McCarthy, including his life before being Senator. And, again, you're trying to suggest that since I'm addressing the 57 vs. 205 numbers, that I'm right in there with the "leftists & commies". Do you realize that your statement is insulting, inaccurate, and not at all helpful? You're making me spend more time in this discussion and less time improving the article. Would you do me a favor and think about that for a while before responding? Thank you. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 23:14, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::::::Rob, one thing that occurred to me last night after I shut down my computer for the night is that it seems as if you've contributed as much as you can to this article. I think that you are very well informed on Venona and Communist subversion in govt. but you only have a limited knowledge of McCarthy's life and work. On the other hand, I'm a solid McCarthy expert. In fact, I had been in discussions with William Grigg and James Drummey about writing a McCarthy book. I had actually been working on one until I got wind of the fact that Medford Evans was working on the definitive book on McCarthy. Now, if I knew that Evans was going to postpone his release date for years, I could have finished my book. So now instead of writing a book, I'm putting my knowledge to use here at Conservapedia. I probably have around 20 books dealing with McCarthy and a few on Venona but my Venona info was going to be used to back up McCarthy not as a separate subject. You on the other hand probably don't own a single McCarthy book but have some number of books regarding Venona and related issues. So the bottom line is, while I estimate that I have about 100 hours of work to do on the McCarthy article including time needed to fill in the "red links", I don't see what more you can really add. I appreciate anything extra but it seems you are spending more and more time in discussion now than actually contributing to the article itself. You may wish to consider devoting your knowledge to the various other articles regarding Venona, communist subversion, etc. where your efforts can be best allocated. Just a suggestion. (By the way, I just got my copy of "In Denial" by Haynes & Klehr. If you don't already know, it's a great book about Left-wingers still living in denial even after Venona and other former Soviet Union documents have been released. Good book. I was looking for a way to include some of the info into this article.) Thank you. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 09:16, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Mediation ==
 
−
 
 
−
Per private discussion with several sysops I will be moderating negotiations to end the dispute currently existing. I would like to request that no major/controversial editing take place. As one party is a fellow Sysop, I have unlocked the article to remove a unfair advantage.
 
−
Where does each side see issues that need to be discussed? [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]]<small>[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]]</small> 12:53, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:Hi, Geoff, thank you for unlocking this page and mediating any existing issues. I think Rob has done some great work with the article and we only seem to have had an issue on a few minor things that I would attribute to simple miscommunication.
 
−
 
 
−
:(1) The first issue is regarding a sentence I removed because it had been in the article for a long time yet had no citation. That sentence is, ''While innocent persons may have been abused, many of the truly guilty walked away free under the cloak of "McCarthyism".'' Because the "innocent" people that "may have been abused" are not identified. I asked, "Who are these innocent people? I can't find anyone that was innocent and abused by McCarthy. If you have any names, please post them so that we can adhere to verifiability and truth. I just re-phrased the sentence to simply state that, "Because of the Truman Administration being unaware of Venona, many of the guilty people escaped under the cloak of 'McCarthyism'".
 
−
 
 
−
:(2) The second issue was about being redundant in a couple of places basically saying the same thing. 
 
−
 
 
−
:We are stating this in one place:
 
−
 
 
−
::''McCarthy sought to characterize President Truman and the Democratic party as soft on or even in league with the Communists. McCarthy's allegations fell flat with Truman who was unaware of [[Venona project]] decrypts which corroborated [[Elizabeth Bentley]]'s debriefing after her defection from the Communists. While innocent persons may have been abused, many of the truly guilty walked away free under the cloak of "McCarthyism".''
 
−
 
 
−
:And we're stating this in another:
 
−
 
 
−
::''McCarthy was able to characterize President Truman and the Democratic party as soft on or even in league with the Communists. McCarthy's allegations were rejected by Truman who was unaware of [[Venona project]] decrypts which corroborated [[Elizabeth Bentley]]'s debriefing after her defection from the Communists.''
 
−
 
 
−
:The second one obviously doesn't have the "innocent persons" comment, so I added back the line I suggested above so that it read like this:
 
−
 
 
−
::''McCarthy was able to characterize President Truman and the Democratic party as soft on or even in league with the Communists. McCarthy's allegations were rejected by Truman who was unaware of [[Venona project]] decrypts which corroborated [[Elizabeth Bentley]]'s debriefing after her defection from the Communists. Because of the Truman Administration being unaware of Venona, many of the guilty people escaped under the cloak of "McCarthyism".''
 
−
 
 
−
:So, I tried to keep this version as the best one.
 
−
 
 
−
:(3) The third issue was in the section above Venona, where I stated:
 
−
 
 
−
:''McCarthy is said by some to have made the claim, "I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party."''
 
−
 
 
−
:For some reason the essentially same sentence existed in the Venona section. It says, ''McCarthy is said by some to have made the claim, "I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party."''
 
−
 
 
−
:Obviously we were being redundant. That's why I changed the one in Venona to address directly the 205 figure. I changed the wording slightly so it doesn't appear so redundant but still retains the essence of what Rob was trying to say.
 
−
 
 
−
:(4) The fourth issue was just asking for a citation regarding Solomon Adler who is listed in this article but there is nothing to indicate that he was either interviewed by McCarthy or if McCarthy ever spoke about him. A simple citation would handle this issue nicely. But even if Adler didn't have anything to do with McCarthy, that's still fine because he is an excellent example of a subverse in govt. that was later identified by Venona. I was just asking if there was some direct connection to McCarthy.
 
−
 
 
−
:Rob and I have been working very nicely on this article but we seem to have run into some minor issues with which we could not seem to effectively communicate. I look forward to continue working with him. Thank you. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 13:26, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
::What has been taken care of? [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]]<small>[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]]</small> 15:10, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::Geo, can you please elaborate? Are you addressing Rob or me? If me, can you please re-state the question? Thank you for your help. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 15:19, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
Geo, I would like to ask your advice on a [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style/Politicians Manual of Style] issue. Rob has submitted some excellent info to the article that we've named the "Moynihan" info. It begins with the words, "After the collapse of the Soviet Union..." and ends with the words, "...more thoroughly penetrated.'" The only dispute is where to locate that info. Rob believes since it's very important info that vindicates Senator McCarthy, it should be placed in full right in the first section, which is normally identified as the "Executive Summary".
 
−
 
 
−
However, I disagree with that placement for a number of reasons.
 
−
 
 
−
(1) I believe that the intro section or "Executive Summary" should be brief and not go into detail about any particular item in the biography of the subject.
 
−
 
 
−
(2) This article is about Joseph McCarthy's entire life and not just his Senatorial career and that the info Rob posted is far too detailed and far too involved to act as a brief description in relation to the rest of the intro section and as compliant with the format of Manual of Style.
 
−
 
 
−
(3) I believe that [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style/Politicians Manual of Style] makes this very clear and affirms my perspective.
 
−
 
 
−
(4) I believe the info should be placed in the "Venona" section and fits very nicely as the first paragraph of that section.
 
−
 
 
−
That is the essence of my argument. Rob may wish to add some additional perspective on his reasoning, but this is in sum my complete thoughts. Would you please mediate this matter and issue an instruction to place the information in question in the proposed section? I thank you for your time and help. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 17:47, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
:How about a compromise, brief mention "was later proven correct by gov. inquiry" with full info in another section? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]]<sup>[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]]</sup> 23:11, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
::I agree 100%. The disturbing thing is that Rob removed this from the intro paragraph:
 
−
 
 
−
:::''He was noted for claiming and subsequently proving that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the federal government.''
 
−
 
 
−
::It was fine the way it was but Rob changed it without discussion. I have no problem changing to what you suggested. How should we proceed? Do you want to make the change or me or Rob? Your call. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 23:20, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::Congratulations, Rob, you are now in contempt of a Mediators orders. I'll alert Geo. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 00:23, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
==Trim==
 
−
I suggest we can tighten up this article by moving the Buckley/Bozell footnotes as the basis to create new pages to fill in all the red links.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:30, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:I had actually considered doing that but the essence of McCarthy's career is based upon those cases and I wanted to make the reader easily able to find this incredibly important information. That's why I have added into the footnote of each case only the bare minimum information that makes the case. [[Philip Jessup]] is a perfect example. Jessup has a very extensive biography but I refrained from going into every aspect of his background so that the footnote didn't get ridiculously large. On the subject of Jessup and others who's biographies are more extensive than what I noted in their case footnotes, I did not add biographical info that extended past the McCarthy investigation period because it would seemingly suggest that the case in question was employed in that position during the time before or during McCarthy's investigation. For that reason and for brevity, I did not add the entire employment biography of those cases. But I noticed you added it to the Jessup article so that's good. So, for the sake of consistency, and without some reason to deviate from that format, I think it's best to remove that additional information from Jessup's footnote.
 
−
 
 
−
:Also, I absolutely agree that we need to fill in the "red links" and I was planning on focusing on that after we had pretty much wrapped up what we were going to put into the article. But, I have recently started filling in the red links. I was planning to work on the Jessup article but you already added my info to it so thanks for handling that. As I mentioned there is still more biographical info for Jessup so I'll add to that article as soon as I can. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 15:17, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::Oh, so because McCarthy was a crank, a commie gets appointed to the [[World Court]].  You'd think this would be news.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:53, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::Do you realize that does not make any sense at all? As I stated, that information is appropriate to the article on Jessup but in order to be consistent in the footnotes in this article, it would not be appropriate to list the entire biography of every case McCarthy mentioned. Is that more clear? [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 16:50, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::::That was probably the discussion in the Kennedy Oval Office over Jessup; someone probably argued McCarthy was a crank, and here's mud-in-the-eye of all those right-wing commie hunters.  So they appointed Jessup to the World Court.  And President John Kennedy appointing a communist to the World Court would probably be of interest to Conservapedia readers, but somehow, you forgot to mention this fact.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:01, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::::Rob, you're doing it again. You're not understanding what I'm writing. Like I said, that info is great for the Jessup article but it doesn't make sense to stick it in the footnote section that we are trying to keep brief and trying to keep focused on the case itself. The footnotes are not the place for a detailed biography of each person. And, yes, Kennedy appointing a communist to the World Court would be of interest to Conservapedia readers but it should be mentioned in the appropriate place. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 19:30, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
::::::Ok, so you wish to downplay the areas McCarthy was right on, and emphasize the areas McCarthy was wrong.  We at least got that out in the open.  The ==securirty risk== subhead is modeled on the ==Venona list== subhead; let's take the case of [[Frank Coe]] for example: the evidence placing him on the Venona list predates his appointment to the [[International Monetary Fund]], yet it is included in his credentials. There are other cases we can disucss.
 
−
 
 
−
::::::Keep in mind, we a writing a bio based upon historical perspective, not rehashing highly charged partisan arguments widely propagated in the media from 1954 based upon limited knoweldge.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:13, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::::::Rob, please tell me that you're joking around. Why are you ignoring what I'm saying? I've broken it down to the extent that it's so very clear what I'm stating. Again, all I'm saying is that for the sake of brevity in the footnotes and so that we can focus on the jobs that any particular person held before and during the time the person was being charged with being a security issue, that we leave out extended biographical info. I've repeated this to you several times now so I'm just wondering if you're not understanding or you're kidding around with me. Again, the whole bio of the person is appropriately placed on the article for that person. The info we should provide in the McCarthy article should be related to McCarthy and frame the resume of the case with that in mind. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 08:55, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
::::::::Right. Ignore the historical record that McCarthy's conspiracy so immense of infamy so black as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man which when finally exposed, its principals shall forever be deserving of the maledictions of all honest men and focus on McCarthy's errors.  I understand completely.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:12, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::::::::OK, now I know you're just kidding with me. You had me going there for a while. :) I appreciate the chuckle. You are officially the "King of Communist Subversion Comedy"!! :) Thanks for breaking the tension between us. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 13:43, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
Ed, yes we're discussing trimming the mainspace here.  What we are likely to do is spin the text off from the footnotes into individual articles for all the red links in the Security risk subhead.  That a good place to start.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:27, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:I know we have to come to some conclusion on this. This page is indeed 108 kilobytes long and the Wikipedia article is 99 kilobytes long. Not much difference in size yet this article is far too short in order to properly cover the topic. Rob is right that we should spin off the text from the footnotes at some point. In fact, we should probably create an article dedicated to those footnotes. We will have to eventually summarize more of the sections and spin off the larger issues into related articles. For example, there's no way we can fully address the "censure" debate in this article. It will have to have it's own article. All we can do is keep working at it until we have it right. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 10:10, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
===Silvermaster file Summaries===
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
Scorpio, last nite I found an excellent source that may be useful in melding some of the Buckley/Bozell material with known Venona spies.  Someone created a summary page for the massive FBI Silvermaster file [http://education-research.org/CSR/Holdings/Silvermaster/summaries.htm Silvermaster File Summaries].  See for example,
 
−
*Volume 7 late November 1945"
 
−
:"Interactions of [[Victor Perlo]] and '''[[Stanley Graze]]'''."
 
−
 
 
−
*Volume 14 December 1945—January 1946
 
−
 
 
−
:"Interactions of [[Maurice Halperin]], [[Joseph Gregg]], [[Robert Miller]], and unidentified woman employed by [[UNRRA]]. Contacts recounted among [[George Perazich]] of UNRRA staff (Yugoslavia), [[Irving Kaplan]], [[Edward Fitzgerald]]. Further details on Perazich. Contacts of [[Robert Miller]] with Herman Habicht, John Marsalka, Minter Wood, and, apparently, [[Alger Hiss]]. Further background on [[Mildred Price]] (Ed note: this is the sister of [[Mary Price]], [[Walter Lippmann]]'s secretary; I had a short bio on her but its been lost somehere in WP or among wikimirrors). Extensive biographical data on Miller, '''listing more than 70 individuals''' known as contacts of Miller and his wife, including Travis Hedrick, Duncan Aikman, Alice and '''[[Philip Raine]]''', Maurice Halperin...Haldore Hanson...Howard Fast...plus additional contacts of Russian origin or nationality. Not indexed."
 
−
 
 
−
*Volume 15 December 1945
 
−
 
 
−
:"...Extensive background on Grace Granich, links to [[Amerasia]] group, and report that she was to be contacted by '''[[John Stewart Service]]'''..."
 
−
 
 
−
*Volume 16 December 1945—January 1946
 
−
 
 
−
:"...extensive background on [[Albert Kahn]] and his reported contacts including Mrs. [[John Abt]] (Jessica Smith), Howard Fast, former White House aide [[David Niles]], CP leader Gilbert Green, union leader Harry Bridges, '''[[Philip Jaffe]]'''...
 
−
 
 
−
*Volume 19 Dec. 1945—January 1946
 
−
 
 
−
:"...contact between Victor Perlo and Stanley Graze of OSS"
 
−
 
 
−
*Volume 25 (Part I) March 1946
 
−
 
 
−
:"Summary of investigative results concerning [[Willard Park]] (including connection to [[Louise Bransten]])(Ed. note: Louise Branston is the mistress of KGB Rezident [[Grigory Kheifetz]] who made initial contact with [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]), [[Bernard Redmont]], [[William Remington]], [[Peter Rhodes]], Ruth Rifkin, [[Helen Tenney]], [[Cedric Belfrage]], [[Albert Kahn]] and his contacts, including [[David Karr]], Howard Fast, [[David Niles]], Gilbert Green, Harry Bridges, and '''[[Philip Jaffe]]''' of [[Amerasia]].
 
−
 
 
−
*Volume 42 April 1946
 
−
 
 
−
:"...'''[[Gustavo Duran]]'''..."
 
−
 
 
−
*Volume 58 July 1946
 
−
 
 
−
:"Extensive section also on James Newman, contacts with Helen Gahagan Douglas, '''[[Philleo Nash]]''', Alfred Friendly, Byron Miller, Thomas Emerson, Harold Stein, Myer Cohen of [[UNRRA]]."
 
−
 
 
−
*Volume 64 August 1946
 
−
 
 
−
:"... various interactions and contacts among subjects dating to December 1945. Among items noted are connections of John and Cynthia Dierkes to [[Robert Miller]]; contacts of [[Edward Fitzgerald]]s and [[George Silverman]] with Mrs. Frank Cameron; discussion of [[Alger Hiss]] State Department contacts Donald Blaisdell and Chester Williams, the latter formerly with [[UNRRA]] and [[OWI]], and brief mentions of Williams employee '''[[Esther Brunauer]]'''
 
−
 
 
−
:Volume 65 August 1946
 
−
 
 
−
:"Summaries of activities, contacts and interactions of subjects during July 1946. Among items covered are ...continued interaction among [[Maurice Halperin]], Theodore Halperin, David Wahl, Philip Dunaway, Maynard Gerstler, [[Julius Joseph]]. Contact between Theodore Halperin and identified CP member in DC area; further correspondence of '''Philip''' and [[Mary Jane Keeney]], detail on Mary Jane Keeney discussion with Sylvia Schimmel about Just Lunning, notation of Mary Jane Keeney contact with Lois Carlisle.
 
−
 
 
−
:"Discussions also of Mrs. Keeney’s contacts with [[Michael Greenberg]], Eric Beecroft, and Ursula Wasserman; background on Florence Levy, sister-in-law of [[Robert Miller]], including work at State Department and previous employment at Hemisphere; interactions of [[George Silverman]] and [[David Weintraub]], recently fired from [[UNRRA]]; contacts of Ursula Wasserman with David Melcher and '''[[Philleo Nash]]''' formerly of OWI;
 
−
 
 
−
AMYWAYS.....altogether there are 162 Volumes, and this is just glancing at it since last nite.  I have read most of the Silvermaster file, but this Summary [http://education-research.org/CSR/Holdings/Silvermaster/summaries.htm] is the first one page online summary  with links to the PDF files.
 
−
 
 
−
A NOTE ON WHAT YOU ARE READING: This in the ongoing FBI investigation which opened about November of 1945; the FBI was not aware of Army Signals intelligence Venona decrpyts for yet.  This is between disbandenment of the OSS, and the creation of CIA in 1947. And there is no knowledge yet by the FBI in 1945-46 of Soviet theft of nuclear secrets.  So what the aims of this investigation are is to simply drive security risks out of the State Department and elsewhere, particularly after disbandenment of the OSS, because many were seeking to be reemployed elsewhere. The object is not so much to gather prosecutable evidence, but rather to simply and quietly remove security risks.
 
−
 
 
−
By the time McCarthy is introduced on the scene in 1950, most probably at the behest of Hoover, (1) FBI coordination with Venona began; (2) Hiss and others were exposed publicly; (3) the Soviets tested a nuke & this was public knowledge; (4) there still remained a large number of unidentified codenames and known security risks in the government.  So the Silvermaster file reveals ''why'' so many of McCarthy's cases were suspected in the first place, as you can follow detailed surveillance activity by FBI field investigators in late 1945 and 1946 with others who are now known to be KGB operatives.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:13, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::Rob, that is some incredible information. Nice job finding it. The size of this data is mind-boggling. What are your thoughts as how to incorporate this info into new or existing articles? [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 19:46, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::That link gives us which names from the Buckley/Bozell list to begin with, including the volume from that link as an external link.  So those entries will have two sources to begin with, Buckley & Bozell, and the specific volume as cataloged from that site (incidentally, Herbert Rommerstein is connected with that project).  It's still gonna be a job to dig out the infromation, cause some volumes have as many as a 165 pages, and the search feature can't be used.  But I am somewhat familiar with the Silvermaster file, and this cataloguing and summaries is a big useful step.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:53, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
==Copyedit==
 
−
 
 
−
Scorpio, I proof read the entire article over the past few days, but haven't made any substantive changes (beyond an addition to the intro) til we got our bearings on the process to move forward.  Yes, there is one or two redundancies that should be consolidated, and the 205 vs 57, I suggest we momentarilly put it on hold.
 
−
 
 
−
There are only two sentences you've added I question"
 
−
*''In addition to some of the individuals identified in the Venona project listed above, there are other security and loyalty risks identified correctly by Senator McCarthy included in the following list:''
 
−
:*This should be clarified, because McCarthy only accused one of being a Soviet spy, [[Mary Jane Keeney]], the rest all came up in a different context.
 
−
*'' He was noted for claiming and subsequently proving that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the federal government. ''
 
−
:*we need to drop "subsequently proving;" McCarthy didn't prove diddly, as we all know, he's famous for barking up the wrong tree.
 
−
There are a few typos, grammatical errors, and links I'd like to copyedit, when you are ready to let me know.
 
−
 
 
−
As to the Executive Session transcripts, I suggest you look at the [[William Henry Taylor]] article, and read his testimony available from the footnotes. Also Alvin Hall from the Bureau of Printing and engraving, and [[Elizabeth Bentley]]'s testimony, all three are contiguous.  This relates to the stolen occupation currency plates.  Taylor, though not identified in Venona, was (a) a memver of the [[Silvermaster group]], and (b) did not plead the Fifth but actually testified.  The names of Harold Glasser, Lud Ulman, Silvermaster, Frank Coe, and Harry Dexter White -- all Venona spies -- are discussed in his & Bentley's testimony.  This is one instance where McCarthy actually was on a hot trail.
 
−
 
 
−
Because Taylor is not identified in Venona, I am hesitant to put him in the list subheaded Venona, yet I'd like to get him into the article.  Perhaps we should consider doing a mini-section on the currency plates, as this alos ties in the deceased Harry Dexter White.  (And the transcripts also cite that Bentley had testified one time earlier; the Ruth Watt external link on the main page has a little background material about when Bentley testified, how she liked to drink beer, etc., if it helps get some feel for the context.  Actually, in reading her testimony, she does sound either hungover or drunk in some places....).  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:13, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
:Rob, let me address your points:
 
−
 
 
−
:You stated, ''This should be clarified, because McCarthy only accused one of being a Soviet spy, [[Mary Jane Keeney]], the rest all came up in a different context.''
 
−
 
 
−
:What I'm saying is that in addition to the Venona names you have provided, the names in the "Known Security/Loyalty" section were exposed by McCarthy. I'm not saying that the names in the "Known Security/loyalty" section are all spies. If you think we can phrase that better, please post an alternative here and let's talk it through.
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
:You stated, ''we need to drop "subsequently proving;" McCarthy didn't prove diddly, as we all know, he's famous for barking up the wrong tree.''
 
−
 
 
−
:Are you trying to be funny again? Like I asked you before, have you read the Buckley book and read the ''Congressional Record''? There's a reason so many witnesses took the Fifth when asked if they were a member of the Communist Party. I laugh everytime I'm reading the transcripts and when Cohn or McCarthy ask that question, the person takes the Fifth!! Great stuff. It's all there for you to see. McCarthy was right and Buckley documents it all very nicely as do the transcripts. I loved Carl Bernstein's father's comments about McCarthy being right. And, Ann Coulter talks about that as well. McCarthy did his job, it was up to the appropriate U.S. dept. to deal with dismissals, which many McCarthy-named people did get dismissed.
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
:You stated, ''There are a few typos, grammatical errors, and links I'd like to copyedit, when you are ready to let me know.''
 
−
 
 
−
:If they are simple errors, please feel free to make the changes. I only ask that you be careful and not change the meaning of a phrase unless there's some compelling reason for doing so.
 
−
 
 
−
:As for the transcript stuff, by all means, if you have names to add, please add them in the same format that is currently in place. No reason to wait on that. I'm still adding names from McCarthy's initial list but if you have names from the transcripts, go for it!! And, yes, the Ruth Watt article was excellent. She refutes a great many misconceptions and distortions about McCarthy. I loved reading that, so thanks for posting it.
 
−
 
 
−
:The only thing I would caution is to remember not to get too carried away with adding Venona stuff to the article that doesn't apply. Please keep focused on the fact that we are doing an article on McCarthy here and the Venona stuff added should compliment the article. One criticism I've seen the Left-Wingers make is that much of the Venona stuff doesn't have anything to do with McCarthy. Of course, in this case, they're right. Nevertheless, they miss the point that McCarthy was right about Communists in govt. As you know, there's tons of great Venona stuff out there that has nothing to do with McCarthy. Reading the book, "In Denial", is a perfect example of Venona stuff that is great but is not directly related to McCarthy. And it amazes me to the extent the Left-Wingers will go in order to discredit Venona and related Soviet archive material.
 
−
 
 
−
:Lastly, that new info you added regarding Moynihan is great but I don't think it should be placed at that part of the article. I think it should be in the Venona section or in a sub-section to Venona. The first part of the article is best for giving an "Executive Summary" rather than getting into specifics of the article. Without any objection, I'll move that info to either Venona or create a sub-section to Venona, whatever looks best. Or, feel free to do it yourself since it was your addition. I'll wait until tomorrow or the following day to give you a chance to think about it. Best Regards. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 18:37, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::Buckley & Bozell repeatedly say things such as " How [[Stanley Graze]] passed the State Department's Review Board remains unexplained." IOW, unlike Venona, (a) the question is inconclusive, and (b) the question is usually on the lower level classification of security risks rather than more vital question of espionage.  And the witnesses pleading the Fifth is largley moot, because the questions usually are about CPUSA membership, not espionage.
 
−
 
 
−
::The Moynihan Secrecy Commission cite up front gets to the heart of the matter--it confirms the conspircay of infamy so black that, when it is finally exposed, its principals shall be forever deserving of the maledictions of all honest men.  If we can leave this up front, I would not be averse to citing Rovere's phrase somewhere, (something to the effect of) "McCarthy was the greatest demagogue to ever walk these shores."  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:22, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::Rob, again, it's great to use Venona to back up McCarthy but it's also important to state upon which evidence McCarthy used to nail people like Graze. I have told you repeatedly that Venona is important here as well and should be used at every possible opportunity. And as I stated, I love the Moynihan info, but it should be moved as I think you also now recognize. As for citing Rovere's phrase, it really is funny now looking back at the evidence but sadly people still aren't well educated in this matter and tend to keep believing the real demagogues like Rovere. So as poignant as that statement would be to unmask the liberal stupidity, other than people like you and me, they just wouldn't get it. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 10:06, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::::Bottomline: the Moynihan Commission corroborates McCarthy's "conspiracy of infamy so black", which actually is the common title given to McCarthy's 20 February 1950 Senate floor speech which you have quoted extensivley in the mainspace.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:36, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::::Rob, what do I keep telling you? This is an article about '''ALL'''of McCarthy's life, not just the Senatorial aspect of his life. That paragraph would be perfect if we were doing strictly an article on his Senate career but this is not such an article. That info is '''perfect''' for the Venona section. So, unless you have a better reason for putting it in the "Executive Summary" section, let's move it to the "Venona" section, OK? [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 12:42, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
From the ==Analysis of the resolution== section, final sentence, paragraph two:
 
−
 
 
−
*''Therefore, the first count was a complete fraud and nothing more than a trumped up charge in order to damage Senator McCarthy. ''
 
−
 
 
−
We should probably remove or reword  blatant editorial speculation of this nature.  Perhaps attributing it to Drummey or Buckley, or wherever it came from.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:55, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:Yes, I agree. In fact, that info comes from a couple of good sources but I have a much better analysis from Cohn's book that I was planning to replace that section with so please be patient and let that sit for now and let me replace it as soon as I can.
 
−
:Also, please consider why when I make a change why I'm doing it. I don't make changes for the laughs, I do it for a reason. Would you please explain why in a biography of a person's whole life, that you place in the "Executive Summary" section a detailed explanation of one aspect of the person's life? It would be one thing to put a one line sentence, which is what already there but such a detailed bit of info goes against the concept of Manual of Style. I realize that the Senate part of McCarthy's life is the most significant but it's important for the article to flow correctly that we adhere to proper form so that the reader does not get confused. Please let me know your thought process on this. Other than placing verifiable truthful information into the article, I'm also concerned about proper structure within each article by not putting details of a person's biography in the wrong place. So, please, let's make sure we're conforming to the appropriate Manual of Style. Thank you. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 12:42, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
::Simple answer: everywhere McCarthy's name is associated with alleged "witchhunts;" the Moynihan Commission finding is directly associated with McCarthy's career and life.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:49, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::Rob, that still doesn't address my point. This is an article about '''Joseph McCarthy''', not [[McCarthyism]]. Please see [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style/Politicians Manual of Style]. You are failing to adhere to the basic layout of Conservapedia MOS. Do you want me ask [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] to chime in on this? I think it's fairly obvious but if you want another opinion, we could always ask him. It's up to you but I don't think we need him to tell us that we should not violate Conservapedia protocol and that with the current position of the Moynihan comments, that is exactly what is happening. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 14:15, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
::::Wow, I thought you wanted to tell the world how misunderstood & slimed McCarthy's has been fro 50 years.  There's no better way to exonerate McCarthy's motives than to put the U.S. Government's admission he was correct right up front.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:55, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
:::::I do want to tell the world the verifiable truth about McCarthy but Conservapedia has a Manual of Style for their articles and I just want to follow protocol. Is that wrong? As a Sysop, I would think you would be a stickler for this sort of thing. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 16:37, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
::::::Oh, so a per Manual of Style, we couldn't mention [[George Washington]] is the Father of the Country in the opening section, right?
 
−
:::::::LOL!! Yes, of course we could but do you think it would be appropriate to quote anyone or anything in great detail about it in the opening section? Do we place footnotes before a prologue? Of course not. Manual of Style. We are bound to it. You're just messing with me now, right. :) [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 17:11, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
:::::::Rob, it seems we've hit an impasse on this Manual of Style matter. So in all fairness, I'm going to submit this matter to Geo for mediation in the above "mediation" section. Please feel free to make your case there. Thank you. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 16:27, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
Rob, doing clean-up is one thing but you're changing material information in the article. Can you please discuss any changes before you do them? I've spent a lot of time with this article and I would like to be included in any changes. I would appreciate it. Thank you. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 23:25, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
:BTW, you seen [[Soviet spies in America (1921-1948)]], it's a beauty.  It combines Venona, Bentley, Guzenko, Budenz, Gorsky memo, ''et al'' into one list. It's still amazing how many names & bios I got that are not yet on the list. 
 
−
 
 
−
:This is a chronology & structure basically from the day Lenin declared "we must establish everywhere illegal apparatuses."
 
−
 
 
−
:[[Golos]], an [[NKVD]] officer, came over in 1921 and started operations.  I can't find anything on him in the [[Ellis Island]] database under either his birth name, or Golos, or his place of origin.  Seems they were operating illegally even before Golos got here.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:27, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::Rob, that's great stuff. Well done. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 18:41, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::Rob, thanks for adding "America's Retreat from Victory" to the external links. I listed it alphabetically and added it to the reference section as well. Great link. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 18:52, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== H. Julian Wadleigh & "The Venona Progeny" ==
 
−
 
 
−
Rob, thanks for linking  H. Julian Wadleigh. I didn't know he had an article here. Well done.
 
−
 
 
−
Also, please see if you can find another link for "The Venona Progeny" (footnote #79). The existing link at the Naval War College is dead. Simple typo but, the author's name is "Peake" not "Peale". Please see what you can find.
 
−
 
 
−
Lastly, before I forget again, is there a good source on the internet that gives the full "Lee List"? I've been looking but haven't found anything other than this [http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page62.html one]. Please let me know. Thank you. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 15:44, 14 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:Yes, that is Haynes site, and it's the only one I know of.  The entire list would have to be reconstructed from how Haynes displays it, but I think it's possible.  Also, Haynes gives a citation where to find it.
 
−
 
 
−
:Perhaps between Haynes & CP, these are the two best sites available on the internet.  Marquette University gives an inventory of the McCarthy Papers [http://www.marquette.edu/library/collections/archives/Mss/JRM/mss-jrm-s-14.html], and it's cited as "Lee Report, 1948, n.d."  The McCarthy Papers remain sealed until 2050, but we do have a list of other files McCarthy was using.  Some are quite interesting (like "State Dept. Rifling of Files", "Franz Leopold Neuman", and "Harold Glasser").
 
−
 
 
−
:Lastly, Whitakker Chambers personal papers will be available soon, so it looks like we'll have some new information shortly.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:41, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
==Update==
 
−
Scorpio: I've been spending a lot of time on Herbert Rommerstein's werbsite.  His organization has procured much of the Silvermaster file through FOIA.  After the Silvermaster investigation was aborted because of leaks, much of it was incorporated later into the Rosenberg file investigation.  What has been declassified of the Silvermaster file must be 40,000 pages (wheeww).  Parts are missing, for example SAC Lamphere's files.  Lamphere was FBI field
 
−
investigator laiason with Army Signals Intelligence Venona decyptors.
 
−
 
 
−
On a preliminary basis, here's what happened: from the point of Elizabeth Bentley's deposition in December 1945 until about December 1947 the files reflect routine surveillance reports.  All information was channelled through Hoover, rather sparingly, to Department heads and the White House. Venona was kept secret even from Silvermaster field investigators.  An internal leak occurred when a field investigator began discussing prosecution with DOJ Criminal Division.  The Criminal Division learned of Bentley, and wanted to interview her personally. It was at this point Hoover, and other field investigators, realized prosecution was unlikely if not impossible once the investigation was compromised.
 
−
 
 
−
Sure enough, after the lower level DOJ Criminal Division prosecutors heard of the investigation, stories began to appear in UPI (United Press International). Congressional investigators became interested.  Bentley submitted to an interview with DOJ Criminal Division prosecutors, a full report was summarized internally by the FBI, HUAC and other Congressional Committees began subpeonaing documents and witnesses.  By August 1948, three months before the election, Bentley & Chambers testified publicly accusing Hiss & others.  Nixon built his career off of this.
 
−
 
 
−
Meantime, when the FBI summarized the investigation, an Executive Conference was held between the FBI and the Criminal Division to determine how to proceed.  Notifying Department heads of security risks was recommended, but it was obvious that once some members of the underground apparatus knew they were being survielled, all knew they were suspect. 
 
−
 
 
−
Then in 1949 and 1950 the situation got worse.  The Ruskie's exploded the bomb and thier [[Comintern]] ally invaded South Korea.  Also, who lost China. And the Berlin Crisis, etc.  Yet no action had been taken in the State Department and elsewhere to remove security risks. So in early February 1950, Hoover briefed McCarthy on the some of the details, vaguely, McCarthy saw the poltical potential to embarass Truman & the Democrats, took the ball and ran.
 
−
 
 
−
McCarthy was working only with files earlier Congressional investigations procured, and what he got from Hoover.  Hoover did not give up any valuable material with provenance, only stuff that could be used to compromise the "weaker sister."  Given the nature of the CPUSA, and CPUSA underground apparatus, it was a family affair.  Whole families were invovled, mother and daughters, in-laws, etc.  These were the people who were targeted to get them to compromise someone they might know.
 
−
 
 
−
Now, as to the Executive Session transcripts, and VOA investigation, there is really some very interesting things here that could totally destroy some of the myths about McCarthy (still propounded for example, by Wikipedia). I'll update you on that as time allows.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:50, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
 

Revision as of 19:05, August 9, 2007

ppppppppppppprrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McCarthy&oldid=263515"