The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Stephen J. Sniegoski Archive
The Reality of Red Subversion
The Recent Confirmation of Soviet Espionage in America
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Today our entire Corporate Media is shrilly proclaiming—on the basis of absolutely no public evidence—that Christian Russia is on the verge of subverting and seizing control of the American government via the election of Donald Trump. It is therefore highly ironic that in the past all of these same media organs had viciously attacked and ridiculed those who presented the strong evidence that Communist Russia actually did come close to subverting and seizing control of the American government during the 1930s and 1940s, never fully acknowledging their grievous error.

The massive documentation behind this undeniable historical fact has been provided across numerous scholarly books, but much of it is helpfully summarized in this monograph by Dr. Stephen Sniegoski, which is therefore worth republishing. —Ed.

In an apparent effort to illustrate political simple-mindedness, Carroll Quigley derisively wrote in his noted (at least by the John Birch Society) Tragedy and Hope, that the “same groups who were howling about Soviet espionage in 1948-1955 were also claiming that President Roosevelt expected and wanted Pearl Harbor.”[1]Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (New York: MacMillan Company, 1966), p. 919. In a previous contribution to The Occidental Quarterly, I dealt with the latter; here I will do some “howling” about the former. According to what until recently has passed as conventional wisdom for the liberal establishment, America in the late 1940s and early 1950s was gripped by a terrible Red scare, a period of anti-Communist hysteria and witch hunts. Malicious “red-baiters” slandered innocent liberals as Communists in order to destroy the reforms of the New Deal and impede peace with the Soviet Union. At most, some of the more “anti-Communist” liberals would concede that there may have been a few Communist subversives, but nothing to justify the terrible anti-Communist overreaction, above all the antics of the demagogic Joe McCarthy. From the 1960s through the 1980s, one of the strongest taboos in American political discourse was the subject of Soviet influence within the United States.

During the 1990s, the release of the Venona documents (see p. 49) by the U.S. government and the partial opening of the Soviet archives forced establishment minds to a reconsideration. Yes, Virginia, there really were Communist spies in the United States during the so-called “McCarthy era.” In fact, it now appears that even the slandered and smeared “red-baiters” of the period were unaware of just how far Soviet Communist subversion had penetrated. It must be added that even during the period of the so-called “witch hunt” there was more than enough evidence to prove the reality of Soviet Communist spying to any objective person. But, of course, if one is going to pass for an “educated,” “respectable” person, objective thinking must be eschewed—it’s simply not a Darwinian survival trait in modern America.

From Lenin onward Soviet Communist leaders have preached the necessity of underground activities, with foreign governments the key target for infiltration. The evidence for this from many countries is overwhelming. Communists in government engaged in espionage and acted to influence policy in a pro-Soviet direction. Many of the individuals engaged in these activities were Communist Party members; others were fellow travelers, who despite their lack of party discipline, sought to advance the interests of Soviet Communism.

Franklin Roosevelt’s diplomatic recognition of the Soviet Union in 1933 provided the Soviets with their first opportunity for effective penetration of the U.S. government. With diplomatic recognition, Soviet intelligence could function under legal cover through its embassy and consulates. The liberal New Deal agencies provided a fertile field for the recruitment of Soviet spies. Many of those who staffed these agencies sympathized with the government planning of the Soviet “experiment” and with Soviet opposition to fascism. This sympathy for Communism increased during World War II, when the Soviets could be seen as comrades-in-arms. That the Soviet Union was combating the great evil of Nazism has often been used to explain (and to justify) the disproportionate number of subversives of Jewish ethnicity.

Soviet intelligence benefited immensely from the support of the Communist Party of the United States, many of whose members acted as agents. Thus during the 1930s and 1940s, Communist subversives, under direct Soviet control, came to permeate key agencies of the federal government: the Treasury and State departments, the Office of Strategic Services (forerunner to the CIA), and even the White House itself.

Soviet intelligence consisted of three separate organizations: the KGB (NKVD or NKGB—the leading state security organ),[2]This paper will consistently use the term KGB, by which the top Soviet security agency was best known, although this agency had different names throughout its history. During much of WWII, it was officially named the NKGB, while earlier it was the NKVD. the GRU (military intelligence), and the U.S. Communist Party (technically, the Communist Party of the United States of America, or CPUSA), which was supervised by the Comintern (the Communist International, run by Stalin). The KGB and GRU ran parallel “legal” and “illegal” intelligence networks in the United States. “Legal” networks were run by intelligence officers working under legal, usually diplomatic, cover in “residencies” located clandestinely in Soviet diplomatic missions and other official organizations. “Illegal” networks, in contrast, were run by Soviet intelligence officers who used false identities and had no apparent connection to Soviet organizations.

President Roosevelt was oblivious to the danger of Soviet subversion. In 1939, Adolf A. Berle, Roosevelt’s assistant secretary of state and adviser on internal security, presented the President with a list of leading Soviet agents in the United States, including Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White, after receiving this information from ex-Communist spy Whittaker Chambers. Roosevelt simply laughed this off as ridiculous.[3]Herbert Romerstein and Eric Breindel, The Venona Secrets: Exposing Soviet Espionage and America’s Traitors (Washington: Regnery Publishing, 2000), pp. 124–25.

ORDER IT NOW

FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, however, was concerned about Communist infiltration of the government, and the Nazi-Soviet pact provided him with the opportunity to move against suspected Soviet agents. In 1939 FBI special agents raided the facilities of several organizations linked to the U.S. Communist Party and arrested General Secretary Earl Browder on charges of passport fraud. In April 1941, the FBI arrested the senior KGB officer in the United States, Gaik Ovakimian, for violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act. The German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941 caused the U.S. government to halt this early FBI effort to counter Soviet subversion quickly. Ovakimian was allowed to leave the country and President Roosevelt commuted Browder’s sentence.[4]National Security Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, “Venona: Soviet Espionage and the American Response, 1939–1957,” Preface, 1996. https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-...a.htm.

Although the United States had enacted a number of laws and regulations proscribing Communists from the federal government, during World War II these were only loosely enforced. Members of the Roosevelt administration did not distinguish between support for the Soviet effort to defeat the Axis and support for Soviet Communism. They seemed to believe their own war propaganda: Since Stalin was fighting Nazism, Stalin and the Soviet Union must be beneficent. While some of this cooperation with the Soviet Union was open, other aspects took place behind the scenes. For example, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) actually cooperated with the KGB. OSS Director William Donovan made an effort to establish a formal exchange with the KGB, which would have included allowing an official KGB mission in the United States. Donovan was not pro-Communist, but was entranced by wartime and postwar collaboration with the Soviet Union. Donovan’s proposal had considerable support in the ranks of the Roosevelt administration. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, however, was adamantly opposed. Roosevelt ultimately rejected the proposal in March 1944 for political reasons, fearing conservative Republican attacks abetted by Hoover. As historian Bradley F. Smith writes, what motivated Roosevelt in rejecting the exchange was “not distrust of the Soviet secret policy but apprehension about what Hoover and his conservative friends might do.” The decision represented “less a fear of communists than of anti-communists.”[5]Bradley F. Smith, The Shadow Warriors: O.S.S. and the Origins of the C.I.A. (New York: Basic Books, 1983), pp. 345–46. Despite the failure to establish a formal exchange, informal cooperation developed between the OSS and the KGB, which involved the exchange of a broad range of highly classified material. It should be added that that OSS was also infiltrated by a substantial number of Soviet Communist agents.

U.S. cooperation with the Soviet Union demonstrated the intellectual obtuseness of the American leadership. While America was preaching a war for freedom and railing about Nazi barbarities, it was in bed with a government that maintained an absolute tyranny and killed millions of people. And even if morality could be discounted, it was apparent that Soviet Communism never intended to be friendly with the United States, but openly called for a Communist-controlled world—a “World Federation of Socialist Soviet Republics.” The Soviets were not fighting the war to protect Western capitalist democracy but rather to protect and expand Soviet Communist interests. In fact, Stalin deliberately sought to bring about war in 1939 because he, like other Communists, expected a prolonged war to facilitate revolution in an exhausted Europe, as had been the case in World War I.[6]The idea that Stalin pushed for war has been bandied about for some time. See, for example, Ernst Topitsch, Stalin’s War: A Radical New Theory of the Origins of the Second World War (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1987). In recent years this view has been given greater credence by the work of Viktor Suvorov (Vladimir Rezun), Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War? (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1990). Suvorov brings up the more controversial argument that Stalin had intended to attack Hitler in 1941, and that the German attack was preemptive. For a review of this issue, see: R. C. Raack, “Stalin’s Role in the Coming of World War II,” World Affairs, 158:4 (Spring 1996) http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/raack.htm and “Stalin’s Role in the Coming of World War II: The International Debate Goes On,” World Affairs, 159:2 (Fall 1996). http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/raack2.htm.

Wartime propaganda in the United States, directed by the Office of War Information (which many in the government actually seemed to believe), presented Stalinist Russia as a beneficent country that was a true friend of the United States. Vice President Henry Wallace even portrayed Stalin’s “economic democracy” as superior in important ways to the “political or Bill-of-Rights democracy” of the United States, which brought about “exploitation, impracticable emphasis on states’ rights and even…anarchy.”[7]Benjamin Colby, ’Twas a Famous Victory: Deception and Propaganda in the War with Germany (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House Publishers, 1974). An example of some of the effective pro-Soviet propaganda from the private sector includes Joseph E. Davies’s best-selling Mission to Moscow, which became a movie, and Quentin Reynolds, Only the Stars Are Neutral. Both of these works went so far as to defend Stalin’s purges as a positive good. For a discussion of the pro-Soviet propaganda fest see Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Leftism: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House Publishers, 1974), pp. 299–302. Given the widespread admiration for Soviet Communism, it can be well understood how Soviet spies could freely operate in the federal government and not appear substantially different from those Americans, especially liberals, who simply wanted to help their Soviet allies during the war and extend that cooperation into the postwar era.

As American hostility toward the Soviet Union began to develop at the end of the war in 1945, evidence of Communist influence in the government came to be looked upon in a more negative light. Simultaneously, evidence of Communist penetration mounted rapidly. In February 1945, federal officials found numerous classified government documents, some marked “top secret,” in the New York office of the pro-Communist journal Amerasia (see p. 61). Later, former Soviet Communist agents Elizabeth Bentley and Whittaker Chambers told their stories of Communist espionage to the FBI. And in September 1945, a cipher clerk at the Soviet embassy in Ottawa, Igor Gouzenko, defected to Canadian authorities, bringing documentary proof of the existence of a far-flung Soviet spy apparatus that had penetrated the Manhattan Project and other agencies in the American, British, and Canadian governments. Ottawa quickly conveyed this information to Washington. Significantly, the stories of subversion from the various sources fitted together.

By the latter part of 1945, the White House was aware of accusations against a substantial number of U.S. government employees, including such high officials as the State Department’s Alger Hiss, White House aide Lauchlin Currie, OSS executive assistant Duncan Lee, and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Harry Dexter White. Although the Truman administration was alarmed by these revelations, it only slowly began to take action. This sluggishness stemmed largely from political concerns. Undoubtedly, the natural reaction of a politician would be to keep such skeletons locked in the closet—and Truman and his closest associates were fearful of public scandals that might discredit the Democratic Party and its policies and thereby bring the Republicans into power. In short, Truman put domestic politics above American security.

Examples of the Truman administration’s inaction and cover-up included deliberate efforts within the Justice Department to bury the Amerasia case.[8]Harvey Klehr and Ronald Radosh, The Amerasia Spy Case: Prelude to McCarthyism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996). And, despite receiving an FBI report on Harry Dexter White’s subversive activities, Truman in 1946 nominated White as American representative to the International Monetary Fund.[9]Romerstein and Breindel, Venona Secrets, pp. 52–53; Jerrold and Leona Schecter, Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History (Washington: Brassey’s, 2002), pp. 118.

Republican charges of Communists in government, which helped them win control of Congress in the 1946 election, induced Truman to take action. In an effort to control the subversion issue and prevent congressional investigations that might benefit the Republicans, Truman issued Executive Order 9835 in March 1947, which instituted loyalty and security checks in the government. Truman believed the executive branch alone could effectively prevent Soviet subversion, and he used the executive order to restrict congressional access to security information.[10]Romerstein and Breindel, Venona Secrets, p. 454.

Even after initiating the executive order, however, Truman refused to acknowledge the immense scope of Soviet subversion. Thus, in 1948, Truman characterized the House Un-American Activities Committee’s investigation of Alger Hiss as a “Red Herring.” And Truman would write in his memoirs in 1956, “The country had reason to be proud of and have confidence in our security agencies. They had kept us almost totally free of sabotage and espionage during the war.”[11]Harry S. Truman, Memoirs, vol. II, Years of Trial and Hope (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company, 1956), p. 291.

But while Truman publicly downplayed the scope of Soviet infiltration, the U.S. government had an additional secret source of information that showed the vast extent of this Soviet enterprise. This was the Venona Project. “Venona” was the top-secret name given by the U. S. government to an extensive program launched in 1943 to intercept and decipher communications between Moscow and its intelligence stations in the West. Most of the messages were decoded and read between 1947 and 1952, though the effort continued until 1980. While 200,000 messages were intercepted, only a small number were ever deciphered, and the whole effort was kept top secret for years. While Venona’s existence became publicly known in the early 1980s,[12]A number of individuals writing on American counterintelligence vaguely alluded to the secret project. For example: Robert J. Lamphere and Tom Shactman, The FBI-KGB War: A Special Agent’s Story (New York: Random House, 1986) and David Martin, Wilderness of Mirrors (New York: Ballantine Books, 1981). it was not until 1995 that the National Security Agency began releasing the documents to the public, and fewer than 3,000 partially or fully decrypted Venona messages have been declassified. Venona corroborated stories that the U.S. government was heavily infiltrated by Soviet espionage agents. However, because Venona was a totally secret operation, no evidence obtained from its intercepts was ever introduced in any court, since Washington considered Venona’s secrecy to be more important than jailing Soviet agents.

The first comprehensive examination of the subject is Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America, authored by two establishment historians of American Communism, John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr.[13]John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1999). Haynes, Twentieth Century Political Historian at the Library of Congress, and Klehr, Andrew W. Mellon Professor of Politics and History at Emory University, are coauthors of other works in Yale University’s “Annals of Communism” series.[14]Harvey Klehr, John Earl Haynes, and Fridrikh Igorevich Firsov, The Secret World of American Communism (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1995) and Harvey Klehr, John Earl Haynes, and K. M. Anderson, The Soviet World of American Communism (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1998).

Haynes and Klehr maintain that Venona conclusively shows that the U.S. Communist Party “was indeed a fifth column working inside and against the United States in the cold war,”[15]Haynes and Klehr, Venona, p. 7. and that most of those individuals accused of aiding the Soviets in the 1940s had actually done so. The authors point out that Venona not only supplied information through its intercepts of Soviet traffic, but, because of its “inherent reliability,” also provided a “touchstone for judging the credibility of other sources, such as defectors’ testimony and FBI investigative files.”[16]Ibid., p. 19.
(Haynes and Klehr, Venona, p. 7.)

Venona decrypts revealed that Soviet spies had infiltrated every major agency of the U.S. government during the war years, from the State and Treasury departments to the Manhattan Project. Venona confirmed the guilt of the atomic spies Klaus Fuchs, Theodore Hall, and Julius Rosenberg. Among the high government officials identified by Venona as Soviet agents were State Department official Alger Hiss; Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Harry Dexter White; the chief of the State Department’s Division of American Republics, Laurence Duggan; the head of the OSS research department, Maurice Halperin; the special assistant to the director of the OSS, Duncan Lee; and White House aide Lauchlin Currie. However, the authors acknowledge that while Venona demonstrated the Soviet penetration of the United States, it was less valuable in showing the actual damage that Soviet spies did to American security. This stems from the fact that very little information of a substantive nature went by cable to Moscow; the bulk of the espionage reports, including stolen documents, traveling by courier.[17]Ibid., p. 332.
(Haynes and Klehr, Venona, p. 7.)

ORDER IT NOW

The demise of the Soviet Union also has brought additional information on the Soviet penetration of America. This has come from Soviet intelligence officials themselves and from the partial opening of the Soviet archives in the early 1990s. Former Soviet intelligence officials who have authored books include defector Colonel Oleg Gordievsky,18 who had a long career in the KGB; KGB archivist Vasili Mitrokhin,19 who defected to Britain in 1992 with a treasure trove of handwritten notes based on intelligence documents; and Pavel Sudoplatov,[20]Pavel and Anatoli Sudoplatov with Jerrold L. and Leona P. Schecter, Special Tasks: The Memoirs of an Unwanted Witness: A Soviet Spymaster (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1995). who directed the secretive Administration for Special Tasks of the KGB during the Stalin era, which was responsible for sabotage, kidnapping, and assassination outside of the Soviet Union. All of these individuals described an extensive Soviet penetration of the United States during the World War II era.

In the early 1990s Klehr and Haynes examined Soviet files pertaining to the American Communist Party. From their study of these documents, the authors wrote The Secret World of American Communism and The Soviet World of American Communism. These works conclusively prove that the American Communist Party was tied in with the Soviet government and engaged in extensive espionage—a fact that was always patently obvious but which liberal apologists for Communism, who naturally loomed large in academia, denied. Klehr and Haynes write: “It is no longer possible to maintain that the Soviet Union did not fund the American party, that the CPUSA did not maintain a covert apparatus, and that key leaders and cadres were innocent of connection with Soviet espionage operations. Nowhere in the massive Comintern archives or in the American party’s own records did the authors find documents indicating that Soviet or CPUSA officials objected to American Communists cooperating with Soviet intelligence or even had second thoughts about the relationships. Both the Soviet Union and the American Communist leadership regarded these activities as normal and proper. Their only concern was that they not become public.”[21]Klehr, Haynes, and Firsov, Secret World of American Communism, pp. 18–19. In short, the anti-Communist belief that “the American Communist movement assisted Soviet intelligence and placed loyalty to the Soviet Union ahead of loyalty to the United States was well-founded.”[22]Ibid., p. 326.
(Klehr, Haynes, and Firsov, Secret World of American Communism, pp. 18–19.)

The files of the KGB provided the basis for Allen Weinstein’s The Haunted Wood: Soviet Espionage in America—The Stalin Era.[23]Allen Weinstein and Alexander Vassiliev, The Haunted Wood: Soviet Espionage in America: The Stalin Era (New York: Random House, 1999). The “haunted wood” in the title is taken from a W. H. Auden poem “September 1, 1939,” written upon his hearing of the German invasion of Poland. Weinstein had partial access to these archives during the years 1994 to 1996, since which time most Soviet archives have again been closed. Weinstein did not have direct personal access to the archives, but rather the material was copied and translated by a journalist who had once worked for the KGB, Alexander Vassiliev. The material was then submitted for review to the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, which means that the most sensitive material may have been withheld. Nonetheless, the messages that were made available clearly brought out the existence of a high degree of Soviet espionage in the United States. The authors write that

Soviet operatives and their American agents collected during the 1930s and 1940s a remarkable range of material on U.S. industrial and military production culminating in the data provided by its sources within the atomic research program during World War II. Moreover, during the New Deal and war years, the Soviets benefited from a voluminous amount of information coming from its key agents in a range of U.S. government agencies, including the Office of Strategic Services (OSS).[24]Weinstein and Vassiliev, Haunted Wood, p. xix.

Now for a brief discussion of some of the key Americans who served as Soviet agents and sources, as confirmed by the recently released documents. The name that perhaps stands out the most is that of Alger Hiss. His case in 1948 brought the issue of Communist subversion into the national spotlight. In part, what made the Hiss case such a national bombshell was the fact that he had all the proper establishment credentials. Hiss attended Johns Hopkins University and Harvard Law School, where he achieved academic and social prominence. At Harvard Law School, he became a protégé of Felix Frankfurter, who was one of Franklin Roosevelt’s trusted advisors. Hiss entered government with Roosevelt’s New Deal and moved into the State Department in 1936, where he rapidly advanced, eventually becoming the director of the Office of Special Political Affairs, a position that gave him access to secret documents from other departments and bureaus. Hiss engaged in the preparations for the Yalta Conference and served as an adviser to Roosevelt at the Yalta Conference in 1945. He also acted as the secretary general of the founding meeting of the United Nations in San Francisco and helped to draft the UN Charter. Due to reports concerning his disloyalty, Hiss resigned from the State Department in December 1946 to become the president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He had been handpicked for that position by one of the pillars of the establishment, John Foster Dulles.[25]Allen Weinstein, Perjury: The Hiss-Chambers Case (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978).

In August 1948, Hiss’s name burst into the national limelight when Whittaker Chambers testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee that Hiss was working for the Soviet Union. To much of the media Chambers was initially the villain and Hiss an innocent victim. However, as a result of this investigation, Hiss was charged with perjury (the statute of limitations on espionage having expired). His first trial in 1949 ended in a hung jury, but in the following year a second jury found Hiss guilty and sentenced him to five years imprisonment. He was released from prison in 1954.

Many liberals did not accept the fact of Hiss’s guilt; in fact, he became a cause célèbre for those who claimed that the whole Communists-in-government idea was illusory. Hiss himself professed his innocence until his death in 1996. However, the truth of Hiss’s guilt was firmly bolstered by Allen Weinstein’s Perjury: The Hiss-Chambers Case, published in 1978.[26]Ibid., Perjury.
(Allen Weinstein, Perjury: The Hiss-Chambers Case (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978).)
Weinstein had begun his investigation in the belief that Hiss was innocent but found a mountain of evidence—including formerly classified FBI, OSS, CIA, State Department, and Justice Department documents, plus testimony from known spies— demonstrating otherwise. The Venona transcripts have provided additional confirmation, referring to a Soviet agent codenamed “Ales,” whose description clearly matches that of Alger Hiss, a conclusion that the FBI drew in 1950.27 And Soviet documents examined by Jerrold and Leona Schecter, coauthors of Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History, “reveal that he secretly met with a high ranking officer of the GRU…during the Yalta Conference and laid out for the Soviets all the strengths and weaknesses of the Western allies’ bargaining position.” This information greatly aided Stalin’s arguments. “By giving away the American and British positions in advance of negotiations,” they write, “Hiss abetted the lowering of the Iron Curtain.”[28]Jerrold and Leona Schecter, Sacred Secrets, pp. 128–31.

It might be added that Hiss came close to controlling the State Department— a little-known fact that doesn’t seem to be noted in recent works. In the first part of 1946, Hiss proposed a radical reorganization of the Department of State. As William F. Buckley and L. Brent Bozell wrote in 1954: “Had his plan been approved, and had Hiss attained the personal power which, under the plan, he staked out for himself, the State Department would have taken a long step forward in the direction of becoming an adjunct to the Soviet Foreign Office.”[29]William F. Buckley, Jr. and L. Brent Bozell, McCarthy and His Enemies (Chicago: Regnery, 1954), p. 10. Secretary of State Byrnes, however, rejected the proposed reorganization plan.

A dwindling number on the left still maintain Hiss’s innocence. Since there would seem to be insurmountable converging evidence against Hiss, they have posited vast right-wing conspiracies involving the FBI, HUAC, Richard Nixon, the CIA, and other supposedly “right-wing” or “anti-Communist” elements[30]Allen Weinstein analyzes these various and conflicting pro-Hiss conspiracy theories in Perjury, pp. 569–89. There have also been claims that Hiss was framed by elements of the Left—Trotskyites, the American Communist Party, the KGB, the Soviet super-secret agency SMERSH—but these have not taken hold among Hiss partisans.—to which they now must add that one cannot believe KGB agents, KGB defectors, or KGB documents on the grounds that the KGB, and any one ever affiliated with the KGB, was inherently deceptive.[31]Hiss’s main supporter, John Lowenthal, contacted Russian Colonel General Dmitry Volkogonov, who had been overseeing the Russian archives, to check material on Hiss. Volkogonov initially said that he could find no material in the KGB files. Lowenthal interpreted this to mean that Hiss was innocent. However, Hiss was an agent not of the KGB but of military intelligence (GRU), the files of which were closed even to Volkogonov. Romerstein and Breindel, Venona Secrets, p. 139–41. But these conspiratorial views would seem to be too farfetched to be entertained outside the Alice-in-Wonderland milieu of academia. And it must be noted that the establishment usually ridicules the notion of a conspiracy, no matter how small, when invoked by the anti-establishment right.

 

Perhaps the most influential Soviet agent to shape United States foreign and economic policy for the benefit of Moscow was Harry Dexter White.[32]Romerstein and Breindel, Venona Secrets, pp. 29–30. Some apologists have questioned the possibility of his having been a Soviet agent because of his apparent support for capitalist economics, as illustrated by his instrumental role in the founding of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.[33]The connection between international communism and international finance would not seem so incongruous to persons of a non-establishment rightwing persuasion. Antiestablishment historian Antony C. Sutton has made a connection between international finance and communism. See for example, Anthony C. Sutton, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House, 1974). http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_r...ution/ It is likely that White was neither a member of the Communist Party nor a formal part of Soviet intelligence, but Venona and other sources show that he was a “friendly source” who provided Soviet intelligence with direct access to high-level thinking in the Roosevelt administration throughout World War II.[34]Romerstein and Breindel, Venona Secrets, p. 45; Jerrold and Leona Schecter, Sacred Secrets, p. 124.

More than just providing the Soviets with information, White was what is known in intelligence circles as an “agent of influence,” guiding American policy in the direction of Soviet interests. Holding a Harvard Ph.D. in economics, White was Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau’s principal adviser, and ultimately served as assistant secretary of the Treasury. White brought to the Treasury a number of economists later identified as Communist agents, who helped him to make policy. And significantly, the Treasury Department would have a major role in shaping American foreign policy because of Morgenthau’s close friendship with President Roosevelt.[35]Romerstein and Breindel, Venona Secrets, pp. 29–30.

ORDER IT NOW

White was intimately involved in a number of key policies that served to benefit the Soviet Union. One of these was “Operation Snow,” which involved American entrance into World War II. In 1941, Soviet policy sought to deflect the Japanese away from attacking the Soviet Union in support of Japan’s German ally by exacerbating relations between the United States and Japan. Some members of the Roosevelt administration were considering in November 1941 a “modus vivendi” that would have provided a temporary truce with Japan until America had built up its military strength in the Far East. White, however, acted to undermine this proposal by writing a memo to Morgenthau that called for the Japanese evacuation of China, which was then incorporated into Secretary of State Cordell Hull’s famous ultimatum to the Japanese on November 26, 1941. That message, many historians believe, was the final straw that goaded the Japanese into striking Pearl Harbor on December 7. Most historians, revisionist and establishment, do not believe that war with Japan could have been avoided. However, this should not be used to downplay White’s effort. “What is certain,” Herbert Romerstein and Eric Breindel note in their Venona Secrets: Exposing Soviet Espionage and America’s Traitors, “is that Operation Snow was being carried out with Soviet, not American interests, in mind.”[36]Romerstein and Breindel, Venona Secrets, pp. 42–43, The Schecters maintain that White was manipulated by Soviet intelligence to introduce the Soviet goals into his initiatives regarding the Far East without his being aware of the consequences of the demand that the Japanese pull out of China. Jerrold and Leona Schecter, Sacred Secrets, pp. 21–41. Romerstein/Breindel and the Schecters rely heavily on a recent Russian work on this subject: Vitaliy Pavlov, Operatziya “Sneg” (Moscow: Gaia Herum, 1996).

White’s most notorious undertaking was his development of the Morgenthau Plan, which was adopted by the British and Americans at the Quebec conference in 1944. The stated objective of the Morgenthau Plan was to de-industrialize Germany and reduce its people to a pastoral existence. This would have involved the deportation of up to fifty million Germans to work in the foreign countries damaged by German aggression. Thus weakened, went the rationale, the allegedly inherently aggressive German nation would never rise again to threaten the peace of the world.[37]Jerrold and Leona Schecter, Sacred Secrets, p. 124. Morgenthau’s support for the plan stemmed largely from his desire for revenge against the German people for the killing of his fellow Jews. Although White (originally Weiss) was also Jewish, he was working in the interests of the Soviet Union. Moscow hoped that so ruthless a policy would drive the German people into its hands, for it was promising a comparatively mild treatment to a “socialist” Germany. While the full success of the Soviet scheme did not materialize, word of the Morgenthau Plan, which was trumpeted by Nazi propaganda, did stiffen German military resistance to the Western allies and thus lengthened the war, allowing the Red Army to conquer more territory in Eastern and Central Europe as the fighting continued. Due to resistance in the U.S. government to the inhumanity and apparent harm to American interests that the plan would have caused, it was officially repudiated, but much of it served as the basis for the Army’s order JCS 1067 that laid down the pattern of America’s occupation policy until 1947, when developing Cold War strategic concerns began to outweigh the desire to punish Germans.[38]Freda Utley, The High Cost of Vengeance (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1949), p. 15. http://www.fredautley.com/

White also acted to advance the interests of the Communist Chinese, who were at the time supported by the Soviet Union. Most significantly, White, along with two other Communist subversives in the Treasury Department, Frank Coe and Solomon Adler, acted to block delivery of a loan of $200 million in gold to enable the Chinese Nationalist government to prop up its faltering currency. Without the loan the Chinese suffered hyperinflation, which did immense damage to the Chinese economy and to the standing of the government vis-à-vis the Chinese Communists.[39]Haynes and Klehr, Venona, pp. 142–45.

Conservative Republicans, most prominently Joe McCarthy, would charge in the 1950s that Communist subversion in the U.S. government caused the “loss” of China. Establishment historians ridiculed the idea of a connection between U.S. policy and the Communist victory in China. So Haynes and Klehr diverge from the conventional view even when they acknowledge that “The obstruction of the gold loan made a minor, not a major, contribution to Mao’s victory.”[40]Ibid., p. 145.
(Haynes and Klehr, Venona, pp. 142–45.)
However, as historian Anthony Kubek has pointed out, American “China hands” oriented a host of measures to harm the Nationalist Chinese, not simply the gold loan issue.41 While one cannot know alternate history, once it has been established that such U.S. government officials as White served as Communist agents, the idea that China was “lost” due to U.S. policymakers does not seem so far-fetched.

As a result of ill health, White resigned as U.S. executive director of the IMF in 1947. The next year Elizabeth Bentley and Whittaker Chambers identified White as part of a Soviet spy network in testimony to the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). White appeared before HUAC to deny all charges. Shortly thereafter he died of a heart attack, and thus never had to face criminal charges.

Although Soviet penetration primarily impacted the executive branch, the Soviets had at least one operative in Congress in the 1930s: Representative Samuel Dickstein of New York. Dickstein never provided any crucial information to the Soviets, and he expected to be well paid for what he did provide, which earned him the code name “Crook” from his Soviet handlers. The most interesting thing about Dickstein is that he was a leading Congressional figure in the creation of what eventually became the House UnAmerican Activities Committee. Dickstein, however, sought to use such a committee to investigate right-wing groups.[42]Weinstein and Vassiliev, Haunted Wood, pp. 140–50.

Intriguing, yet understandable, is the fact that some of those Americans who went the furthest in ridiculing the idea of Soviet spies in the government had been personally involved with Soviet intelligence. For example, Venona shows that leftist journalist I. F. Stone, who was highly regarded by establishment liberals for his alleged honesty, had contacts with Soviet intelligence agents and received money from the Soviet Union.[43]Romerstein and Breindel, Venona Secrets, pp. 433–39.

One can imagine that Stone’s Soviet paymasters must have enjoyed his public arguments that the whole idea of Soviet penetration in American society was simply a partisan lie fabricated by the political Right. Another journalist who later confessed to working for Soviet intelligence was Michael Straight, editor of the liberal journal, The New Republic. Although Straight had completely broken with the Soviet intelligence in 1942, his public downplaying of Soviet espionage was certainly disingenuous.[44]Ibid., p. 109; Weinstein and Vassiliev, Haunted Wood, pp. 72–83.
(Romerstein and Breindel, Venona Secrets, pp. 433–39.)

Probably the most valuable information provided to the Soviet Union came from the spies involved with the atomic bomb project. The atomic spies included British citizen Klaus Fuchs and Americans Harry Gold, David Greenglass, Morton Sobell, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, and Theodore Hall. Theodore Hall’s name only came to public attention with the release of the Venona transcripts. Hall, who had been a teenage physics prodigy working on the Manhattan Project, provided key information to the Soviets, enabling them to construct their first nuclear weapon. The FBI interrogated Hall but he never confessed. Hall was never publicly accused by the government since it did not want to publicly reveal Venona by using its decrypts as evidence in court and it lacked other evidence of his spy activity.[45]Venona Intercepts, “The November 12, 1944 cable: Theodore Alvin Hall and Saville Sax,” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/venona/inte_19441112.html; Romerstein and Breindel, Venona Secrets, pp. 202–205; Haynes and Klehr, Venona, pp. 314–17; Joseph Albright and Marcia Kunstel, Bombshell: The Secret Story of America’s Unknown Atomic Spy Conspiracy, (New York: Times Books, 1997).

Regarding the long-standing controversy concerning the Rosenbergs, the key to the government’s case against them was the confession of David Greenglass, who worked on the A-bomb project at Los Alamos and was Ethel Rosenberg’s brother. The Venona transcripts now confirm that Julius was an atomic spy for the Soviet Union.[46]Romerstein and Breindel, Venona Secrets, pp. 234–35. Whether the couple should have been executed, or whether Ethel, whose complicity was less, should have been executed, is another matter, especially since the Soviets derived more significant information on the atomic bomb from other sources. It is likely that the government tried to use the death sentences as leverage to obtain confessions from the Rosenbergs and thus catch other members of the spy ring, but the Rosenbergs, as good Communists, would not confess.[47]Ronald Radosh and Joyce Milton, The Rosenberg File: A Search for Truth (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1983. 2d ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997) argue that while the Rosenbergs were guilty of spying their trial was conducted in an unsavory manner.

Although the Soviet scientists on their own would have eventually developed an atomic bomb, the espionage certainly gave them great advantages. John E. Haynes writes: “Espionage, however, saved the Soviet Union several years and an immense amount of money because it was able to skip much of the expensive development stage of the bomb project. The additional expense and added years and uncertainty of building an atomic bomb without espionage would have been a major burden to the Soviet Union and restrained Stalin’s foreign policy objectives. It is unlikely, for example, that he would have approved North Korea’s invasion of South Korea in 1950 had the American atomic monopoly still existed.”[48]John Earl Haynes, Red Scare or Red Menace? American Communism and Anticommunism in the Cold War Era (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1996), p. 63.

A major new revelation regarding the atomic spying is that J. Robert Oppenheimer, the scientific director of the Manhattan Project, consciously cooperated with Soviet intelligence. There had always been suspicions about Oppenheimer. It was well known that Oppenheimer had Communist sympathies, close relations who were Communists—his wife, mistress, brother, and sister-in-law were all Party members—and associations with people involved in Soviet espionage. Oppenheimer had been questioned about his Communist connections, but while admitting a youthful flirtation with Communist ideology always denied any connection to Soviet Communist intelligence. Finally, in 1954, Oppenheimer lost his security clearance, preventing him from continuing to serve as chairman of the General Advisory Committee on Atomic Energy. As a result of this punishment, the establishment media portrayed Oppenheimer as a martyr of the McCarthy “witch hunt.”

In 1994, the Oppenheimer loyalty issue was reignited with the publication of a memoir by the ex-KGB general Pavel Sudoplatov, with the assistance of two Americans, Jerrold and Leona Schecter, which claimed that Oppenheimer had knowingly assisted Soviet intelligence, though it did not specifically label him a Soviet spy.[49]Pavel and Antoli Sudoplatov with Jerrold L. and Leona P. Schecter, Special Tasks: The Memoirs of an Unwanted Witness—A Soviet Spymaster (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1995), pp. 181–97. This revelation triggered a virtual firestorm among Oppenheimer’s supporters, who included an influential segment of the American scientific community. They managed to gain the support of the chairman of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, Les Aspin, who announced at a press conference that FBI files disproved Sudoplatov’s charges.[50]Romerstein and Breindel, Venona Secrets, pp. 275–76.

Jerrold and Leona Schecter, in Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History, provide information that Oppenheimer himself was a Communist Party member well into 1942, when he was told by the KGB to drop his membership so as to stay hidden from American authorities. Soviet documents prove that Oppenheimer met with the KGB’s resident in San Francisco, Gregory Kheifitz, whom he provided secret information. At the behest of Soviet agents, Oppenheimer also agreed to hire Communist spies to work on the Manhattan Project, including Klaus Fuchs, the British scientist.[51]Jerrold and Leona Schecter, Sacred Secrets, pp. 49–52.

To illustrate their findings, the Schecters reproduce in their appendix an actual document from the Soviet Intelligence Archives, dated Oct. 2, 1944, received and signed by KGB head Lavrenti Beria, referring to Oppenheimer as a “member of the ‘apparat’ of Comrade Browder,” who, at the request of Kheifitz, “provided cooperation in access to research for several of our tested sources including a relative of Comrade Browder.”[52]Ibid., pp. 315–17.
(Jerrold and Leona Schecter, Sacred Secrets, pp. 49–52.)

Like many of the pro-Soviet subversives, Oppenheimer was Jewish, and it appears that loyalty to his ethnic group helped motivate his support for Soviet Communism. The Schecters write: “Kheifetz made sure that Oppenheimer received the news…that Stalin was about to set up a Jewish autonomous republic in the Crimea. Kheifetz later reported that Oppenheimer, the son of German-Jewish immigrants, was deeply moved to know that Stalin had guaranteed a secure place for Jews in the Soviet Union when the war against Germany was won.”[53]Ibid., p. 49.
(Jerrold and Leona Schecter, Sacred Secrets, pp. 49–52.)
In actuality, Stalin launched anti-Semitic measures after World War II, culminating in his fabricated “Jewish Doctors’ Plot.” Instead of sending Soviet Jewry to the balmy Crimea, it seems that Stalin planned to deport them to the frigid Siberian wastes of the Jewish Autonomous Republic of Birobidzhan.[54]Yaakov Eisenstadt, “Stalin’s Planned Genocide,” Dei’ah veDibur, March 6, 2002, http://www.shemayisrael.com/chareidi/archives5762/v...s2.htm

ORDER IT NOW

The most prominent new individual now identified as a Soviet agent is Harry Hopkins, President Roosevelt’s close wartime adviser, who actually lived in the White House. Hopkins met with Stalin as Roosevelt’s representative and accompanied Roosevelt to his meetings with the Soviet dictator. Hopkins’s advice to Roosevelt invariably advanced the Soviet position. For example, he fought against providing aid to the anti-Communist Polish underground in its 1944 uprising against the Germans, thus allowing them to be slaughtered, which facilitated the Soviet Communist takeover of Poland. Hopkins consistently pushed for the establishment of East European governments friendly to the Soviet Union, which essentially meant controlled by Communists. Hopkins even went so far as to insist on shipping uranium to Moscow as part of Lend-Lease.[55]Romerstein and Breindel, Venona Secrets, p. 211.

In a book that appeared in 1990, KGB defector Oleg Gordievsky revealed that he had attended a lecture by Iskhak Akhmerov, who had been in charge of illegal undercover agents in the United States during World War II, in which Akhmerov designated Harry Hopkins as the most important Soviet wartime agent in the United States. Akhmerov went on to make reference to his many personal contacts with Hopkins. Gordievsky later discussed the Hopkins case with other KGB experts on America who affirmed what Akhmerov had said.[56]Christopher Andrew and Oleg Gordievsky, KGB: The Inside Story of Its Foreign Operations from Lenin to Gorbachev (New York: Harper Collins, 1990), p. 287. After discussions with his coauthor, Christopher Andrew, Gordievsky would only say that Hopkins was an “unconscious agent,” who sincerely believed in the beneficence of Stalin’s Russia.[57]Romerstein and Breindel, Venona Secrets, p. 213. It should be added that Akhmerov’s meetings with Hopkins have been confirmed by the Venona transcripts.[58]Ibid., p. 213.
(Romerstein and Breindel, Venona Secrets, p. 213.)

A similar evaluation of Hopkins was provided by KGB defector Vasili Mitrohkyn in his The Sword and the Shield, coauthored by Christopher Andrew. According to this work, Hopkins actually warned the Soviet embassy that the FBI had bugged a secret meeting in which a Soviet operative had passed money to Steve Nelson, who was a leading member of the U.S. Communist underground. Coauthor Andrew once again rejected the idea that Hopkins was a Soviet agent, writing that “KGB officers boasted that he had been a Soviet agent. These boasts were far from the truth. Hopkins was an American patriot with little sympathy for the Soviet system.” According to Andrew, Hopkins simply sought to aid the Soviets, including passing confidential information on to them, in order to help the United States, because, in Hopkins’s mind, what aided the Soviet Union also helped the United States.[59]Andrew and Mitrokhin, Sword and the Shield, p. 111. It is not apparent to this writer why any of this would exclude Hopkins from being referred to as a Soviet agent.

Romerstein and Breindel reject as “unrealistic” the notion of Hopkins being simply an “unconscious” agent. Some commentators have maintained that Hopkins only dealt secretly with Soviet officials with Roosevelt’s permission— that he was Roosevelt’s “back channel” to Stalin. Romerstein and Breindel argue that while this description might be appropriate if Hopkins had dealt only with Soviet diplomats, it would not apply to Hopkins since he met with “illegal” operatives such as Akhmerov, who was working under cover as a businessman, not as a member of the Soviet government. Romerstein and Breindel point out that Akhmerov would not have broken his cover and revealed himself as a Soviet intelligence officer unless Hopkins had been part of the Soviet spy apparatus.[60]Romerstein and Breindel, Venona Secrets, pp. 213–15.

 

The historians who now reveal the extent of Communist subversion of the United States still shy away from any type of reassessment of the individual who personified the era—Senator Joseph McCarthy. They hold that after a torpid start, which they acknowledge involved cover-ups for politically partisan reasons, the Truman administration removed Communist subversives from the government before McCarthy began his anti-Communist activities in 1950. As Harvey Klehr writes: “This new evidence is forcing the revision of many of the prevailing myths about the internal communist threat to American democracy in the postwar era. None of it exculpates McCarthy. He remains a political bully who hurt a number of people.”[61]Harvey Klehr, “Red Scare Revisited,” CNN Interactive, http://asia.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/06/t....now/. The only work to defend McCarthy after the new revelations is Arthur Herman’s Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America’s Most Hated Senator.[62]Arthur Herman, Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America’s Most Hated Senator (New York: The Free Press, 2000). In a critical review of this book, Sam Tanenhaus (who has written a favorable biography of Whittaker Chambers) sticks to the conventional liberal line that McCarthy failed “to locate any fresh Red scalps for the simple reason that almost none were to be found.”[63]Sam Tanenhaus, “Un-American Activities,” Review of Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America’s Most Hated Senator, New York Review of Books, November 30, 2000, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/13910. Tanenhaus is the author of Whittaker Chambers: A Biography (New York: Random House, 1997). Herman, in contrast, points out that the charge of McCarthy’s foes that “he never exposed a single spy or Communist” is a “claim that is manifestly untrue.”[64]Herman, Joseph McCarthy, p. 4. With some new material, Herman essentially affirms the sound defense of McCarthy made by William F. Buckley and L. Brent Bozell in their 1954 classic, McCarthy and His Enemies: The Record and Its Meaning.

Truman’s alleged elimination of pro-Communists from government was certainly not apparent in the State Department. Actually, the security problem at the State Department had worsened considerably in 1945, when employees of terminated wartime agencies were transferred to State. Some of these agencies, such as the Office of Strategic Services and the Office of War Information, were riddled with Communists. The State Department official who supervised the merger, J. Anthony Panuch, told a Congressional committee that it had caused extensive Communist infiltration of the State Department. But neither Panuch nor his principal assistants were able to implement their long-range plan to remove security risks. In 1947, the new Secretary of State, George C. Marshall, at the behest of Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson, removed Panuch and every key member of his security staff. And from June 1947 until McCarthy’s famous February 9, 1950 speech in which he claimed the State Department had harbored a large number of proCommunist subversives, the State Department did not fire one person as a loyalty or security risk.[65]William J. Gill, The Ordeal of Otto Otepka (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House Publishers, 1969), p. 38; Buckley and Bozell, McCarthy and His Enemies, pp. 9–30.

The standard anti-McCarthy mantra that Truman had successfully dealt with the Communists-in-government problem and that McCarthy never found any Communists is at the very best a half-truth. While it is true that in his public statements McCarthy sometimes went beyond the evidence by stating that there were actual Communist Party members in the State Department—a wording that he apparently used in his February 9, 1950, speech in Wheeling, West Virginia—the real issue before the public was whether there were security and loyalty risks employed in the government who might clandestinely aid the interests of America’s Communist enemy, regardless of whether or not they were members of the Communist Party. And McCarthy was more careful in his terminology in his later speech on the subject before the U. S. Senate on February 20. As a result of McCarthy’s charges, the Senate on February 22, 1950, authorized the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to conduct an investigation to determine “whether persons who are disloyal to the United States are, or have been, employed by the Department of State.” Note that there was no need for McCarthy to prove actual Communist Party membership.[66]Buckley and Bozell, pp. 65–67.

While the majority report of the subcommittee headed by Senator Millard Tydings of Maryland unambiguously cleared all of the individuals cited by McCarthy and branded his charges as “a fraud and a hoax” perpetrated on the American people,[67]Ibid., p. 63.
(Buckley and Bozell, pp. 65–67.)
it is hard to concur that every one of the vindicated individuals was innocent. And even the finding of one individual loyalty risk would overturn the conventional view that McCarthy’s charges were totally baseless.

Among the leading loyalty risks named by McCarthy was Owen Lattimore, whom McCarthy labeled “the top Russian spy.” This was undoubtedly an exaggeration, since there was considerable competition for this position, but Lattimore was undoubtedly an individual of at best questionable loyalty. Even Thomas Reeves, a liberal McCarthy biographer, admitted that “Lattimore himself was no doubt a fellow traveler” and the Institute of Pacific Relations, in which Lattimore was a leading figure, was “infiltrated by Communists and fellow travelers.”[68]Thomas C. Reeves, The Life and Times of Joe McCarthy: A Biography (New York: Stein and Day, 1982), p. 255.

The public record demonstrated that Lattimore’s positions followed the Soviet line and that he would deliberately present lies to advance the Soviet Communist position. For example, Lattimore defended Stalin’s show trials and referred to the Soviet Union as a democracy. During the Nazi-Soviet Pact he supported neutrality, claiming that there was little to choose between Great Britain and Nazi Germany. Institute of Pacific Relations files showed that, in a 1938 letter to IPR’s executive director, he advocated backing the Soviet Union’s “international policy in general but without using their slogans and above all without giving them or anybody else an impression of subservience.” In 1949, he said he wanted “to let South Korea fall—but not to let it look as though we pushed it.”[69]Haynes, Red Scare or Red Menace?, p. 151. To historian John E. Haynes, however, “None of this proved that Lattimore was a spy or even that he was a concealed Communist.”[70]Ibid., p. 151.
(Haynes, Red Scare or Red Menace?, p. 151.)

Unlike establishment thinkers such as Haynes, McCarthy abided by the old adage: “If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like duck, then it must be a duck.” Although perhaps Lattimore only acted like a Soviet agent of influence, considering him part of the Soviet espionage apparatus would not be unreasonable. Besides, ex-Communist Louis Budenz had testified at the Tydings Committee hearings that Lattimore was a Communist. In 1952, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, headed by Senator Pat McCarran of Nevada, probed much more deeply into Lattimore’s background in its Institute of Pacific Relations hearings and unanimously concluded that Lattimore was a “conscious articulate instrument of the Soviet conspiracy.” At the Institute of Pacific Relations hearings, defector Alexander Barmine, who had been an operative of Soviet intelligence, testified that Lattimore was a member of Soviet military intelligence.[71]U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Internal Security Subcommittee, Institute of Pacific Relations, Hearings, 82nd Congress, 1st Session, Final Report (Washington: US Government Printing Office, 1951), p. 224.

While the liberal establishment cavalierly throws out such terms of opprobrium as “racist,” “fascist,” and “anti-Semite,” as potentially destructive of individual careers as they are arbitrary in meaning, in contrast, the utmost linguistic precision was demanded of Senator McCarthy. In terms of American security, however, it hardly mattered whether an individual pursued Soviet interests as a result of formal orders from Soviet intelligence or the Communist Party, or from the voluntary belief that aid to the Soviet Union would serve to foster world peace or some other beneficial goal. As Haynes acknowledges, “Lattimore’s views about communism and the Soviet Union were such that most Americans would not want him anywhere near the making of American foreign policy.”[72]Haynes, Red Scare or Red Menace?, p. 151. This was all that McCarthy needed to prove. In his assessment of the Lattimore record, Herman goes even further, concluding that Lattimore was “something closer to the McCarran Committee’s evaluation that he was a ‘conscious and articulate’ instrument of Stalinism.”[73]Herman, Joseph McCarthy, p. 127–28.

Another significant instance that McCarthy presented to the Tydings Committee was that of John Stewart Service, a career diplomat stationed in China during World War II. Service’s prolific diplomatic dispatches had consistently portrayed the Nationalist government as totalitarian, inefficient, and corrupt, while depicting the Chinese Communists as democratic, progressive, and honest. In fact, he denied that the Chinese Communists were really Communists, referring to them as “so-called Communists.” Upon returning to the United States, Service was caught transmitting classified documents to the editor of the aforementioned pro-Communist journal, Amerasia.[74]Anthony Kubek, “Introduction,” The Amerasia Papers: A Clue to the Catastrophe of China, vol. I, prepared by the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 91st Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1970), pp. 30–34.

ORDER IT NOW

The Amerasia case was a complex affair, which the Tydings Committee investigated. The story of the case is as follows: After noticing the appearance of confidential material in the Amerasia journal, investigators from the Office of Strategic Services broke into its offices in March 1945 and discovered thousands of highly classified government documents, some labeled “top secret.” Keeping the break-in secret, the FBI undertook physical surveillance of those thought to be involved in the theft of the documents. On June 6, 1945, the FBI arrested six people—including Service and the journal’s editor, Philip Jaffe—who were charged with having engaged in espionage. The Justice Department never made much of an effort to prosecute the case, holding that the pilfered documents were unimportant. Ultimately only two of the individuals arrested (excluding Service) were convicted for the offense of conspiring to steal government documents, and were assessed minor fines. By November 1945 the Amerasia case was officially closed.[75]Ibid., pp. 1–113.
(Anthony Kubek, “Introduction,” The Amerasia Papers: A Clue to the Catastrophe of China, vol. I, prepared by the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 91st Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1970), pp. 30–34.)

Conservative anti-Communists were enraged by the government’s soft attitude to what they regarded as a serious case of espionage, and charged a government cover-up. That the documents were innocuous was not apparent to Undersecretary of State Joseph Grew when he ordered the arrests. As historian Anthony Kubek (one of the few early historians who recognized the reality of extensive Soviet espionage in the U.S. government) wrote in a 1970 assessment: “Many of the pilfered documents were of vital diplomatic and military importance in wartime, just as the original classifications indicated.”[76]Ibid., p. 78.
(Anthony Kubek, “Introduction,” The Amerasia Papers: A Clue to the Catastrophe of China, vol. I, prepared by the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 91st Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1970), pp. 30–34.)
With new documentary information available, Harvey Klehr and Ronald Radosh, in their Amerasia Spy Case: Prelude to McCarthyism, show that those in the highest ranks of the Truman administration, including Communist White House aide Lauchlin Currie and Attorney General Tom Clark, successfully covered up the affair. The authors provide evidence of Jaffe’s longstanding Soviet sympathies and show that he was in contact with Soviet intelligence officials and did make use of Service as an espionage source. They do, however, maintain that Service was unaware of Jaffe’s Soviet connections and intentions, and simply believed he was involved in a leaking operation that would undermine his pro-Chiang superiors and the Nationalist Chinese government.[77]Radosh and Klehr, Amerasia Spy Case, pp. 210–18.

Although the evidence might not show Service to be a conscious foreign agent, nonetheless it does reveal him to have been an individual who engaged in illegal activities to advance the interests of Communism. In December 1951, after the conclusion of the Tydings hearings, the Civil Service Loyalty Review Board concluded that there was “reasonable doubt” as to Service’s loyalty and ordered his dismissal from the State Department. Service fought in the federal courts for reinstatement, and the Supreme Court in 1957 ruled in his favor on a technicality: that Service’s discharge violated State Department regulations that required an adverse ruling from the State Department’s own LoyaltySecurity Board.[78]Kubek, Amerasia Papers, pp. 65–67. It should be added, however, that the State Department had a security standard that was less lenient toward an employee than the Civil Service loyalty program. It simply called for the dismissal of an employee in the “interest of national security.” And there needed to be only a “reasonable doubt” of the employee’s reliability. It would seem reasonable that an employee who leaked classified documents to an individual with a Communist background should, under the existing standard, be dismissed.[79]Buckley and Bozell, McCarthy and His Enemies, pp. 18–30.

Even if Lattimore and Service were not actual Communists, McCarthy did in fact name other Communists. One of these individuals was Mary Jane Keeney, who worked in a number of various sensitive overseas State Department jobs during the 1940s before moving on to the United Nations. After McCarthy’s disclosures at the Tydings hearings, the State Department had her removed from her post at the United Nations.[80]Herman, Joseph McCarthy, pp. 109-110.

McCarthy also identified Gustavo Duran as a Communist. Testimony regarding Duran’s Stalinism, including his work for the Spanish Communist secret police during the Spanish Civil War—even a picture of him in a Communist uniform—was dismissed by liberals as Francoist propaganda. Herman, however, points out that Duran was “not only a Communist but a central figure in Stalin’s cold-blooded purge of his Trotskyite and anarchist allies during the Spanish Civil War.”[81]Ibid., p. 109.
(Herman, Joseph McCarthy, pp. 109-110.)

Although recent books on Communist subversion still bemoan the “McCarthyite purges” of government employees as civil liberties violations, their presentation of the reality of Communist subversion would seem to belie this criticism. What largely accounted for the success of Soviet espionage in the United States during the Roosevelt years was the government’s tolerance of employees with pro-Communist or even outright Communist backgrounds: It was from such persons that the Soviet Union had been able to recruit most of its agents and sources. Such actual or potential supporters of Soviet Communism in the federal government were either weeded out or had to lie low during the McCarthyist anti-Communist backlash of the early 1950s. As Allen Weinstein writes: the Soviet Union could no longer rely on “recruiting dedicated Communists or other radical supporters of the Soviet Union, whose numbers had been reduced dramatically and whose future remained perilous in a time of anti-Communist purges.”[82]Weinstein and Vassiliev, Haunted Wood, pp. 299. After the 1940s Soviet Communist subversion was forced to rely largely on paid spies, and never again approached the successes achieved during the Roosevelt era. Since the recent works point out that Soviet Communist subversion affected American security, there would seem to be backhanded acknowledgement that these “antiCommunist purges,” which affected Communists and pro-Communists (including some individuals who were probably not actual or potential subversives), performed a major benefit for the security of the United States. In short, McCarthyist anti-Communism served to dry up the swamp that spawned Soviet Communist agents.

But what about McCarthy’s infringement of such civil liberties as freedom of speech and freedom of association? Was American security worth this price? As a result of McCarthy, a few people lost their government jobs, but no one was sentenced to jail for their beliefs. Far greater restrictions on civil liberties were imposed in other eras of American history, often when establishment icons were at the helm. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus throughout the country and had individuals incarcerated simply for criticizing the war effort. During World War I, Woodrow Wilson’s administration imprisoned a number of people for opposing the war, the most important of whom was Eugene V. Debs. And Franklin Roosevelt’s most notorious infringement of civil liberties was the forced relocation of Japanese-Americans.

While liberals posed as champions of absolute freedom of opinion during “the McCarthy era,” this has not been the liberals’ position in other eras. It should be noted that from the 1930s through the World War II period, there was a strong “anti-fascist” campaign, largely directed by liberals and leftists and subscribed to by the Roosevelt administration. Numerous books and movies portrayed a huge (but non-existent) fifth-column of hate-ridden Nazis that was about to take over America. Federal, state, and local governments enacted various measures to punish right-wing elements and pro-Nazis. For example, in 1940 Congress enacted a law forbidding the employment of Bundists by the federal government, and denied unemployed Bundists relief work from the Works Progress Administration. Roosevelt administration officials smeared anti-interventionists, including members of the America First Committee, as Nazis.[83]Haynes, Red Scare or Red Menace?, pp. 22–36.

Historian John E. Haynes sees similarities between the anti-fascist hysteria and the actions of postwar anti-communism.[84]Haynes writes: “Virtually every one of the tactics used in the 1930s and early 1940s to harass fascist and suspected far rightists would after World War II be used against Communists and those suspected of left-wing sympathies.” Obviously, one major difference is that while the alleged postwar anti-Communist hysteria has been a never-ending focus of establishment concern, the earlier anti-fascist hysteria has been almost totally blotted from historical memory. An even greater dissimilarity between the two movements is that while there was substance to the beliefs of Communist subversion, the fascist fifth-column was totally imaginary, and individuals were persecuted solely for their opinions—as unsavory as some of them may have been. Even Haynes must conclude: “For all its sporadic ugliness, excesses and silliness, the anticommunism of the 1940s and 1950s was an understandable and rational response to a real danger to American democracy.”[85]Haynes, Red Scare or Red Menace?, p. 27.

As is apparent today, the concern for freedom of opinion no longer reigns as supreme in the establishment liberal pantheon of virtues as it (purportedly) did during the McCarthy years. It is liberals who have been at the forefront of restricting so-called “hate speech,” which has been made a crime in much of the “democratic” Western world. (Given the liberals’ soft spot for totalitarian Communism, it is hard to believe that they ever truly regarded freedom of opinion as the highest social goal.)

Returning to the civil liberties violations of the McCarthy era, it should be added that often even erroneous charges by anti-Communists do not merit the harsh condemnation conventionally meted out by the establishment. The errors were quite understandable. Since liberal policies were so similar to those of Soviet Communism, it was hard to determine whether a person was following a pro-Soviet policy because he was a Soviet agent or merely out of sincere, liberal beliefs. Instead of showing a grave flaw in anti-Communism, however, this would seem to show something seriously amiss with liberalism. In short, liberalism propounded views beneficial to Soviet Communism that were completely contrary to reality and harmful to the interests of the United States. Objectively speaking, it did not really matter whether an individual was aiding the Soviet Union because he was a Communist or from a liberal vision of world peace, support for the underdog, destruction of evil, etc. To combat Communism successfully, it was essential to remove liberals from critical posts in the government. As James Burnham pointed out “What communism does is to carry the liberal principles to their logical and practical extreme….The liberal’s arm cannot strike with consistent firmness against communism, either domestically or internationally, because the liberal dimly feels that in doing so he would be somehow wounding himself.”[86]James Burnham, Suicide of the West: An Essay on the Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House, 1964), pp. 289–90. That Soviet Communism eventually fell came about largely despite the efforts of American liberalism.

One final issue concerns what constitutes historical proof. Why was it necessary to have new evidence from Venona and the Soviet archives to prove extensive Soviet subversion? Why wasn’t this believed before? Why was the extensive, converging evidence of ex-Communist agents, Soviet defectors, FBI reports, and even public documents insufficient? This very stringent standard of proof for Soviet subversion might be contrasted with the rather lenient standard applied to some Nazi German atrocities, which rely heavily on eyewitness accounts in the absence —for whatever reason—of documents and physical evidence. This says something about the establishment’s version of truth. Evidence that would constitute proof on one topic is dismissed when applied to another. In short, the establishment has drastically different standards of proof. But probably the readers of this journal already understand the meaning of the establishment’s version of truth.

Stephen J. Sniegoski holds a Ph.D. in American diplomatic history and is the author of several historical articles.

References

[1] Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (New York: MacMillan Company, 1966), p. 919.

[2] This paper will consistently use the term KGB, by which the top Soviet security agency was best known, although this agency had different names throughout its history. During much of WWII, it was officially named the NKGB, while earlier it was the NKVD.

[3] Herbert Romerstein and Eric Breindel, The Venona Secrets: Exposing Soviet Espionage and America’s Traitors (Washington: Regnery Publishing, 2000), pp. 124–25.

[4] National Security Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, “Venona: Soviet Espionage and the American Response, 1939–1957,” Preface, 1996. https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/venona-soviet-espionage-and-the-american-response-1939-1957/venona.htm.

[5] Bradley F. Smith, The Shadow Warriors: O.S.S. and the Origins of the C.I.A. (New York: Basic Books, 1983), pp. 345–46.

ORDER IT NOW

[6] The idea that Stalin pushed for war has been bandied about for some time. See, for example, Ernst Topitsch, Stalin’s War: A Radical New Theory of the Origins of the Second World War (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1987). In recent years this view has been given greater credence by the work of Viktor Suvorov (Vladimir Rezun), Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War? (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1990). Suvorov brings up the more controversial argument that Stalin had intended to attack Hitler in 1941, and that the German attack was preemptive. For a review of this issue, see: R. C. Raack, “Stalin’s Role in the Coming of World War II,” World Affairs, 158:4 (Spring 1996) http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/raack.htm and “Stalin’s Role in the Coming of World War II: The International Debate Goes On,” World Affairs, 159:2 (Fall 1996). http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/raack2.htm.

[7] Benjamin Colby, ’Twas a Famous Victory: Deception and Propaganda in the War with Germany (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House Publishers, 1974). An example of some of the effective pro-Soviet propaganda from the private sector includes Joseph E. Davies’s best-selling Mission to Moscow, which became a movie, and Quentin Reynolds, Only the Stars Are Neutral. Both of these works went so far as to defend Stalin’s purges as a positive good. For a discussion of the pro-Soviet propaganda fest see Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Leftism: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House Publishers, 1974), pp. 299–302.

[8] Harvey Klehr and Ronald Radosh, The Amerasia Spy Case: Prelude to McCarthyism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996).

[9] Romerstein and Breindel, Venona Secrets, pp. 52–53; Jerrold and Leona Schecter, Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History (Washington: Brassey’s, 2002), pp. 118.

[10] Romerstein and Breindel, Venona Secrets, p. 454.

[11] Harry S. Truman, Memoirs, vol. II, Years of Trial and Hope (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company, 1956), p. 291.

[12] A number of individuals writing on American counterintelligence vaguely alluded to the secret project. For example: Robert J. Lamphere and Tom Shactman, The FBI-KGB War: A Special Agent’s Story (New York: Random House, 1986) and David Martin, Wilderness of Mirrors (New York: Ballantine Books, 1981).

[13] John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1999).

[14] Harvey Klehr, John Earl Haynes, and Fridrikh Igorevich Firsov, The Secret World of American Communism (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1995) and Harvey Klehr, John Earl Haynes, and K. M. Anderson, The Soviet World of American Communism (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1998).

[15] Haynes and Klehr, Venona, p. 7.

[16] Ibid., p. 19.

[17] Ibid., p. 332.

[18] Christopher Andrew and Oleg Gordievsky, KGB: The Inside Story (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1990).

[19] Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB (New York: Basic Books, 1999).

[20] Pavel and Anatoli Sudoplatov with Jerrold L. and Leona P. Schecter, Special Tasks: The Memoirs of an Unwanted Witness: A Soviet Spymaster (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1995).

[21] Klehr, Haynes, and Firsov, Secret World of American Communism, pp. 18–19.

[22] Ibid., p. 326.

[23] Allen Weinstein and Alexander Vassiliev, The Haunted Wood: Soviet Espionage in America: The Stalin Era (New York: Random House, 1999).

[24] Weinstein and Vassiliev, Haunted Wood, p. xix.

[25] Allen Weinstein, Perjury: The Hiss-Chambers Case (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978).

[26] Ibid., Perjury.

[27] Romerstein and Breindel, Venona, pp. 136–37.

[28] Jerrold and Leona Schecter, Sacred Secrets, pp. 128–31.

[29] William F. Buckley, Jr. and L. Brent Bozell, McCarthy and His Enemies (Chicago: Regnery, 1954), p. 10.

[30] Allen Weinstein analyzes these various and conflicting pro-Hiss conspiracy theories in Perjury, pp. 569–89. There have also been claims that Hiss was framed by elements of the Left—Trotskyites, the American Communist Party, the KGB, the Soviet super-secret agency SMERSH—but these have not taken hold among Hiss partisans.

[31] Hiss’s main supporter, John Lowenthal, contacted Russian Colonel General Dmitry Volkogonov, who had been overseeing the Russian archives, to check material on Hiss. Volkogonov initially said that he could find no material in the KGB files. Lowenthal interpreted this to mean that Hiss was innocent. However, Hiss was an agent not of the KGB but of military intelligence (GRU), the files of which were closed even to Volkogonov. Romerstein and Breindel, Venona Secrets, p. 139–41.

[32] Romerstein and Breindel, Venona Secrets , pp. 29–30.

[33] The connection between international communism and international finance would not seem so incongruous to persons of a non-establishment rightwing persuasion. Antiestablishment historian Antony C. Sutton has made a connection between international finance and communism. See for example, Anthony C. Sutton, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House, 1974). http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/

[34] Romerstein and Breindel, Venona Secrets, p. 45; Jerrold and Leona Schecter, Sacred Secrets, p. 124.

[35] Romerstein and Breindel, Venona Secrets, pp. 29–30.

[36] Romerstein and Breindel, Venona Secrets, pp. 42–43, The Schecters maintain that White was manipulated by Soviet intelligence to introduce the Soviet goals into his initiatives regarding the Far East without his being aware of the consequences of the demand that the Japanese pull out of China. Jerrold and Leona Schecter, Sacred Secrets, pp. 21–41. Romerstein/Breindel and the Schecters rely heavily on a recent Russian work on this subject: Vitaliy Pavlov, Operatziya “Sneg” (Moscow: Gaia Herum, 1996).

[37] Jerrold and Leona Schecter, Sacred Secrets, p. 124.

[38] Freda Utley, The High Cost of Vengeance (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1949), p. 15. http://www.fredautley.com/

[39] Haynes and Klehr, Venona, pp. 142–45.

[40] Ibid., p. 145.

[41] Anthony Kubek, How the Far East Was Lost: American Policy and the Creation of Communist China, 1941–1949 (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1963).

[42] Weinstein and Vassiliev, Haunted Wood, pp. 140–50.

[43] Romerstein and Breindel, Venona Secrets, pp. 433–39.

[44] Ibid., p. 109; Weinstein and Vassiliev, Haunted Wood, pp. 72–83.

[45] Venona Intercepts, “The November 12, 1944 cable: Theodore Alvin Hall and Saville Sax,” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/venona/inte_19441112.html; Romerstein and Breindel, Venona Secrets, pp. 202–205; Haynes and Klehr, Venona, pp. 314–17; Joseph Albright and Marcia Kunstel, Bombshell: The Secret Story of America’s Unknown Atomic Spy Conspiracy, (New York: Times Books, 1997).

[46] Romerstein and Breindel, Venona Secrets, pp. 234–35.

[47] Ronald Radosh and Joyce Milton, The Rosenberg File: A Search for Truth (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1983. 2d ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997) argue that while the Rosenbergs were guilty of spying their trial was conducted in an unsavory manner.

[48] John Earl Haynes, Red Scare or Red Menace? American Communism and Anticommunism in the Cold War Era (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1996), p. 63.

[49] Pavel and Antoli Sudoplatov with Jerrold L. and Leona P. Schecter, Special Tasks: The Memoirs of an Unwanted Witness—A Soviet Spymaster (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1995), pp. 181–97.

[50] Romerstein and Breindel, Venona Secrets, pp. 275–76.

[51] Jerrold and Leona Schecter, Sacred Secrets, pp. 49–52.

[52] Ibid., pp. 315–17.

[53] Ibid., p. 49.

[54] Yaakov Eisenstadt, “Stalin’s Planned Genocide,” Dei’ah veDibur, March 6, 2002, http://www.shemayisrael.com/chareidi/archives5762/vaypek/VP62features2.htm

[55] Romerstein and Breindel, Venona Secrets, p. 211.

[56] Christopher Andrew and Oleg Gordievsky, KGB: The Inside Story of Its Foreign Operations from Lenin to Gorbachev (New York: Harper Collins, 1990), p. 287.

[57] Romerstein and Breindel, Venona Secrets, p. 213.

[58] Ibid., p. 213.

[59] Andrew and Mitrokhin, Sword and the Shield, p. 111.

[60] Romerstein and Breindel, Venona Secrets, pp. 213–15.

[61] Harvey Klehr, “Red Scare Revisited,” CNN Interactive, http://asia.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/06/then.now/.

[62] Arthur Herman, Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America’s Most Hated Senator (New York: The Free Press, 2000).

[63] Sam Tanenhaus, “Un-American Activities,” Review of Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America’s Most Hated Senator, New York Review of Books, November 30, 2000, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/13910. Tanenhaus is the author of Whittaker Chambers: A Biography (New York: Random House, 1997).

[64] Herman, Joseph McCarthy, p. 4.

[65] William J. Gill, The Ordeal of Otto Otepka (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House Publishers, 1969), p. 38; Buckley and Bozell, McCarthy and His Enemies, pp. 9–30.

[66] Buckley and Bozell, pp. 65–67.

[67] Ibid., p. 63.

[68] Thomas C. Reeves, The Life and Times of Joe McCarthy: A Biography (New York: Stein and Day, 1982), p. 255.

[69] Haynes, Red Scare or Red Menace?, p. 151.

[70] Ibid., p. 151.

[71] U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Internal Security Subcommittee, Institute of Pacific Relations, Hearings, 82nd Congress, 1st Session, Final Report (Washington: US Government Printing Office, 1951), p. 224.

[72] Haynes, Red Scare or Red Menace?, p. 151.

[73] Herman, Joseph McCarthy, p. 127–28.

[74] Anthony Kubek, “Introduction,” The Amerasia Papers: A Clue to the Catastrophe of China, vol. I, prepared by the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 91st Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1970), pp. 30–34.

[75] Ibid., pp. 1–113.

[76] Ibid., p. 78.

[77] Radosh and Klehr, Amerasia Spy Case, pp. 210–18.

[78] Kubek, Amerasia Papers, pp. 65–67.

[79] Buckley and Bozell, McCarthy and His Enemies, pp. 18–30.

[80] Herman, Joseph McCarthy, pp. 109-110.

[81] Ibid., p. 109.

[82] Weinstein and Vassiliev, Haunted Wood, pp. 299.

[83] Haynes, Red Scare or Red Menace?, pp. 22–36.

[84] Haynes writes: “Virtually every one of the tactics used in the 1930s and early 1940s to harass fascist and suspected far rightists would after World War II be used against Communists and those suspected of left-wing sympathies.”

[85] Haynes, Red Scare or Red Menace?, p. 27.

[86] James Burnham, Suicide of the West: An Essay on the Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House, 1964), pp. 289–90.

(Republished from The Occidental Quarterly by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 85 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Read it as another ‘Brzezinski-style’ crappy piece of Polack mindset. The passage of ‘the United States had enacted a number of laws and regulations proscribing Communists from the federal government’ is astounding. All Nazi did it, esp. banning people from government offices due to their beliefs, lack of racial and religious prejudice, and desire for social justice. Whose who were not banned, ‘by mere coincidence’ were also active supporters of Mafia and received bribes from the mob. Communists and people like Sacco and Vanzetti were proscribed, wrongly accused and executed. Yet the proud capitalists and anti-communists like Lucky Luciano and Rotstein were fostered and carefully protected. In that way the USA used the mob to terrorise its own citizens. Like KKK, it was a reserve column of American plutocracy. The 1940-1950s USA was a sort of a fascist state, excluding only fuerher himself and his ornate circus with banners and goose-stepping.

  2. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    There is a nation that spies endlessly on its supposed ally and friend and whose personnel are NOT subject to the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
    This nation has been caught repeatedly spying and stealing our military, business and industrial secrets, but Congress, instead of being alarmed, actually helps to cover up the treasonous activity.

    This nation also uses this info to either bribe or silence officials who dare speak out about this heinous activity and uses its control over the Congress to get sweetheart deals, including free money w/no strings attached, free weapons, which are supposed to be used only for defensive purposes, but is used in wars of aggression and which has several hundred nuclear bombs, while lying about that fact and at the same time, screaming about Iran getting the ‘bomb.’

    That nation is Israel.

    Israel spies on the United States more than any other ally does and these activities have reached an alarming level, Newsweek magazine reported on Tuesday.

    The main targets are US industrial and technical secrets, the weekly said, quoting classified briefings on legislation that would make it easier for Israeli citizens to get visas to enter America.

    Newsweek said a congressional staffer familiar with a briefing last January called the testimony “very sobering … alarming … even terrifying”, and quoted another as saying the behavior was “damaging.”

    http://wearechange.org/us-officials-israel-spying-on-america-has-reached-terrifying-levels/

    Let’s not forget, that the only suspects arrested on 9/11, some with large sums of money, box cutters and a van that a trained dog had smelled explosive residue were Israeli nationals, plus the ones taking pics of the WTC attack, and caught celebrating the horrific deaths of thousands of Americans were Israelis.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    , @animalogic
  3. polistra says:

    The facts are unquestionable, but the author oversimplifies motivations.

    The author treats our lack of punishment for spies as evidence of collaboration. Nope. Punishing spies is always a bad idea because we also have spies and agents of influence in the hostile country. If we punish their spies, they will kill ours. It’s better to PROTECT against spying than to punish spies.

    Why were we slow to PROTECT against agents? From 1930 to 1945, except for Stalin’s brief 1940 pact, Russia was our ally against the actual military aggression of Germany and Japan. Russia was NOT trying to claim or bomb our territory. Japan was trying to claim and bomb our territory, and succeeded. We had business ties with post-Revolutionary Russia as well. Ford and GM and other major companies were building factories or consulting for existing factories. This effort failed because Russians are less organized than Americans, not for any political reason.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Che Guava
    , @dearieme
    , @Alden
  4. @Anon

    Which Anon is this who so clearly lines up with one ideological team without bothering to contradict the substantial evidentiary claims of the author? Still it would be interesting to know if there is a good account or explanation somewhere for why Hoover was so weak on organised crime while strong on communist subversion.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Alden
  5. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @polistra

    Why failed? That factories founded by US contractors still work, develop and produce modern equipment. First Ford (Gaz AA), Caterpillar and GM trucks and tractors, then best WW2 tanks, now the variety of world’s best modern weapons. In return, Russians in USA developed Sikorskiy helicopters, videorecording etc.

  6. Russia was NOT trying to claim or bomb our territory.

    How do you know that?

    Even if they weren’t, are there not other ways to subdue a nation? What can you say about commie activities (directed by Stalin) in the US during the 1920s and 30s? What can you say about commie activities in Germany during that time? What are your thoughts about Marx’s ideas on permanent (violent) revolution?

    Japan was trying to claim and bomb our territory, and succeeded.

    Superficial analysis if it can be called an analysis at all. It seems to be that the Japanese militarists saw what the Big Three (“Big” get it?) had been getting away with for decades and probably didn’t want to roll over for them. Probably thought that it was better to go down fighting.

    Japan was trying to claim our territory? “Ours”, really? Please explain.

    “Revisionism as applied to World War II and its origins (as also for previous wars) has the general function of bringing historical truth to an American and a world public that had been drugged by wartime lies and propaganda.

    The least of the lessons that revisionism can teach has already been thoroughly learned ( ed: by a select few): that Germany and Japan are not uniquely “aggressor nations,” doomed from birth to menace the peace of the world. The larger lessons have, unfortunately, yet to be learned.”

    Now revisionism teaches us that this entire myth, so prevalent then and even now about Hitler, and about the Japanese, is a tissue of fallacies from beginning to end. Every plank in this nightmare evidence is either completely untrue or not entirely the truth.

    If people should learn this intellectual fraud about Hitler’s Germany, then they will begin to ask questions, and searching questions…”

    Murray Rothbard, Revisionism for Our Times, 1966. Note: This gentleman was also Jewish.
    http://mises.org/daily/2592

    • Replies: @pdxr13
  7. Che Guava says:
    @polistra

    We succeeded in bombing Pearl Harbour, the important ships were not there, because of foreknowledge, what else happened to the USA?

    Nothing except a remarkably small number of casualties (compared to any other participant), dead or injured, a little flow of propaganda, mainly before, that is interesting, and monstrous bombing, curse Curtiss le May.

    Sure, the German subs did some damage in the Atlantic, but only after Franklin Delano Rosenfeldt had pushed his nation into war.

    • Replies: @dearieme
  8. dearieme says:

    The popular historian Max Hastings wrote testily that he was fed up of hearing about the Cambridge Five: what about the Washington and Berkeley five hundred?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  9. iffen says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    why Hoover was so weak on organised crime while strong on communist subversion.

    Degree of difficulty.

  10. dearieme says:
    @polistra

    “except for Stalin’s brief 1940 pact”: it lasted near enough two years, August 23rd 1939 – June 22nd 1941.

  11. dearieme says:
    @Che Guava

    “the German subs did some damage in the Atlantic, but only after Franklin Delano Rosenfeldt had pushed his nation into war”: the US-German war was started by Hitler declaring war on the USA.

  12. TheJester says:

    The title of your excellent essay can be misunderstood and taint its content. I hope your essay is understood as a detailed history of Communist subversion of the American political system under Stalin from the 1930s through the 1950s via spies and “fellow travelers” … and that it is unrelated to the current claims of Russian subversion of the American political system under Putin.

  13. Alden says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    The Mafia generally commited state, not federal crimes and the FBI had no jurisdiction until the RICO federal law was passed around 1970.

    As soon as that federal law was passed the FBI aquired jurisdiction over the Mafia and other criminal organizations. Since 1970 the FBI has destroyed much of the old Mafia
    Unfortunately, due to immigration we now have Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Armenian and other corrupt Mafia organizations.

    Actually, Hoover was able to do little about communist influence. Few spies and agents were ever investigated or charged.
    Los Alamos was filled with spies and so was the Roosevelt and Truman administrations. After The HUAC investigations the communists just laid low for a decade and emerged in full force in the 1960s. Their influence is stronger than it was when they called themselves communists.

    All they have done is change the enemy from the capitalists to White people, all White people. Any White who considers himself or herself to be a liberal or progressive is a fool because the liberals want us all dead and gone so they can rule over a world of squabbling puppets.

    Their goal is to do to American Whites what Russian and Chinese communists did to their own people, murder millions

    Every word in the above article is true. Anyone who believes the author is exaggerating communist spying and influence in the democrat party is a naive fool who believes what their leftist college professors and the anti White MSM propaganda machine has told them.

    The truth us worse than this article tells. We’re it not for the cooperation of southerners and the anti communist labor unions such as the auto workers at the 1944 Democratic nominating convention we would have communist frontman Henry Wallace instead of Harry Truman becoming President when the communist dupe Roosevelt died.

    BTW Sacco and Vinzetti were guilty of the robbery and murder. They were the 1920s equivalent of Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin, ordinary criminals used by the communists and liberals as a cause to fool gullible, naive liberals.

    I know there are thousands of theories about who or what country was behind President Kennedys murder. I have always felt the Russian wife was a sleeper agent. I was in college when Kennedy was shot at 10/30 Pacific time When the 11 o’clock classes began the professors were ranting that Oswald’s communism had nothing to do with his killing of Kennedy.
    Kennedy was killed on a Friday. By Monday the professors were going on about how the FBI, CIA, Dallas police and conservatives killed Kennedy.

    Communism just changed from class warfare to race warfare and Whites are as much a target as the Ukranians and Christian Russians were under Lenin and Stalin. And they don’t care how liberal and progressive you are. If you are White you are the enemy to be exterminated.

  14. Alden says:
    @polistra

    We did not ally with Russia until 1941. We certainly were not allied with Russia in 1930. We did not even have diplomatic relations with Russia until 1933. And Hitler was not appointed (not elected) chancellor of Germany until 1933.
    Although Roosevelt and his communist Jewish administration urged war with Germany from 1933 on. We did not get involved in WW2 until Pearl Harbor.

    The Russians hoped that it would be as easy to take over the rest of the world as it had been to take over Russia. China, India, Europe especially Germany France and England and the United States were targeted as soon as the communists defeated the Russian counter revolutionaries in 1922.

  15. woodNfish says:

    As James Burnham pointed out “What communism does is to carry the liberal principles to their logical and practical extreme….

    The first mistake of these intellectuals like Burnham and Sniegoski (the author) is to continue to call Leftists “liberals”. They are nothing of the sort and more than enough proof exists to prove that. “Liberal” is simply a phony label they use to hide behind. Today there is no difference between the democrat party and the amerikan communist party. And while they may have an ideology, they do not have any principals. Theirs is a slash and burn ideology because Leftists can only succeed when civil society is in a perpetual state of chaos, which also explains the lying LSM’s constant rabble rousing.

    • Replies: @animalogic
  16. @dearieme

    …the US-German war was started by Hitler declaring war on the USA.

    You gotta be kidding. People keep recycling retarded 80+ year old propaganda as if it’s breaking news. Have you ever heard of such a thing as economic warfare?

    Here’s an example. Note the date. And plenty of the “Judeans” were Americans, and plenty of them supported Stalin and the Bolshies before him.

    The London Daily Express on March 24, 1933

    On Friday, March 24, 1933, the headline “Judea Declares War on Germany” was splashed across the front page of the British newspaper Daily Express.

    http://www.holocaust-history.org/questions/jew-war.shtmlhttp://www.holocaust-history.org/questions/jew-war.shtml

    • Agree: Che Guava
  17. Greg Bacon says: • Website
    @dearieme

    FDR had the Navy depth-charging German subs–before Pearl Harbor–and had destroyers shelling German ships, trying to get Germany to declare war on the USA, but Hitler wouldn’t take the bait, so along comes Pearl Harbor…

    Before the war, Hollywood portrayed Russians as fiends, then during the war, Hollywood showed them as ‘freedom fighters,’ as in the movie “The North Star.” After WWII, Hollywood went back to showing them as our enemy.

    Skillful propaganda at its best.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  18. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @dearieme

    The popular historian Max Hastings wrote testily that he was fed up of hearing about the Cambridge Five

    Rest Of World wrote that they are fed up of hearing pseudo-journalist Sir Max Hastings, FRSI, ass-kisser extraordinaire to queens, following in the stagger-steps of his alcoholic father, regurgitate what he calls history, that he pays people to acquire for him to put his name on.

  19. joe webb says:

    my red parents had in their circle, a State Dept. guy, Beverstock by name, of apparent New England background. Tall and Ruling Class, Bev was a great guy, rich by general standards, and a communist. As he aged he was vigilant that They were under his bed, etc., they being the witch hunters. His daughter is a loony liberal and still lives in the Atherton house of her parents. Old Money. She gives part of it away of course, to the coloreds.

    Joe Webb

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    , @Hibernian
  20. @joe webb

    His daughter is a loony liberal and still lives in the Atherton house of her parents. Old Money. She gives part of it away of course, to the coloreds

    .

    Lots of loons still being duped by the commies I’m sure. And lots of commies being duped by some very big money too, no doubt.

    Commie-nism was, and sadly still is, all the rage in “fashionable” circles apparently. We all know what sets fashion trends.

    Famous names, Vanderbilt, Lamont, Whitney, Morgan, mingled with those of communist leaders. The Russian Institute was so respectable that it was allowed to give in-service courses to New York City schoolteachers for credit.

    -Bella Dodd, School of Darkness, Chap 11

  21. Miro23 says:

    This is an interesting article and shows just how pro-Soviet the US élite was in the 1950’s.
    However, Sniegoski could have got some usefully perspective by going further back to 1918 (end of WW1).

    The end of the Belle Époque and the vacuum left by the fall of the aristocratic, landowning world system after WW1 was mostly filled by socialism, which was in turn hijacked by radical Bolshevik Jews to enable their various dictatorships. And this newly found Jewish power was celebrated by Jews around the world (and still is – See Slezkine’s “The Jewish Century”), no doubt also affecting American Jews, and probably building their loyalty to Bolshevism on ethnic grounds.

    In any event, Bolshevik Jewish revolutionaries did aim to overthrow Western Democracy:

    Russia (Petrograd 1917) : All Russia Congress of Soviets of Workers and Soldiers Deputies”. Parallel government and takes absolute power through violence. Campaign of murder and imprisonment of opponents (Gulag). Lenin & Trotsky. Successfully held power.

    Germany (Berlin1919): Strike & Spartacist Uprising. “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” and armed attack on opponents. Revolutionary Committee. Parallel government and attempt to subvert state military regiments. Liebknecht & Luxemburg. Failed in street gun battles.

    Germany (Munich 1919): German Soviet Revolutionary Dictatorship. “Workers and Soldiers Council”. Declaration of a parallel government. Eugen Levine. Failed in street gun battles.

    Hungary (Budapest 1919): Hungarian Soviet Republic. “Council (Soviet) of Soldiers, Workers and Peasants”. Parallel all Jewish government and took absolute power through violence. Launched the “Red Terror”. Bela Kuhn. Failed the same year.

    U.S.A (Seattle 1919): International Workers of the World. “Soldiers, Sailors and Workingmen’s Council”. Parallel government dictatorship declared by a General Strike Committee. Threats and industrial wrecking. General order to take down the Stars & Stripes and fly the Red Flag. Failed shortly afterwards without public/military support.

    Soviet Bolsheviks were also very influential with the Spanish Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, eventually taking over the movement and murdering their anarchist colleagues (see George Orwell’s excellent , “Homage to Catalonia”. He was there).

  22. Svigor says:

    Informative piece, thanks to the author.

    Anon says:
    December 19, 2016 at 9:06 am GMT • 200 Words

    At least you’ve still got Venezuela. Much to the Venezuelans’ sorrow.

    Greg Bacon: yes, I was thinking while reading that I would love to see a piece like this on our current situation; I wonder which foreign power would prove the most subversive. Would prove to have the most fellow-travelers in positions of power, in the US gov’t, carrying its water and leaking our top secrets. And whether there would be any overlap with the sort exposed in this piece.

    The author treats our lack of punishment for spies as evidence of collaboration. Nope. Punishing spies is always a bad idea because we also have spies and agents of influence in the hostile country. If we punish their spies, they will kill ours. It’s better to PROTECT against spying than to punish spies.

    It’s best to feed them false info (both to disinform the foreign power to which they are loyal, and to confirm their disloyalty to their own country). Then, when they are no longer useful, to disappear them, execute them, and disappear their remains.

    Why were we slow to PROTECT against agents? From 1930 to 1945, except for Stalin’s brief 1940 pact, Russia was our ally against the actual military aggression of Germany and Japan. Russia was NOT trying to claim or bomb our territory.

    Germany wasn’t trying to claim our territory. They weren’t interested in overthrowing our system of gov’t and turning our country into a jail, either. But the commies were.

    • Agree: jacques sheete
  23. Svigor says:

    “the German subs did some damage in the Atlantic, but only after Franklin Delano Rosenfeldt had pushed his nation into war”: the US-German war was started by Hitler declaring war on the USA.

    More like, the Germans were the first to be honest enough to recognize that the USA and Germany were already at war.

    We did not ally with Russia until 1941. We certainly were not allied with Russia in 1930. We did not even have diplomatic relations with Russia until 1933.

    Interestingly, in 1932-33, the Soviet Union was in the process of kicking off The Genocide Century, murdering between 2.5 and 7.5 million Ukrainians and other Soviet subjects, in the Holodomor.

    Before the war, Hollywood portrayed Russians as fiends, then during the war, Hollywood showed them as ‘freedom fighters,’ as in the movie “The North Star.” After WWII, Hollywood went back to showing them as our enemy.

    Skillful propaganda at its best.

    I would be interested in knowing when Hollywood let the Russians or Soviets have it. I grew up in the seventies and eighties. From then on, there was certainly nothing from Hollywood but soft-peddling of the Soviets, with a few notable, rogue exceptions like Red Dawn. As far as I can tell, Hollywood was soft on the Russians until communism fell. Then they became the perennial bad goys.

    We’ve had hundreds, if not thousands of Hollywood films about the Jewish holocaust, some of them blockbusters. Where are the films about commie atrocities? Where are the big budget Hollywood treatments of the Holodomor, Katyn, the gulags, the Great Purge, Soviet subversion, etc? Hollywood has invested more money into movies about Nazi art theft.

    • Replies: @animalogic
  24. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Anon

    I have to somewhat agree with this comment.

    What is missing from this analysis, is that there is absolutely no mention of McCarthy, Buckley et al.’s (staunch) Roman Catholicism, which is a huge factor when it comes to explaining the dynamics and origins of “McCarthyism,” etc., in my opinion.

    i.e.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_A._Walsh

    Joe McCarthy’s Jesuit
    Mark Judge

    UNLIKE MCCARTHY, WALSH IS forgotten to history. This no doubt has much to do with the fact that Edmund Walsh was arguably the first American anti-communist (not to mention the fact that Walsh’s preached preemptive strikes against aggressors decades before the word neoconservative existed). Walsh’s life doesn’t provide the delicious frisson of preening pseudo-virtue experienced by liberals denouncing the excesses of McCarthyism. Yet 2006 will mark the 50th anniversary of Walsh’s death, and respect should be paid.

    Rather than focus on heroes like Fr. Walsh, the media, academic elites and historians simply ignore men like him — or when they do pay attention it’s with an obsession with linking Walsh to McCarthy. Drew Pearson, a columnist for the Washington Post in the 1950s, never seemed too disturbed by communism. He did, however, report on the Colony dinner and wrote that during dinner McCarthy had expressed concern about his upcoming reelection campaign. Walsh then allegedly suggested using communism as a campaign theme — “any Senator who consistently attacked Communism would have a great appeal for the voters,” Pearson has Walsh saying.

    On February 9, 1950, a little more than a month later, McCarthy made his infamous speech in Wheeling, West Virginia, announcing he had a list of the names of 205 communists in the State Department. Many in the media, even the Catholic media, had no doubt that Walsh had been the spur that propelled McCarthy. The Catholic magazine the Churchman wrote in 1951 that McCarthy “only fires the guns that are made for him by Father Edmund Walsh, SJ.” The Christian Century referred to Walsh as McCarthy’s advisor. In 1953 leftist journalist I.F. Stone claimed that McCarthy “has had the guidance of Father Walsh.” In McCarthy: The Man, the Senator, the Ism, published in 1952, Washington insiders Jack Anderson and Ronald W. May endorsed Pearson’s account.

    https://spectator.org/48284_joe-mccarthys-jesuit/

    McCarthy often used accusations of homosexuality as a smear tactic in his anti-communist crusade, often combining the Second Red Scare with the Lavender Scare. On one occasion, he went so far as to announce to reporters, “If you want to be against McCarthy, boys, you’ve got to be either a Communist or a cocksucker.”[18] Some historians have argued that, in linking communism and homosexuality and psychological imbalance, McCarthy was employing guilt-by-association if evidence for communist activity was lacking.[19]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavender_scare#History

    The Catholic connection/link in regards to/with Fascism is very important to keep in mind. […]
    Most right-wing regimes kept strong ties with local Churches (usually the Roman Catholic ones since most of those regimes happened in Catholic countries). […] Remember, President Kennedy intensified the U.S. engagement in Vietnam to help out a fellow Roman Catholic

    https://www.unz.com/plee/trump-we-wish-the-problem-was-fascism/#comment-1618786

    You might be interested in this article about William F. Buckley Jr.:

    William F Buckley – A Case Study In Narcissistic Personality Disorder […]

    Here one of my comments on Eugene McCarthy and Catholic Vietnamese, etc. immigrants/refugees. Again, we see the Vatican-inspired “Invade (Protect) the (Catholic) World/Invite the (Catholic) World” scheme play out

    https://www.unz.com/article/the-empire-strikes-back-the-msms-3-point-plan-to-recapture-the-narrative/#comment-1688097

    Avro Manhattan was the world’s foremost authority on Roman Catholicism in politics. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Manhattan ] […]

    With an immense collection of facts, photos, names and dates, Manhattan proves that the Vietnam War began as a religious conflict. He shows how America was manipulated into supporting Catholic oppression in Vietnam supposedly to fight communism.

    https://www.unz.com/article/the-empire-strikes-back-the-msms-3-point-plan-to-recapture-the-narrative/#comment-1687569

    Spellman, as mentioned elsewhere, had been one of the earliest sponsors of the then unknown Vietnamese leader, Diem. From the very beginning when Diem went to seek American sponsorship in the U.S., Spellman persuaded many influential politicians, including Senator Kennedy the future President, to support Diem in preference to other candidates. […]

    Might it be possible and conceivable, that President Kennedy was assassinated by the orders of Cardinal Spellman and the Catholic lobby as “revenge” for Diem’s assassination? […]

    The impact Cardinal Spellman had on the United States’ history and destiny is difficult to overestimate, in my opinion, and he was also one of the main drivers behind the Zionist-Vatican alliance. Many people forget, that Emanuel Celler’s grand-father was Catholic […] The Vatican wants to control Jerusalem, and that is why they collaborate with the Zionists/Israel Lobby

    https://www.unz.com/article/the-empire-strikes-back-the-msms-3-point-plan-to-recapture-the-narrative/#comment-1689501

    John F Kennedy according to Gore Vidal

    (https://www.unz.com/plee/trump-we-wish-the-problem-was-fascism/#comment-1619707 ]

    • Replies: @FKA Max
  25. Germany wasn’t trying to claim our territory. They weren’t interested in overthrowing our system of gov’t and turning our country into a jail, either. But the commies were.

    Correct.

    Yet to this day people still parrot age old commie propaganda as if they know something. And they blame the Germans for Nazi propaganda. If Nazi propaganda was so effective, then why do so many still believe the commie crap? That’s just a rhetorical question since I’m certain you know the answer!

  26. @TheJester

    Thanks for the compliment but I did think that the term “Red” made it clear that I was dealing with Soviet Communism not to Russia. I did complete this piece in 2003 so I would have made more of a distinction between the Soviet Union and Russia if I wrote it today. However, the Editor made some very important comments as an introduction to the article, which makes it especially relevant for today.

  27. America in the late 1940s and early 1950s was gripped by a terrible Red scare, a period of anti-Communist hysteria and witch hunts.

    Actually, that was the second one. The first Red Scare came after WW1 and it was justified as well.

  28. Hibernian says:
    @Anon

    “…Polack mindset.”

    Another sensitive liberal.

  29. Hibernian says:
    @Greg Bacon

    Compare the land area, population, and natural resources of Israel, at any point in its existence, and those of the old USSR, and then get back to me.

  30. Hibernian says:
    @TheJester

    It is not totally unrelated because the leftist Russophobes are counting on reflexive Russophobia from the american people, rooted in the Soviet era.

  31. Hibernian says:
    @Alden

    Generally agree, just one little note: I believe that Federal laws against interstate traffic in stolen goods predate RICO. Also, bank robbery has been a Federal offense for a long time.

  32. Hibernian says:
    @joe webb

    Let’s remember the 4th (Catholic numbering system) Commandment. I myself grew up in a Democratic, really socialist, family. In my extended family, only me, two cousins, and two of the two cousins’ three kids, are conservative.

  33. Excellent article, summarizing all the Second-Level-of-History books, conveniently ignored by the media and Official History (i.e. the stuff that is used to ‘educate’ students for the last 50+ years) proponents. All the communists outed in Truman’s regime were ‘punished’ by moving them to the IMF, the World Bank, and the UN, or maybe just to some other branch of the government. Sadly, the only one actually destroyed by all this was McCarthy, who seemed to be the only one one investigated, and who died in hospital under suspicious circumstances.

    Two more books: ‘Freedom Betrayed’, by Hoover, one of the most abused presidents in history, a long but great read, who bitterly, but nuanced by diplomacy, reveals his frustration at the antics of Roosevelt, the traitors around him, and the ‘New Deal’ in general, and ‘Blacklisted by History’, by M Stanton Evans, about Joe McCarthy, which reveals what happens when you go up against leftist liberals, communists, and their buddies in the media and Hollywood, who are able to rewrite history in real time, a phenomenon we are witnessing today, with absurdist claims being treated as the New Truth and any truth being labelled Fake News. Things really don’t change.

  34. Dan Hayes says:

    As brought out in this article, in this instance Truman was more interested in protecting his (Democratic) party than protecting the interests of his country. I suppose this shows his true pedigree as a product of the Kansas City Democrat Machine.

    I was interested on the author’s take on “Wild Bill” Donovan who has always seemed to me to be an ambiguous figure. Although to be sure, I’m still not convinced of Donovan’s essential integrity.

    I’m also grateful that the editor has made a determined effort to introduce and/or reintroduce Sniegoski to the general public.

    • Replies: @FKA Max
  35. @Alden

    Fascinating. Still, it leads me to consider that class and class-based resentment is the big problem that you effectually point to.

  36. Eric Zuesse says: • Website
    @Anon

    I agree with you that this article is rabid in its hatred of Russians, and that it embarrasses this website. However, much of what it says is true. What’s false in it is its favorable treatment of the hate-obsessed and paranoid J. Edgar Hoover and Joseph R. McCarthy, and its ignoring that Stalin had very sound reasons to infiltrate spies into the U.S. Government, especially because of the American aristocracy’s hatred of Marxists and efforts to destabilize or eliminate them. Until late in WWII, Stalin actually had far more reason to be wary of Roosevelt than Roosevelt had reason to be wary of Stalin — and FDR knew this and had to work very hard to win Stalin’s trust, as he finally did at Yalta. FDR was always playing the long game, and with great skill. But apparently, the editor of this site doesn’t care to see events from the standpoints of its participants, and maybe he even takes on the Ayn Rand or ‘libertarian’ view that the people who land at the top of the power-structure tend to be the best and the richest, not the worst and the poorest (so that the poor are the worst and the most undeserving of respect or compassion). A much more insightful portrayal of U.S.-Soviet relations during FDR’s time is in Oliver Stone’s documentery and book series “Untold History of the United States” (see Chapter One https://vimeo.com/136182100 and Chapter Two https://vimeo.com/136182101 ).

  37. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Eric Zuesse

    goshes, we’ve never heard that version of history. how in the world did they keep that from us?

    wait’l the Beaver hears this.

    /S

  38. Bobzilla says:

    The first paragraph is probably confusing to the uninitiated. Its intent should be made clear by surrounding it with “sarcasm” tags (or rewriting it).

  39. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Dan Hayes

    At a minimum he had dual loyalties:

    Erik Prince of Blackwater infamy is a convert to Roman Catholicism:

    Prince has seven children. His youngest child, Charles Donovan, was named after William “Wild Bill” Donovan.[42] […] Prince describes himself as a libertarian and practicing Roman Catholic.[26]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Prince#Personal_life

    One day in July 1944, as the Second World War raged throughout Europe, General William “Wild Bill” Donovan was ushered into an ornate chamber in Vatican City for an audience with Pope Pius XII. Donovan bowed his head reverently as the pontiff intoned a ceremonial prayer in Latin and decorated him with the Grand Cross of the Order of Saint Sylvester, the oldest and most prestigious of papal knighthoods. This award has been given to only 100 other men in history, who “by feat of arms, or writings, or outstanding deeds, have spread the Faith, and have safeguarded and championed the Church.

    http://churchandstate.org.uk/2013/04/cia-and-the-vaticans-intelligence-apparatus/

    https://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/trump-vs-the-real-nuts-the-gop-uniparty-establishment/#comment-1630050

    In 1949, Paul Blanshard wrote in his bestselling book American Freedom and Catholic Power that America had a “Catholic Problem”. He stated that the Church was an “undemocratic system of alien control” in which the lay were chained by the “absolute rule of the clergy.” In 1951, in Communism, Democracy, and Catholic Power, he compared Rome with Moscow as “two alien and undemocratic centers”, including “thought control”.[58]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism_in_the_United_States#Elites:_Vice_President_Wallace_and_Eleanor_Roosevelt

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  40. Hibernian says:
    @Eric Zuesse

    ” …especially because of the American aristocracy’s hatred of Marxists ….”

    Only a Marxist apologist could write those words.

    • Replies: @Eric Zuesse
  41. Eric Zuesse says: • Website
    @Hibernian

    I’ve never had respect for Karl Marx’s writings (and that’s putting it mildly). Just click onto the links to those two segments I linked to from Oliver Stone’s “Untold History of the United States” and get off your ideological obsession for a moment — open your eyes and ears to history first, then judge.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  42. @Eric Zuesse

    ” …especially because of the American aristocracy’s hatred of Marxists ….”

    Wall Street support for the Bolshies and Stalin was common knowledge. What happened?

    Criminal capitalists jump in and out of bed with criminal commies on a whim it seems.

    Cartoon by Robert Minor in St. Louis Post-Dispatch (1911). (Note the date.)

    Karl Marx surrounded by an appreciative audience of Wall Street financiers: John D. Rockefeller, J. P. Morgan, John D. Ryan of National City Bank, and Morgan partner George W. Perkins. Immediately behind Karl Marx is Teddy Roosevelt, leader of the Progressive Party.

    http://www.reformation.org/wall-st-cartoon.html

  43. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    It never dies.

  44. Hibernian says:
    @FKA Max

    “an ‘undemocratic system of alien control’ in which the lay were chained by the ‘absolute rule of the clergy.’

    Did Blanshard ever meet and hold any discussions with any of his Catholic neighbors, who were legion, given that he was a New Englander, except superficially?

    • Replies: @FKA Max
  45. Eric Zuesse says: • Website

    You’re linking to a cartoon, not to a fact; you’re citing fantasy not history; but what I meant to say was that the U.S. Government was very hostile toward the Soviet Union until FDR became President — and that’s history, not fantasy.

    • Replies: @E. A. Costa
  46. Hibernian says:
    @Eric Zuesse

    Self made business people tend to have a problem with Socialism; Old Money types, not so much. As for your protestation of non-Marxism, over the years I’ve developed good Commie-dar. If it walks like a duck, etc., etc.

  47. robt says:
    @Eric Zuesse

    The article has nothing to do with hatred of Russians, it’s about the actions of the Soviet Union.
    It’s about communist infiltration, influence of US government policy at the highest level, and general spying, by the Soviet Union, and the naive acceptance and coverup of such activities by the Administration.

  48. @Eric Zuesse

    “Hostile” is an understatement.

    Just for starters:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Russia_Intervention

    which should do the trick, though it is heavily tenedential in regard to the initial motives of Britain, France and the United States.

    But this was just the beginning.

    • Replies: @E. A. Costa
  49. Darin says:

    The “sore winner” cries of old Cold Warriors is something i do not get at all.
    The communist espionage was indeed by order of magnitude better than capitalist one, but the capitalist propaganda was by several orders better than communist one, and this, at the end, mattered.
    The Russians sold communism for Pepsi, Adidas and blue jeans, not the other way around. The Cold War is over, you have won. You have no reason to be so bitter.

  50. FKA Max says: • Website
    @FKA Max

    The following information and research might also be of interest to the discussion:

    “The FBI and the Catholic Church, 1935-1962”

    A probing analysis of the relationship between two powerful institutions in twentieth-century America

    First, he looks at the joint war waged by Hoover and the Catholic hierarchy against forces considered threats to their organizations, values, and nation. Second, he examines how each pursued its own institutional interests with the help of the other.

    While opposition to communism was a preoccupation of both institutions, it was not the only passion they shared, according to Rosswurm. Even more important, perhaps, was their fervent commitment to upholding traditional gender roles, particularly the prerogatives of patriarchal authority. When women and men carried out their assigned obligations, they believed, society ran smoothly; when they did not, chaos ensued.

    Organized topically, The FBI and the Catholic Church, 1935–1962 looks not only at the shared values and interests of the two institutions, but also at the personal relationships between Hoover and his agents and some of the most influential Catholic prelates of the time. Rosswurm discusses the role played by Edward A. Tamm, the FBI’s highest-ranking Catholic, in forging the alliance; the story behind Father John Cronin’s 1945 report on the dangers of communism; the spying conducted by Father Edward Conway S.J. on behalf of the FBI while treasurer of the National Committee for Atomic Information; and Monsignor Charles Owen Rice’s FBI-aided battle against communists within the CIO.”

    http://www.umass.edu/umpress/title/fbi-and-catholic-church-1935-1962

    Revealed: Koch brothers’ politics reflect their father’s anti-communism

    FBI collected over 100 pages of documents on Fred Koch after he published manifesto railing against communism

    The partially redacted 176 pages of FBI documents show that Koch’s anti-communist pamphlet and his messaging campaign made an enormous impact on many corporate executives and American citizens, who believed they were under threat from subversives. His FBI files consist of dozens of letters sent to J. Edgar Hoover, the longtime FBI director and fervent anti-communist, concerning the pamphlet.

    But the pamphlet — which, according to the files, Koch personally handed out, was distributed by some corporations and was even sold at a Boy Scout meeting — does not just capture a moment in time. The manifesto, “A Business Man Looks at Communism,” also sheds light on the Koch brothers’ political roots and their current high-profile campaigns on a plethora of conservative issues. […]

    Later FBI files note that Koch was added to the agency’s special correspondents’ list, a designation reserved for people considered friendly to the bureau. Koch purchased 1,000 copies of “Masters of Deceit” and distributed copies to his friends and supporters.

    Koch did not believe it was communists who were destroying America at the time. Instead he railed against what he saw as Americans’ ignorance of current events. “America is being destroyed by citizens who will not listen, are not informed and will not think. The uninformed are easily misinformed,” he wrote in the pamphlet.

    http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/7/30/koch-brothers-fatherpolitics.html

    The Greatest Heist You’ve Never Heard Of | Retro Report | The New York Times

    Published on Jan 7, 2014

    One night in 1971, files were stolen from an F.B.I. office near Philadelphia. They proved that the bureau was spying on thousands of Americans. The case was unsolved, until now.

  51. fnn says:
    @Eric Zuesse

    Western (mostly American) capitalists built Soviet industry in the 1930s (they started even before FDR):
    http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-ConspiracyTheory&NWO/+Doc-ConspiracyTheory-FalseEnemies/TheWestFinancedSoviets.htm

    [MORE]

    American technical leadership began to replace German leadership in rebuilding the Soviet Union.

    “Of the agreements in force in mid-1929, 27 were with German companies, 15 were with United States firms and the remaining ones were primarily with British and French firms. In the last six months of 1929, the number of technical agreements with U.S. firms jumped to more than 40.” (Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1917-1930, pp. 346-347).
    The new program was announced, however, only “after a sequence of construction and technical-assistance contracts with Western companies had been let. The Freyn-Gipromez technical agreement for design and construction of giant metallurgical plants is economically and technically the most important.” (Ibid., p. 347).

    EXTENT OF AID “ALMOST UNBELIEVABLE”
    During the early thirties, the amount and type of “aid and comfort” to the Soviet Union was almost unbelievable. In 1930 the Ford Motor Company established the Russian motor car industry by constructing a factory “capable of turning out 140,000 cars a year.” By the end of the decade the factory, at Gorki, was one of the largest in the world. Ford also provided training for the Russians in assembling automobiles “plus patent licenses, technical assistance, and advice,” and “an inventory of spare parts.” (Keller, East Minus West Equals Zero, pp. 208-209, 215-216). Americans also built, in the Soviet Union, the largest iron and steel works in the world; patterned after the city of Gary, Indiana. The huge steel complex, built at Maginitogorsk, was constructed by a Cleveland firm. (Ibid., pp. 209-210).

    LARGEST TRACTOR FACTORY IN THE WORLD
    The largest tractor factory in the world was another American contribution to Soviet technology.

    “Tractors were a necessity to modernize Soviet agriculture. A Detroit engineer designed and constructed a tractor factory without parallel in any other country. The assembly works were 2,000 feet long and 650 feet wide, covering an area of thirty acres. Twenty-one American football fields would fit into just one building, with locker rooms for the players. The tractors produced were copies of the American Caterpillar Company, but there were no arrangements made for payment for use of the patent. Russia merely bought one sample and copied it. The factory was so designed that production could be adopted almost overnight to the production of another less innocuous commodity – tanks.” (Ibid., p. 213).
    LARGEST HYDROELECTRIC DAM IN THE WORLD
    The largest hydroelectric installation and dam in the world was built at Dnieproges, Soviet Union, by Col. Hugh Cooper, famed for having built the dam at Muscle Shoals, Tennessee. “The power plant increased Russia’s hydroelectric system output by six times, and produced more power than Niagara Falls.” (Ibid., pp. 216-217). According to Antony Sutton:

    “Two agreement with Orgametal by other American companies completed assistance in the heavy engineering field. The electrical industry had the services of International General Electric (in two agreements), the Cooper Engineering Company and RCA for the construction of long range powerful radio stations. The stuart, James and Cooke, Inc. contracts with various coal and mining trusts were supplemented by specialized assistance contracts, such as the Oglebay, Norton Company aid agreement for the iron ore mines and the Southwestern Engineering agreement in the non-ferrous industries. The chemical industry turned to Du Pont and Nitrogen Engineering for synthetic nitrogen, ammonia and nitric acid technology; to Westvaco for chlorine; and to H. Gibbs to supplement I.G. Ferben aid in the Aniline Dye Trust. This was supplemented by more specialized agreements from other countries; ball bearings from Sweden and Italy; plastics, artificial silk, and aircraft from France; and turbines and electrical industry technology from the United Kingdom.
    “The penetration of this technology was complete. At least 95 percent of the industrial structure received this assistance.” (Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1917-1930, pp. 347-348).

    The industrial plants built in Russia by the United States between 1929- 1932 were

    “… far larger than units designed and built by the same construction firms in the rest of the world and, in addition, combining separate shops or plants for the manufacture of inputs and spare parts. The Urals-Emash combination multiplied Soviet electrical equipment manufacturing capacity by a factor of seven; the KHEMZ at Kharkov, designed by the General Electric Company, had a turbine-manufacturing capacity two and one-half greater than the main G.E. Schenectady plant; and Magnitogorsk, a replica of the U.S. Steel plant at Gary, Indiana, was the largest iron and steel plant in the world. When the Soviet claim these units are the `largest in the world’ they do not exaggerate; it would of course be impolitic of them to emphasize their Western origins.” (Anthony C. Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1930-1945, Hoover Institute Press, Stanford University, 1971, p. 343).
    Even if American firms were responsible for much of the design and layout of these and other enormous industrial complexes “probably one-half of the equipment installed was German.” Even so, much of what was manufactured by the Germans was according to “American design on Soviet account. In quantity, American-built equipment was probably second and British third.” (Ibid.).

    The thirties was a time of adjustment to this massive infusion of Western Industrial might. Becoming accustomed to this tremendous windfall was not an easy task for the bulky, awkward economic programs of the communists. The challenge was to become familiar with this industrial overload and convert it, as quickly as possible, to military strength. Unashlicht, Vice President of the Revolutionary Military Soviet, stated:

    “We must try to ensure that industry can as quickly as possible be adapted to serving military needs…; [therefore] it is necessary to carefully structure the Five-Year Plan for maximum co-operation and interrelationship between military and civilian industry. It is necessary to plan for duplications of technological processes and absorb foreign assistance…; such are the fundamental objectives.” (Provado, no. 98, 28 Apr. 1929, as cited by Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1930-1945, p. 344).

    • Replies: @Eric Zuesse
  52. Eric Zuesse says: • Website
    @fnn

    That’s irrelevant — a whore does “business” even with men she hates.

    And see comment #49, by E.A. Costa. That’s actually the incident I had in mind.

    • Replies: @fnn
    , @fnn
  53. @Greg Bacon

    Oh my god !
    Is it a commandment or is it an amendment to the constitution ? Anyway — Thou shalt not question the chosen people.

  54. @woodNfish

    “Today there is no difference between the democrat party and the amerikan communist party. ”
    Yes, Hillary Clinton the communist. What absolute FUN !

  55. fnn says:
    @Eric Zuesse

    Then why economic sanctions against Cuba, Iran, Putin’s Russia, Rhodesia, white South Africa, et al?

  56. @Svigor

    Where are the films which demonstrate the overwhelming heavy lifting the Soviets did in the War ? Yes, the West/US saved them with resources: but they saved many hundreds if not millions of US/UK etc lives.
    They did the BLEEDING: and Western governments KNEW it.
    Without two-three years of Soviet attrition…well I wonder how keen the allies would have been on Overlord in ’44…..

  57. fnn says:
    @Eric Zuesse

    In the end, Wilson supported the Reds against the Whites:
    http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/03/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified_15.html

    For example, Herbert Hoover, in his biography of Woodrow Wilson, notes that:
    During the Armistice all of the Allied and Associated Powers were involved in supporting attacks by “White” armies against the Soviet Government. In Siberia, the United States and Japan were supporting the White Army of General Kolchak. From the Black Sea, the British and French were supporting the White Armies of Generals Denikin and Wrangel. The Allies, including the United States, had taken Murmansk on the Arctic to prevent large stores of munitions, sent to aid the Kerensky regime, from reaching the Communists. Later the British supported a White Army under General Yudenich in an attack directed at Petrograd from the Northern Baltic.

    The British and French exerted great pressure on Mr. Wilson for Americans to join in a general attack on Moscow. General Foch drew up plans for such an attack. Winston Churchill, representing the British Cabinet, appeared before the Big Four on February 14, 1919, and demanded a united invasion of Russia.
    The Americans then experience a sudden change of heart. Not only that, they ponder the large war debts owed by their allies to them. In an internal note by Tasker Bliss:
    It is perfectly well known that every nation in Europe, except England, is bankrupt, and that England would become bankrupt if she engaged on any considerable scale in such a venture.
    Ie: “Hey, can you guys really afford that?” Hoover himself supplies additional reasons, in a letter to Wilson (bear in mind that Hoover had considerable experience as an engineer in Czarist Russia):
    We have also to… [consider], what would actually happen if we undertook military intervention. We should probably be involved in years of police duty, and our first act would probably in the nature of things make us a party with the Allies to re-establishing the reactionary classes. It also requires consideration as to whether or not our people at home would stand for our providing power by which such reactionaries held their position. Furthermore, we become a junior in this partnership of four. It is therefore inevitable that we would find ourselves subordinated and even committed to politics against our convictions.
    In other words: no way is the Light of Democracy, the Republic of Eagles, going to help put the old Baltic barons back in charge. Time’s arrow has moved on, baby. The wind of change is blown. The great experiment must commence.

  58. “Liberals”, the “Left” –yes, they were taken in by the Soviets (our “allies). Why ? Partially, because they were just GOOD at the espionage game. Partially also, because they were doing the bulk bleeding against the Nazi’s & also because people remembered how far we were in bed with the Nazi’s, & conveniently forgot the same opportunism by the Soviets.

  59. Miro23 says:
    @Alden

    Communism just changed from class warfare to race warfare and Whites are as much a target as the Ukranians and Christian Russians were under Lenin and Stalin.

    Yes, the Ukrainians and Christian Russians were the “Deplorables” that just didn’t “get” the Progressive Communist project (dictatorship) so they were sent to the Gulag in their millions.

  60. This is a great article and timely.

    Today our entire Corporate Media is shrilly proclaiming—on the basis of absolutely no public evidence

    That’s what they and politicians do best. They hype hysterically whatever they want to then, in a flash, they flip flop on a dime.

    Here’s another excellent article that describes another flip-flopper, the goofy showman, Winnie Churchill.

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/12/ralph-raico/rethinking-churchill-2/

    The take home lesson for me is not to take anything they say at face value.

  61. I checked a bunch of the links in the references and they go to 404s:

    http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/ intrel/raack2.htm
    http://www.cia.gov/csi/books/ venona/preface.htm

    Notice also that the links are syntactically incorrect as well (embedded spaces, I copied those with cut and paste.)

  62. Johnny says:

    Gee, I wonder why the USSR found it needed a vast spy network and fifth column inside the US. I mean it is not like the US may have had something called the American Expeditionary Force Siberia which invaded the USSR in 1918 to stop the rise of communism or were running their own spy networks and fifth columns which still remains active today.

  63. Svigor says:

    I agree with you that this article is rabid in its hatred of Russians, and that it embarrasses this website. However, much of what it says is true. What’s false in it is its favorable treatment of the hate-obsessed and paranoid J. Edgar Hoover and Joseph R. McCarthy

    Hatred of the Soviets only made sense. It wasn’t paranoia or obsession, Freud-boy; the Soviets really were out to get us. And everybody else; they wanted to foment world-wide commie revolution. One need only read up on the Holodomor, the Gulags, the Red Terror, etc., to see the effects. Communism invariably turns countries into jails.

    and its ignoring that Stalin had very sound reasons to infiltrate spies into the U.S. Government

    Foremost among them, turning America into a jail, or at the very least, limiting her willingness and ability to stop other countries turning into jails.

    especially because of the American aristocracy’s hatred of Marxists and efforts to destabilize or eliminate them.

    The American public hated communism, too. Unlike the American “aristocracy,” they didn’t send the commies billions of dollars in aid.

    Leftism, socialism, communism, these things have been emanating from the globalist plutocracy (many of them nouveau riche Jews, not just “old money”) for generations.

    P.S. Oliver Stone is a nutbag, see JFK for details.

    I linked to from Oliver Stone’s “Untold History of the United States” and get off your ideological obsession for a moment — open your eyes and ears to history first, then judge.

    Life’s too short to waste listening to lying kooks like Stone.

    Self made business people tend to have a problem with Socialism; Old Money types, not so much. As for your protestation of non-Marxism, over the years I’ve developed good Commie-dar. If it walks like a duck, etc., etc.

    Only the kookiest of the leftist kooks bother to openly sympathize with communism any more. All the rest of their fellow-travelers have moved on to pushing communism with the serial numbers filed off.

    The “sore winner” cries of old Cold Warriors is something i do not get at all.
    The communist espionage was indeed by order of magnitude better than capitalist one, but the capitalist propaganda was by several orders better than communist one, and this, at the end, mattered.

    Well, see, there’s this thing called leftism, and it hasn’t slowed down any, and its adherents still don’t admit their myriad, devastating sins, crimes, and mistakes, and are in fact still committing them. And they’ve never come anywhere close to acknowledging how monstrous their fellow-travelers, the communists, were, never mind demonizing them the way they’ve demonized nationalism.

  64. Che Guava says:
    @Greg Bacon

    Invasion of the Body Snatchers, the original, not the lame remakes (though the 70s one with Donald Sutherland was not terfrible), was a remarkable example of synthesis.

    Scriptwriter, commie.

    DIrector, anti-commie.

    Result, brilliant.

    • Replies: @Paralyzed by Doubt
  65. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Hibernian

    Paul Blanshard understood and had firsthand experience with Catholic/Vatican demographic warfare by means of high fertility rates and immigration.

    Full text of “Communism Democracy And Catholic Power”

    https://archive.org/stream/communismdemocra009480mbp/communismdemocra009480mbp_djvu.txt

    [MORE]

    Conquest by Fecundity

    Perhaps the most important factor in the penetration of Catho-
    lic power into non-Catholic territory today is a phenomenon
    which is almost never discussed frankly in public, the stimulated
    Catholic birthrate. Although it is impossible to prove by scientific
    statistics, it seems certain that the orthodox Catholic blocs in the
    western democracies are outbreeding the non-Catholic blocs by
    a considerable margin. Catholic priests are tireless missionaries
    for large families, and they are much more successful in increas-
    ing the number of Catholic souls by this gospel than by the
    process of conversion. They threaten married couples with perdition for the practice
    of contraception, and simultaneously preach the doctrine that
    no Catholic spouse has the moral right to refuse sexual inter-
    course in marriage except for grave reasons and the reasons
    do not include extreme poverty.
    […] When the Catholic M.R.P. was campaigning
    for an increased parliamentary representation in France after
    World War IT, its statisticians, according to Gordon Wright,
    “proved that the M.R.P. deputies averaged 2.8 children apiece,
    whereas the Socialists could boast only a 1.6 average, and the
    Communists 1.3, No other party, observed the M.R.P., included a deputy with 13 children and four others with 10 each.” 26

    Canada is rapidly becoming a Catholic nation because of this
    policy, and northern New England is being transformed by the
    Catholic overflow from Canada.
    French Catholic Canada is
    winning what the French Canadians call la revanche des her-
    ceaux, the revenge of the cradles. In this type of biological pene-
    tration and conquest, the Kremlin is a very poor second to the
    Vatican.

    pp. 285-286

    WALLACE: Have you heard it said, that the reason that the Church is against birth control is because they want more Catholics?

    SANGER: I’ve read it.

    WALLACE: Do you believe it?

    SANGER: Well, if you read their papers, where they point out Boston, that that’s what had happened in Boston in Massachusetts. They had simply out-bred the Protestants and they’re — they — in Boston in Massachusetts they have control. I read that in their own papers

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/white-davos-men-urge-africans-to-maintain-sky-high-fertility/#comment-1607310

    The Curley Effect Versus the Kennedy Effect

    James Michael Curley, a four-time mayor of Boston, used wasteful redistribution to his poor Irish constituents and incendiary rhetoric to encourage richer citizens to emigrate from Boston, thereby shaping the electorate in his favor. As a consequence, Boston stagnated, but Curley kept winning elections. We present a model of using redistributive politics to shape the electorate, and show that this model yields a number of predictions opposite from the more standard frameworks of political competition, yet consistent with empirical evidence.

    My comment on this excellent article by Mr. Sailer: https://www.unz.com/isteve/the-curley-effect-versus-the-kennedy-effect/#comment-1619098

    I personally believe, after much research, that the biggest threat to the sovereignty of the United States comes from the Vatican/Roman Catholicism, whereas the biggest threat to Europe comes from Mecca/Islam.

    The Jewish influence I see mostly as an intellectual/ideological challenge, but the Vatican and Mecca threats are demographic threats, and as they say, Demography is Destiny, and therefore I consider them to be greater, long-term threats than the Jewish control of the media, Wall Street, etc., which I see as more of a temporary, short-term challenge. But it still has to be dealt with and countered, of course.

    https://www.unz.com/article/rule-or-ruin/#comment-1624652

    What explains the resilience of the Catholic Church in the face of declining membership over a lifetime? New immigrants arriving in the United States—many Catholics from Latin America—have helped offset the decline in religious affiliation among the U.S.-born population. Figure 1 shows the parallel growth in the U.S. Catholic and Latino population between 1970 and 2000. […] Although birth data are not available by religion, it is likely that the relatively high fertility rates among Latino women have also contributed to the recent growth of the U.S. Catholic population—especially for younger age groups.

    https://www.unz.com/plee/trump-we-wish-the-problem-was-fascism/#comment-1618786

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  66. Che Guava says:
    @dearieme

    Yes, I know that, but the German declaration was in response to the Japanese declaration (yes, one was issued before Pearl Harbour, despite the lies of the received version), under the terms of the anti-Comintern pact.

  67. Che Guava says:

    I greatly appreciated the article.

    Have a few random points from my own reading.

    1. The Comintern was abolished before just about all of the timescale in the article.

    2. The FBI long boasted that the leadership at any CPUSA branch meeting would be their agents, or at least working for them. The exact quote I read is from the early fifties, the phenomenon must have started in the thirties.

    3. As an example of 2, Browder’s son was an upper-mid-level figure in the rape of the USSR.

    4. Nobody knows the scope of treachery by US agents in the USSR from the death of Andropov to Yeltsin’s stealing power from the CPR with massive US assistance in the election after his ugly coup and attack on the Diet, let alone in the time-span before that.

    5. Indiscriminate internment was surely wrong, but a huge portion of Japanese-Americans at the time were members of the Imperial Rule Assistance Association. Hint:’imperial’ did not refer to the British or US empires.

    6. The presidential candidate who is assassinated in Richard Condom’s (intentional mis-spelling, sure ‘Richard Condon’ is not his real name either) badly written but entertaining The Manchurian Candidate is meant to be based on Tailgunner Joe (McCarthy). The title itself is confused, since it is the assassin, not the candidate, who is supposed to have been brainwashed in Manchuria.

    7. Mentally, old-school Commies (except the Trotsky ones) were far superior to today’s Trotsky, Frankfurt-school, post-modern derived leftist idiots in the west.

  68. Hibernian says:
    @FKA Max

    His “first hand experience” seems to have consisted of living in New England. You didn’t answer the question I asked. And I think I know why.

    • Replies: @FKA Max
  69. fnn says:

    Some people apparently believe that Wilson allowed William S. Graves, commander of the American Expeditionary Force in Russia, to conduct his own independent foreign policy:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_S._Graves#Military_career

    In 1918, he was given command of the 8th Infantry Division and sent to Siberia under direct orders from President Woodrow Wilson. He landed on September 1, 1918. His orders were to remain strictly apolitical amidst a politically turbulent situation, as a result, he found himself constantly at odds with his Allied peers, the State Department, and various Russian groups.

    Given some 8,000 soldiers in what was called the American Expeditionary Forces (A.E.F.), he settled on the idea of making sure the Trans-Siberian railroad stayed operational and brought in a number of railroad experts to run the railway. His troops did not intervene in the Russian Civil War despite strong pressure brought on him to help the White army of Admiral Kolchak. Early on, Graves developed a strong distaste for Kolchak and his government.

    Graves thought that the British, French, and Japanese forces in Siberia were all following self-serving political ambitions beyond the stated goals of the Allies, which were to protect supplies provided by the powers to their erstwhile Tsarist allies and to provide for the safe conduct of foreign allied troops, primarily Czechs, who were to exit Russia via Vladivostok. Graves believed, correctly, that the British and French were trying to suppress Bolshevik forces (thought by some to be the result of German provocateurs). He also believed (again correctly) that the Japanese had plans to annex parts of Eastern Siberia (the Amur region, east of Lake Baikal).[citation needed] The Japanese deployed an estimated 72,000 soldiers—some 6 times the authorized troop level of 12,000 set by the Allies.

    U.S. forces operated the Trans-Siberian railroad for almost two years, while bandits roamed the Siberian countryside and the political situation turned chaotic. The U.S. military did accomplish its main objective and the entire Czech Legion was evacuated out of Russia via Vladivostok. The last U.S. soldiers left Siberia April 1, 1920.

    Amazon review of Graves’ memoirs:
    https://www.amazon.com/review/R31Y673A8L40RR/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0405030835&channel=detail-glance&nodeID=283155&store=books

    The justification for the intervention of the allies in Russia was the help reestablish the Eastern Front against Germany and to help the stranded Czech regimants. Graves was ordered by the War Department to not become involved in Russia’s internal affairs and attempted to follow these instruction despite pressure to change his policy from the State Department,and the British and Japanese who were supporting the Whites in the Russian Civil War.

    Graves discovered that the justifications for the Allied intervention were only a pretext for the Allies to fight the Bolsheviks and tried to make the best of the situation by refusing to become involved in fighting the Bolsheviks and protecting the railroads and other property. The British and Japanese accused Graves of Bolshevik sympathies because he refused to support the Whites, but Graves documents the numerous atrocities committed by the Whites and how these atrocities drove the Russian people into the arms of the Bolsheviks, while the Whites came to be dependent on foreign, especialy Japanese support in order to remain in power.

    One of the most interesting parts of the book is Graves statement, that he could not make war with the Bolsheviks without a declaration of War by Congress and entering the war without a declaration would be unconstitutional. This is in great contrast, to the Korean, Vietnam and current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan where U.S. troops were sent to fight against other countries without any Declaration of War.

    Of course Wilson launched several military conflicts without a Congressional Declaration of War.

  70. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Hibernian

    The issue is not with individual Catholics, some of whom have been some of the greatest champions of the birth control movement, etc., e.g. Margaret Sanger, but with the Catholic hierarchy.

    In the prologue, Blanshard said that he was not opposed to the Catholic religion or to Catholic Americans, but that the church’s hierarchy had an undue influence on legislation, education and medical practice.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Freedom_and_Catholic_Power

    Maybe you should view the following video to understand what I am talking about. Frank Borzellieri describes the RCC as a “monarchy.”

    Crucified by the Church

    Published on May 17, 2013

    Jared Taylor, editor of American Renaissance, interviews Frank Borzellieri about being fired for things he wrote years ago.

    [MORE]

    But Vatican power in America is pervasive and substantial,
    outnumbering Communist power in official membership by about
    490 to I, 1 and it is inextricably entangled with virtue and loyalty
    to moral values, with altruism and personal faith, and above all
    with the tradition of American freedom which protects both
    good and evil against attack if they happen to wear a religious
    label Can we cut through these protective traditions and in
    dealing with the Vatican arrive at a policy which is not based
    on hypocrisy or appeasement?
    I am not hopeful of an honest or
    reasonable solution, because Catholic power makes cowards of
    more men in public life than we like to think.

    Our first task is to break the current taboo against any frank
    discussion of the “Catholic question” and establish a free flow
    of ideas* Men should have the same right to speak without penal-
    ties on this issue that they have to speak on Communism. The
    pretense of the American Catholic hierarchy that every person
    who challenges its policies is per se “anti-Catholic” must be re-
    vealed as fraudulent nonsense.
    The further pretense that world
    Catholicism is only a religion and is therefore entitled to the
    conventional avoidance of religious argument must be dissected
    and destroyed with hard facts. From the point of view of western
    democracy, Catholicism is not merely a religion; it is also a for-
    eign government with a diplomatic corps; an agglomeration of
    right-wing clerical parties and fascist governments; a cultural
    imperialism controlling a world- wide system of schools; a me-
    dieval medical code with comprehensive rules for personal hy-
    giene; a network of clerical-dominated labor unions; a system
    of censorship of books, newspapers, films, and radio; and a
    hierarchy of marriage and annulment courts which compete with
    the courts of the people. Since all of these primarily non-devo-
    tional features of Catholic power affect the lives of non-Catholics
    as well as Catholics, it is right that they should be considered not
    merely as religion but as economics, politics, medicine, education,
    and diplomacy in other words, as an organic and vital part of
    democratic society.

    – pp. 295-296 Communism Democracy And Catholic Power
    https://archive.org/stream/communismdemocra009480mbp/communismdemocra009480mbp_djvu.txt

  71. Hibernian says:

    As for Blanshard only having trouble with the Church and not individual Catholics, that strains credulity, given his vitriol towards an institution which was central, in those pre Vatican II days, to the lives of those individual Catholics. My point concerning discussions with Catholic neighbors is that such discussion could enlarge his knowledge of the facts on the ground.

    The Vatican has a diplomatic corps because the Pope is a temporal ruler, albeit of a very small territory since the Italian Risogornomiento (not sure of the spelling.)

    It’s interesting that Mr. Blanshard’s idea of a good Catholic is exemplified by Margaret Sanger.

    Frank Borzellieri had an employment relationship terminated by politically correct local officials in the Catholic bureaucracy. I empathize with him, but his situation does not make him an expert on Catholicism.

    I myself was a Socialist and an agnostic (but never an atheist or a Communist) in my misspent youth. My own relationship with the Catholic Church was never one of unquestioning obedience except when I was very young.

    Also there was a reference in an earlier post ( in a quotation from Blanshard) to the Curley political organization. Similar machines existed in many American cities. They were by no means exclusively Irish or Catholic, or even Democratic. (Philadelphia is a case in point.)

    • Replies: @FKA Max
  72. pdxr13 says:
    @jacques sheete

    The Japanese landed on and occupied some islands of Alaska during WWII. The PTB do not tell the kidz about Kiska & Attu occupations in the 30 minutes spent on WWII. The Pacific and Atlantic Oceans are not the barriers they once were.

  73. Flash! This just in: Russia spies on the USA. Another Flash: USA spies just as much-or more-on Russia!

  74. @Anon

    last line of your statement .i say to that “”not a fascist as today and certainly not as fascist as tomorrow !!

  75. @Che Guava

    Invasion of the Body Snatchers … Result, brilliant.”

    It was, but I have read reviews that characterize the movie as being anti-‘rightwing’, and others implying anticommunist, so not making a clear statement of intent, but ambiguous enough to put the viewer’s own political stamp on it, thereby pleasing everyone!.
    I always took it as an anticommunist movie, and the most brilliant device to me was that we all have to sleep, therefore, you could be next …

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  76. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Hibernian

    I don’t know if you consider yourself to be a part of the Alt Right movement, Hibernian? But I do; specifically:

    Just because I don’t hate on Jews all the time, does not mean I am a Hasbara Troll.

    I see myself as a WASP advocate. In my opinion, Donald Trump is a WASP agent/advocate as well, and that is why I support him

    https://www.unz.com/ldinh/the-trump-ploy/#comment-1653850

    [MORE]

    Over the last year(s), there has been an unprecedented influx and coalescing of Protestants into the broader Alt Right movement and around the presidential campaign of Donald Trump, which cleaned it up, uncorrupted it, and reformed it, in my opinion […]
    The unending tirade against Protestants that some Catholic paleos now engage in is both silly and counterproductive. We are living in a predominantly Protestant country whose institutions (before they became corrupted) were tied to a recognizably Calvinist society. (For the record, Calvinists held a majority among Southerners and Yankees alike.) Rhapsodizing about the glories of the Catholic Middle Ages played well in early 19th-century France and the Rhineland, but by now such lyrical outbursts (together with expressed revulsion for the Reformation) are a bit out of place. […]
    “His single sentence to provide any historical background is: ‘[Multicultoacracy rose] out of deep Protestant and Quaker roots’, which makes no sense. Quakers have never been at the helm of opinion-shaping in the USA. And ‘Protestants’, generally, created racialist states where-ever they went: The USA, South-Africa, Australia. The Roman Catholic Church, as a self-consciously universalist entity, seems a more likely entity to blame. […] Nationalism in the USA was strongest when Protestantism was strongest; it is weakest today when Protestantism is at its lowest ebb in 400+ years of white settlement of North America. […] the true, recent power of the movement is in large part, in my opinion, attributable to its (implicit) embrace of WASP culture and identity.

    https://www.unz.com/article/what-can-msmclinton-say-about-alt-right-that-theyve-not-already-said-about-trumpgop/#comment-1561897

    TODAY’S ANTI-CATHOLICS? — THE INTELLECTUALS

    In The Unholy Ghost, referring to the Twentieth Century, Hurley states, “The most intractable indictment against Catholics was not only that…by Nativists…but more importantly and significantly by well-balanced, intelligent, tolerant, and reasonable Americans…“221 Hurley also understands where these concerns that Americans have originate: “The repressions, quiet censorship, removal from office, and other actions gave non-Catholics, in particular, grounds for concern as to where the Church stood on basic liberties….Thanks in large measure to the Roman curial actions over the years, two centuries to be exact, those who viewed the American Catholics with distrust were not fighting straw men. There were legitimate doubts and both legitimate and illegitimate reactions. Thoughtful men and women asked fair questions…”222

    http://www.population-security.org/21-CH13.html#5

    What the Alt Right Isn’t
    Patrick Le Brun [ I believe Mr. Le Brun is Catholic himself]

    1. Not Fighting for the One True Faith

    The Ecclesia Dei, the Ummah, and the “Universal Lodge” of the Mason have this one thing in common, the fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man. This is a chimera. A healthy, racially conscious nation needs spiritual values, but this works at cross purposes if that spirituality is universalist or if sectarianism dissolves national unity.

    Some have tried to reshape the universalism in Christianity by taking three verses out of context in the hopes of making racial nationalism excusable. This approach to Biblical exegesis is not so different from the young earth creationists approach to geology . . . its conclusions are just as convincing.

    There are some writers and activists who apply the “One True Faith” approach to Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Men like E. Michael Jones and Father Rafael Johnson can be called fellow travelers, to adopt the Communist terminology, but the primacy of their religious commitments diverts them from the primary goals of the Alt Right.

    In the end, those fighting to impose the “One True Faith” do not care if we survive as a people. Ask any true believer and they will tell you that they have more in common with their co-religionist from the Congo than with a professor at MIT. The saddest thing is, sometimes it’s true.

    http://www.counter-currents.com/2016/10/what-the-alt-right-isnt/

    • Replies: @Che Guava
    , @Hibernian
  77. Che Guava says:
    @Paralyzed by Doubt

    I have read reviews that characterize the movie as being anti-’rightwing’, and others implying anticommunist

    That, dear Para, was precisely my point.

    In any case, it is one of the gold-standard US B-movies of the time, without any doubt. The novel (quite different, originally published as a serial, in The New Yorker, or some such, and original version of the screenplay (a little different in important ways, as I said, the writer was a Commie) are well worth reading if you haven’t. I have read them, used to have a copy of the screenplay (stolen from me by a kleptomaniac), they are fun if you love the film.

    As well as Cold War hysteria, one can read blank-eyed cults or consumerism into it.

    If you are not too paralyzed by fear, check your flat or house for you-sized pods before you sleep! If you have a garden or yard, a shed, check there too!

    They’re here already!

  78. Che Guava says:
    @FKA Max

    Calvinist? That is rubbish, If you want to say it, back it up.

    • Replies: @FKA Max
  79. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Che Guava

    If you had followed the link(s) I provided, you would have seen, that I made no such claim. I was merely quoting Paul Gottfried:

    A Paleo Epitaph

    by Paul Gottfried

    April 07, 2008

    [MORE]

    Their aging, embittered leaders have spent so long fighting in the trenches that they’ve taken to turning on each other. The unending tirade against Protestants that some Catholic paleos now engage in is both silly and counterproductive. We are living in a predominantly Protestant country whose institutions (before they became corrupted) were tied to a recognizably Calvinist society. (For the record, Calvinists held a majority among Southerners and Yankees alike.)

    http://takimag.com/article/a_paleo_epitaph/print#axzz4JRcIyz7D

    By the way, this is also rumored to be the article, which inspired Richard Spencer to coin the term ‘Alternative Right’:

    Even now an alternative is coming into existence as a counterforce to neoconservative dominance. It consists mostly of younger (thirty-something) writers and political activists; and although they are still glaringly under-funded, this rising generation is building bridges on the right. Their contacts are with disenchanted, onetime allies of the “conservative movement” and with those who would gladly jump ship if there were professional alternatives to serving neocon masters. The Evil Empire is spongier than it looks, and if its younger opponents had more serious resources, this empire would be under siege, no matter how loudly the liberal press rallied to its neocon talking partners. Daniel Lazare was right when he noticed twenty years ago the limited shelf-life of neoconservative ideology. Despite all of their resources, the neocons have had nothing of interest to say for at least three decades. On FOX, when the bleached blonds aren’t on display, one is presented nonstop with the aging faces and tired voices of this neocon elite. In a less controlled society with more open discussion, these apparitions would have faded long ago.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  80. Che Guava says:
    @FKA Max

    Thanks for the good reply, I generally try to check links to things posted in reply here, will checking your links after sleeping. I know enough theology to know that the specific reference to Calvinism by Gottfried is rubbish. He doesn’t know the theology.

    Specifically, that belief in predestination was central to the real Calvinism, and that later protestant variants had little connection with it.

    The Prot. vs. Catholic is another matter. Don’t you think that a Pres. Buchanan may have been good for your nation?

    I do. Lack of support from silly evangelical protestants sank his campaign.

    I am over it. Know which aspects of doctrine came when.

    Except for some of the Catholic confections, some of the protestant silliness, it is all one.

    Must sleeping.

  81. Che Guava says:

    I am agreeing on most points.

    What do you think of the dyke Mary Daley, who wrote and preached hate from a supposedly Catholic university in the USA for many years? I forget, can’t be bothering to looking it up, but think it was in Chicago.

    Amusingly, I went to a bar I like last night, they had a racist show from broadast TV playing, it was lessons from an idiot here to Americans. It was bullshit.

    Curry udon in Japan is just as impure as the inventions of the US chefs.

    Then, they found a dyke troupe of drummers on trad drum, clearly dykes, and their choice of drums, pretty stupid.

    Not being at all a fan of dykes, I think the programme was reallly stupid, and racist again.sgt e of European

  82. Hibernian says:
    @FKA Max

    You seem to answer my points by sidestepping them and changing the subject to other, admittedly somewhat related, issues. Protestantism is divided, as are Judaism, and, de facto, in spite of Papal authority, which is often ignored, Catholicism.

    There is a Protestant left wing, center, and right wing. The left wing has had real influence in the U.S. There were two Quaker Presidents in our history; one more than the number of Catholic Presidents and definitely out of proportion to their numbers in the general population. Unitarians were represented among Presidents way beyond their proportion of the general population.

    The tendency to extreme invective of Blanshard disqualifies him as a serious source. If he were a true advocate of liberty he would understand that not everyone wants their children guided by public school teachers just as not everyone wants their children guided by Catholic priests.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Stephen J. Sniegoski Comments via RSS