At Breitbart News today -- the 64th anniversay of the conviction
of Alger Hiss, by the way -- M. Stanton Evans has published a brand new
article, "`McCarthyism by the Numbers." Besides laying to rest the
canard that Sen. Joseph McCarthy's investigations only netted a "few small
fry," it concretely strengthens the defense of American Betrayal against
all those tired, postmodern, juju-charges of "McCarthyism." Which isn't to say, of course, that I don't
take "McCarthy's heiress" as a compliment.
"McCARTHYISM'
BY THE NUMBERS"
by M. Stanton
Evans
The orchestrated
attack on Diana West’s important book, American Betrayal, has been brutal and unseemly, but in one
respect at least it has served a useful purpose.
This
lone positive angle--counter-intuitive at first glance--is that her
iconoclastic Cold War history has sparked a barrage of charges about
“McCarthyism” and the senator from Wisconsin who gave his name to a decisive
epoch in America’s long death struggle with the Kremlin.
As
is well-known, “McCarthyism” was an alleged focus of political evil in the
1950s: accusations of Communist taint, without any factual basis; bogus “lists”
of supposed Communists who never existed; failure in the end to produce even
one provable Communist or Soviet agent, despite his myriad charges of subversion.
Such
is the standard image of “McCarthyism” set forth in all the usual histories and
media treatments of the era. Such is the image relied on by the critics of Ms.
West to discredit her book and dismiss her as a crackpot and “conspiracy
theorist.” By arguing that pro-Red elements in our government exerted baleful
influence on US policy to suit the aims of Moscow, it is said, she becomes
“McCarthy’s heiress,” reprising the evils of the fifties.
All
of which, from my standpoint, has one beneficial feature--though it doesn’t
make things less unpleasant for Ms. West. It pushes the issue of McCarthy and
McCarthyism to the forefront, where it ought to be, and where it is now
possible to view his cases in ways not feasible years ago when the relevant
data were not open to the public.
Even
today, there is much that we don’t know--documents that have vanished, ancient
records still being censored, deceptions still in circulation. However, there
is also a good deal of information available for those who care to view it:
sizable tranches of McCarthy’s papers, and those of his opponents; reams of
formerly confidential data from the FBI; thousands of pages of hearing
transcripts and archives of his committee and other panels of the Congress;
intercepted Soviet communications and revelations from Cold War defectors; and
so on.
Looking
at this mass of materials and matching them up with McCarthy’s cases, the main
thing to be noted is a recurring pattern of verification. Time and again, we
see the suspects named by McCarthy and/or his committee--treated at the time as
hapless victims--revealed in official records as what McCarthy and company said
they were--except, in the typical instance, a good deal more so.
The
accompanying table provides a sampler of some of the suspects named by
McCarthy, his aides, or in his committee hearings, and reflects what is now
known about them, based on official records (some of it was known even then but
ignored or misrepresented).
Suspects
named by McCarthy, his aides, or before his committee; identified in sworn
testimony, FBI archives, or other official security records as Communists or
Soviet agents; or took the Fifth Amendment when asked about such matters.
1 .Adler,
Solomon
|
26. Levitsky,
Joseph *
|
2. Aronson,
James *
|
27. Lovell,
Leander
|
3. Barr, Joel
|
28. Mandel,
William *
|
4. Belfrage,
Cedric *
|
29. Miller,
Robert
|
5. Bisson, T.A.
|
30. Mins,
Leonard *
|
6. Carlisle,
Lois
|
31. Moore
(Gelfan), Harriet *
|
7. Chew Hong
|
32. Moss, Annie
L.
|
8. Chi
Chao-ting
|
33. Neumann,
Franz
|
9. Coe, V.
Frank *
|
34. Older,
Andrew
|
10. Coleman,
Aaron
|
35. Peress,
Irving *
|
11. Currie,
Lauchlin
|
36. Posniak,
Edward
|
12. Dolivet,
Louis
|
37. Post,
Richard
|
13. Duran,
Gustavo
|
38. Remington,
William
|
14. Field,
Frederick
|
39. Rosinger,
Lawrence *
|
15. Glasser,
Harold *
|
40. Rothschild,
Edward *
|
16. Graze,
Gerald
|
41. Sarant,
Alfred
|
17. Graze,
Stanley
|
42. Smedley,
Agnes
|
18. Hanson,
Haldore
|
43. Snyder,
Samuel *
|
19. Henderson,
Donald *
|
44. Stein,
Guenther
|
20. Hyman,
Harry *
|
45. Stern,
Bernhard *
|
21. Jaffe,
Philip
|
46. Taylor,
William H.
|
22. Karr, David
|
47. Ullmann,
Marcel *
|
23. Keeney,
Mary Jane
|
48. Wales, Nym
|
24. Lattimore,
Owen
|
49. Weintraub,
David
|
25. Levine,
Ruth *
|
50. Weltfish,
Gene *
|
*Took
Fifth Amendment as to Communist/ Soviet activity-affiliation
Solomon
Adler, Chi Chao ting and V. Frank Coe would all abscond to Communist China.
Joel Barr and Alfred Sarant, members of the Rosenberg spy ring who worked at
Fort Monmouth and related commercial labs in the 1940s, would flee to the
Soviet bloc before the McCarthy Monmouth hearings started. Philip Jaffe would
self-identify as a Communist in his memoirs.
Analyzing
this list of 50, we find all of them either (a) identified in sworn testimony,
or in FBI and other once-confidential official security records, as Communists
or Soviet agents, and/or (b) plead the Fifth Amendment when asked about such
activities, saying a truthful answer would tend to incriminate them.
As
is self-evident from this lineup, it’s untrue that McCarthy never spotted a
single Communist or Soviet agent, or--per one variation--came up with only a
handful of valid cases. He in fact tracked down a small army of such people,
and the roster given here is merely a sampling of the flagrant suspects who
attracted his attention.
This
is most obviously so of the Fifth Amendment pleaders. Our table of 50 includes
18 McCarthy cases who refused to answer questions concerning Red connections,
but these were only a fraction of the total who claimed the privilege. All
told, an astonishing 100-plus McCarthy suspects would plead the Fifth before
his committee (the bulk of these in the Fort Monmouth/defense-supply probe that
triggered the Army-McCarthy hearings).
Also,
contra the standard image, McCarthy and his staffers in the usual instance did
not allege that his suspects were Communists or Soviet agents--though in some
famous cases (Owen Lattimore, Annie Lee Moss) this did happen--for the simple
reason that the probers didn’t then know the total story. More typically, they
wielded dossiers concerning adverse security findings, membership in pro-Red
groups, and so on--thereby understating the scope and nature of the problem.
Thus,
such named McCarthy suspects as Solomon Adler, T.A. Bisson, Lauchlin Currie,
Mary Jane Keeney, and many others were not then IDed as Soviet assets, though
in fact they were. McCarthy knew enough to spot them as bad actors--in many
cases knew a lot--but didn’t know what we know today.
Add
the fact that, in case after significant case, McCarthy suspects were linked in
ever-widening circles to a host of other operatives of like nature. For
example, Adler, Currie, Keeney and the egregious pro-Soviet apparatchik Robert
Miller were all parts of much larger networks, each with multiple contacts in
the government, press corps, and outside groups of shadowy purpose.
All
told, the McCarthy cases linked together in such fashion amounted to several
hundred people, constituting a massive security danger to the nation. However,
numbers per se were not the central issue. By far the most important thing
about his suspects was their positioning in the governmental structure, and
other posts of influence, where they could shape American policy or opinion in
favor of the Communist interest. This they did on a fairly regular basis, a
subject that deserves discussion in its own right.
For
now, there is enough to note that the standard version of McCarthy and
"McCarthyism" being wielded to discredit Diana West is, throughout, a
fiction. How and why it was concocted, and is being repeated even now, must be
the topic for another essay.
M.
Stanton Evans is the author of Blacklisted By History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe
McCarthy and
co-author (with Herbert Romerstein) of Stalin’s Secret Agents.
Editor's Note: I have read Stalin's Secret Agents and American Betrayal. If you read any two books this year - read these.
No comments:
Post a Comment