Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy -- M Stanton Evans

[JakeStarkey]

No, Stalin urged Kim not to attack South Korea at that time. No, Mao did not approve of an immediate attack on South Korea. However, once the attack went in, the dictators had no chance. Check your footnotes, then check the documents. Your suppositions aren't support. The big guys were not for an immediate invasion.

You would not pass a freshman history class much less a graduate course on this issue. You are putting your wack ideology before the narrative and the facts.

 

[Mark LaRochelle]

It's not quite true that Stalin and Mao pushed Kim into attacking South Korea, nor is it quite true that they opposed the attack. The documentary evidence is ambiguous. The 13 May 1950 telegram from Soviet Ambassador "Roshchin" in Peking (who was actually GRU agent Feliks Razumovskii) to Stalin states that the North Koreans informed Mao of Stalin's directive that "North Korea can move toward actions," but that the issue should be discussed personally with Mao.

About five weeks later, on 25 June 1950, North Korea attacked.

The definitive work on this period is Chang and Halliday's Mao: The Unknown Story, particularly Chapter 34, “Why Mao and Stalin Started the Korean War.”

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's not quite true that Stalin and Mao pushed Kim into attacking South Korea, not is it quite true that they opposed the attack. The documentary evidence is ambiguous. The 13 May 1950 telegram from Soviet Ambassador "Roshchin" in Peking (who was actually GRU agent Feliks Razumovskii) to Stalin states that the North Koreans informed Mao of Stalin's directive that "North Korea can move toward actions," but that the issue should be discussed personally with Mao.

About five weeks later, on 25 June 1950, North Korea attacked.

The definitive work on this period is Chang and Halliday's Mao: The Unknown Story, particularly Chapter 34, “Why Mao and Stalin Started the Korean War.”

Mark, tell us about the stupid Truman administration decision in 1949 to exclude the South Korean peninsula from the sphere of American strategic interests. I would think that would certainly gear Stalin and Mao up for future action when the conditions were right.

 

[Mark LaRochelle]

On 12 January 1950, Acheson gave a speech before the National Press Club, in which he proclaimed that “a new day … has dawned in Asia.” This was three months after China had fallen to Communist insurgents armed by Moscow.

The U.S. “defensive perimeter,” announced Acheson, had now shrunk to include only Alaska’s Aleutian Islands, Japan (including Japan’s Ryukyu Islands, which extend from within 50 miles of South Korea to 67 miles of Taiwan), and the Philippines. Regarding South Korea, Taiwan and Southeast Asia, he said, “no person can guarantee these areas against military attack.” Disingenuously, he added, “one hesitates to say where such an armed attack could come from.” Acheson lumped all the rest of Asia together with Communist China as “the Asian peoples,” whom he said were “on their own.” He said all previous east-west relations (which he characterized as “paternalism” or “exploitation&#8221 were over. Then he added some very confusing language, saying of “the Asian peoples,” that “We are their friends. Others are their friends.” As to whether Acheson meant to include the Soviet Union among “the Asian peoples,” or among the “others” who were their "friends,” he was perhaps intentionally ambiguous.

The policy Acheson put forward in this speech had been formulated at a State Department meeting in October 1949 [corrected date], immediately following the fall of China. (For more detail, see Evans’ Blacklisted by History, particularly chapter 31, “A Conspiracy So Immense.&#8221 The meeting was convened by Ambassador at Large Philip Jessup, director of the Research Committee of the Institute of Pacific Relations, which would be identified in a report of the Democrat-controlled McCarran subcommittee as "a vehicle used by the Communists to orient American far eastern policies toward Communist objectives."

Aside from being Acheson's top adviser on the Far East, Jessup was a long-time intimate collaborator with Frederick Vanderbilt Field, who had publicly identified himself as a “Communist” in the CPUSA’s official organ, Political Affairs, in January 1949. Field had also been identified in 1938 by Whittaker Chambers (and would later be independently identified by Elizabeth Bentley and Louis Budenz) as a member of the Communist underground, affiliated with the GRU apparat.

For more on this, see Edward M. Collins, Myth, Manifesto, Meltdown: Communist Strategy, 1848–1991; Lauren Kessler, Clever Girl: Elizabeth Bentley, the Spy Who Ushered in the McCarthy Era; or especially Blacklisted by History, chapter 30, “Dr. Jessup and Mr. Field.”

 

[JakeStarkey]

October 1950? Do you mean October 1949? Who identifies Jessup as Acheson's chief adviser? Acheson? The Democratic subcommittee identifies the Committee of the Institute of Pacific Relations "as 'a vehicle used by the Communists to orient American far eastern policies toward Communist objectives.'"? Not the Republicans?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Another Frank Pro MCcarthy thread?

Frank encouraging people to read source material and keep up on current events that not only totally and completely vindicate McCarthy's Central premise of Communist infiltration but seem to indicate he vastly underestimated the extent of the penetration and the damage they'd do to the USA.

Look in the FICTION section. McCarthy died a drunken wreck, as he was when he ruined lives, drove some to suicide with his false claims and wasted millions in taxpayer money. He was looking for the demon inside himself. No commies found, some of Russian origin destroyed. A sad chapter in US history.

Wow. So glad that you were able to come along, utterly freaking ignore all the other posts in the thread, and blankly and vaguely restate the premise that the posts you didn't read debunked as though you were coming up with something brilliant, incisive, and original.

Women like you are the reason why it took the rest of us until 1920 to get the vote.

 

[JakeStarkey]

CeCelie1200 is one of the female dooshes here, and simply best ignore her drunken rants.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Another Frank Pro MCcarthy thread?

Frank encouraging people to read source material and keep up on current events that not only totally and completely vindicate McCarthy's Central premise of Communist infiltration but seem to indicate he vastly underestimated the extent of the penetration and the damage they'd do to the USA.

Look in the FICTION section. McCarthy died a drunken wreck, as he was when he ruined lives, drove some to suicide with his false claims and wasted millions in taxpayer money. He was looking for the demon inside himself. No commies found, some of Russian origin destroyed. A sad chapter in US history.

Alger Hiss, and Owen Lattimore are far far sadder chapters.

FDR's support of Stalin and Mao, at the encouragement of genuine Communist spies that McCarthy tried to warn us about, lead to the biggest mass murders in human history and is that saddest chapter of all

Find a grown up to read you the first 5 pages of "Blacklisted"

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are an absolutely ludicrous example of far right wackery, CrusaderFrank.

 

[Mark LaRochelle]

October 1950? Do you mean October 1949?

Yes, of course, October 1949, immediately following the fall of China. Thanks for the catch.

Who identifies Jessup as Acheson's chief adviser? Acheson?

Most sources identify Jessup as Acheson's top adviser, particularly on the Far East. I'm not aware of any source that disputes this identification, nor of any other candidate for the title who even comes close.

Beisner says that among his advisers "Acheson was especially close to Philip Jessup, one of his 'closest friends.'" Leffler says "So high was Acheson's regard for Jessup that he wanted Jessup treated as if he were on a level comparable to the secretary of state himself." The AP repeatedly identified Jessup in this way: 15 December 1949: "Jessup, a top administration adviser on Far Eastern policy"; 28 March 1950: "The new line-up, announced yesterday, placed Ambassador Philip C. Jessup in the post of principal adviser to Acheson on world political issues." When, in response to McCarthy's charges, Truman brought Dulles into the State Department in an effort to restore bipartisanship to foreign policy, an AP story of April 6, 1950, titled "Dulles Appointed as Top Ranking Acheson Adviser," reported that Dulles would "rank along with Philip Jessup." Yet another AP story of October 3, 1951 identifies Jessup as "a top adviser to Secretary of State Acheson." Perhaps Jessup's role is best illustrated by the fact that Acheson tasked him with the meeting of October 1949, including inviting speakers.

The Democratic subcommittee identifies the Committee of the Institute of Pacific Relations "as 'a vehicle used by the Communists to orient American far eastern policies toward Communist objectives.'"? Not the Republicans?

The Senate at the time was majority Democrat, thus the subcommittee on internal security was majority Democrat, and the chairman was McCarran, a Democrat. The point is that the identification of the IPR (of which Jessup was chairman of the US section) as a Communist tool was not a matter of partisan politics.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thanks, Mark. The final inference is that the Dems, like the Pubs, were concerned about communists in government?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You are an absolutely ludicrous example of far right wackery, CrusaderFrank.

Thank you, Jake. Wrong as usual

 

[JakeStarkey]

Says the indvidual who is an absolutely ludicrous example of far right whackery. Thanks, Frank.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The central thesis of the book you did not read, Jake, was that Joe McCarthy was accurate and maybe even understated in trying to caution us that the Communists had genuine spies placed throughout the FDR (D) Administration, even in the White House. Further, many Democrat Senators covered for them.

 

[Mark LaRochelle]

Like the GOP, the Democrats were split. Just as some Republicans, such as Ralph Flanders (R-VT), stuck their heads in the sand regarding Communist infiltration, some Democrats, such as McCarran (D-NV), tried to root out the problem.

The Democrats were split into the Progressives and the Dixiecrats. While the Progressives, such as Samuel Dickstein (D-NY) -- who was himself a Soviet agent -- were not too concerned about the issue, the Dixiecrats, such as John Wood (D-GA), hated the Communists almost as much as they hated the GOP, and for the same reason: because both opposed segregation.

"Centrist" Democrats could go either way. For example, Truman, observes Evans, was a "visceral anti-Communist," but was naive about the way the Communists operated, too stubborn to learn, and more concerned about getting re-elected than cleaning up the problem. McCarran was allowed to tear the lid off the cover-up, but only after Eisenhower could share the blame. Ike was likewise an anti-Communist who supported McCarthy as long as he was damaging the Democrats, but turned on him when McCarthy refused to stop investigating just because the GOP was in power.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The book proves McCarthy took a legitimate if minor issue and spun it out of control to witch hunt his enemies.

That is why the GOP tore him down: becaue he was a festering sore in the good of America.

Or were the GOP in on the communist attempt to take over America too and had to get rid of McCarthy?

This is why you are not taken with any grain of respect by your serious peers on the Board, on this issue.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The book proves McCarthy took a legitimate if minor issue and spun it out of control to witch hunt his enemies.

That is why the GOP tore him down: becaue he was a festering sore in the good of America.

Or were the GOP in on the communist attempt to take over America too and had to get rid of McCarthy?

This is why you are not taken with any grain of respect by your serious peers on the Board, on this issue.

You still didn't read the book.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The book proves McCarthy took a legitimate if minor issue and spun it out of control to witch hunt his enemies.

That is why the GOP tore him down: becaue he was a festering sore in the good of America.

Or were the GOP in on the communist attempt to take over America too and had to get rid of McCarthy?

This is why you are not taken with any grain of respect by your serious peers on the Board, on this issue.

What other unread books do you want to chime in on, "Game of Thrones"?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have read parts of the book that interest me and have queried Mark on material I have not accepted.

That you have read the book means nothing, because you will lie at the drop of the hat.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The book proves McCarthy took a legitimate if minor issue and spun it out of control to witch hunt his enemies.

That is why the GOP tore him down: becaue he was a festering sore in the good of America.

Or were the GOP in on the communist attempt to take over America too and had to get rid of McCarthy?

This is why you are not taken with any grain of respect by your serious peers on the Board, on this issue.

Blacklisted completely vindicates McCarthy's Central and understated theme: genuine Communist spies and sympathizer had positions of authority at the FDR White House and US State and were able to bend US foreign policy to their ends.

As a direct result, the USA supported, aided and abetted history's 2 biggest mass murderers: Progressive Chairman Mao and "Uncle" Joe Stalin.