History

Re: Joe McCarthy

Deist — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 23:05:49 GMT

I am claryfying something in my last post to show I meant Russia not just the soviet union had a history of imperialism. Yes the boxer rebellion was under the Tzars but the Soviet Union had a huge land based empire all the way to Korea and they suppressed any seperatism. So how is that local and not intercontinental?

I am in no way trying to say the United States had to act abroad. This post started as specifically a question about US taking internal security measures against soviet espionage.

I do think it is odd that I am being attacked for equating the Soviet Union to an intercontinental empire when it most certainly did not have to act that way just as most people would assume for the United States.

Lets say the USSR was an aggressive empire abroad. To many that does not mean the United States had to get involved as long as its borders are protected. By that same measure the USSR should be held too.

Re: Joe McCarthy

Deist — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 23:00:59 GMT

JonBostwick:

Deist:
Stalin placed his agents all across the United States Government during a time of alliance with the United States when Roosevelt had very lax security standards. I dont view this as an act of war but it does show the psyche of Stalin at the time. By the scenario you placed above the U.S would be placing its agents in the Soviet State as a reaction to the Soviet interest in United States government.

I dont think that suggests a preparation for war, only an attempt to influence policies to be even more pro-soviet.

I never stated that was in preperation for war and I specifically stated that I did not view it as an act of war. I was merely pointing it out to show that the scenario that you layed out above in reality happened in the reverse.

Re: Joe McCarthy

Deist — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:58:13 GMT

JonBostwick:

Again, initiation comes into play. Were these marxist groups a response to american agents?

In some cases they certainly were such as in many parts of South America (U.S.A's imperial playground) but in many instances such as in Africa they would fund groups that had would be fighitng non american agents such as Maoist communist groups. But regardless of if they were funding these groups because they were fighting American agents or not how does that make the Soviet Union less of an aggressor or imperialistic power? The US has used that excuse many a time and especially during the cold war and even today. The USSR should have minded their own business just as much as we should have.

If modern Russia keeps meddling around with Georgia does that justify the US funding anti russian groups?

JonBostwick:

I meant it in a narrower sense of saying "Everyone did it, everyone is wrong". While true that everyone is at fault, some carry a greater guilt.

I agree with that sentiment and I think you misunderstood what I have been saying. I was not trying to say the US should be ok as an empire because the soviets were one. I was merely delving into security measures against espionage not globe trotting warfare.

JonBostwick:
Even before World War II the Americans had a history of intercontinental warfare. The cold war reflects an American style of war because it was an American war.

It might have been an American style of warfare but that does not point to who the aggressor is since anyone can adopt a tactic. Also how was the Soviet Union merely a local empire? Is it because they were land based? They took part in suppressing the Chinese during the Boxer rebellion and controlled land all the way to Korea. Also they hungered for India but never acquired her until she became a fickle ally in the cold war.

Re: Joe McCarthy

R.J. Moore II — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:56:35 GMT

I dont think that suggests a preparation for war, only an attempt to influence policies to be even more pro-soviet.

It's a historical fact that the US was far more aggressive and war-like toward the USSR because it could afford to be, it did after all rebuild Stalin's army after it had been destroyed by the German anti-tank/defensive warfare. I don't understand why 'communist agents' in 'the government' is a big issue for people who generally reject borders and government to begin with.

Re: Joe McCarthy

Bostwick — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:49:37 GMT

Deist:
Stalin placed his agents all across the United States Government during a time of alliance with the United States when Roosevelt had very lax security standards. I dont view this as an act of war but it does show the psyche of Stalin at the time. By the scenario you placed above the U.S would be placing its agents in the Soviet State as a reaction to the Soviet interest in United States government.

I dont think that suggests a preparation for war, only an attempt to influence policies to be even more pro-soviet.

Re: Joe McCarthy

Bostwick — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:43:31 GMT

Deist:
The Mitrohkin Archive shows how imperialist the Soviets were across the globe from funding various marxist military groups

Again, initiation comes into play. Were these marxist groups a response to american agents?

Clearly the Soviets committed many acts of aggression before the second world war, but they were largely local. Even before World War II the Americans had a history of intercontinental warfare. The cold war reflects an American style of war because it was an American war.

Deist:
And how am I being morally ambiguous?

I meant it in a narrower sense of saying "Everyone did it, everyone is wrong". While true that everyone is at fault, some carry a greater guilt.

Re: Joe McCarthy

Deist — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:38:49 GMT

JonBostwick:

If the American Government is concerned with the Soviet Government than the Soviets would, only out of self interest, be concerned with the American Government.

Stalin placed his agents all across the United States Government during a time of alliance with the United States when Roosevelt had very lax security standards. I dont view this as an act of war but it does show the psyche of Stalin at the time. By the scenario you placed above the U.S would be placing its agents in the Soviet State as a reaction to the Soviet interest in United States government.

Re: Joe McCarthy

Bostwick — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:34:19 GMT

majevska:

I saw a new revisionist history book at Barnes and Noble with a theme along the lines of "Joe McCarthy wasn't that bad." It looks interesting but I don't have the time to read it right now. It looks interesting though.

Rothbard's Betrayal of the American Right talks about his view of McCarthy at the time.

Rothbard points out that McCarthy did not create red baiting. It was an invention of the left, used by Roosevelt and Truman. Truman administration was responsible for the Rosenberg trial. McCarthy simply turned it on its creators.

He adds, "Most of McCarthy's red-baiting was therefore "voluntary" rather than "compulsory", since the persons being attacked were, as government officials, fair game from the libertarian point of view"

Rothbard credits McCarthy for the influx into the movement of "urban Catholics from the eastern seaboard" who's interest "in individual liberty was, if anything, negative". Who's "main political interest was in stamping out blasphemy and pornography at home and killing Communists at home and abroad". He points to the National Reveiw as a reflection of this.

Of himself he writes, "Not seeing this transformation process at work at the time, I myself was a McCarthy enthusiast"

Re: Joe McCarthy

Deist — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:32:19 GMT

I should have been more specific. The Venona files detail espionage within the United States Government. The Mitrohkin Archive shows how imperialist the Soviets were across the globe from funding various marxist military groups. I bring that up because I think people sometimes focus on the extent of U.S imperialism to the point of forgetting that the Soviet Union was doing the same thing during the Cold War.

JonBostwick:
You are appealing to moral ambiguity, but focusing on the initiation of aggression can provided clarity.

I also do not think the Cold War came about in a cut and dry fashion. It was the stupidity and paranoia of both sides and I think both sides need to take responsibilty for where they screwed up. As far as the United States being viewed as the sole transgressor in the Cold War is to ignore the facts. I do think that the United States would have been safer and morally correct if they were isolationist. But just because the United States did something wrong does not mean I will ignore the historical effects of what Soviet Imperialism caused.

And how am I being morally ambiguous?

Re: Joe McCarthy

Bostwick — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:09:52 GMT

Deist:
This is demonstrated by the Venona files. Also the Soviet Union was just as imperialistic as the United States as the Mitrohkin archives suggest.

Not quite. That the Soviets were concerned with the workings of the American Government does not neccesarily indicate imperialism.

If the American Government is concerned with the Soviet Government than the Soviets would, only out of self interest, be concerned with the American Government.

You are appealing to moral ambiguity, but focusing on the initiation of aggression can provided clarity.

Re: Joe McCarthy

Deist — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:02:30 GMT

Torsten:
Communists, and for that matter any subversives are best dealt with via organisations in civil sociaty. You will have to beat the idea, not the people promoting it.

Very true I completely overlooked the fact that unless civil society is strong these people would get appointed to these positions no matter what. And as Krazy Kaju and Billot1 have said a constitutionally bound state would be useless for them. The Welfare state and imperialistic exercises abroad gave these spies more leverage than they could have hoped for.

So the proper recourse would have been to try and curb these activities as the alternative to McCarthy's more short sighted case by case efforts.

Torsten:
Communist literature was banned (or difficult to get by) and hence virtually nobody was able to deal with it properly. I think this made it actually easy in the end for the communists, since there was no counter measures or civil strategy against it. Today we have many in the government who subscribed to Marxism Leninism.

People do need to understand Marxism, especially if they are going to attack it. Sadly people here in the U.S view it as a nice idea that does not work in reality so they try to implement little bits of the platform. Unfortunately they fail to realize that the reality of it is also the originators fantasy. After all it was Marx who demanded an equal distribution of people across the land (As the Khmer Rouge regime tried out) and Engels did state that the Communist revolution would be the most authoritarian event in history since it was one part of the population totally suppressing the other part.

Re: Joe McCarthy

Torsten — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 19:39:22 GMT

Deist:
Also keep in mind Joe McCarthy only attacked government officials and lax internal government security standards NOT private citizens, that was the House Un-American activites committee.

Communists, and for that matter any subversives are best dealt with via organisations in civil sociaty. You will have to beat the idea, not the people promoting it. Unless they of course resort to criminal activities to further their goals. I still remember the anti-Communist rethoric in South Africa, most of the people using it actually didn't know what they are talking about. Communist literature was banned (or difficult to get by) and hence virtually nobody was able to deal with it properly. I think this made it actually easy in the end for the communists, since there was no counter measures or civil strategy against it. Today we have many in the government who subscribed to Marxism Leninism.

Re: Joe McCarthy

Deist — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 19:08:58 GMT

True. It would pretty much make it a silly partisan issue. I can buy that.

Re: Joe McCarthy

R.J. Moore II — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 06:04:15 GMT

The problem with red-baiting in the US is the same a the problem with the libertarian party. It is essentially a demagogic, politicized approach to what may be a real problem. If I thought it would do any good, I have plenty of really nasty things to say about state socialism. But I certainly wouldn't think that doing so on government television with government records against government opponents is going to improve anything.

Re: Joe McCarthy

Deist — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 19:53:06 GMT

billott1:
the Constituion is the supreme law of the land and he did not follow his oath to point out Constitutional violations.

That is very true. He did not do anything to fight the left over New Deal structure and I think he voted for housing subsidies as well.

billott1:
Instead of insisting on obeying the Constitution (Especially Ammendments 1, 4, 9 and 10), he put himself up as the figure head at minimum of this witch hunt.

This is an honest question not meant to be sarcastic. Do you think those amendments would prevent a congressional investigation into the loyalties of federal level government employees for having allegiance to a foreign state?

billott1:
There never was a law against being a Commie Pinko Scumbag.

McCarthy was investigating whether or not these people had direct connections to the Soviet State. In more than one instance he was investigating clear security breaches. He also questioned why on many occasions that certain people overrode security panel rejections of applicants. Many of these cases also dealt with missing security files.

As far as his personality he definitely had a big ego and he did exaggerate and lie at times. I am more interested in the idea and the strategy than him.

It is interesting that he lost his power after targeting the military establishment. That shot him right down. Even his loudly proclaimed goals were not gaining him votes but actually made his incumbency in Wisconsin more unstable yet he kept it up until he became a lame duck senator after the military investigations lead to a senate vote on censuring him. After that he died before he could run again but I doubt he would have been relected.