Symposium: Treason? (Klehr, Haynes, Estrich and Brennan detailed discussion of Coulter's book)

Frontpage Magazine ^ | 7/25/03 | Jamie Glazov

[Texas_Jarhead]

Thanks for the PING - I missed this one.

[Map Kernow]

I promised yesterday to start on a detailed response to the Glazov/Horowitz "show trial" masquerading as a "symposium." Before I do so, I want to make a distinction between Professors Haynes and Klehr, who truly are scholars of distinction and well-informed about the history of US communism and its involvement in espionage for a hostile foreign power aka the "Soviet Union," and the "yowling yenta" of Democrat partisanship, Susan Estrich.

One example should suffice to discredit anything else this ignorant termagant had to say in the "symposium": In her opening screed, Estrich tosses out the old smear that McCarthy "was casting about for a Big Issue to ride into a second term. With the help of a rabidly anti-communist Catholic clergyman of the Father Coughlin-ilk, McCarthy found his issue: Reds in the Government!" This smear, so useful to liberals, Democrats, and "anti-McCarthyites," originated in a claim made by Drew Pearson, a liberal partisan dedicated to "bringing down McCarthy," that, not Pearson, but his lawyer had sat in on a luncheon in which McCarthy was supposedly casting around for an "issue" in a campaign for his re-election campaign which would take place four years later (McCarthy was elected to the Senate in 1948). The "rabidly anti-Communist Catholic clergyman of the Father Coughlin ilk" that Escrement so cravenly omits to name was according to Pearson's lawyer's recollection supposed to be the distinguished diplomat and foreign policy expert Edmund J. Walsh, who also happened to oversee famine relief efforts in the newly Soviet Russia in the 1920's and to have founded Georgetown's School of Foreign Service. (For the record, Father Walsh did consult with Sen. McCarthy but denied ever counselling McCarthy to adopt "anti-communism" as a campaign issue---it was a "campaign issue" for most Congressmen years before McCarthy was even elected). Estrich's vicious, bigoted, Catholic-baiting smear of a distinguished American who was indeed anti-communist but who could never credibly be charged with anti-Semitism is in itself a "McCarthyite" smear of the most despicable order, and both Horowitz and Glazov deserve condemnation for allowing this scoundrel to peddle her partisan attacks at this "symposium."

Now for Profs. Haynes and Klehr, whom as I said I will treat respectfully. Let me begin with Prof. Klehr's opener:

Klehr: Mr. Brennan claims never to have heard of any people falsely or maliciously attacked by McCarthy. How about James Wechsler, editor of the New York Post? Wechsler had long been public about his Communist background in the student movement of the 1930s and had for years been a vigorous and forthright anti-communist liberal.

Senator McCarthy went after him largely because Wechsler had criticized McCarthy and suggested that Communist denunciations of Wechsler were actually part of a Communist effort to make him appear to be an anti-communist.

Two points. One, according to transcripts in Herman's 2000 biography of McCarthy, McCarthy did not accuse Wechsler of continuing to be a communist---he admittedly belonged to the Communist Youth League in the '30's---but of serving "consciously or not" the communist cause. Second, if McCarthy's accusations "harmed" Wechsler, I'd like to know how. I can remember Wechsler's columns in the NY Post long after McCarthy had died. By the way, when McCarthy died in 1957, Wechsler of course called him "reckless" and all the usual epithets, but also denied that McCarthy was personally responsible for the militantly anti-communist spirit of the late '40's and '50's in America, and even called McCarthy "not unlikeable" as a person.

Even when he was attacking Communist sympathizers or fellow-travellers, McCarthy was often reckless and wrong. Did it do the anti-communist cause any good to accuse Owen Lattimore, a despicable man to be sure, of being the top Soviet spy in the United States? Whatever Lattimore's sins, that was not one of them.

There are still plenty of questions regarding Owen Lattimore's true role in Soviet espionage in the '30's and '40's--surely Ann is right to emphasize this point in her book. It is documented, and through a Chinese Communist source published in 1988, that Lattimore used Comintern channels to hire a Chinese Communist for the staff of his magazine Amerasia in 1936 who managed an espionage ring. Thousands of classified documents were found in Amerasia's New York offices in 1945. Although it is true that references to Lattimore have apparently not been found in Venona cables deciphered so far, Klehr's concession that Lattimore was merely "despicable," as if he owed back child support, does not do justice to the sheer stench emanating from the guy.

And now for Prof. Haynes:

Haynes: Let's get the dates straight. Joseph McCarthy did not emerge as an anticommunist spokesman until 1950. By that time the back of the domestic Communist movement already had been broken and anticommunism dominated both major parties. President Truman in 1948 set up a massive loyalty program to remove Communists from federal employment.

With all due respect to Prof. Haynes, this statement contains quite a bit of "spin." McCarthy "did not emerge as an anticommunist spokesman" until 1950, but it is wrong to imply that McCarthy had not paid any attention to the issue until 1950, or that he was not himself a strongly identified "anti-communist."

Haynes' assertion that the "back" of the CPUSA had been broken by 1950 is consistent with the thesis in the 1992 book he and Professor Klehr authored "The American Communist Movement: Storming Heaven Itself," that the 1948 campaign in which the CPUSA backed Henry Wallace for President effectively destroyed it as a political force. However, no one outside of the Communist party (and certain wings of the Democrat party obviously) ever expected the CPUSA to ever become an electoral force in American politics---the real concern was over Communist infiltration of, influence over, and espionage of the Federal government.

Truman did indeed set up a "loyalty program" in response to Republican pressure---remember the Republicans had taken control of Congress in 1946 in part based on their attacks on Truman's security policy. At the same time, Truman made sure that Federal employee files under the program would not be made available to Congress, not even under subpoena. It was this policy of instituting a "loyalty program" that was not subject to Congressional oversight that was one of the things that drove McCarthy into action.

Let's remember something else about that year 1950. McCarthy's Wheeling speech came right at the beginning of 1950, and the worst news about security breaches was yet to come. Later that year, the arrest of Klaus Fuchs in Britain would lead to the Rosenberg spy ring and its successful efforts on behalf of the Soviet Union to obtain nuclear secrets from top secret US installations. The security problem was by no means "handled" by 1950, and Prof. Haynes is wrong to imply it was.

Truman's Justice Department convicted the leadership of the CPUSA under the Smith Act, convicted Alger Hiss, and in 1950 arrested and later convicted the Rosenbergs, David Greenglass, Harry Gold, and Morton Sobell for espionage.

Spin again. Much of the CPUSA leadership was convicted only after McCarthy's speech, and as I noted, the Rosenberg ring was uncovered fortuitously and only after McCarthy's speech. As for Alger Hiss, anyone who knows the history of the Hiss-Chambers case knows that the initial response of the Truman Administration to Chambers' revelations was to threaten to indict Chambers for perjury! It was only after Chambers came up with the famous "Pumpkin Papers" that Truman's Justice Department had no other choice but to indict Hiss.

Most importantly, Truman, Cold War Democrats and anticommunist liberals in 1948 smashed the bold attempt of the Communists and Popular Front liberals to carve out a major role in mainstream politics through Henry Wallace's presidential campaign and the Progressive Party.

"Smashed"? Wow, sounds like Prof. Haynes has been taking rhetorical points from the Communists he's been studying. The truth is that in their "BC" (i.e., "Before Coulter") book "Storming Heaven Itself," Profs. Klehr and Haynes use nowhere near as lurid language to describe Truman's efforts---they attribute the defeat of the Wallace candidacy to a combination of boneheaded moves by the CPUSA, labor's desire to see the Republicans lose the election, and (let it be said) the honorable efforts of groups like the ADA to combat Wallace. And once again, what does the electoral demise of the CPUSA have to do with the continuing security problem that was McCarthy's focus?

The expulsion of Communist-led unions from the CIO completed the destruction of the institutional base of Communist influence in 1949.

As Richard Gid Powers makes it clear in "Not Without Honor" (Free Press, 1995), the expulsion of communists from the UAW and CIO was the direct result of the passage by a Republican Congress, over Truman's veto, of the Taft-Hartley Act, which required union leadership to swear that they were not communists in order to get the protection of the NLRA. Truman didn't have anything to do with it.

Abroad, Truman enunciated the Truman Doctrine of aid to nations facing Soviet aggression, committed America to war in Korea to stop Communist aggression, and launched the Marshall Plan that restored European prosperity and contained the internal Communist threat there.

Again check the historical record---these programs were put forth under pressure from a "partisan" Republican Congress elected in 1946.

That's all for now. Let me repeat: Profs. Klehr and Haynes are deserving of respectful attention. But they should also be challenged when they are being more polemical than scholarly, as was unfortunately the case in this "symposium."

[Tribune7]

So where was Ann? My guess was they were afraid of her.

[First Amendment]

A broad statement that makes an unsupported assertion in introduction. A quick scan left me with the impression that this is another hit piece put together by the treasonous.

I read the above in detail, and read "Treason" a couple of weeks ago. I tend to agree with your assessment, one guy supported Ann. Here's what Es-screech says, in admitting that some liberals were a little wrong about communism:

Long hair, sideburns and palsy shirts looked cool, and escapist garbage like Marxist-Leninism and equally utopian science fiction was fun to read. It's just embarrassing to dress that way, or believe in such things, once you grow up.

She coyly compared supporting the most evil regimes in recorded history with out of fashion hair and clothing styles. "It was just a phase or a harmless fad, you know, like piercing bellybuttons or pointy collars." This is one of the most horrible and assinine statements in the whole discourse.

[DPB101]

#62 everybody.

Map Kernow just took down the beast with a .600 Nitro Express

Anyone care to butcher it? Got a few garnishes to add myself but Kernow's reply deserves some time for reflection on what would best go with his kill.

[Calpernia]

>>>the real concern was over Communist infiltration of, influence over, and espionage of the Federal government.

Enter the NGO

[DPB101]

Odd that everyone is focused on McCarthy.Why don't we hear about Congressman B. Carroll Reece?

[Calpernia]

ROFL!

Love to see the perks for those investigations!

[Calpernia]

Even better....

Go to http://www.ngo.org/index2.htm

Now click Nav link General. See Page cannot be displayed?

Click the "Open the www.iaed.org home page"

Draw your own conclusions. (puts tin foil hat away)

[DPB101]

Neat huh? What the left doesn't talk about is more important than what it does mention. The subversion Reece uncovered when Republicans held Congress in 1953-1955 continues to this day. But noooo...let's not look at that. Let's look at McCarthy and FDR and Alger Hiss....lol

[PhilDragoo]

The mention early on of Stan Evans prompts a memory of him.

M. Stanton Evans was editor of the Indianapolis News and as such debated Dr. Robert Risk of the Indiana Civil Liberties Union in 1964.

Some of my rowdy neo-Yaffer friends and I attended, enjoyed Evans skewering the weasel, and had a shouting match with the weasel's hangers-on afterward.

And what a bunch from central casting they were, down to the beards and the Marxist cliches.

The above food fight of the gang of four consists of the Ostrich who defended traitorrapist42, two constipated anal-retentive Please Let's Not Be Beastly to the Germans, and the man Brennan who knows the score.

The score is Communism 100,000,000 bodies; the Free World playing catch up--still [see also Hitlery intern for Communist Treuhaft; Billy Red Jeff turned at Oxford; Strobe Soviet Apologist Talbott and the withering away of the (American) state.]

Joe McCarthy was onto something and the shrieking fairies of the Left were so many purse-swinging queens rounded up by the vice squad.

A passage from John T. Flynn, The Roosevelt Myth, Fox & Wilkes, the 1998 50th anniversary reprint of the 1948 original, with foreward by Ralph Raico a history professor at my alma mater.

Pages 397-8:

On one occasion Mrs. Roosevelt invited forty senators to the White House to meet her petted group of officials of the American Youth Congress. Roosevelt himself was constantly sending "greetings" to various Red organizations, such as the American Committee for the Protection of the Foreign Born, the Workers Alliance, the National Negro Congress, while Mrs. Roosevelt permitted the use of her name as sponsor or officer and sometimes as a speaker for more than 30 Communist fronts, leagues, councils and associations.

[Note: Hitlery channels Eleanor.]

All these activities are cited merely to reveal the extent to which Roosevelt not only permitted but actually encouraged the activities of the Communist conspiracy in the United States. The gentlest comment one can make on this is that the man simply did not know what he was doing--a curious defense for one who was being hailed as a master mind. But the malignance of these performances cannot be exaggerated. There is, of course, much more to the story. The extent and seriousness of it can be understood only when we realize that it was this blindness of the White House which opened the way for the Red conspirators into almost every important function of political, economic and educational life. The movies swarmed with them. So did the stage, the American journals of opinion, and every other organ of information and opinion. It was this which enabled the Alger Hisses and the Harry Dexter Whites and the Owen Lattimores to penetrate in to the most decisive agencies of policy in the government.

When Roosevelt faced Stalin at Yalta, Alger Hiss--Stalin's man--was at Roosevelt's side as his adviser.

When Roosevelt faced the problem of post-war Germany at Quebec, Harry Dexter White was there to shape Roosevelt's decisions.

When the question of China arose--who should control it, the Free Chinese or the Chinese Reds--there was the Institute of Pacific Relations, swarming with Reds, and its leading light Owen Lattimore, with an arm in the State Department. The result--the betrayal and abandonment of Free China.

~~~

Forrestal flew out of Bethesda a la others of Sydney Gottlieb's unwitting LSD subjects. Aarons and Loftus, Secret War Against the Jews, state unequivocally Dulles unwittingly brought Soviet Communists into CIA when he brought Nazi "anticommunists" over via various ratlines. As an upshot, Louis Johnson became SecDef, weakening the U.S. force in Korea for an attack by Soviet-armed, Chinese-officered North Korean divisions.

To such catastrophic ends as the premature triggering of the Hungarian uprising by the VOA transmitting CIA codes--at exactly the time the U.S. was distracted by the Suez "crisis", and Russia had tanks at the ready.

Up to the present fine mess with Deutch compromising 17,000 CIA files on his unsecure home computer logged onto Russian sites, Albright's State subject to the chair rail bug and the theft from her desk of the daily dispatch.

Ames and Hanssen--but are there more?

Espionage and infiltration are the living history far more than the ghost-written propaganda of the darling of the Beijing commissars.

The agents of China and North Korea endure long after the last gavel of McCarthy or HUAC hearings.

[nopardons]

WOW !

[nopardons]

BRAVO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[nopardons]

Great assemblage of facts ! Keep 'em coming. Perhaps, we can finally get the truth out; though admittedly,even many here are still too consumed by the propaganda, to see the facts.

[MEG33]

Thanks for another enlightening FR "symposium"!Susan Estrich is a very strange choice for this.How can one critique a book one hasn't read?

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Good heavans, Phil! You're a walking encyclopedia regarding the communist/socialist infiltration. Excellent! Good work! Your knowledge might be needed with this McCarthy debate.

Currently, the Left is trying to kookify Coulter without inviting her to defend herself. So, the question I keep asking myself, is the Information Age mature enough yet to allow her debate to overpower the left? If it is, then it is mature enough to handle true conservatism in presidential elections. That could occur in 2008. And this battle over Coulter's book is the purity test. She's at the tip of the sword. FReegards....

[scouse]

American Communists were naive about Moscow, and about Communism? Sure.

This is real funny. Even to this very day they are still clinging to the old, "We didn't know at the time",defense. The bas**ds still have KGB tattooed on their hearts.

[Bernard Marx]

How can one critique a book one hasn't read?

Good point but it doesn't stop a good many people, even some right here on FR. It was clear from his initial review that even Horowitz hadn't read the whole book.

[HISSKGB]

On August 15, 1945 Truman's Chief of Staff, George Marshall issued General Order No 1 dividing Korea in half and ceding North Korea to the Russians. This was done despite the 1943 Cairo Conference when it was announced that Korea should be free and independent.

When Joe McCarthy questioned Marshall's motives for this and other Cold War enabling decisions, the US commies defended Marshall and smeared McCarthy.

[Map Kernow]

On August 15, 1945 Truman's Chief of Staff, George Marshall issued General Order No 1 dividing Korea in half and ceding North Korea to the Russians. This was done despite the 1943 Cairo Conference when it was announced that Korea should be free and independent.

When Joe McCarthy questioned Marshall's motives for this and other Cold War enabling decisions, the US commies defended Marshall and smeared McCarthy.

There are so many issues about postwar history that need re-examining in the light of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the consequent (brief but important) opening to examination of its former secret police and intelligence files, and the declassification of the Venona cables. On this occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the Korean War armistice (in which war one of my mother's cousins was killed in action), we need to re-examine the role the Truman Administration's policies had in the communist victory in China and the subsequent all-out communist attack on South Korea. The role of George C. Marshall in particular needs to be looked at once again. The "verdict of history" is still not in, and people like you, me, and Ann Coulter, among others, are going to continue asking embarrassing questions about the Cold War---the same ones that were asked 50 years ago, and "shouted down"---until we get some truthful answers.