The document discusses Senator Joseph McCarthy's anti-communist campaign and his role as a Republican senator from Wisconsin from 1947 until 1957. It highlights his accusations about communist infiltration in the U.S. government and critiques the political and media establishment that opposed him, suggesting that many of his claims have historical validity supported by subsequent evidence. The document also emphasizes that concerns about communist subversion did not end with McCarthy's censure in 1954, indicating a continued relevance of his warnings to contemporary discussions on security.

1. 1
_____________________________________________________________
Joseph McCarthy’s War Against
America’s Enemy: Communism
_____________________________________________________________
See Page 161
_____________________________________________________________
Compiled By Robert D. Gorgoglione Sr.
_____________________________________________________________

2. 2
_______________________________________________
Dedicated to
The Great Senator Joseph R. McCarthy
“How can we account for our present situation unless we
believe that men high in this Government are concerting to
deliver us to disaster? This must be the product of a great
conspiracy, a conspiracy on a scale so immense as to dwarf
any previous such venture in the history of man. A
conspiracy of infamy so black that, when it is finally
exposed, its principals shall be forever deserving of the
maledictions of all honest men.” [See page 80.]
------------------------
“I say that under the shadow of the most horrible and
destructive weapons that man has ever devised, we fight to
save our country, our homes, our churches, and our
children. To this cause, ladies and gentlemen, I have
dedicated and will continue to dedicate all that I have and
all that I am. And I want to assure you that I will not be
deterred by the attacks of the Murrows, the Lattimores, the
Fosters, the Daily Worker, or the Communist Party itself.
“Now I make no claim to leadership. In complete humility, I
do ask you and every American who loves this country to
join with me.”
--Senator Joseph Raymond McCarthy
_____________________________________________________________

3. 3
_____________________________________________________________
Senator Joseph Raymond McCarthy
_____________________________________________________________
Joseph Raymond "Joe" McCarthy was an American Patriot who served
as a Republican United States Senator from the state of Wisconsin from
1947 until his death in 1957.
________________________________________________________
Born: November 14, 1908, Grand Chute, WI
Died: May 2, 1957, Bethesda, MD
Spouse: Jean Kerr (m. 1953–1957)
Children: Tierney Elizabeth McCarthy
Parents: Bridget Tierney, Timothy McCarthy
_____________________________________________________________

4. 4
____________________________________________________________
The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy
and His Fight against America's Enemies
________________________________________________

5. 5
_____________________________________________________________
Contents
_____________________________________________________________
McCarthyism ---------------------------------------------------- 8
The Real McCarthy Record ---------------------------------- 34
Joseph McCarthy and the Venona Intercepts -------------- 72
The History of General George Catlett Marshall, 1951 -- 84
Stalin’s Secret Agents in Roosevelt’s Government ------- 96
The Vindication of Senator Joseph McCarthy ----------- 110
The Ultimate Vindication of Joseph McCarthy ---------- 114
Glenn Beck: History Vindicated Joe McCarthy-----------123
McCarthy Speeches: Enemies from Within ------------126
1. Wheeling, West Virginia Speech, Feb. 9, 1950----------127
2. Communists in the State Department, 1950--------------130
3. McCarthy to Pres. Harry Truman, Feb. 11, 1950--------136
4. The Communist Threat, June 2, 1950---------------------137
5. Communism and Adlai Stevenson Oct. 27, 1950--------140
6. Response to E.R. Murrow April 6, 1954------------------149
McCarthy and His Colleagues ------------------------------162
Soviet Moles in the CIA: The High-Level Cover-up ----166
Soviet Espionage in the United States ---------------------188

6. 6
List of Soviet Agents in the United States ---------------- 198
The Venona Project ------------------------------------------ 214
APPENDIX –
Republican & Democrat Parties
and the Communist Manifesto -- 233
_____________________________________________________________
1952
_____________________________________________________________

7. 7
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________

8. 8
_____________________________________________________________
NOTE
In order to appreciate our country’s present danger from
international Revolutionary Communism, project what follows to the
present.
You will begin to see the massive scale of Communist infiltration and
Subversion of America’s private and governmental institutions.
These Soviet active measures are at least 10 times greater than they
were when Sen. McCarthy was censored and shut down in 1954. You
will begin to see how and why Communist Subversion and infiltration
CONTINUED to grow and expand into present day America.
It DID NOT end in 1954. It was just beginning.
Robert D. Gorgoglione Sr.
_____________________________________________________________
McCarthyism:
Waging the Cold War in America
By: M. Stanton Evans
5/30/1997 06:00 PM
From “Human Events”
_______________________________________________
Forty years ago this month, the mortal remains of Joseph R. McCarthy
were laid to rest near Appleton, Wis., not far from the modest farm
where he was born. His death apparently closed a raucous,
controversial saga, one of the most bitter and brutal in our nation’s
history, with McCarthy typecast as the villain. Events of recent years,
however, suggest the final chapters of this astounding story have yet to
be recorded.

9. 9
McCarthy was only 48 years old when he died, and had been a member of
the U.S. Senate for a decade, mostly as a minority backbencher. Yet during
the period 1950-54, he often dominated its proceedings, the headlines of the
nation’s press, and our debates in general. In that tumultuous four-year
stretch, he tangled with both Democratic and Republican administrations
and the whole of the “establishment”-meaning the complex of political-
media-academic bigwigs who shape opinion in our country and set the
course of national policy on key issues.
It is remarkable that, in so brief a span, this relatively junior member of the
Congress had the enormous impact that he did. More remarkable yet is that
his career and fate should still be matters of burning public interest, nearly
half a century after he first barged into the limelight. Most remarkable of all
is the degree to which his name became, and has remained, a synonym for
evil-routinely used in our political debates as a term implying cruel,
unfounded, and highly public charges.
Given the frequency of this usage, one might suppose that people who talk
about “McCarthyism” so glibly have some kind of factual basis for their
statements, but this seldom proves to be the case. It seems safe to say,
indeed, that few people in our political-media-academic world (including
those who write supposedly learned books about the topic) know much
about McCarthy, the disputes in which he was embroiled, or the specifics of
his conduct. This article is an effort to fill in some of the blanks, though it
would take an essay many times this length to do the matter justice.
To grasp the meaning of McCarthy’s story, it is required to know a bit of
background. Above all, there can be no comprehension of the drama without
first recalling the deadly Cold War struggle of which it was a part. The latter
1940s and early ’50s were a time of tense, explosive conflict, in the world at
large and in the politics of our nation. Soviet expansionism in Europe, the
battle for control of China, and the 1950 invasion of South Korea would
shatter once-euphoric dreams of post-war cooperation with the Kremlin.
American policy dealing with this rapidly changing scene was, to put it
mildly, often confused, naive, slow to respond, and contradictory (reflecting
a lot of intramural combat). Correlative to all this were such domestic
scandals as the Amerasia case (see below), the first exposés of atomic
spying, the testimony of ex-Communists Whittaker Chambers and Elizabeth
Bentley, and other such disclosures.

10. 10
Against this already lurid backdrop, McCarthy launched a series of
interlocking, and incendiary, charges:
(1) That the Communist global apparatus had made a sustained
attempt to penetrate the U.S. government and subvert its foreign
policy decisions, most specifically toward China;
(2) that official defenses against such penetration, especially in the
State Department, ranged from weak to nonexistent;
(3) that the facts about all this had been concealed from the American
people-ignored, downplayed, or covered up by the authorities whose
job it was to guard against such dangers.
Officials Ignored FBI’s Repeated Warnings
Beginning with the Truman Administration and the Democratic majority in
the Senate, then spreading to myriad press accounts and a seemingly endless
chain of books, TV shows and movies, McCarthy’s charges on all these
fronts were systematically denied. In fact, it was averred, there had been no
Communist penetration to speak of-or, if there had been, it was fairly limited
and swiftly dealt with. The State Department, in particular, was depicted as
alert and quick to move against such problems. Subversion of our policy
never happened. In short, McCarthy was either a lying scoundrel or a
madman, his charges smears of helpless people whose lives were thereby
ruined.
Which version was the truth? In the perspective of four decades, we are in
much better position to learn the answer to this question than was possible at
the time. While a lot was known back then (though usually not to the general
public), a great deal has come to light that was unavailable in the ’50s. We
now have, for instance, a pretty good picture of the Philby-Burgess-Blunt-
Maclean spy ring in England, as shocking as anything conjured by
McCarthy, and just as “unthinkable” to polite salon opinion. (And, as shall
be seen, with multiple links to the government-media combine that
McCarthy was battling here.)
Also, with the collapse of the Soviet regime, we have data from the
Communist archives, though not in the quantity we might like. More to the
point, we have access to material long in the possession of our own Federal

11. 11
government, some of it astonishing in nature. Most notable in this regard are
the so-called Venona transcripts, which decode transmissions between the
spymasters in the Kremlin and their agents in America, plus wiretaps
conducted by the FBI, and other confidential data from the bureau-all dating
to the 1940s.
Putting all of this together, there can be no serious doubt today as to the
general picture. That there was a relentless Communist drive to penetrate our
government, steal its secrets, and subvert its counsels is about as clear as
evidence can make it. Equally clear is that U.S. defenses against such
machinations, especially in the State Department, were sadly lacking. Nor is
there much doubt that many U.S. officials whose job it was to guard against
subversion took a strangely casual view of their assignment. Consider:
As early as September 1939, nine years before his public revelations,
Whittaker Chambers gave data relating to Alger Hiss and others involved in
Communist infiltration to State Department official Adolph Berle. Though
Berle himself viewed such matters with concern, nothing much was done to
impede Hiss’ steady forward progress (together with several of his soul
mates), up to and including playing an active role at the Yalta conference
and as secretary general of the founding conclave of the United Nations.
Likewise, in November 1945, J. Edgar Hoover informed the White House of
evidence that an extensive spy ring was at work inside the U.S. government-
naming Treasury official Harry Dexter White, former White House assistant
Lauchlin Currie, and nine others. (Hoover’s letter to this effect, based on
data supplied by Bentley, appears in the Venona papers; see page S1.) In
1946, Hoover tried once more to alert the White House to the danger posed
by White, who like Hiss was moving ever higher in official circles. Again,
so far as we can make out from the record, nothing was done to act on these
advices.
In 1948, when Chambers made his public charges against Hiss, the official
White House response was to dismiss the case as a “red herring.” Internally,
White House staffers went a good deal further, setting out to discredit
Chambers, rather than focusing on the mind-boggling peril implied by Hiss.
Once more, the Venona papers give us an intriguing glimpse behind the
scenes-including suggestions that Chambers, not Hiss, be tried for perjury,
and an effort to find out if Chambers had been in a mental institution.

12. 12
As of the latter ’40s, the bizarre mindset suggested by these cases was
nowhere more pronounced than in the U.S. State Department-where it was,
for obvious reasons, also most harmful. This was to some degree ironic, as
the department had in prior years been known as a staid, conservative place
that took a tough-minded stance on issues of this type, as on most others. In
notable contrast were the laid-back security ways of war-time outfits such as
the Office of War Information (OWI) and Board of Economic Warfare
(BEW), where the “red herring” view of possible Communist infiltration
was in favor.
Beginning around 1944, however, a fierce internal struggle unfolded at
State, in which relatively hard-line anti-Communists such as Berle, Joseph
Grew and Eugene Dooman were attacked, sidetracked, or ousted. This
turnover of high-level personnel in essence was completed in the next two
years as Gen. George C. Marshall replaced James Byrnes at State, Dean
Acheson was ensconced as second in command, and “China hand” John
Carter Vincent assumed responsibility for Asia. Berle would give his own
particular view of this rolling coup d’etat as follows:
“. . . [I]n the fall of 1944 there was a difference of opinion in the State
Department. I felt the Russians were not going to be sympathetic and
cooperative. . . . I was pressing for a pretty clean-cut showdown then
while our position was strongest. The opposite group. . . in the State
Department was largely. . . Mr. Acheson’s group, with Mr. Hiss his
principal assistant in the matter. . . . I got trimmed in that fight, and,
as a result, went to Brazil, and that ended my diplomatic career.”
The major effects of this volte-face were two, both later harped on by
McCarthy. First and foremost, there was a drastic change of front in our
policy toward China. Throughout the early stages of World War II, the anti-
Communist Chiang Kai-shek had been treated as a worthy ally. The
Marshall-Acheson-Vincent team took a different view, as did a group of
Vincent’s fellow “China hands” who lobbied for an American policy more
favorable to the Communist insurgents at Yenan. The high-water mark of
this campaign was the suspension of U.S. aid to Chiang for much of the
period 1946-48, in the midst of his death struggle with the Reds.
Though it gets us a bit ahead of the story, it should be added that the anti-
Chiang jihad was not limited to “China hands” at State, but reflected a wide-
ranging governmental effort that drew heavily on the forces named by

13. 13
Hoover. As later inquiry would disclose, Lauchlin Currie from his strategic
eyrie at the White House was very much involved, as was the Treasury’s
Harry White. (Asked about her best agents for placing Communist
personnel throughout the government, Elizabeth Bentley answered:
“I would say our two best ones were Harry Dexter White and
Lauchlin Currie. They had an immense amount of influence and knew
people, and their word would be accepted when they recommended
someone.”)
Investigations conducted in the 1950s would show that White and such of
his Treasury aides as V. Frank Coe and Solomon Adler maneuvered to block
the transfer of $200 million in gold and other credits pledged to Chiang, and
that Adler as the Treasury’s man on the scene sent back a stream of anti-
Chiang reports from China. Like White himself, both Coe and Adler would
be identified by Bentley as members of the Communist governmental
network. Also, to round out this astounding picture, it developed that Adler
shared a house in China with Communist secret agent Chi Ch’ao ting and
“China hand” John Service. (As shall be seen, such highly integrated
collaboration among seemingly disparate people was the essence of the
method.)
This was, however, by no means all. Coincident with the policy shift were
changes in departmental security practices as well. Along with the departure
of such as Grew and Berle, the old-line security team at State, headed by J.
Anthony Panuch, was also shown the door. In 1947, as a voluminous record
would reveal, the relatively tough posture favored by Panuch was replaced
by an extremely soft one. This changeover was roughly contemporaneous
with the influx of several thousand unvetted personnel from porous agencies
such as OWI and BEW, now flooding into the department. Saying that this
massive post-war merger was the main source of State’s security woes,
Panuch would testify as follows:
“. . . . In the new program of 1947, they put in what I call an overt-act
test. They specified that in order to dismiss a man for disloyalty or to
make him ineligible on loyalty grounds, there had to be reasonable
grounds to show that there was present disloyalty. . . [This was]
absolutely ineffective. You can never get the evidence. . . [The security
situation] was deteriorating when I came in there because of this

14. 14
transfer. We tried to do something about it but in 1947 they put us out
of business.”
The point of these reflections, as should by now be plain, is that intense
concern about security issues at State was by no means a wild invention of
McCarthy (hence the reverse-English charge of “stale, warmed over”
accusations). Throughout the latter ’40s, in fact, numerous members of
Congress expressed themselves about this subject in terms of great alarm
and angst. In June of ’47, for instance, members of the Senate
Appropriations Committee sent a confidential report to Marshall, in
which they bluntly stated:
“It is evident that there is a deliberate calculated program being
carried out not only to protect Communist personnel in high places,
but to reduce security and intelligence protection to a nullity. . . . On
file in the Department is a copy of a preliminary report of the FBI on
Soviet espionage activities in the United States, which involves large
numbers of State Department employees. . . this report has been
challenged and ignored by those charged with the responsibility of
administering the department with the apparent tacit approval of Mr.
Acheson.”
McCarthy Takes on Department of State
Such was the security-policy scene into which Joe McCarthy ambled in
February 1950. Relatively youthful, obviously a bit naive, but combative and
a quick study, McCarthy picked up on the concerns of others in the
Congress, frustrated counterintelligence types, and anti-Communist
researchers. Drawing on what his precursors had put together (but also
developing new data as he went), he took to the hustings and the Senate
floor with his version of the problem. That version would focus the white-
hot glare of public notice on security issues at the State Department like
nothing seen before, or since.
Beginning in Wheeling, W.Va., on February 9, McCarthy made a series of
Republican Lincoln Day orations in which he raised the cry of Communist
foul play, and these political talks would eventually spawn a cottage industry
of charge and counter-charge all by themselves.3 These topics are well
worth pursuing, but cannot detain us here, as we shall be hewing to the
official documented record. In this respect, the obvious place to start is the

15. 15
marathon speech McCarthy made on the Senate floor on February 20, his
first such effort in that forum, and by all odds the most prodigious.
In this six-hour tour de force, subject to constant interruptions but
maintaining his composure, McCarthy discussed some four-score
individuals who had worked in the State Department, or agencies such as
OWI and BEW, and in his opinion had records suggesting they were
security-loyalty risks at best, outright Communist agents at the worst.
Despite such records, McCarthy claimed, these people had been routinely
“cleared” or never carefully looked into. Reading from what he said were
“State Department files” (or digests thereof), he laid out a chapter-and-verse
recitation of what appeared to be, on its face, a massive security breakdown
at the department.
After much wrangling about these matters and numerous sidebar exchanges
and digressions, it was decided to refer the question to a special
subcommittee chaired by Sen. Millard Tydings (D.-Md.). Accordingly, on
March 8, McCarthy appeared before the Tydings panel, and tried to present
the evidence he had on a selected group of individuals (known as “the nine
public cases”).
Once more he was subjected to repeated interruptions, so that a coherent
presentation became all but impossible. Again there are collateral issues that
need discussing, but for space reasons have to be omitted (with one
exception; see box, “A Discourse on Method,” page S2.) We shall stay, not
only with the record, but with the central issue of alleged policy subversion.
In this respect, the core of McCarthy’s case was that security problems at the
State Department and the course of U.S. policy in Asia were indissolubly
connected. His chief exhibit-much cited in his early speeches and before the
Tydings panel-was the improbable tale of the small pro-Communist
journal, Amerasia. McCarthy capsuled the case on February 20, presented a
fat dossier on it to Tydings, then discussed it at even greater length on the
Senate floor on March 30. For McCarthy, this was the touchstone of pro-
Communist subversion in our country and of official complicity with it.
Amerasia had previously burst into public view-to disappear as quickly-in
June 1945. Agents of the FBI, after many weeks’ surveillance, had arrested
two editors of the journal and one of its frequent writers, along with three

16. 16
U.S. government officials (Andrew Roth, Emmanuel Larsen, John Stewart
Service) accused of feeding them secret data. Coincident with the arrests, the
bureau reaped a harvest of roughly 1,000 government documents in the
possession of the defendants. These dealt much with Asian matters, and
many bore the label “secret,” “top secret,” or “confidential.”
As to the nature of Amerasia, as McCarthy said, there could be little doubt.
Its chief financial angel was Frederick V. Field, a notorious propagandist for
the Soviet Union, named by Elizabeth Bentley as the Communist Party’s
domestic commissar for Asian matters.
The principal editor was Philip Jaffe, a long-time Soviet apologist, friend of
Communist Party boss Earl Browder, and zealous fan of Bolsheviks in
China. Its staffers and writers included a veritable galaxy of identified
Communists, pro-Communists, and fellow travelers. (Indeed, among its
former employees, still hobnobbing with Jaffe, was one Joseph
Bernstein, known to the FBI as an active Soviet agent.)
The biggest fish caught in the Amerasia net was State Department official
Service, one of Vincent’s “China hands” who like his Treasury Department
roommate had sent a steady stream of dispatches back from China attacking
Chiang and urging that we dump him (sample:
“We need not support Chiang in the belief that he represents pro-
American or democratic groups. . . we need feel no ties of gratitude to
Chiang.”) On returning to the United States in April 1945, Service
immediately took to hanging out with Jaffe (whom he supposedly had
just met), delivering copies of his reports, and commenting that “What
I said about the military plans is, of course, very secret” (recorded by
FBI surveillance).
Given all this, McCarthy said, J. Edgar Hoover believed he had an “airtight
case,” and Justice Department officials geared up for prosecution. Then, for
some mysterious reason, Justice decided to downplay the matter and treat it
as a minor indiscretion; Service got off scott-free and was restored to State
Department duties. Jaffe and Larsen escaped with fines, and all the others
walked. In essence, the whole thing was shoved under the official rug, to be
conveniently forgotten. It was, McCarthy charged, a security breach and
cover-up of immense proportions.

17. 17
The Tydings Committee and the administration viewed it more benignly;
“an excess of journalistic zeal,” Jaffe’s attorney had called it, and the
prosecutors had agreed, so what was the big problem? Such was the anti-
McCarthy view that was handed down to legend.
We now know, however, that all of this was false, and that McCarthy was
right in what he said. The whole thing was fixed from the beginning,
engineered by Elizabeth Bentley’s agent Lauchlin Currie, operating from the
White House, and carried out by Washington wheeler-dealer Thomas
Corcoran. The truth of this emerged a decade ago when FBI wiretaps from
the ’40s came to the surface; these showed Currie, Corcoran, Service and
Justice officials conspiring to deep-six the case, and succeeding.
As I have treated this matter in some detail before, I shall not repeat all the
particulars here (See “The Amerasia Affair,” Human Events, July 12, 1996,
and “History’s Vindication of Joe McCarthy,” Human Events, May 16,
1987). Suffice it to note that the Amerasia case displayed, to the fullest,
every kind of security horror, and federal crime: Theft of documents, policy
subversion, cover-up, perjury, and obstruction of justice-to name only the
most glaring. In short, everything McCarthy had said about the subject was
correct, while his opponents were not only wrong, but lying; the Tydings
“investigation,” for its part, was a sham-the cover-up of a cover-up, not an
investigation.
Though all of this is now nailed down beyond all question, it apparently
avails McCarthy nothing. When I made these points on a TV show a few
months back, one anti-McCarthy panelist replied that “a stopped clock is
right twice a day” and that McCarthy’s correctness on this front did not
excuse his constant lying about others. However, a survey of numerous other
cases routinely yields the same conclusion: Charges by McCarthy, followed
by much uproar and outrage; vehement denials by his foes, treated in the
liberal press as gospel; then, after the smoke has cleared, emergence of hard,
empirical data that prove McCarthy had been right from the beginning. Two
vignettes that draw on the recent revelations suggest the pattern:
One of McCarthy’s targets in his early speeches was T.A. Bisson, yet
another Amerasia stalwart, a former employee of the State Department and
of the BEW. It seems probable most Americans now, as in the ’50s, have
never heard of Bisson, except perhaps as one of McCarthy’s countless
“victims.” In fact, McCarthy went after this seemingly minor figure at least

18. 18
half-a-dozen times for allegedly promoting the cause of the Chinese
Communists in his writings. So who was T.A. Bisson? Here is
what Venona tells us, in a transmission from Soviet agents in New York
back to Moscow Central:
“Marquis [Joseph Bernstein] has established friendly relations with T.A.
Bisson (hereafter Arthur). . . who has recently left BEW; he is now working
in the Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR) and in the editorial offices of
Marquis’ periodical [Amerasia]. . . Arthur passed to Marquis . . . copies of
four documents:
(a) His own report for BEW with his views on working out a plan for
shipment of American troops to China;
(b) A report by the Chinese embassy in Washington to its government
in China. . . .
(c) A brief BEW report of April 1943 on a general evaluation of the
forces of the sides on the Soviet-German front. . . .
(d) A report by the American consul in Vladivostok. . .”
The Joseph Bernstein to whom Bisson gave this material, be it noted, is the
selfsame Moscow agent with whom Philip Jaffe was also consorting in the
’40s. Thus Bisson not only touted the cause of the Chinese Communists, as
McCarthy had alleged, but passed confidential data to a henchman of the
KGB. McCarthy thought that Bisson was bad news, and cited evidence to
prove it. But he didn’t know for sure how bad, as reflected in these
transcripts. That secret would be locked up for 50 years, known only to the
Kremlin and the keepers of Venona.
As to the Cambridge spy ring, this had numerous links to U.S. security
issues and to McCarthy’s liberal-left opponents. Such now-notorious Soviet
agents as Philby, Burgess and Maclean were much involved in Anglo-
American security and diplomatic matters, including China, as was the
Canadian E. Herbert Norman. Even more enmeshed in U.S. affairs was
Cambridge alumnus Michael Greenberg, who made his way to the United
States and popped up, like Bisson, at IPR, then even more conveniently on
the staff of Currie. (As shall be seen, Greenberg would become one of the
supporting cast in McCarthy’s biggest single battle.)

19. 19
There is, unhappily, even more. Yet another Cambridge alum was the
American Michael Straight, who came back to the United States in the latter
’30s, worked briefly at the White House and the State Department, then
became the editor of the liberal New Republic (long underwritten by his
family). This journal was a fierce opponent of McCarthy, featuring many
articles that deplored his alleged lies and evil methods, as well as anti-
Communist “witch hunts” of all types. A notable instance was a 1954 piece
by Straight, entitled “The Fanaticism of Joseph McCarthy” (later
incorporated into a full-length anti-McCarthy book).
In view of all this righteous fervor, it came as a shock to many in the 1980s
to learn that Michael Straight himself, according to his own admission, had
been a Soviet agent. He had been recruited by Communist spy king Anthony
Blunt at Cambridge, and sent back to America to do the Kremlin’s bidding.
He agonized about all this, Straight recalled, and broke with the Soviets in
the early ’40s. Yet for years he made no move to blow the whistle on his
former comrades. As late as March 1951, at the height of the Korean war, he
ran into Guy Burgess in D.C., learned that he was in “Far Eastern affairs” at
the British embassy, and realized he was probably betraying Anglo-
American secrets to the Kremlin. Yet Straight did nothing. (No doubt too
busy drafting tough polemics on McCarthy.)
China and Institute of Pacific Relations
Such individual cases could be rehearsed at length, but this would wander
from our main story line concerning China, to which we must return. In this
regard, by far the major player, and main McCarthy target, was the once-
prestigious think tank called the IPR, already met with. IPR was linked in
many ways to Amerasia (sharing writers, offices, and general outlook), but
was a bit more guarded in its approach and seemingly respectable. It also
exhibited a high degree of interlock with the State Department in matters
pertaining to our strategy in Asia.
McCarthy repeatedly hammered IPR, mostly with regard to Ambassador
Philip Jessup, formerly one of its officials. Many Amerasia types, McCarthy
noted, were also active in IPR: Field, Bisson, Owen Lattimore and others,
and these worked closely with their official friends to tilt American China
policy in favor of the Reds. Both Vincent and Service, for example, had
links to IPR, as did Alger Hiss, John Paton Davies, and other diplomatic

20. 20
worthies. Jessup bridged the gap, such as it was, all by himself, having
served for many years with IPR, then emerging in 1949 as principal editor of
the State Department “white paper” on China that washed our hands of
Chiang.
McCarthy’s statements on IPR, like all the others, were bitterly
contested. In Senate floor debate, Sen. Clinton Anderson (D.-N.M.)
indignantly demanded:
“Does the senator mean to convey the impression that the Institute of
Pacific Relations, in 1935 and 1936, was under Communist control?”
When Jessup appeared before the Tydings panel, its majority members fell
over themselves to proclaim his sterling virtues, and those of IPR. (His IPR
connections, they found, “do not in any way reflect unfavorably upon him
when the true character of the organization is revealed.”) Effusions of this
type are writ large in the conventional history of the era.
Once more, however, when the smoke had cleared, the points McCarthy
made-or tried to-were borne out by the record, and in this case we didn’t
have to wait decades for the verdict. In 1952, the Senate Internal Security
Subcommittee conducted an exhaustive inquiry into the IPR, the kind of
investigation the Tydings committee should have undertaken but didn’t. This
showed, beyond all doubt, that the IPR was precisely what Sen. Anderson
suggested it was not-a vehicle for pro-Communist leverage on American
policy in China.
The Senate investigation of IPR might plausibly be looked on as the gold
standard of congressional hearings, exemplary in thoroughness and depth.
One reason for this unusual status is that the committee was able to corral
some 20,000 documents from the files of IPR, including numerous letters,
memoranda, minutes and reports that reflect a reality quite different from the
Institute’s facade. With these in hand, the committee could cross-check
many statements, grill witnesses in detail, and doggedly follow up
discrepancies, of which there was no shortage. The result was a picture of
the IPR, and its influence on Far Eastern policy, starkly different from that
produced by Tydings.
Readers interested in this subject could do no better than to get a copy of The
IPR Report produced by the committee-some 226 pages of closely packed,

21. 21
sensational, and highly specific information. Even better, for those who want
to take the time, are the 5,000-plus pages of hearings and exhibits, though it
is doubtful many people would want to wade through all of these, even if
they could conveniently obtain them. Here I can but suggest the tremendous
quantity of data that the committee put together, and the main conclusions it
arrived at.
Small Pro-Red Clique in Charge
Among other things, the hearings revealed the intimate workings of IPR, and
showed that it had been effectively run by a small inner circle of officials-
chiefly such enduring mainstays as Edward Carter, Owen Lattimore,
Frederick Field, and a few others. These were in constant communication,
discussing lines of policy, materials to appear in newspapers, magazines and
books, or the agenda for some impending conference. Connected to this
inner cadre was a far-flung network of writers, researchers, speakers and
policy experts, including a substantial number who moved back and forth
among the IPR, the press corps, the academy, and the government.
Also revealed by the investigation was the truly colossal number of
Communists and pro-Communists associated with IPR, though its officials
professed not to know this. These witnesses preferred to focus attention on
the prestigious non-Communist names that appeared on their letterhead as
trustees, but there wasn’t much evidence that this otherwise busy and
important group of people had much to do with shaping program. The
policymaking stuff, and the personnel who made it, were much more along
the lines of Amerasia.
To take a specific case in point, revealing the high degree of interlock that
prevailed in all these matters, the committee examined a list of possible
attendees at an IPR conference of 1942, as recommended by Philip Jessup.
Of this projected list of 30-plus invitees, almost a third were individuals who
had been identified under oath as members of the Communist apparatus (and
many of whom have also appeared in our discussion). Committee counsel
Robert Morris summarized the situation as follows:
“In reply to [a] question about the 10 people who have been identified
as part of the Communist organization on that . . . list recommended
by Mr. Jessup, I will point out that we have had testimony that
Benjamin Kizer was a member of the Communist Party, testimony that

22. 22
Lauchlin Currie was associated with an espionage ring and gave vital
military secrets to the Russian espionage system, the military secret
being, in one case, the fact that the United States had broken the
Soviet code. . . .
“John Carter Vincent has been identified as a member; Harry Dexter
White as a member of an espionage ring; Owen Lattimore as a
member of the Communist organization; Len DeCaux as a member of
the Communist Party; Alger Hiss as a member of the Communist
Party; Joseph Barnes as a member of the Communist Party;
Frederick V. Field as a member of the Communist Party; and Frank
Coe as a member of the Communist Party.”
‘Specialized Political Flypaper’ for Reds
In its final report, the committee provided a further summary of the
amazing degree of Communist penetration at IPR, in unusually colorful
language for an official publication:
“The IPR itself was like a specialized political flypaper in its
attractive power for Communists. . . . British Communists like
Michael Greenberg, Elsie Fairfax-Cholmeley or Anthony Jenkinson;
Chinese Communists like Chi Chao-ting, Chen Han-seng, Chu Tong,
Y.Y. Hsu; German Communists like Hans Moeller (Asiaticus) or
Guenther Stein; Japanese Communists (and espionage agents) like
Saionji and Ozaki; United States Communists like James S. Allen,
Frederick V. Field, William M. Mandel, Harriet Moore, Lawrence
Rosinger, and Alger Hiss.
“Indeed, the difficulty with the IPR from the Communist point of view
was that it was too stuffed with Communists, too compromised by its
Communist connections. Elizabeth Bentley testified that her superior
in the Soviet espionage apparatus, Jacob Golos, warned her away
from the IPR because ‘it was as red as a rose, and you shouldn’t
touch it with a 10-foot pole.’ ”
The mention in this of espionage agents Saionji and Ozaki refers to the
Tokyo spy ring of the famous Richard Sorge, exposed to the American
public by Maj. Gen. Charles A. Willoughby, who served with Gen.
MacArthur in Japan. It might be added that, according to Willoughby’s

23. 23
report (and Sorge himself), Guenther Stein was also a member of this ring,
as was the well-known Communist writer Agnes Smedley (also connected to
Amerasia). That these four members of the Sorge ring were all associated
with IPR didn’t seem to faze its leaders in the slightest.
Nor did it, for the matter, seem to faze many in the Acheson-Vincent-
Service State Department. On the contrary, stalwarts of IPR were frequently
called on to serve in official posts, take part in policy confabs, and otherwise
be dealt in on matters of importance. In the cases of such as Vincent and
Service and Jessup, the IPR and State Department points of view were so
totally fused as to be indistinguishable. It was mostly a matter of what hat
one happened to be wearing at the moment. As a result, the committee
found, IPR was most effective in pushing American policy in its desired
direction. Some of the report’s conclusions in this regard include:
“The IPR has been considered by the American Communist Party and
by Soviet officials as an instrument of Communist policy, propaganda
and military intelligence. The IPR disseminated and sought to
popularize false information including information originating from
Soviet and Communist sources. . . . Members of the small core of
officials and staff members who controlled IPR were either
Communist or pro-Communist. . . . Over a period of years, John
Carter Vincent was the principal fulcrum of IPR pressure and
influence in the State Department. . . . The IPR was a vehicle used by
the Communists to orientate American far eastern policies toward
Communist objectives. . .”
McCarthy’s Showdown With Prof. Lattimore
All of which, it will be recalled, was precisely what McCarthy had been
saying-though he didn’t at the time have the investigative apparatus of a
committee at his disposal, and most of all didn’t have the files of IPR. Thus
far, on the main issues that he raised, another vindication. There remains,
however, one related case to be considered, this one the biggest of them all.
This was McCarthy’s showdown with Prof. Lattimore, of Johns Hopkins
University, a long-time official of IPR, and noted authority on Far Eastern
questions. Of all the internal security battles that McCarthy fought, this was
by far the most explosive.

24. 24
McCarthy himself had put the matter just this way-raising the stakes up to
the limit. The Lattimore case, he said, was the most important of the lot, the
one on which he would “stand or fall.” Lattimore, according to McCarthy,
was “one of the principal architects of our Far Eastern policy,” and his
influence had been exerted in favor of the Communists. Concerning this
significant figure, McCarthy told his colleagues, “I intend to give the Senate
some documentation to show that he is a Soviet agent and that he is, or at
least has been a member of the Communist Party.” Despite the fact that he
was not a State Department official, McCarthy said, Lattimore had exerted
tremendous leverage on policy, and even had a desk in the Department.
(McCarthy even went so far as to say, in executive session, that Lattimore
was an espionage agent-though he later backed off from this assertion.)
The Tydings Committee conducted its inquiry into the matter, heard from
Lattimore at length, and found him innocent on all counts-the victim of
“promiscuous and specious attacks on private citizens and their views.”
Lattimore denied everything across the board (as did the State Department).
He was not a Communist or pro-Communist, and was, if anything, anti-
Soviet. As for influence, “the Department has never followed my advice or
opinions,” and he had no desk in the Department. He was simply a teacher
and a writer trying to pursue his scholarly interests. McCarthy was a lying
blackguard who had subjected the incensed professor to “ordeal by slander”
(the title of Lattimore’s book about the subject).
Thus the face-off between McCarthy and-to that point-his biggest single
target. As this was in essence Armageddon, the reader is forewarned that we
shall be devoting more attention to the Lattimore case than to the other
individuals herein discussed all put together. As it is, even an extensive
treatment can only scratch the surface, as the amount of material now
available on Prof. Lattimore is immense: Some 3,000 or so pages of
testimony by and about him, before the Tydings and IPR committees; 5,000
pages of files available from the FBI; Lattimore’s own writings, and
analyses of his activities and opinions provided by many writers on the
battles of the ‘50s. What follows is a selection from this trove of data.
Whether Lattimore was or was not an “architect” of policy, he was far from
a reclusive scholar. Throughout the 1940s, he held an almost continuous
series of government appointments, and had an amazing knack for showing
up where there was important action: Roosevelt’s appointee as adviser to
Chiang Kai-shek in 1941; director of Pacific operations for OWI, 1942-44;

25. 25
companion to Vice President Wallace (along with Vincent) on a fateful trek
to China in 1944; advisor to the U.S. government concerning post-war
policies in Japan, 1945-46; counselor to the State Department in its
deliberations concerning China, South Korea and the rest of Asia, as of the
latter ’40s.
And, oh yes, that famous “desk in the State Department,” which McCarthy
said he had, and Lattimore swore he didn’t. In the files of the IPR, the
Senate Internal Security Subcommittee found a letter Lattimore wrote
in 1942, in which he said:
“I am in Washington about 4 days a week, and when there can be
reached at Lauchlin Currie’s office, room 228, State Department
Building.”
Add to all of this the fact that Lattimore was one of the moving spirits of
IPR, editor of its magazine Pacific Affairs, had been on the editorial board
of Amerasia, and was a prolific author and book reviewer, and it’s apparent
that he was a major figure indeed in the fairly compact and limited world of
“experts” who knew anything much about Far Eastern matters.
These many Lattimore assignments and connections become the more
intriguing when we note the line of thought that he consistently promoted
about the Soviet Union and the Communists in general, usually couched in
neutral-sounding prose just setting forth the “facts.” His specialty was the
peculiar “power of attraction” the Soviets supposedly exerted on
neighboring countries, tribes and people. Here is a sample:
“To all of these peoples (along the Russian frontier from Korea and
Manchuria past Mongolia, Sinkiang and Afghanistan and Iran, all the
way to Turkey), the Russians and the Soviet Union have a greater
power of attraction. In their eyes . . . the Soviet Union stands for
strategic security, economic prosperity, technological progress,
miraculous medicine, free education, equality of opportunity, and
democracy, a powerful combination.”
And, to make the matter even more specific:
“In Asia the most important example of the Soviet power of attraction
beyond Soviet frontiers is in Outer Mongolia. It is here that we should

26. 26
look for evidence of the kind of attraction that Russia might offer to
Korea in the future. Outer Mongolia might be called a satellite of
Russia in the good sense. That is to say, the Mongols have gravitated
into the Russian orbit of their own accord. . . . Soviet policy in Outer
Mongolia cannot be fairly called Red imperialism.”4
Lattimore further explained the Soviets’ power of attraction this way:
“The fact that the Soviet Union stands for democracy is not to be
overlooked. It stands for democracy because it stands for all the other
things. . . . The fact is that for most of the people of the world today,
what constitutes democracy in theory is more or less irrelevant. What
moves people to act, to try to line up with one party or country and
not with another, is the difference between what is more democratic
and less democratic in practice.”
This uncanny power of attraction seemed to exert its fascination on
Lattimore himself-up to and including bland extenuations of Stalin’s purge
trials of the ’30s. While many liberal intellectuals (e.g., John Dewey) were
horrified by these, Lattimore took them well in stride.
“Habitual rectification,” as he smoothly described this series of
murders, “can hardly do anything but give the ordinary citizen more
courage to protest, loudly, whenever in the future he finds himself
being victimized by ‘someone in the party’ or ‘someone in the
government.’ That sounds to me like democracy.”
Lattimore turned an equally complacent gaze on the Communists of
Asia. In a newspaper piece of 1946, for example, he opined:
“Japanese Communist tactics are reminiscent of the Chinese
Communists who, as Randall Gould points out in his excellent new
book, China in the Sun, often appear to be extremists only because
they actually set out to practice reforms which the Kuomintang has
approved of and talked about for many years, but has never done
much about. In fact, we may be entering a period in which, for most of
the world, the Russian Communists will represent power and
toughness, while the Chinese and Japanese Communists will
represent reasonableness and moderation.”

27. 27
Lattimore’s other stock-in-trade was “realism,” which translated into
recognizing not only the Communists’ “power of attraction,” but their power
in general. After the United States pulled the plug on Chiang in 1949,
Lattimore was a key figure at a State Department conference to decide what
should be done next (Marshall and Jessup were both in attendance). For this
conclave he laid out a whole scenario of “realistic” actions in the East,
extending to Korea, Japan, and Indochina. Among his suggestions:
“The type of policy expressed by support for Chiang Kai-shek has
done more harm than good to the United States. . . . [Red] China
cannot be economically coerced by such measures as cutting off
trade. . . . It is not possible to make Japan an instrument of American
policy. . . . Under the second alternative Japan can keep herself alive
by coming to terms economically and politically with her neighbors in
Asia, principally China. . . . South Korea is more of a liability than an
asset to the interests and policy of the United States.”
Lattimore would explain this policy paper-and expand further on his
thesis-in his testimony the following year before the Tydings panel,
saying:
“I warned that we cannot expect to succeed with little Chiang Kai-
sheks where we failed with the big Chiang Kai-shek. But we are still
supporting a little Chiang Kai-shek in South Korea and we have since
taken on another one in Indochina.”
Small wonder Joe McCarthy and others who watched the debacle of our
policy in China saw Lattimore as a big part of the problem. There was more
reason for concern, however, than the professor’s odd opinions. As it
happened, there were witnesses who came over from the Communist side
reporting that Lattimore had been made known to them as a member of the
apparatus.
Among these was Louis Budenz, formerly of the Daily Worker, who said his
superiors told him Lattimore was a Communist agent and should be given
appropriate editorial treatment. Not surprisingly, Lattimore devoted much of
his time on the witness stand to attacking Budenz as either a venal or a
psychotic liar.

28. 28
But it wasn’t just Budenz. Soviet defector Alexander Barmine gave similar
statements to the FBI, and later to the Senate. Barmine said the chief of
Soviet military intelligence had told him “Owen Lattimore and Joseph
Barnes” should be considered as “our men.” Barmine added that he had
discussed Barnes and Lattimore with Walter Krivitzky, another former
Soviet official, and that Krivitzky had confirmed this.
Yet another defector, Igor Bogolepov, said Soviet foreign minister Maxim
Litvinov had discussed the question of how best to market the Soviets’ Outer
Mongolian puppet to the world as “independent”: “. . . as far as concerns the
United States Litvinov’s own suggestion was to put on this business Mr.
Owen Lattimore . . . it was said so short and in such a categorical form that
there was no slightest doubt left to me that Mr. Lattimore was the right man
who was to take this assignment.”
Other Witnesses Confirm Budenz
It would thus appear that, if Budenz had simply invented his story as part of
an insane conspiracy to destroy Lattimore, he had somehow inveigled
Barmine and Bogolepov into sharing his psychosis. Similar problems would
arise concerning still other witnesses and pieces of information that have
come to view down through the years. (E.g., in their recent book
on Amerasia, Klehr and Radosh note that Communist propagandist Louis
Gibarti said party officials in the ’30s had sent him to Lattimore for
assistance.)
As the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee would learn when it got into
the files of IPR, Lattimore had in fact met directly with the Soviets in
Moscow. Minutes recorded by the IPR show Lattimore taking a most abject
position toward his hosts, pledging to develop an editorial policy to their
liking. The Soviets had complained, for instance, about William Henry
Chamberlin, who had written a piece in Pacific Affairs adverse to Stalin.
The minutes show Lattimore replying
“that he had not realized Chamberlin’s position, but as soon as he
learned of the Soviet opinion of Chamberlin he canceled an article on
the Soviet press which he had asked from Chamberlin.”

29. 29
Lattimore also asked the Soviets to contribute articles of their own
to Pacific Affairs, as this would help the magazine develop a definite
“line.” He said that
“if the Soviet group would show in their articles a general line-a
struggle for peace-the other articles would naturally gravitate to that
line.” He added that “he was willing to have P.A. reflect such a line,
but these positive articles must be started positively.” And again: “He
would like to meet the Soviet suggestions as far as possible, as to
having a more definite line expressed in P.A.”
Also emerging from the hearings, and other revelations since, are many
details concerning Lattimore’s choice of editors and writers.
His tastes in this regard-and in editorial style-were reflected in this
message to IPR official Edward Carter:
“. . . I think that you are pretty cagey in turning over so much of the
China section of the inquiry to Asiaticus, Han-seng and Chi [all
identified Communists]. They will bring out the absolutely essential
radical aspects, but can be depended on to do it with the right touch. .
. . For China, my hunch is that it will pay to keep behind the official
Chinese Communist position-far enough not to be covered by the
same label-but enough ahead of the active Chinese liberals to be
noticeable. . . . For the USSR-back their international policy in
general, but without using their slogans and above all without giving
them or anybody else an impression of subservience. . .”
As seen, this was the ostensibly objective style that Lattimore himself
adopted. The subservience to Moscow tended to show up more plainly in his
direct communication with the Kremlin and, it would appear, his hiring of
personnel. In a new study of U.S. policy in China, for instance, historian
Maochun Yu discusses the IPR employment of the Chinese Communist
Chen Han-Seng, as follows:
“Chen, a Comintern intelligence agent associated with Richard
Sorge’s spy ring in Shanghai and Tokyo, was dispatched by Moscow
to New York to aid Owen Lattimore in editing the journal Pacific
Affairs from 1936 to 1939.”

30. 30
This disclosure, taken from Chen’s memoirs published a decade ago in
China, tracks closely with the many references to him in The IPR Report, as
in the list appearing on page S5. It also tracks the testimony of Budenz,
who told the Tydings panel that Lattimore’s name had been singled out
for praise by Communist bosses Field and Browder, for this specific
reason:
“In 1937, at a meeting called by Earl Browder. . . Field was present
and made a report at which he commended Mr. Lattimore’s zeal in
seeing that Communists were placed as writers at Pacific Affairs, and
this had been particularly noted during this last year, 1936 and
1937.” (The committee, as we have seen, dismissed such testimony
out of hand, as it did other witnesses brought forward by
McCarthy.)
Lattimore engaged in other actions of this sort,5 which makes it easier to
comprehend how one might think he was involved in spying. It turns out the
FBI compiled an enormous file on Lattimore, based precisely on this
suspicion. Like McCarthy, the bureau keyed in on the testimony of Barmine,
and thereafter on Lattimore’s links to Amerasia. The professor had been on
the journal’s board of editors, had a long-standing relationship with Jaffe,
and entertained Service and Roth in his home a few days before they were
arrested. The bureau accordingly put together a thick dossier on Lattimore
(see inset, page S6) well before McCarthy made his first appearance.
Lattimore’s Close Ties With Currie
Noteworthy in this context, as McCarthy pointed out, is that Lattimore had
made a trek to Yenan in 1937 to meet with Mao Tse-tung-along with Jaffe
and T.A. Bisson, both thereafter to be revealed as trafficking in U.S. official
documents and dealing with Soviet agent Bernstein. Also in Yenan with
Lattimore and Co. was Agnes Smedley, another identified member of the
Sorge spy ring. The FBI files make frequent mention of Lattimore’s
contacts, back in the states, with Jaffe, as well as with such known
Communist operatives as Field.
However, the most important reason for thinking Lattimore might have been
engaged in spying was his close tie-in with Currie. This still shadowy figure
has never received the full attention he deserves. It was Currie who provided
Lattimore with his “desk in the State Department.” It was Currie who got

31. 31
Lattimore appointed as FDR’s emissary to Chiang (wiring around the State
Department to do so) and helped arrange the naming of Lattimore and
Vincent as travelling mentors in China for a gullible Henry Wallace.
(In May of 1941, during the Hitler-Stalin pact, the FBI had issued a notice
that Lattimore as a suspected Communist should be considered for custodial
detention in the event of a national emergency, as shown in the graphic
appearing on page S6. However, after Currie secured Lattimore’s prestigious
appointment as Roosevelt’s envoy to Chiang, this notice was rescinded.)
Most of all, of course, it was Currie who according to Bentley was a
collaborator with her spy ring, helped in obtaining posts for secret Reds, and
informed the Washington, D.C., cadre that America had broken the Soviets’
code (thus ending the Venona intercepts). As already seen, he launched the
cover-up of Amerasia. He also pulled off such amazing feats as arranging a
personal interview in the State Department for Earl Browder with Under
Secretary Sumner Welles, and went to bat for Nathan Gregory Silvermaster,
when this identified Soviet spy was in danger of being ousted.
Accordingly, Lattimore’s on-going links with Currie must have raised a lot
of eyebrows, especially as the duo so often worked together in placing
favored people. We have noted the smooth transition of Michael Greenberg
from Lattimore’s shop at IPR to Currie’s in the White House; thereafter,
when Greenberg was targeted for firing, Lattimore came to his defense.
Likewise, according to The IPR Report, Lattimore-Currie tried in 1942 to get
a commission in military intelligence for Frederick Field, at that time
perhaps the most notorious pro-Soviet operative in the country.
Each of these incredible escapades, and many others in which Lattimore was
involved, would merit in-depth discussion on its own. E.g., the fact that
Lattimore discussed his 1941 appointment as emissary to Chiang with Soviet
ambassador Constantine Oumansky. This at a period when the Hitler-Stalin
pact was still in bloom, and Moscow had a nonaggression treaty with Japan-
timing that Lattimore tried to conceal in testifying to the Senate. (It was also,
apparently, before he had discussed the matter with the representatives of
Chiang.)
From all of which, it is perhaps understandable that McCarthy could have
been led to think that Lattimore was some kind of espionage kingpin-but

32. 32
also that this view was probably mistaken. The reasons for this conclusion
are at least two:
First, Lattimore’s role in shaping policy on a global scale was far
more important than simply filching papers, to which in any event he
did not have constant access. And second, the espionage role could be
far more effectively performed by his alter ego, Currie-which,
according to Elizabeth Bentley, is precisely what occurred. All things
considered, a rather neat division of labor.
So, on Lattimore, did McCarthy stand, or fall? The Senate Internal
Security Subcommittee put its conclusions this way:
“Owen Lattimore was, from some time beginning in the 1930s, a
conscious articulate instrument of the Soviet conspiracy.” And:
“Owen Lattimore and John Carter Vincent were influential in
bringing about a change in United States policy in 1945 favorable to
the Chinese Communists.”
The data that have emerged in recent years do little or nothing to belie this
judgment on the professor, and much to reinforce it.
McCarthy’s Efforts Changed History
There is of course a great deal more to the McCarthy story, but readers who
have come this far may well feel that they have had, at least for now,
enough. Many particulars of the battles from this early era have been passed
over, and of course we haven’t discussed at all the climactic struggle in 1954
between McCarthy and the Army (some of which was touched on in my
McCarthy piece of 1987). Full treatment of these matters will have to wait
until another day. However, a provisional verdict about McCarthy’s doings,
and what he probably accomplished, may be offered here by way of wrap-
up.
In the voting of 1950 and 1952, judging by the candidates who were elected
and defeated, there was evidence that McCarthy’s campaign, despite the
forces ranged against him, had a fair amount of public impact. There is also
some considerable reason to believe that, thanks to these elections and the
general pressure he exerted, McCarthy had a lot to do with tightening up

33. 33
security procedures at the State Department. As should be apparent from
what is said above, this was a consummation devoutly to be wished.
Beyond this, however, are larger questions, concerning the course of the
Cold War struggle, and of American policy in dealing with this challenge.
For instance, in the State Department conference of 1949 discussing what
kind of strategy to follow in the Far East, the “prevailing view” was said to
be that the United States should recognize Communist China as soon as
possible and make ready to abandon the remaining anti-Communist forces
on Formosa. There was also the Lattimore proposal, often stated, that
the United States should abandon South Korea as we had abandoned
Chiang:
“to let South Korea fall but not to let it looked as though we pushed it”
(a tactic that he imputed to “Washington opinion”).
At the time, the momentum behind these policy views seemed to be quite
strong, and growing. In late December 1949, the State Department
circularized a memo that basically envisioned giving up Formosa. Three
weeks thereafter, Dean Acheson made a famous speech before the National
Press Club, in which he appeared to exclude South Korea and Formosa from
the perimeter of our defenses. Thus, as of early January 1950, when Acheson
made this speech, the Lattimore plan for shaping American strategy in the
Pacific appeared to be on track, with little to deter it. One month later, Joe
McCarthy stepped to the podium in Wheeling.
_____________________________________________________________

34. 34
_____________________________________________________________
The Real McCarthy Record
A longtime smear campaign has clouded the truth
By James J. Drummey
James J. Drummey is a former senior editor of THE NEW
AMERICAN. This article appeared originally in the May 11,
1987 issue of this magazine. http://thenewamerican.com)
___________________________________________________________
For those who would like to do more research. -Robert D. Gorgoglione
M. Stanton Evans is the author of "Blacklisted by History" - YouTube
M. Stanton Evans is the author of "Blacklisted by History". Mr. Evans owns the FBI
files from the McCarthy Trials. The book ...
More videos for Black Listed By History by Evans »
Amazon.com: Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator ...
Amazon.com: Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His
Fight Against America's Enemies (9781400081059): M. Stanton Evans: ...
The Venona secrets: exposing Soviet ... - Herbert Romerstein, Eric ...
Authors probe recently released Venona Files, intercepted communications between the
Soviet Union & American Communists – VINDICATES McCARTHY!!!!!
Open and research the whole book on line. Click on to “Preview this book”.
www.thenewamerican.com
_____________________________________________________________
Thirty years after the death of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, twice-
elected United States Senator from Wisconsin, the term
"McCarthyism" is still widely used as a convenient and easily
understood epithet for all that is evil and despicable in the world of
politics. Hardly a month passes without some reference to
"McCarthyism" in the print or electronic media. Despite the frequency

35. 35
with which the term is invoked, however, it is quite clear that not one
critic of McCarthy in a hundred has the slightest idea of what he said
and did during that controversial period from 1950 to 1954.
Whether Joe McCarthy was right or wrong, it is important that we know the
truth about him. If he was wrong, then we can learn some important lessons
for the future. If he was right, then we need to be vitally concerned about the
issues he raised because virtually nothing has been done to deal effectively
with those issues since the mid-1950s.
A brief biographical sketch of the Senator's life appears elsewhere in this
magazine (page 58), along with some assessments of him by his
contemporaries (page 59). This article will attempt to answer many of the
questions asked about Joe McCarthy and the criticisms directed at him. The
responses are based on years of study of McCarthy's speeches and writings,
congressional hearings in which he was involved, and more than a score of
books about him, most of them highly critical and condemnatory.
I. The Years Before 1950
Q. Was Joe McCarthy a lax and unethical judge?
A. Joe McCarthy was elected as a circuit judge in Wisconsin in 1939 and
took over a district court that had a backlog of more than 200 cases. By
eliminating a lot of legal red tape and working long hours (his court
remained open past midnight at least a dozen times), Judge McCarthy
cleared up the backlog quickly and, in the words of one local newspaper,
"administered justice promptly and with a combination of legal knowledge
and good sense." On October 28, 1940, the Milwaukee Journal editorialized:
"Breaking with the 'horse-and-buggy' tradition that has tied up the calendars
of most Wisconsin circuit courts, young Judge Joseph R. McCarthy of
Appleton has streamlined his tenth district ... and has made a hit with
lawyers and litigants alike."
Q. Did McCarthy exaggerate his military record in World War II?
A. Although his judgeship exempted him from military service, McCarthy
enlisted in the Marines and was sworn in as a first lieutenant in August 1942.
He served as an intelligence officer for a bomber squadron stationed in the
Solomon Islands and had the responsibility of briefing and debriefing pilots

36. 36
before and after their missions. McCarthy also risked his life by volunteering
to fly in the tail-gunner's seat on many combat missions. Those who quibble
about the number of combat missions he flew miss the point -- he didn't have
to fly any.
The enemies of McCarthy have seized on his good-natured remark about
shooting down coconut trees from his tail-gunner's spot (ABC's three-hour
movie about McCarthy in 1977 was entitled Tail Gunner Joe) to belittle his
military accomplishments, but the official record gives the true picture. Not
only were McCarthy's achievements during 30 months of active duty
unanimously praised by his commanding officers, but Admiral Chester
Nimitz, commander-in-chief of the Pacific Fleet, issued the following
citation regarding the service of Captain McCarthy:
For meritorious and efficient performance of duty as an observer and rear
gunner of a dive bomber attached to a Marine scout bombing squadron
operating in the Solomon Islands area from September 1 to December 31,
1943. He participated in a large number of combat missions, and in addition
to his regular duties, acted as aerial photographer. He obtained excellent
photographs of enemy gun positions, despite intense anti-aircraft fire,
thereby gaining valuable information which contributed materially to the
success of subsequent strikes in the area. Although suffering from a severe
leg injury, he refused to be hospitalized and continued to carry out his duties
as Intelligence Officer in a highly efficient manner. His courageous devotion
to duty was in keeping with the highest traditions of the naval service.
Q. Was McCarthy backed by the Communists in his 1946 campaign for
the U.S. Senate?
A. In 1946, Joe McCarthy upset incumbent U.S. Senator Robert La Follette
by 5,378 votes in the Republican primary and went on to beat Democrat
Howard McMurray by 251,658 votes in the general election. The
Communist Party of Wisconsin had originally circulated petitions to place
its own candidate on the ballot as an Independent in the general election.
When McCarthy scored his surprising victory over La Follette, the
Communists did not file the petitions for their candidate, but rallied instead
behind McMurray. Thus, Joe McCarthy defeated a Democratic-Communist
coalition in 1946.

37. 37
Q. Had Joe McCarthy ever spoken out against Communism prior to his
famous speech in Wheeling, West Virginia, in 1950?
A. Those who contend that McCarthy stumbled across Communism while
searching for an issue to use in his 1952 reelection campaign will be
disappointed to know that the Senator had been speaking out against
Communism for years. He made Communism an issue in his campaign
against Howard McMurray in 1946, charging that McMurray had received
the endorsement of the Daily Worker, the Communist Party newspaper. In
April 1947, McCarthy told the Madison Capital Times that his top priority
was "to stop the spread of Communism." On the Meet the Press radio show
in July of that year, the Wisconsin Senator said: "We've been at war with
Russia for some time now, and Russia has been winning this war at a faster
rate than we were, during the last stages of the last war. Everyone is
painfully aware of the fact that we are at war -- and that we're losing it."
During a speech in Milwaukee in 1952, Senator McCarthy dated the public
phase of his fight against Communists to May 22, 1949, the night that
former Secretary of Defense James Forrestal was found dead on the ground
outside Bethesda Naval Hospital. "The Communists hounded Forrestal to his
death," said McCarthy. "They killed him just as definitely as if they had
thrown him from that sixteenth-story window in Bethesda Naval Hospital."
He said that "while I am not a sentimental man, I was touched deeply and
left numb by the news of Forrestal's murder. But I was affected much more
deeply when I heard of the Communist celebration when they heard of
Forrestal's murder. On that night, I dedicated part of this fight to Jim
Forrestal."
Thus, Joe McCarthy was receptive in the fall of 1949 when three men
brought to his office a 100-page FBI report alleging extensive Communist
penetration of the State Department. The trio had asked three other Senators
to awaken the American people to this dangerous situation, but only
McCarthy was willing to take on this volatile project.

38. 38
II. A Lone Senator (1950-1952)
Q. What was the security situation in the State Department at the time
of McCarthy's Wheeling speech in February 1950?
A. Communist infiltration of the State Department began in the 1930s. On
September 2, 1939, former Communist Whittaker Chambers provided
Assistant Secretary of State Adolph Berle with the names and Communist
connections of two dozen spies in the government, including Alger Hiss.
Berle took the information to President Roosevelt, but FDR laughed it off.
Hiss moved rapidly up the State Department ladder and served as an advisor
to Roosevelt at the disastrous Yalta Conference in 1945 that paved the way
for the Soviet conquest of Central and Eastern Europe. Hiss also functioned
as the secretary general of the founding meeting of the United Nations in
San Francisco, helped to draft the UN Charter, and later filled dozens of
positions at the UN with American Communists before he was publicly
exposed as a Soviet spy by Whittaker Chambers in 1948.
The security problem at the State Department had worsened considerably in
1945 when a merger brought into State thousands of employees from such
war agencies as the Office of Strategic Services, the Office of War
Information, and the Foreign Economic Administration -- all of which were
riddled with members of the Communist underground. J. Anthony Panuch,
the State Department official charged with supervising the 1945 merger, told
a Senate committee in 1953 that "the biggest single thing that contributed to
the infiltration of the State Department was the merger of 1945. The effects
of that are still being felt." In 1947, Secretary of State George Marshall and
Under Secretary of State Dean Acheson engineered the firing of Panuch and
the removal of every key member of his security staff.
In June 1947, a Senate Appropriations subcommittee addressed a secret
memorandum to Secretary Marshall, calling to his attention a condition that
developed and still flourishes in the State Department under the
administration of Dean Acheson. It is evident that there is a deliberate,
calculated program being carried out not only to protect Communist
personnel in high places but to reduce security and intelligence protection to
a nullity. On file in the department is a copy of a preliminary report of the
FBI on Soviet espionage activities in the United States which involves a
large number of State Department employees, some in high official
positions.

39. 39
The memorandum listed the names of nine of these State Department
officials and said that they were "only a few of the hundreds now employed
in varying capacities who are protected and allowed to remain despite the
fact that their presence is an obvious hazard to national security. There is
also the extensive employment in highly classified positions of admitted
homosexuals, who are historically known to be security risks." On June 24,
1947, Assistant Secretary of State John Peurifoy notified the chairman of the
Senate subcommittee that ten persons had been dismissed from the
department, five of whom had been listed in the memorandum. But from
June 1947 until McCarthy's speech in February 1950, the State Department
did not fire one person as a loyalty or security risk. In other branches of the
government, however, more than 300 persons were discharged for loyalty
reasons alone during the period from 1947 to 1951.
It was also during the mid-to-late Forties that Communist sympathizers in
the State Department played a key role in the subjugation of mainland China
by the Reds. "It is my judgment, and I was in the State Department at the
time," said former Ambassador William D. Pawley, "that this whole fiasco,
the loss of China and the subsequent difficulties with which the United
States has been faced, was the result of mistaken policy of Dean Acheson,
Phil Jessup, [Owen] Lattimore, John Carter Vincent, John Service, John
Davies, [O.E.] Clubb, and others." Asked if he thought the mistaken policy
was the result of "sincere mistakes of judgment," Pawley replied: "No, I
don't."
Q. Was Joe McCarthy the only member of Congress critical of those
whose policies had put 400 million Chinese into Communist slavery?
A. No, there were others who were equally disturbed. For instance, on
January 30, 1949, one year before McCarthy's Wheeling speech, a young
Congressman from Massachusetts deplored "the disasters befalling China
and the United States" and declared that "it is of the utmost importance that
we search out and spotlight those who must bear the responsibility for our
present predicament." The Congressman placed a major part of the blame on
"a sick Roosevelt," General George Marshall, and "our diplomats and their
advisors, the Lattimores and the Fairbanks," and he concluded: "This is the
tragic story of China whose freedom we once fought to preserve. What our
young men had saved, our diplomats and our President have frittered away."
The Congressman's name was John F. Kennedy.

40. 40
Q. What did McCarthy actually say in his Wheeling speech?
A. Addressing the Ohio County Women's Republican Club on February 9,
1950, Senator McCarthy first quoted from Marx, Lenin, and Stalin their
stated goal of world conquest and said that "today we are engaged in a final,
all-out battle between communistic atheism and Christianity." He blamed the
fall of China and other countries to the Communists in the previous six years
on "the traitorous actions" of the State Department's "bright young men,"
and he mentioned specifically John S. Service, Gustavo Duran, Mary Jane
Kenny (it should have been Keeney), Julian Wadleigh, Dr. Harlow Shapley,
Alger Hiss, and Dean Acheson. The part of the speech that catapulted
McCarthy from relative obscurity into the national spotlight contained these
words:
I have in my hand 57 cases of individuals who would appear to be either
card-carrying members or certainly loyal to the Communist Party, but who
nevertheless are still helping to shape our foreign policy.
Q. Wasn't it reported that McCarthy used the number 205 in his
Wheeling speech, lowered it to 57 later, and then raised it again to 81?
A. Yes, this was reported, and here is the explanation: In the Wheeling
speech, McCarthy referred to a letter that Secretary of State James Byrnes
sent to Congressman Adolph Sabath in 1946. In that letter, Byrnes said that
State Department security investigators had declared 284 persons unfit to
hold jobs in the department because of Communist connections and other
reasons, but that only 79 had been discharged, leaving 205 still on the State
Department's payroll. McCarthy told his Wheeling audience that while he
did not have the names of the 205 mentioned in the Byrnes letter, he did
have the names of 57 who were either members of or loyal to the
Communist Party. On February 20, 1950, McCarthy gave the Senate
information about 81 individuals -- the 57 referred to at Wheeling and 24
others of less importance and about whom the evidence was less conclusive.
The enemies of McCarthy have juggled these numbers around to make the
Senator appear to be erratic and to distract attention from the paramount
question: Were there still Alger Hisses in the State Department betraying
this nation? McCarthy was not being inconsistent in his use of the numbers;
the 57 and 81 were part of the 205 mentioned in the Byrnes letter.

41. 41
Q. Was it fair for McCarthy to make all those names public and ruin
reputations?
A. That is precisely why McCarthy did not make the names public. Four
times during the February 20th speech, Senator Scott Lucas demanded that
McCarthy make the 81 names public, but McCarthy refused to do so,
responding that "if I were to give all the names involved, it might leave a
wrong impression. If we should label one man a Communist when he is not
a Communist, I think it would be too bad." What McCarthy did was to
identify the individuals only by case numbers, not by their names.
By the way, it took McCarthy some six hours to make that February 20th
speech because of harassment by hostile Senators, four of whom -- Scott
Lucas, Brien McMahon, Garrett Withers, and Herbert Lehman -- interrupted
him a total of 123 times. It should also be noted that McCarthy was not
indicting the entire State Department. He said that "the vast majority of the
employees of the State Department are loyal" and that he was only after the
ones who had demonstrated a loyalty to the Soviet Union or to the
Communist Party.
Further, McCarthy admitted that "some of these individuals whose cases I
am giving the Senate are no longer in the State Department. A sizable
number of them are not. Some of them have transferred to other government
work, work allied with the State Department. Others have been transferred to
the United Nations." Senator Karl Mundt supported McCarthy on this point
by noting that "one of the great difficulties we confront in trying to get
Communists out of government is that apparently once they have been
removed from one department there is no alert given to the other
departments, so they simply drift from one department to another."
Q. What was the purpose of the Tydings Committee?
A. The Tydings Committee was a subcommittee of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee that was set up in February 1950 to conduct "a full and
complete study and investigation as to whether persons who are disloyal to
the United States are, or have been, employed by the Department of State."
The chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Millard Tydings, a Democrat,
set the tone for the hearings on the first day when he told McCarthy: "You
are in the position of being the man who occasioned this hearing, and so far
as I am concerned in this committee you are going to get one of the most

42. 42
complete investigations ever given in the history of this Republic, so far as
my abilities will permit."
After 31 days of hearings, during which McCarthy presented public
evidence on nine persons (Dorothy Kenyon, Haldore Hanson, Philip Jessup,
Esther Brunauer, Frederick Schuman, Harlow Shapley, Gustavo Duran, John
Stewart Service, and Owen Lattimore), the Tydings Committee labeled
McCarthy's charges a "fraud" and a "hoax," said that the individuals on his
list were neither Communist nor pro-Communist, and concluded that the
State Department had an effective security program.
Q. Did the Tydings Committee carry out its mandate?
A. Not by a long shot. The Tydings Committee never investigated State
Department security at all and did not come close to conducting the "full and
complete study and investigation" it was supposed to conduct. Tydings and
his Democratic colleagues, Brien McMahon and Theodore Green, subjected
McCarthy to considerable interruptions and heckling, prompting Senator
Henry Cabot Lodge to protest that McCarthy "never gets a fair shake" in
trying to present his evidence in an orderly fashion. So persistent were the
interruptions and statements of the Democratic trio during the first two days
of the hearings that McCarthy was allowed only a total of 17½ minutes of
direct testimony.
While the Democrats were hostile to McCarthy and to any witnesses that
could confirm his charges, they fawned all over the six individuals who
appeared before the committee to deny McCarthy's accusations. Tydings,
McMahon, and Green not only treated Philip Jessup like a hero, for one
example, but refused to let McCarthy present his full case against Jessup or
to cross-examine him. Furthermore, the committee majority declined to call
more than 20 witnesses whom Senator Bourke Hickenlooper thought were
important to the investigation. And when Senator Lodge read into the record
19 questions that he thought should be answered before the committee
exonerated the State Department's security system, not only did the
Democrats ignore the questions, but some member of the committee or the
staff deleted from the official transcript of the hearings the 19 questions as
well as other testimony that made the committee look bad. The deleted
material amounted to 35 typewritten pages.

43. 43
It is clear then that the Tydings Committee did not carry out its mandate and
that the words "fraud" and "hoax" more accurately describe the Tydings
Report than they do McCarthy's charges.
There is one other dirty trick played on McCarthy by Senator Tydings that
should be mentioned because it shows how dishonest McCarthy's enemies
were. McCarthy wanted to present his information in closed sessions, but
Tydings insisted on public sessions. So when McCarthy arrived at the first
hearing, he gave reporters a press release about Dorothy Kenyon, his first
case. Tydings then told McCarthy publicly that he could give his evidence in
executive session if he wished and gave him two minutes to make up his
mind. Since the committee had already rejected his request for closed
sessions, and since he had already given the press material about his first
case, McCarthy told Tydings that "we will have to proceed with this one in
open session."
As deceitful as Tydings was in trying to make McCarthy appear to be
responsible for public hearings, the reporters who were present were just as
bad. They knew what Tydings was trying to do, and yet they joined in
spreading this malicious falsehood about McCarthy.
Q. So, was McCarthy right or wrong about the State Department?
A. He was right. Of the 110 names that McCarthy gave to the Tydings
Committee to be investigated, 62 of them were employed by the State
Department at the time of the hearings. The committee cleared everyone on
McCarthy's list, but within a year the State Department started proceedings
against 49 of the 62. By the end of 1954, 81 of those on McCarthy's list had
left the government either by dismissal or resignation.
Q. Can you cite some particular examples?
A. Sure. Let's take three of McCarthy's nine public cases -- those of John
Stewart Service, Philip Jessup, and Owen Lattimore.* Five years before
McCarthy mentioned the name of John Stewart Service, Service was
arrested for giving classified documents to the editors of Amerasia, a
Communist magazine. The Truman Administration, however, managed to
cover up the espionage scandal and Service was never punished for his
crime. McCarthy also produced considerable evidence that Service had been
"part of the pro-Soviet group" that wanted to bring Communism to China,
but the Tydings Committee said that Service was "not disloyal, pro-

44. 44
Communist, or a security risk." Over the next 18 months, the State
Department's Loyalty Security Board cleared Service four more times, but
finally, in December 1951, the Civil Service Commission Loyalty Review
Board found that there was "reasonable doubt" as to his loyalty and ousted
him from the State Department.
Was the career of Mr. Service ruined by this decision? Not on your life. The
Supreme Court reinstated him in 1956 and Service was the American consul
in Liverpool, England, until his retirement in 1962. He then joined the
faculty of the University of California at Berkeley and visited Red China in
the fall of 1971 at the invitation of Communist tyrant Chou En-lai.
Following his return from the country he helped to communize, Service
wrote four articles for the New York Times and was the subject of a
laudatory cover interview in Parade magazine.
All that Joe McCarthy said about Philip Jessup was that he had an "unusual
affinity for Communist causes." The record shows that Jessup belonged to at
least five Communist-controlled fronts, that he associated closely with
Communists, and that he was an influential member of the Institute of
Pacific Relations (IPR), which the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee
(SISS) described in 1952 as "a vehicle used by Communists to orientate
American Far Eastern policy toward Communist objectives." The SISS also
reported that 46 persons connected with the IPR while Jessup was a leading
light there had been named under oath as members of the Communist Party.
The Senate apparently felt that McCarthy was closer to the truth than the
Tydings Committee because in 1951 it rejected Jessup's nomination as a
delegate to the United Nations. After the Senate adjourned, however,
President Truman appointed him anyway. In 1960, President Eisenhower
named Jessup to represent the United States on the International Court of
Justice, and Jessup served on the World Court until 1969. He died in 1986.
Owen Lattimore was one of the principal architects of the State
Department's pro-Communist foreign policy in the Far East. In a closed
session of the Tydings Committee, Senator McCarthy called Lattimore "the
top Russian spy" in the department. (That charge, by the way, was leaked to
the public not by McCarthy but by columnist Drew Pearson.) McCarthy later
modified his statement on Lattimore, saying that "I may have perhaps placed
too much stress on the question of whether or not he has been an espionage
agent," and went on to say that "thirteen different witnesses have testified

45. 45
under oath to Lattimore's Communist membership or party-line activities."
Although the Tydings Committee cleared Lattimore of all charges, another
Senate committee, the Internal Security Subcommittee, vindicated Joe
McCarthy when it declared in 1952 that "Owen Lattimore was, from some
time beginning in the 1930s, a conscious articulate instrument of the Soviet
conspiracy."
Was Lattimore hurt by this or by his subsequent indictment for perjury? Of
course not. He continued on the faculty of Johns Hopkins University, went
to Communist Outer Mongolia for the Kennedy State Department in 1961,
became head of a new Chinese studies department at Leeds University in
England in 1963, and returned to the United States in the Seventies for
speeches and lectures. On January 28th of this year, Lattimore told the
Associated Press from his home in Rhode Island that the Reagan
Administration's decision to establish diplomatic ties with Communist
Mongolia was "long overdue."
Q. Even if McCarthy was right about Service, Jessup, and Lattimore,
weren't there hundreds of others who were publicly smeared by him?
A. This is one of the most enduring myths about McCarthy, and it is
completely false. It is a fact, said Buckley and Bozell in McCarthy and His
Enemies, which from February 9, 1950, until January 1, 1953, Joe McCarthy
publicly questioned the loyalty or reliability of a grand total of 46 persons,
and particularly dramatized the cases of only 24 of the 46. We have just
talked about three of the Senator's major targets, and Buckley and Bozell
pointed out that McCarthy "never said anything more damaging about
Lauchlin Currie, Gustavo Duran, Theodore Geiger, Mary Jane Keeney,
Edward Posniak, Haldore Hanson, and John Carter Vincent, than that they
are known to one or more responsible persons as having been members of
the Communist Party, which is in each of these instances true."
While McCarthy may have exaggerated the significance of the evidence
against some other individuals, his record on the whole is extremely good.
(This is also true of the 1953-54 period when he was chairman of a Senate
committee and publicly exposed 114 persons, most of whom refused to
answer questions about Communist or espionage activities on the ground
that their answers might tend to incriminate them.) There were no innocent
victims of McCarthyism. Those whom McCarthy accused had indeed
collaborated in varying degrees with Communism and Communists, had

46. 46
shown no remorse for their actions, and thoroughly deserved whatever scorn
was directed at them.
Q. What about McCarthy's attack on General George Marshall?
Wasn't that a smear of a great man?
A. This is a reference to the 60,000-word speech he delivered on the Senate
floor on June 14, 1951 (later published as a book entitled America's Retreat
From Victory). One interesting thing about the speech is that McCarthy drew
almost entirely from sources friendly to Marshall in discussing nearly a
score of his actions and policies that had helped the Communists in the
USSR, Europe, China, and Korea. "I do not propose to go into his motives,"
said McCarthy. "Unless one has all the tangled and often complicated
circumstances contributing to a man's decisions, an inquiry into his motives
is often fruitless. I do not pretend to understand General Marshall's nature
and character, and I shall leave that subject to subtler analysts of human
personality."
One may agree or disagree with McCarthy's statement that America's steady
retreat from victory "must be the product of a great conspiracy, a conspiracy
on a scale so immense as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history
of man. A conspiracy of infamy so black that, when it is finally exposed, its
principals shall be forever deserving of the maledictions of all honest men."
That statement was very controversial in 1951, but after 36 years of no-win
wars in Korea and Vietnam, along with Soviet expansionism throughout the
world, aided and abetted in large measure by U.S. policymakers, it doesn't
seem so controversial anymore. In any case, before judging McCarthy on
what he is supposed to have said about Marshall, we recommend reading the
book to find out what he actually said and to see how extensive was his
documentation.
Q. Can it be true that State Department policy toward the Communists
didn't change very much even after McCarthy helped get many pro-
Communists out of the department?
A. Unfortunately, it is true. McCarthy, you see, only scratched the surface.
He did prompt a tightening of security procedures for a while, and the State
Department and other sensitive federal agencies dismissed nearly 4,000
employees in 1953 and 1954, although many of them shifted to nonsensitive

47. 47
departments. Some of these security risks returned to their old agencies
when security was virtually scrapped during the Kennedy Administration.
During the mid-1950s, a State Department security specialist named Otto
Otepka reviewed the files of all department personnel and found some kind
of derogatory information on 1,943 persons, almost 20 percent of the total
payroll. He told the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee years later that
of the 1,943 employees, 722 "left the department for various reasons, but
mostly by transfer to other agencies, before a final security determination
was made." Otepka trimmed the remaining number on the list to 858 and in
December 1955 sent their names to his boss, Scott McLeod, as persons to be
watched because of Communist associations, homosexuality, habitual
drunkenness, or mental illness.
McLeod's staff reviewed the Otepka list and narrowed it down to 258
persons who were judged to be "serious" security risks. "Approximately 150
were in high-level posts where they could in one way or another influence
the formulation of United States foreign policy," said William J. Gill, author
of The Ordeal of Otto Otepka. "And fully half of these 258 serious cases
were officials in either crucial Intelligence assignments or serving on top-
secret committees reaching all the way up and into the National Security
Council." As many as 175 of the 258 were still in important policy posts as
of the mid-1960s, but Otto Otepka had been ousted from the State
Department by that time and we are not aware of anyone like Otepka
keeping track of security risks since then -- and that was more than 20 years
ago.
Considering the State Department's virtually unbroken record over the past
30 years of undermining anti-Communist governments and backing
Communist regimes, of putting Soviet desires ahead of American interests,
of allowing 200 Soviet nationals to work and spy for years in our embassy in
Moscow, and of bitterly opposing Reagan Administration efforts in 1986 to
reduce the massive Soviet espionage presence at the United Nations by one-
third, it is not unreasonable to wonder how many heirs of Alger Hiss are still
making policy there.
Bear in mind, too, that Communist penetration of the U.S. government was
not confined to the State Department. On July 30, 1953, the Senate
Internal Security Subcommittee, chaired by Senator William Jenner,

48. 48
released its report on Interlocking Subversion in Government
Departments. Among its conclusions:
1. The Soviet international organization has carried on a successful
and important penetration of the United States Government and this
penetration has not been fully exposed.
2. This penetration has extended from the lower ranks to top-level
policy and operating positions in our government.
3. The agents of this penetration have operated in accordance with a
distinct design fashioned by their Soviet superiors.
4. Members of this conspiracy helped to get each other into
government, helped each other to rise in government, and protected
each other from exposure.
Summarizing the 1952 testimony of former Soviet courier Elizabeth
Bentley, who had identified 37 Soviet agents within the U.S. government,
the subcommittee also said that "to her knowledge there were four Soviet
espionage rings operating within our government and that only two of these
have been exposed." In October 1953, a Soviet defector named Colonel
Ismail Ege estimated that a minimum of 20 spy networks were operating
within the United States in 1941-1942, when he was chief of the Fourth
Section of Soviet General Staff Intelligence. Thirty-four years after Ege's
testimony, these espionage rings and networks still have not been publicly
exposed.
On February 5, 1987, the New York Times reported that an 18-month
investigation by the House Intelligence Committee "had uncovered
'dangerous laxity' and serious 'security failures' in the government's system
of catching spies. Even though 27 Americans have been charged with
espionage in the last two years, and all but one of those brought to trial have
been found guilty, the committee said in a report that it still found 'a
puzzling, almost nonchalant attitude toward recent espionage cases on the
part of some senior U.S. intelligence officials.'" According to the Times, "the
investigation found 'faulty hiring practices, poor management of
probationary employees, thoughtless firing practices, lax security practices,
inadequate interagency cooperation -- even bungled surveillance of a prime
espionage suspect.'"

49. 49
The same "nonchalant attitude" toward Communist spies that Joe McCarthy
denounced in the early 1950s still exists today. Only there is no Joe
McCarthy in the Senate urging that something be done to correct this
dangerous situation. Nor are there any congressional committees
investigating Communist subversion in government. The destruction of Joe
McCarthy not only removed him from the fight, it also sent a powerful
message to anyone else who might be contemplating a similar battle: Try to
ferret Communists and pro-Communists out of the government and you will
be harassed, smeared, and ultimately destroyed.
Q. But why do we need congressional committees? Can't the FBI do the
job?
A. The function of the FBI is to gather information and pass it along to the
agency or department where the security problem exists. If the FBI report is
ignored, or if the department does take action and is overruled by a review
board, only a congressional committee can expose and remedy this situation.
Some examples: In December 1945, the FBI sent President Truman a report
showing that his Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Harry Dexter White,
was a Soviet spy. Truman ignored the warning and, early in 1946, promoted
White to executive director of the U.S. Mission to the International
Monetary Fund. The FBI sent Truman a second report, but again he did
nothing. White resigned from the government in 1947, and his Communist
ties were exposed by Elizabeth Bentley when she appeared before the House
Committee on Un-American Activities in 1948.
The FBI warned the State Department in the mid-1940s of extensive
Communist penetration of the department, but the warning was disregarded
for the most part. It was not until Joe McCarthy turned the spotlight on the
situation that dozens of security risks were removed. The FBI had also sent
some 40 confidential reports about the Communist activities of Edward
Rothschild, an employee of the Government Printing Office, but Rothschild
wasn't removed from his sensitive position until his background was
exposed by the McCarthy Committee in 1953.

50. 50
III. Committee Chairman (1953-54)
Q. Granted that congressional investigating committees can serve an
important purpose, weren't McCarthy's methods terrible and didn't he
subject witnesses to awful harassment?
A. Now we're into an entirely different phase of McCarthy's career. For three
years, he had been one lone Senator crying in the wilderness. With the
Republicans taking control of the Senate in January 1953, however, Joe
McCarthy became chairman of the Senate Permanent Investigations
Subcommittee. No longer did he have to rely solely upon public speeches to
inform the American people of the Communist threat to America. He was
now chairman of a Senate committee with a mandate to search out graft,
incompetence, and disloyalty inside the vast reaches of the American
government.
As for McCarthy's methods, they were no different from those of other
Senators who were generally applauded for vigorous cross-examination of
organized crime figures, for instance. The question of methods seems to
come up only when subversives or spies are on the witness stand. And those
who most loudly deplored McCarthy's methods often resorted to the foulest
methods themselves, including the use of lies, half-truths, and innuendos
designed to stir up hysteria against him. What some people seemingly do not
understand is that Communists are evildoers and that those who give aid and
comfort to Communists -- whether they are called dupes, fellow travelers,
liberals, or progressives -- are also evildoers who should be exposed and
removed from positions of influence.
Traitors and spies in high places are not easy to identify. They do not wear
sweatshirts with the hammer and sickle emblazoned on the front. Only
painstaking investigation and exhaustive questioning can reveal them as
enemies. So why all the condemnation for those who expose spies and none
for the spies themselves? Why didn't McCarthy's critics expose a traitor now
and then and show everyone how much better they could do it? No, it was
much easier to hound out of public life such determined enemies of the Reds
as Martin Dies, Parnell Thomas, and Joe McCarthy than to muster the
courage to face up to the howling Communist wolfpack themselves.

51. 51
Q. So, McCarthy's treatment of persons appearing before his committee
was not as bad as has been reported?
A. Exactly. Let's look at the record. During 1953 and the first three months
of 1954 (McCarthy was immobilized for the remainder of 1954 by two
investigations of him), McCarthy's committee held 199 days of hearings and
examined 653 witnesses. These individuals first appeared in executive
session and were told of the evidence against them. If they were able to offer
satisfactory explanations -- and most of them were -- they were dismissed
and nobody ever knew they had been summoned.
Those who appeared in public sessions were either hardened Fifth
Amendment pleaders or persons about whom there was a reasonably strong
presumption of guilt. But even those witnesses who were brazen, insulting,
and defiant were afforded their constitutional rights to confer with their
counsel before answering a question (something they would not be allowed
to do in a courtroom), to confront their accusers or at least have them
identified and have questions submitted to them by their counsel, and to
invoke the First and Fifth Amendments rather than answer questions about
their alleged Communist associations.
Of the 653 persons called by the McCarthy Committee during that 15-month
period, 83 refused to answer questions about Communist or espionage
activities on constitutional grounds and their names were made public. Nine
additional witnesses invoked the Fifth Amendment in executive session, but
their names were not made public. Some of the 83 were working or had
worked for the Army, the Navy, the Government Printing Office, the
Treasury Department, the Office of War Information, the Office of Strategic
Services, the Veterans Administration, and the United Nations. Others were
or had been employed at the Federal Telecommunications Laboratories in
New Jersey, the secret radar laboratories of the Army Signal Corps in New
Jersey, and General Electric defense plants in Massachusetts and New York.
Nineteen of the 83, including such well-known Communist propagandists as
James S. Allen, Herbert Aptheker, and Earl Browder, were summoned
because their writings were being carried in U.S. Information Service
libraries around the world.
Charles E. Ford, an attorney for Edward Rothschild in the Government
Printing Office hearings, was so impressed with McCarthy's fairness toward
his client that he declared: "I think the committee session at this day and in

52. 52
this place is most admirable and most American." Peter Gragis, who
appeared before the McCarthy Committee on March 10, 1954, said that he
had come to the hearing terrified because the press "had pointed out that you
were very abusive, that you were crucifying people .... My experience has
been quite the contrary. I have, I think, been very understandingly treated. I
have been, I think, highly respected despite the fact that for some 20 years I
had been more or less an active Communist."
Q. Weren't McCarthy and some members of his staff guilty of "book-
burning" and causing a ruckus in Europe in 1953?
A. This accusation was made in reference to the committee's inquiry into
Communist influences in State Department libraries overseas. In his
book McCarthy, Roy Cohn, the committee's chief counsel, conceded that he
and committee staffer David Schine "unwittingly handed Joe McCarthy's
enemies a perfect opportunity to spread the tale that a couple of young,
inexperienced clowns were bustling about Europe, ordering State
Department officials around, burning books, creating chaos wherever they
went, and disrupting foreign relations." In point of fact, however, the trip
and subsequent hearings by the committee provided information that led to
the removal of more than 30,000 Communist and pro-Communist books
from U.S. Information Service libraries in foreign countries. The presence of
such books was in obvious conflict with the stated purpose of those libraries:
"to promote better understanding of America abroad" and "to combat and
expose Soviet communistic propaganda."
Q. But didn't McCarthy summon to those hearings a man whose major
sin was having written a book on college football 21 years before?
A. In March 1953, the McCarthy Committee did hear testimony from Reed
Harris, deputy head of the State Department's International Information
Administration and author of King Football. Harris' book, however, was not
confined to football. The author also advocated that Communists and
Socialists be allowed to teach in colleges and said that hungry people in
America, after "watching gangsters and corrupt politicians gulp joyously
from the horn of plenty," just might "decide that even the horrors of those
days of fighting which inaugurated the era of communism in Russia would
be preferable to the present state of affairs" in the United States.

53. 53
The following colloquy between Harris and Senator John McClellan is
never quoted by McCarthy's critics:
McClellan. Here is what I am concerned about. In the first place, I will ask
you this: If it should be established that a person entertained the views and
philosophies that you expressed in that book, would you consider that person
suitable or fit to hold a position in the Voice of America which you now
hold?
Harris. I would not.
McClellan. You would not employ such a person, would you?
Harris. I would not, Senator.
McClellan. Now we find you in that position.
Harris. That is correct.
Before shedding any tears for Mr. Harris, who resigned his post in April
1953, be advised that when anti-McCarthy hysteric Edward R. Murrow took
over the U.S. Information Agency in 1961, he hired Reed Harris as his
deputy, proving once again that the only true victim of McCarthyism was
Joe McCarthy himself.
Q. But what about that poor old black woman that McCarthy falsely
accused of being a Communist?
A. That woman was Annie Lee Moss, who lost her job working with
classified messages at the Pentagon after an FBI undercover operative
testified that she was a member of the Communist Party. When she appeared
before the McCarthy Committee early in 1954, Mrs. Moss, who lived at 72
R Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., denied she was a Communist. Her
defenders accused McCarthy of confusing Mrs. Moss with another woman
with a similar name at a different address. Edward R. Murrow made the
woman a heroine on his television program and the anti-McCarthy press
trumpeted this episode as typical of McCarthy's abominations.
And so things stood until September 1958 when the Subversive Activities
Control Board reported that copies of the Communist Party's own records
showed that "one Annie Lee Moss, 72 R Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.,

54. 54
was a party member in the mid-1940s." Mrs. Moss got her Pentagon job
back in 1954 and was still working for the Army in December 1958.
Q. Mrs. Moss might have gotten her job back, but what about all those
individuals who lost their jobs in defense plants?
A. During its probe of 13 defense plants whose contracts with the
government ran into hundreds of millions of dollars a year, the McCarthy
Committee heard 101 witnesses, two of whom -- William H. Teto and
Herman E. Thomas -- provided the committee with information about the
Red spy network and the efforts of the Communists to set up cells in the
plants. The committee's exposures led to the dismissal of 32 persons and the
tightening of security regulations at the plants. The president of General
Electric, for example, issued a policy statement expressing concern about
"the possible danger to the safety and security of company property and
personnel whenever a General Electric employee admits he is a Communist
or when he asserts before a competent investigating government body that
he might incriminate himself by giving truthful answers concerning his
Communist affiliations or his possible espionage or sabotage activities."
At the time McCarthy's investigations were halted early in 1954, his probers
had accumulated evidence involving an additional 155 defense workers, but
he was never able to question those individuals under oath. On January 12,
1959, Congressman Gordon Scherer, a member of the House Committee on
Un-American Activities, said that he knew of a minimum of 2,000 "potential
espionage agents and saboteurs" working in the nation's defense plants. But
there have been no congressional investigations in this vital area since
Senator McCarthy was stymied in 1954.
Q. What were the Fort Monmouth hearings all about? Weren't all of
those fired eventually given back their jobs?
A. The Army Signal Corps installation at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, was
one of the nation's most vital security posts since the three research centers
housed there were engaged in developing defensive devices designed to
protect America from an atomic attack. Julius Rosenberg, who was executed
in 1953 for selling U.S. atomic secrets to the Soviet Union, worked as an
inspector at Fort Monmouth from 1940 to 1945 and maintained his Signal
Corps contacts for at least another two years after that. From 1949 to 1953,
the FBI had been warning the Army about security risks at Fort Monmouth,

55. 55
but the Army paid little or no attention to the reports of subversion until the
McCarthy investigation began in 1953.
During 1953 and 1954, the McCarthy Committee, acting on reports of
Communist infiltration from civilian employees, Army officers, and enlisted
personnel, heard 71 witnesses at executive sessions and 41 at open hearings.
The Army responded by suspending or discharging 35 persons as security
risks, but when these cases reached the Army Loyalty and Screening Board
at the Pentagon, all but two of the suspected security risks were reinstated
and given back pay. McCarthy demanded the names of the 20 civilians on
the review board and, when he threatened to subpoena them, the Eisenhower
Administration, at a meeting in Attorney General Herbert Brownell's office
on January 21, 1954, began plotting to stop McCarthy's investigations once
and for all.
Yes, virtually all of those suspended were eventually restored to duty at Fort
Monmouth and anti-McCarthyites have cited this as proof that McCarthy
had failed once again to substantiate his allegations. But vindication of
McCarthy came later, when the Army's top-secret operations at Fort
Monmouth were quietly moved to Arizona. In his 1979 book With No
Apologies, Senator Barry Goldwater explained the reason for the move:
Carl Hayden, who in January 1955 became chairman of the powerful
Appropriations Committee of the United States Senate, told me privately
Monmouth had been moved because he and other members of the majority
Democratic Party were convinced security at Monmouth had been
penetrated. They didn't want to admit that McCarthy was right in his
accusations. Their only alternative was to move the installation from New
Jersey to a new location in Arizona.
Q. Speaking of the Army, what was the name of that dentist that
McCarthy said was a Communist?
A. His name was Irving Peress and here is some background information. In
December 1953, an Army general alerted Senator McCarthy to the
incredible story of this New York dentist who was drafted into the Army as
a captain in October 1952; who refused a month later to answer questions on
a Defense Department form about membership in subversive organizations;
who was recommended for dismissal by the Surgeon General of the Army in
April 1953; but who requested and received a promotion to major the

56. 56
following October. Roy Cohn gave the facts on Peress to Army Counsel
John G. Adams in December 1953, and Adams promised to do something
about it.
When still no action had been taken on Peress a month later, McCarthy
subpoenaed him before the committee on January 30, 1954. Peress took the
Fifth Amendment 20 times when asked about his membership in the
Communist Party, his attendance at a Communist training school, and his
efforts to recruit military personnel into the party. Two days later, McCarthy
sent a letter to Army Secretary Robert Stevens by special messenger,
reviewing the testimony of Peress and requesting that he be court martialed
and that the Army find out who promoted Peress, knowing that he was a
Communist. On that same day, February 1st, Peress asked for an honorable
separation from the Army, which he promptly received the next day from his
commanding officer at Camp Kilmer, New Jersey, Brigadier General Ralph
W. Zwicker.
McCarthy took the next logical step and summoned General Zwicker to a
closed session of the committee on February 18th. There was no reason at
that time for McCarthy to suppose that Zwicker would be anything but a
frank and cooperative witness. In separate conversations with two McCarthy
staff members, on January 22nd and February 13th, Zwicker had said that he
was familiar with Peress' Communist connections and that he was opposed
to giving him an honorable discharge, but that he was ordered to do so by
someone at the Pentagon.
When he appeared before McCarthy, however, Zwicker was evasive, hostile,
and uncooperative. He changed his story three times when asked if he had
known at the time he signed the discharge that Peress had refused to answer
questions before the McCarthy Committee. McCarthy became increasingly
exasperated and, when Zwicker, in response to a hypothetical question, said
that he would not remove from the military a general who originated the
order for the honorable discharge of a Communist major, knowing that he
was a Communist, McCarthy told Zwicker that he was not fit to wear the
uniform of a general.

57. 57
Q. So McCarthy really did "abuse" Zwicker and impugn his patriotism
as the critics have charged?
A. Let's jump ahead three years and get Zwicker's own assessment of his
testimony on February 18, 1954. At a hearing before the Senate Armed
Services Committee on March 21, 1957, the General stated: "I think there
are some circumstances ... that would certainly tend to give a person the idea
that perhaps I was recalcitrant, perhaps I was holding back, and perhaps I
wasn't too cooperative .... I am afraid I was perhaps overcautious and
perhaps on the defensive, and that this feeling ... may have inclined me to be
not as forthright, perhaps, in answering the questions put to me as I might
have been otherwise."
That wasn't the only time that General Zwicker was less than forthright. In
testimony before the McClellan Committee (formerly the McCarthy
Committee) on March 23, 1955, Zwicker denied giving McCarthy staffer
George Anastos derogatory information about Irving Peress in their
telephone conversation of January 22, 1954. When Anastos and the secretary
who had monitored the conversation both testified under oath and
contradicted Zwicker, the McClellan Committee forwarded the transcript of
the hearing to the Justice Department for possible prosecution of Zwicker for
perjury. After sitting on the matter for 19 months, the Justice Department
finally, in December 1956, declined to undertake criminal prosecution of
Zwicker for "technical" reasons.
On April 1, 1957, the Senate approved a promotion for Zwicker by a vote of
70 to 2, with Senators McCarthy and George Malone opposed. All the
members of the Senate had gotten a phone call from the Pentagon or the
White House urging them to vote for Zwicker. The recalcitrant General
served three more years in the Army before retiring.
Q. Does anyone know who did promote Peress and who told Zwicker to
sign the Communist major's honorable discharge?
A. After studying the 1955 McClellan hearings on the Peress case, Lionel
Lokos, in his book Who Promoted Peress, concluded that Colonel H.W.
Glattly signed the letter to the Adjutant General, recommending the
promotion of Irving Peress; and Major James E. Harris, in the name of the
Adjutant General, signed Peress' letter of appointment to major. As for
Peress' discharge, Army Counsel John Adams and Lieutenant General

58. 58
Walter L. Weible ordered General Zwicker to sign the honorable separation
from the Army. The McClellan Committee sharply rebuked Adams for his
action, saying that he "showed disrespect for this subcommittee when he
chose to disregard Senator McCarthy's letter of February 1, 1954, and
allowed Peress to be honorably discharged on February 2, 1954."
In its report on the Peress case, the McClellan Committee said that "some 48
errors of more than minor importance were committed by the Army in
connection with the commissioning, transfer, promotion, and honorable
discharge of Irving Peress." As a result, the Army made some sweeping
changes in its security program, including a policy statement that said "the
taking of the Fifth Amendment by an individual queried about his
Communist affiliations is sufficient to warrant the issuance of a general
discharge rather than an honorable discharge." That these reforms came
about at all was due to the persistence of one Senator, Joe McCarthy, who
displayed the courage to expose Peress against the wishes of the Army, the
White House, and many of his fellow Republicans.
"No one will ever know," said Lionel Lokos, "what it cost Senator McCarthy
to take the stand he did in the Peress case -- what it cost him in terms of
popularity and his political future. We only know that the price of asking
'Who Promoted Peress' came high and that Senator McCarthy didn't hesitate
to pay that price."
IV. Army-McCarthy Hearings
Q. What was the gist of the Army-McCarthy Hearings?
A. On March 11, 1954, the Army accused McCarthy and his staff of using
improper means in seeking preferential treatment for G. David Schine, a
consultant to McCarthy's committee, prior to and after Schine was drafted
into the Army in November 1953. Senator McCarthy countercharged that
these allegations were made in bad faith and were designed to prevent his
committee from continuing its probe of Communist subversion at Fort
Monmouth and from issuing subpoenas for members of the Army Loyalty
and Screening Board. A special committee, under the chairmanship of
Senator Karl Mundt, was appointed to adjudicate these conflicting charges,
and the hearings opened on April 22, 1954.

59. 59
The televised hearings lasted for 36 days and were viewed by an estimated
20 million people. After hearing 32 witnesses and two million words of
testimony, the committee concluded that McCarthy himself had not
exercised any improper influence in behalf of David Schine, but that Roy
Cohn, McCarthy's chief counsel, had engaged in some "unduly persistent or
aggressive efforts" in behalf of Schine. The committee also concluded that
Army Secretary Robert Stevens and Army Counsel John Adams "made
efforts to terminate or influence the investigation and hearings at Fort
Monmouth," and that Adams "made vigorous and diligent efforts" to block
subpoenas for members of the Army Loyalty and Screening Board "by
means of personal appeal to certain members of the [McCarthy] committee."
In a separate statement that concurred with the special committee report,
Senator Everett Dirksen demonstrated the weakness of the Army case by
noting that the Army did not make its charges public until eight months after
the first allegedly improper effort was made in behalf of Schine (July 1953),
and then not until after Senator McCarthy had made it known (January
1954) that he would subpoena members of the Army Loyalty and Screening
Board. Dirksen also called attention to a telephone conversation between
Secretary Stevens and Senator Stuart Symington on March 8, 1954, three
days before the Army allegations were made public. In that conversation,
Stevens said that any charges of improper influence by McCarthy's staff
"would prove to be very much exaggerated .... I am the Secretary and I have
had some talks with the [McCarthy] committee and the chairman, and so on,
and by and large as far as the treatment of me is concerned, I have no
personal complaint."
In his 1984 book Who Killed Joe McCarthy?, former Eisenhower White
House aide William Bragg Ewald Jr., who had access to many unpublished
papers and memos from persons involved in the Army-McCarthy clash,
confirms the good relations that existed between McCarthy and Stevens and
the lack of pressure from McCarthy in behalf of Schine. In a phone
conversation November 7, 1953, the Senator told the Secretary not to give
Schine any special treatment, such as putting him in the service and
assigning him back to the committee. McCarthy even said that Roy Cohn
had been "completely unreasonable" about Schine, that "he thinks Dave
should be a general and work from the penthouse of the Waldorf."
Ewald also reported a phone conversation between Stevens and Assistant
Secretary of Defense Fred Seaton on January 8, 1954, in which Stevens

60. 60
admitted that Schine might not have been drafted if he hadn't worked for the
McCarthy Committee. "Of course, the kid was taken at the very last minute
before he would have been ineligible for age," said Stevens. "He is 26, you
know. My guess would be that if he hadn't been working for McCarthy, he
probably never would have been drafted."
Another thing confirmed by Ewald was the secret meeting at the Justice
Department on January 21, 1954, when a group of anti-McCarthyites came
up with a plan to stop McCarthy either by asking the Republican members of
his committee to talk him out of subpoenaing members of the Army Loyalty
and Screening Board or, if that didn't work, by drawing up a list of alleged
efforts in behalf of David Schine and threatening to make the list public
unless McCarthy backed off.
Those at the January 21st meeting were Attorney General Herbert Brownell,
Ambassador to the UN Henry Cabot Lodge, Deputy Attorney General
William Rogers, White House chief of staff Sherman Adams, White House
aide Gerald Morgan, and John Adams. When John Adams inadvertently
mentioned this meeting during the Army-McCarthy Hearings, and McCarthy
wanted to find out more about it, President Eisenhower, on May 17, 1954,
issued an executive order forbidding any employee of the Defense
Department "to testify to any such conversations or communications or to
produce any such documents or reproductions."
Q. Did the Army-McCarthy Hearings serve any good purpose?
A. Yes. Despite the inordinate focus on trivia and the clever distractions
introduced by counsel for the Army Joseph Welch, the hearings alerted the
American people as never before to the dangers of Communism. McCarthy's
popularity in opinion polls had declined from 50 percent approval in January
1954 to 35 percent in May, but tens of millions still supported him. You
would never know this from reading summaries of the hearings or from
watching Point of Order, a 97-minute "documentary" (taken from 188 hours
of television footage) that omitted virtually every incident favorable to
McCarthy -- and there were many of them -- and included only those
segments where McCarthy did not come across well. By showing McCarthy
mainly when he was irritated or expressing his many "points of order," the
film presents a distorted view of him.

61. 61
Q. How about some examples of clever distractions?
A. Let's consider three tricks pulled by Joe Welch to divert people's
attention away from the central issue of Communist subversion:
(1) The "Cropped" Photograph. On April 26th, a photo was
introduced showing Secretary Stevens posing willingly for a smiling
photograph with Private Schine at Fort Dix, New Jersey, on
November 17, 1953, a time when Stevens was supposed to be mad at
Schine for seeking special treatment from the Army. Welch produced
another photo the next day showing the base commander in the
picture with Stevens and Schine and said that the first one was "a
shamefully cut-down version." But the innocent deletion of the base
commander from the · photograph did not change its basic meaning --
that Stevens was not angry with Schine at a time that the Army said he
was.
(2) The "Purloined" Document. On May 4th, Senator McCarthy
produced a 2¼-page document with the names of 34 subversives at
Fort Monmouth, half of whom were still there. The document, which
had been given to McCarthy by an intelligence officer in 1953, was a
summary of a 15-page report that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover had
sent on January 26, 1951, to Major General A. R. Bolling, chief of
Army Intelligence. Instead of being concerned that the Army had not
acted on the FBI report and had not tried to root out the subversives at
Fort Monmouth, Welch kept harping on how McCarthy got the
summary and where it came from. McCarthy refused to tell him.
Welch ascertained that Hoover had not written the 2¼-page document
in McCarthy's possession and termed it "a carbon copy of precisely
nothing." In point of fact, however, the document was an accurate
summary of Hoover's original report, but Welch made it appear that
McCarthy was presenting phony evidence.
(3) The Fred Fisher Episode. On June 9th, the 30th day of the
hearings, Welch was engaged in baiting Roy Cohn, challenging him to
get 130 Communists or subversives out of defense plants "before the
sun goes down." The treatment of Cohn angered McCarthy and he
said that if Welch were so concerned about persons aiding the
Communist Party, he should check on a man in his Boston law office
named Fred Fisher, who had once belonged to the National Lawyers

62. 62
Guild, which Attorney General Brownell had called "the legal
mouthpiece of the Communist Party." Welch then delivered the most
famous lines from the Army-McCarthy Hearings, accusing McCarthy
of "reckless cruelty" and concluding: "Let us not assassinate this lad
further, Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency,
sir, at long last?"
The fact of the matter was that Fred Fisher's connection with the National
Lawyers Guild had been widely publicized two months earlier. Page 12 of
the April 16thNew York Times had carried a picture of Fisher and a story
about his removal from Welch's team because of his past association with
the NLG. If Mr. Welch was so worried that McCarthy's remarks might
inflict a lifelong "scar" on Fisher's reputation, why did he dramatize the
incident in such histrionic fashion? The reason, of course, was that
McCarthy had fallen into a trap in raising the Fisher issue, and Welch,
superb showman that he was, played the scene for all it was worth. Was Fred
Fisher hurt by the incident? Not at all. He became a partner in Welch's
Boston law firm, Hale & Dorr, and was elected president of the
Massachusetts Bar Association in the mid-1970s.
V. The Watkins Committee
Q. So the Senate finally censured Joe McCarthy for his conduct during
the Army-McCarthy Hearings, right?
A. Wrong. McCarthy was not censured for his conduct in the Army-
McCarthy Hearings or for anything he had ever said or done in any hearings
in which he had participated. Here are the facts: After McCarthy emerged
unscathed from his bout with the Army, the Left launched a new campaign
to discredit and destroy him. The campaign began on July 30, 1954, when
Senator Ralph Flanders introduced a resolution accusing McCarthy of
conduct "unbecoming a member of the United States Senate." Flanders, who
two months earlier had told the Senate that McCarthy's "anti-Communism so
completely parallels that of Adolf Hitler as to strike fear into the hearts of
any defenseless minority," had gotten his list of charges against McCarthy
from a leftwing group called the National Committee for an Effective
Congress.
McCarthy's enemies ultimately accused him of 46 different counts of
allegedly improper conduct and another special committee was set up, under

63. 63
the chairmanship of Senator Arthur Watkins, to study and evaluate the
charges. Thus began the fifth investigation of Joe McCarthy in five years!
After two months of hearings and deliberations, the Watkins Committee
recommended that McCarthy be censured on only two of the 46 counts. So
when a special session of the Senate convened on November 8, 1954,
these were the two charges to be debated and voted on:
(1) That Senator McCarthy had "failed to cooperate" in 1952 with the
Senate Subcommitee on Privileges and Elections that was looking into
certain aspects of his private and political life in connection with a
resolution for his expulsion from the Senate; and
(2) That in conducting a senatorial inquiry, Senator McCarthy had
"intemperately abused" General Ralph Zwicker.
Many Senators were uneasy about the Zwicker count, particularly
since the Army had shown contempt for committee chairman
McCarthy by disregarding his letter of February 1, 1954, and
honorably discharging Irving Peress the next day. For this reason,
these Senators felt that McCarthy's conduct toward Zwicker on
February 18th was at least partially justified. So the Zwicker count
was dropped at the last minute and in its place was this substitute
charge:
(3) That Senator McCarthy, by characterizing the Watkins Committee
as the "unwitting handmaiden" of the Communist Party and by
describing the special Senate session as a "lynch party" and a "lynch
bee," had "acted contrary to senatorial ethics and tended to bring the
Senate into dishonor and disrepute, to obstruct the constitutional
processes of the Senate, and to impair its dignity."
On December 2, 1954, the Senate voted to "condemn" Senator Joseph
McCarthy on both counts by a vote of 67 to 22, with the Democrats
unanimously in favor of condemnation and the Republicans split evenly.
Q. Was the Senate justified in condemning McCarthy on these counts?
A. No, it was not. Regarding the first count, failure to cooperate with the
Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections, the subcommittee never
subpoenaed McCarthy but only "invited" him to testify; one Senator and two
staff members resigned from the subcommittee because of its dishonesty

64. 64
towards McCarthy; and the subcommittee, in its final report, dated January
2, 1953, said that the matters under consideration "have become moot by
reason of the 1952 election." No Senator had ever been punished for
something that had happened in a previous Congress or for declining an
"invitation" to testify. By the way, the Justice Department and the Bureau of
Internal Revenue investigated McCarthy's finances and taxes for the period
1946 to 1952 and found no violations of the law. On April 19, 1955, the
Internal Revenue awarded him a refund of $1,046.75 for overpayment of
taxes.
As for the second count, criticism of the Watkins Committee and the special
Senate session, McCarthy was condemned for opinions he had
expressed outside the Senate. As David Lawrence pointed out in an editorial
in the June 7, 1957 issue of U.S. News & World Report, other Senators had
accused McCarthy of lying under oath, accepting influence money, engaging
in election fraud, making libelous and false statements, practicing blackmail,
doing the work of the Communists for them, and engaging in a questionable
"personal relationship" with Roy Cohn and David Schine, but they were not
censured for acting "contrary to senatorial ethics" or for impairing the
"dignity" of the Senate.
The chief beneficiary of the Senate destruction of Joe McCarthy was the
Communist conspiracy (the Communist Party newspaper the Daily
Worker had called the recommendations of the Watkins Committee "good
news for America"). Former Communist Louis Budenz, who knew the inner
workings of that conspiracy as well as anyone, said that the condemnation of
McCarthy leaves the way open "to intimidate any person of consequence
who moves against the conspiracy. The Communists made him their chief
target because they wanted to make him a symbol to remind political leaders
in America not to harm the conspiracy or its world conquest designs." The
history of the past 30 years confirms the tragic truth of Budenz's statement.
Q. Who were the 22 Republican Senators who voted against the
condemnation of Joe McCarthy?
A. More than a dozen Senators told McCarthy that they did not want to vote
against him but had to because of the tremendous pressure being put on them
by the White House and by leaders of both political parties. The 22 men who
did put principle above politics were Senators Frank Barrett (Wyoming),
Styles Bridges (New Hampshire), Ernest Brown (Nevada), John Marshall

65. 65
Butler (Maryland), Guy Cordon (Oregon), Everett Dirksen (Illinois), Henry
Dworshak (Idaho), Barry Goldwater (Arizona), Bourke Hickenlooper
(Iowa), Roman Hruska (Nebraska), William Jenner (Indiana), William
Knowland (California), Thomas Kuchel (California), William Langer (North
Dakota), George Malone (Nevada), Edward Martin (Pennsylvania), Eugene
Millikin (Colorado), Karl Mundt (South Dakota), William Purtell
(Connecticut), Andrew Schoeppel (Kansas), Herman Welker (Idaho), and
Milton Young (North Dakota).
VI. The Years 1955-1957
Q. Did Joe McCarthy become a recluse in the 29 months between his
condemnation and his death?
A. No, he did not. He worked hard at his senatorial duties. "To insist, as
some have, that McCarthy was a shattered man after the censure is sheer
nonsense," said Brent Bozell, one of his aides at the time. "His intellect was
as sharp as ever. When he addressed himself to a problem, he was perfectly
capable of dealing with it."
A member of the minority party in the Senate again, Joe McCarthy had to
rely on public speeches to alert the American people to the menace of
Communism. This he did in a number of important addresses during those
two and a half years. He warned against attendance at summit conferences
with the Reds, saying that "you cannot offer friendship to tyrants and
murderers ... without advancing the cause of tyranny and murder." He
declared that "coexistence with Communists is neither possible nor
honorable nor desirable. Our long term objective must be the eradication of
Communism from the face of the earth."
Senator McCarthy was alone in calling for the use of force to defend the
brave Hungarian people against Soviet aggression in 1956. He was virtually
alone in warning that the Soviet Union was winning the missile race
"because well-concealed Communists in the United States government are
putting the brakes on our own guided-missile program." He was prophetic in
urging the Eisenhower Administration to let "the free Asiatic peoples" fight
to free their countrymen from Communist slavery in Red China, North
Korea, and North Vietnam. "In justice to them, and in justice to the millions
of American boys who will otherwise be called upon to sacrifice their lives
in a total war against Communism," said McCarthy, "we must permit our

66. 66
fighting allies, with our material and technical assistance, to carry the fight
to the enemy." This was not permitted and, a decade later, more than half a
million American servicemen were fighting in South Vietnam.
Q. Did Joe McCarthy drink himself to death?
A. His enemies would like to have you think that. If McCarthy drank as
much as his foes allege, for as many years as they allege, he would have had
to be carried from speech to speech and from hearing to hearing, and he
would have been unable to string two coherent sentences together. Did
McCarthy look or act like a drunk during the 36 days of televised Army-
McCarthy Hearings? No alcoholic could have accomplished all that
McCarthy did, especially in so few years. Sure, Joe McCarthy drank, and he
probably drank too much sometimes, but he did not drink during working
hours, and any drinking he did do did not detract one iota from the
seriousness of his fight against Communism or from the accuracy of his
charges.
In the last two years of his life, McCarthy was greatly disappointed over the
terrible injustice his Senate colleagues had done to him, and he certainly had
his times of depression. Who wouldn't after what he had been through? But
he also had his times of elation, as when he and his wife adopted a baby girl
in January 1957. The picture in Roy Cohn's book of a smiling Joe McCarthy
holding his new daughter is not the picture of a man drowning in alcohol.
William Rusher was counsel to the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee
during 1956 and 1957 and met McCarthy repeatedly on social occasions.
"He had at one time been a heavy drinker," said Rusher of the Senator, "but
in his last years was cautiously moderate; he died of a severe attack of
hepatitis. He kept right on with a Senator's usual chores up almost until the
end."
The end came on May 2, 1957 in Bethesda Naval Hospital. Thousands of
people viewed the body in Washington, and McCarthy was the first Senator
in 17 years to have funeral services in the Senate chamber. More than 30,000
Wisconsinites filed through St. Mary's Church in the Senator's hometown of
Appleton to pay their last respects to him. Three Senators -- George Malone,
William Jenner, and Herman Welker -- had flown from Washington to
Appleton on the plane carrying McCarthy's casket. "They had gone this far
with Joe McCarthy," said William Rusher. "They would go the rest of the
way."

67. 67
VII. Some Final Questions
Q. Did McCarthy conduct a "reign of terror" in the 1950s?
A. This is one of two or three big lies that the Left continues to spread about
McCarthy. The average American did not fear McCarthy; in fact the Gallup
Poll reported in 1954 that the Senator was fourth on its list of most admired
men. The only people terrorized by McCarthy were those who had
something subversive to hide in their past and were afraid that they might
eventually be exposed.
Oh, there was a "reign of terror" in the early Fifties, but it was
conducted against Joe McCarthy, not by him. Those who were not afraid to
denounce McCarthy week in and week out included the New York Times,
the Washington Post, Time, Life, Walter Lippmann, the Alsop brothers,
Drew Pearson, Jack Anderson, the cartoonist Herblock, Edward R. Murrow,
Presidents Truman and Eisenhower, and liberals from all walks of life.
Reign of terror? During one 18-month period, the University of Wisconsin
invited Eleanor Roosevelt, Norman Cousins, Owen Lattimore, and James
Carey -- all bitter anti-McCarthyites -- to warn the students of McCarthy's
reign of terror.
James Burnham, author of The Web of Subversion, a classic study of
Communist penetration into the highest levels of the U.S. government,
once reviewed the statistics of the so-called McCarthy terror:
Number of persons killed -- zero.
Number of persons wounded or injured -- zero.
Number of persons tortured -- zero.
Number of persons arrested without warrant -- zero.
Number of persons held or imprisoned without trial -- zero.
Number of persons evicted, exiled, or deported -- zero.
Number of persons deprived of due process -- zero.

68. 68
Q. Most of the books written about McCarthy say that he smeared
thousands of innocent people. Is that true?
A. This is impossible since McCarthy never even mentioned thousands of
people. At the most, he publicly exposed about 160 persons, all of whom
had significant records of collaboration with or support for Communists
and/or Communist causes. Detractors of McCarthy, said Roy Cohn, "have to
fall back on picayune things about whether he drank and had a liver
condition, usually with a total distortion of the facts. They talk about the
innocent people he destroyed. I have yet to have them give me one name. I
have a standard answer -- 'name one.' They usually come up with someone
who came before some other committee, or Hollywood, or something which
was never a focus of a McCarthy investigation."
Here is one of literally dozens of examples of misinformation about
McCarthy that could be cited: An article about Lillian Hellman
in Newsweek for July 9, 1984, said that perhaps her most famous lines "were
those she wrote in a statement to the House Committee on Un-American
Activities in 1952. 'I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year's
fashions,' she wrote, refusing to testify against her friends at the McCarthy
hearings." Miss Hellman could hardly have testified "at the McCarthy
hearings" because there were no McCarthy hearings in 1952 and because Joe
McCarthy was a Senator and was never involved in any House Committee
hearings dealing with Communist infiltration of the Hollywood film
industry. And they accuse McCarthy of getting his facts wrong!
Q. These same books insist that Senator McCarthy never uncovered "a
single Communist" in his five-year fight. Is that true?
A. Joe McCarthy was hated and denounced not because he
smeared innocent people, but because he identified guilty people. Any list of
identified Communists uncovered by McCarthy would have to include
Lauchlin Currie, Gustavo Duran, Theodore Geiger, Mary Jane Keeney,
Edward Posniak, Haldore Hanson, John Carter Vincent, Owen Lattimore,
Edward Rothschild, Irving Peress, and Annie Lee Moss. But that's not the
whole story. McCarthy also exposed scores of others who may not have
been identified as Communists, but who certainly were causing harm to
national security from their posts in the State Department, the Pentagon, the
Army, key defense plants, and the Government Printing Office. At the latter
facility, which handled 250,000 pieces of secret and classified printing

69. 69
matter annually, the McCarthy probe resulted in the removal or further
investigation by the FBI of 77 employees and a complete revamping of the
security system at the GPO.
Was it unreasonable of McCarthy to want government positions filled with
persons who were loyal to America, instead of those with Communist-
tainted backgrounds? "A government job is a privilege, not a right,"
McCarthy said on more than one occasion. "There is no reason why men
who chum with Communists, who refuse to turn their backs on traitors, and
who are consistently found at the time and place where disaster strikes
America and success comes to international Communism, should be given
positions of power in government." The motivation of these people really
doesn't matter. If the policies they advocate continually result in gains for
Communism and losses for the Free World, then they should be replaced by
persons with a more realistic understanding of the evil conspiracy that has
subjugated more than one-third of the world. That's not McCarthyism, that's
common sense.
Q. Most of the books in the libraries seem to be anti-McCarthy. Are
there any pro-McCarthy books?
A. There are indeed, but most of them are out of print or not usually
available in libraries. Here is a list: McCarthy and His Enemies by William
Buckley and Brent Bozell; McCarthy by Roy Cohn; The Assassination of
Joe McCarthy by Medford Evans; The Lattimore Story by John
Flynn; Who Promoted Peress? by Lionel Lokos; three books by McCarthy
himself -- Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy 1950-
1951, McCarthyism: The Fight for America, and America's Retreat From
Victory; and a collection of tributes to McCarthy entitled Memorial
Addresses Delivered in Congress.
Q. How then would you define McCarthyism?
A. McCarthyism was a serious attempt to remove from positions of
influence the advocates of Communism, the willing and unwilling
supporters of Communism and Communists, and persons who would
prevent the removal of those who give aid and comfort to the enemies of
America. Communist conspirators and their friends do not fear those who
denounce Communism in general terms; they do greatly fear those who
would expose their conspiratorial activities. That is why they hated and

70. 70
fought Joe McCarthy more than any other public figure in this century. That
is why they have preserved his name as a club to hold over the head of
anyone who dares to expose Communism.
The events of the past 30 years have proved McCarthy right, and those who
want to halt the Communist juggernaut today had better know the true story
of McCarthyism. "The war against Communism cannot be won by wavering
apologists," said Mrs. J. B. Matthews back in 1961. "Victory begins with a
realization that no one who fights Communism -- not even a hypothetical
god-like perfect man -- can escape the liberaloid smear, and that smear
image bears no relation to reality."
Joe McCarthy was a brave and honest man. There was nothing cynical or
devious about him. He said and did things for only one reason -- he thought
they were the right things to say and do. He was not perfect; he sometimes
made errors of fact or judgment. But his record of accuracy and truthfulness
far outshines that of his detractors. His vindication in the eyes of all
Americans cannot come soon enough. Medford Evans put it well when he
said: "The restoration of McCarthy ... is a necessary part of the restoration of
America, for if we have not the national character to repent of the injustice
we did him, nor in high places the intelligence to see that he was right, then
it seems unlikely that we can or ought to survive."
* Evidence presented in the other six cases showed that two (Haldore Hanson and
Gustavo Duran) had been identified as members of the Communist Party, that three
(Dorothy Kenyon, Frederick Schuman, and Harlow Shapley) had extensive records of
joining Communist fronts and supporting Communist causes, and that one (Esther
Brunauer) had sufficient questionable associations to be dismissed from the State
Department as a security risk in June 1952. For further details, see Chapter VII
of McCarthy and His Enemies by William Buckley and Brent Bozell.
_____________________________________________________________

71. 71
____________________________________________________________
McCarthy and His Enemies:
The Record and its Meaning
______________________________________

72. 72
_____________________________________________________________
Senator Joseph McCarthy
Vindicated by Venona
Intercepts
Reed Irvine Editor
Accuracy in Media – March 2000
_____________________________________________________________
On the fiftieth anniversary of Senator Joe McCarthy's charges of
Communist subversion, Accuracy in Media and Accuracy in Academia
held a symposium that was broadcast nationwide by C-SPAN. The event
was keynoted by Arthur Herman, author of Joseph McCarthy: The Life and
Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator. The title reflects the bitterness
that still lingers over McCarthy's efforts to expose the Communist
penetration of the U.S. government 50 years ago. But Herman discussed the
popular support that existed for McCarthy's campaign to root Communists
out of government. Addressing the charge that McCarthy engaged in a
delusional witchhunt, Herman said, "There really were witches out there to
be hunted." Some, we now know, were in very high positions.
Herman said acceptance of the truth has already "crept into academia" and
the McCarthy-hating media. He mentioned a colleague who wanted to
review information from the Soviet archives and cables and changed his
views of the Communist threat based on the evidence. Even his students, he
said, are accepting the facts about the guilt of Hiss and the Rosenbergs. He
noted that last November, a New York Times Magazine article admitted,
despite decades of left-wing doubt, that Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs
really were Soviet agents.
Herman said the growing recognition of the depth of Communist penetration
of the U.S. government stems in part from the new evidence that has come
out from Soviet archives and the decoded Soviet cables known as the
Venona intercepts, that contained the messages exchanged between Moscow

73. 73
and its illegal intelligence agents in the U.S. during World War II. Herman,
whose book confirms the essential accuracy of McCarthy's charges, now
finds himself in the cross-hairs, under assault by elements of the media and
academia. But he seemed confident that the New York Times and other
media would eventually accept the truth about McCarthy as well.
Herman said many of McCarthy's charges can now be seen as reasonable
and rational. And, equally important, they were seen that way at the time. He
said McCarthy, a Republican, struck a chord when he charged that the
Truman administration was failing to safeguard the national security of the
United States. But Herman said that when McCarthy extended these
criticisms to the Eisenhower Administration, he began losing support from
the public and his own party. For example, Herman said McCarthy
overreached in his criticisms of General George C. Marshall, who, as
Secretary of State, was accused of furthering the aims of the
Communists in the Soviet Union and China. Herman said Marshall was a
legitimate target of criticism by many in Congress, including Senator Robert
Taft, but that McCarthy carried the attack too far. [See page 84]
And while McCarthy can be criticized for his accusations against those who
facilitated the Communist takeover of China, Herman said scholars would be
well-advised not to focus on McCarthy's charges so much as the motives of
those he named. He wondered how so many seemingly smart people could
be taken in by the Communists or become their agents. Herman explained,
"The shift of focus has to come because now we really do understand
just how deep, how active and how prevalent that Soviet espionage
activity really had been."
Confessions of a Fellow Traveler
To make the point that the Communist influence in the government and
other institutions was greatly multiplied by sympathizers who could honestly
say that they were not members of the Communist Party or any of its
numerous fronts, AIM chairman Reed Irvine cited his own experience. He
said he came under the influence of a communist history teacher in high
school who introduced him to pro-Soviet publications. At the University of
Utah, he studied under leftist professors who steered him to such books as
Walter Duranty's I Write as I Please, which painted a rosy picture of the

74. 74
Soviet Union. When he enlisted in the Navy in 1942, he was a Soviet
sympathizer and "fellow traveler."
To show the falsity of claims that internal security programs adopted by the
government were barring government employment of people who had never
been members of the Communist Party or groups it controlled, Irvine cited
his own experience. When he joined the Navy in 1942 and was assigned to
the Navy's Japanese Language School, he had no trouble getting a security
clearance. Many of the students shared his political leanings, and some were
quietly dropped for security reasons, apparently because they had been
joiners. As an intelligence officer in the Marine Corps in the Pacific, Irvine
said his leftist views were never a problem.
Discharged from the Marines in 1946, he applied for a job with the CIA.
Their scrutiny did not include questions about his ideology, and they offered
him a job long after he had gone to work in General MacArthur's
headquarters in Tokyo. There his socialist views and Soviet sympathies were
shared by many others, some of whom were later exposed as Communists.
Irvine said, "They had an important influence on occupation policy." The
Communist leaders were released from prison, and soon the Communist
Party was publishing a daily newspaper. They took control of some labor
unions, notably the teachers'. Courses taught in Japanese public schools that
had helped make the Japanese law-abiding, hard-working citizens were
banned.
Returning from Japan in 1948, Irvine did graduate work at the University of
Washington, where six Communist professors had recently been fired. He
sympathized with the professors. After a year he went to Oxford as a
Fulbright scholar, where he joined the Labour Club and studied under
socialist professors. Returning home in 1951, he was hired by the Federal
Reserve Board. "Security clearance problem? Not at all," he said. Joe
McCarthy, he said, caused him to take a hard look at the Soviet Union and
communism. That, plus learning the value of factual accuracy at the "Fed,"
soon made him a free market economist.
Irvine said it was a mistake to assume that McCarthy was wrong in
suggesting that officials such as Gen. George Marshall and Dean Acheson
were influenced by Communists. Roosevelt's closest adviser, Harry L.
Hopkins, was actually a Soviet agent. (See the October-A 1999 AIM
Report, "The Scandal of the Century.") While some contend that Hopkins

75. 75
was an "unwitting" Soviet agent, Irvine said this strains credulity. Hopkins
communicated with Stalin through Iskhak Akhmerov, the agent posing as a
clothier, who controlled the KGB "illegals" here.
The media's continuing failure at this late date to expose Hopkins (he was
recently praised by Al Hunt of the Wall Street Journal as an effective White
House chief of staff) demonstrates that the problem that McCarthy tried to
expose is still with us.
"These people are in the media. They are still in denial," Irvine said.
"They don't want to admit that things were this bad. The result is that
the story of Harry Hopkins being a Soviet agent, which should be a
big front page story and on the network news, has essentially been
buried."
McCarthy's Critics
Dr. Kenneth Campbell is the author of Moscow's Words, Western Voices, a
paperback available from AIM that examines the statements and writings of
four prominent journalists—I.F. Stone, Wilfred Burchett, Walter Duranty
and Alexander Cockburn. The motives of these McCarthy critics—and the
motives of those who still fail to acknowledge the Communist threat—were
a main focus of Campbell's remarks. The late I.F. Stone, an icon to a
generation of American journalists, was critical of American foreign policy
during the Cold War and claimed in a book he wrote about the Korean War
that South Korea started it. This was an echo of the Soviet propaganda line.
Now we know, Campbell said, that Stone was a Soviet agent. Discussing the
evidence, Campbell said he heard former KGB General Oleg Kalugin refer
to Stone as "one of ours." That was vociferously denied by Stone's friends in
the media when it was first revealed in 1992, but it has now been confirmed
by references in the Venona intercepts. Declassified FBI reports on Stone's
service to the Soviet cause are included at the end of Campbell's book.
On Burchett and Duranty, Campbell said, "There's no question they were
Soviet agents." Burchett was an Australian journalist whose articles
sometimes appeared in the U.S. media. Duranty, the Moscow correspondent
of the New York Times in the 1920s and early '30s, is notorious for his rosy
reports from the Soviet Union, and especially for covering up the terrible
Stalin-made famine in the Ukraine in 1932-33. Regarding Alexander
Cockburn, who still writes frequently for American left-wing publications,

76. 76
Campbell said he didn't have the evidence that he was a Soviet agent, but his
book accuses him of having echoed Soviet propaganda on a variety of
subjects. His father, Claud Cockburn, was a journalist who was a member of
the British Communist Party.
Campbell cautioned about the power of the eastern liberal establishment and
its influence over the major media. He said these are the same people who
were wrong about Joe McCarthy and wrong about the Soviet threat. They
are also influential in America's colleges and universities. "They've turned
out two generations of college graduates who are convinced that McCarthy
is a monster," he said. In addition to going after McCarthy, Campbell said
they like to go after Richard Nixon, who helped expose Alger Hiss as a
Soviet agent. The result of this can be seen in Bill Clinton.
"Clinton probably represents what America has become," Campbell
said. "The liberal intellectual anti-McCarthyites have won."
Campbell said while McCarthy was essentially correct in his charges, he
could have been more careful in presenting them. Today, he said, there is
still a burden on those who understand the Communist threat to present their
views and information in a thoughtful and careful way. Irvine observed that
even if McCarthy had been accurate in everything he had said or written, he
would still have been smeared by the Communists. He pointed out that even
though he and Herbert Romerstein had based their charges that I.F. Stone
had been an agent of the Soviet Union on what they had been told by Gen.
Oleg Kalugin, they had been denounced in editorials in the New York Times
and the Washington Post. He said,
"They've never apologized to this day even though what we said back
in 1992 has been verified by the Venona transcripts."
Perfecting the Smear
Romerstein, author of a forthcoming book on Soviet espionage, contended
that Senator McCarthy is largely irrelevant to the phenomenon known as
McCarthyism. McCarthy was chairman of a Senate committee that
investigated communism for just one year, and he made several important
speeches on the subject and conducted valuable hearings. But Romerstein
said that several other Congressional committees did far more work on the
problem.

77. 77
Nevertheless, McCarthy was transformed into a demon by the Communists,
who were desperate to mislead the public about their efforts to penetrate the
U.S. government. Accusing McCarthy of making inaccurate or exaggerated
statements, they promoted the term "McCarthyism" in an effort to discredit
investigations into the Communist movement.
Romerstein, who worked in various capacities for the U.S. government for
about 25 years, specializing in the fields of internal security and intelligence,
still marvels at the ability of the Communists to make "McCarthyism" into a
phenomenon that lingers to this day. He found it significant that McCarthy is
still vilified while modern-day politicians, such as Vice President Al Gore,
get away with major gaffes and exaggerations on a regular basis. Romerstein
commented,
"Can you imagine an American politician today saying he invented
the Internet? Or that he and his wife were the subject of the book Love
Story? Or that he discovered Love Canal? No politician would ever
do that or say that—unless you're Al Gore of course. But you don't
hear anything about Goreism. You hear about McCarthyism."
Romerstein said the term "McCarthyism" appeared in the title of a 1951
booklet written by a top Communist Party member which attacked both
Trumanism and McCarthyism. Harry Truman was President at the time and
his administration had the power to weed the Communists out of the
government. Romerstein said Truman was more of a threat to the
Communists than Joe McCarthy ever was, but he didn't want Republicans in
Congress, including McCarthy, to make hay out of the issue of Communist
penetration of the government. He told his staff that Alger Hiss was "guilty
as hell," but he told the press that the charges against him were a red herring.
He explained to his staff that he didn't want to say anything that would help
the Republicans. [According to numerous historical facts, Truman
supported and facilitated Gen. George Marshall’s betrayal of our
World War II Ally, Gen Chiang Kai-shek and his Nationalist
Government of free China. Truman was no more a threat to the
communist than Joseph Stalin!]
Romerstein said that a high level member of the Communist Party, who
wrote a booklet in which he attacked both "Trumanism" and "McCarthyism,"
was severely criticized and expelled from the party over this. The leaders
wanted to focus on "McCarthyism" as the term to use to smear those who

78. 78
were exposing Communists in government. They believed that coupling it
with "Trumanism" would weaken the chances of popularizing
"McCarthyism."
Smearing Joe McCarthy
Dan Flynn, executive director of Accuracy in Academia, described the
lengths to which the media went to destroy McCarthy. McCarthy's tax
returns were illegally made public by journalists, he said, and columnist
Drew Pearson placed a paid spy in the Senator's office. Journalists Ronald
May and Jack Anderson were accused of manufacturing quotes to make
McCarthy look bad. But the most outrageous ploy was the plan by the
Washington Post to publish a series of articles that included the charge that
McCarthy and his aides were stockpiling weapons in the basement of the
Senate, apparently in preparation for a possible coup. Democratic Party
leaders had paid a man named Paul Hughes more than $10,000 [About
$200,000 today] for the information and the Post was prepared to publish it
until, at the last minute, Hughes was exposed as a con man.
Dan Flynn said a major turning point was a series of reports by Edward R.
Murrow of CBS News attacking McCarthy. One of the most damaging was a
Murrow attack on McCarthy for charging that Annie Lee Moss, a clerk in
the Army code room, was a Communist. Murrow has now been shown to
have been completely off-base. Communist Party records show that
McCarthy was absolutely correct in identifying Moss as a Communist.
Naming Names
Veteran journalist M. Stanton Evans, who is writing his own book on
McCarthy, said one of the most notorious myths is that the Wisconsin
Senator had no names of suspected Communists in the State Department
when he gave his famous speech charging that there were 59 (according to
McCarthy himself) of them. Holding up a sheaf of papers, Evans said,
"Here are the names. Right here. Anybody who wants to can look at them."
He produced a letter that McCarthy sent to Senator Millard Tydings in 1950
in which he listed the 59 names, plus 22 others.
Evans said the original list identified the suspected Communists by number,
not by name, giving a brief description of each. He said it had been compiled
by Congressional staffers from the files of the State Department itself. In his

79. 79
letter to Sen. Tydings, McCarthy attached the names to the numbers. Critics
have said over the years that the list was outdated, blown out of proportion,
that the individuals named were cleared by Congressional committees, or
that the people were just mildly leftist. But none of that was true. Evans
quoted from some of those cases: "...he furnished material to a known Soviet
espionage agent..." and "...He is a known Communist Party member."
Evans said the claim that these cases had been cleared by Congressional
hearings was a big falsehood. The chairman of one committee said the
information showed
"a large number of Communists on the rolls of the State Department,"
adding, "It makes me wonder if there is any representation of the
United States in the State Department."
McCarthy also had very revealing information about the Amerasia case. This
involved John Stewart Service, a Foreign Service officer who had been
stationed in China, who was arrested for passing classified information to
Philip Jaffe, the editor of Amerasia, a Communist magazine. In a major
speech, McCarthy charged that the Justice Department failure to prosecute
the case was a massive cover-up. "We now know that he was 100 percent
correct," Evans said. The FBI wiretapped the meeting where the cover-up
was arranged to get Service off. Laughlin Currie, an adviser to President
Roosevelt and a known Soviet agent, was involved in this. The Tydings
Committee said it could find nothing incriminating in the FBI files of
McCarthy target Owen Lattimore, a key adviser to the State Department.
Evans read from Lattimore's FBI file. It said in 1941 that Lattimore was a
Communist who should be detained in the event of a national emergency.
Currie, Service and Lattimore were all players in a conspiracy that engaged
in espionage for the Communists and manipulated U.S. policy to their
benefit. They maneuvered to cut off aid to the Chinese Nationalists in order
to help Mao win control of China [which was supported by Pres.
Truman]. Their efforts succeeded and the Nationalists fled to Taiwan in
1949. We and the Chinese have paid dearly for this betrayal.
Pseudo History
John Earl Haynes, who with Harvey Klehr has written two books on
Moscow's ties to the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), told the conference
that many historians are still reluctant to face the truth about the CPUSA. He

80. 80
said the reigning orthodoxy in academia is that the CPUSA was a domestic
movement independent of Moscow. Haynes said the academic consensus is
wrong. After the [orchestrated] Soviet Union collapsed and the Soviet
Communist archives were opened for study, the hard truth started coming
out. Haynes, who traveled to Moscow to study the archives, says the
evidence clearly shows that the Soviets financially subsidized the CPUSA,
and that the party operated an underground apparatus that was tied to Soviet
intelligence [KGB] and influenced U.S. Government policy.
Haynes said there were some favorable reviews in the mainstream press of
their first book, The Secret World of American Communism, but the reaction
in journals of history was negative, even vicious. In one case, a reviewer
said Haynes and Klehr had mistranslated a key word in a Russian document
which the reviewer hadn't actually seen. When Haynes proved that his
translation was correct, the reviewer never conceded error. "Being in the
hard left in the academic world is never having to say you're sorry," he said.
Haynes said the truth of this book, based on Soviet archives, has been
confirmed by the release of the Venona transcripts, which show that about
350 Americans [that they know of] conspired with or spied for Moscow.
Haynes said many of them were members of the CPUSA, whose leaders
cooperated with Soviet intelligence. The transcripts confirm that several
large Soviet spy rings were operating throughout the U.S. government, and
that the members included Laughlin Currie, an adviser to FDR, and Harry
Dexter White, assistant secretary of the Treasury.
Several other books have been published over the last several years
confirming the existence of this Soviet espionage apparatus. Still, Haynes
said that some historians dismiss the evidence as insignificant or irrelevant.
Haynes commented that this proves that "the human mind is capable of
looking at something and not seeing anything at all."
He said that one historian, Jim Ryan of Texas A&M University, had
changed his own view about the CPUSA being an Americanized movement
after examining the evidence. But another, Eric Foner of Colombia
University, has refused to acknowledge the new evidence. Foner's 1999
book, The Story of American Freedom, still portrays the CPUSA in the
1930s, when it functioned as a mouthpiece for Stalin, as pro-freedom and
pro-democracy.

81. 81
Summing up, Haynes said,
"Eric Foner, one of the most praised historians in the nation, has
made it clear that he really doesn't care about the new evidence. Jim
Ryan, a little-known historian, finds the new evidence requires that he
change his views, and he has attempted to do so. I'll leave it to you to
decide who best represents the tradition of scholarly integrity."
Unfortunately, Foner still seems to represent the dominant philosophy in
academia. Dan Flynn mentioned how Maryland's Washington College holds
an "Alger Hiss Day," and that at Bard College in New York there is an Alger
Hiss Chair of Social Studies. He said American college history texts,
including A People and a Nation, The National Experience, and The
Enduring Vision, ignore communism's killing of as many as 100 million
people in this century.
McCarthyism Redefined
As Herb Romerstein pointed out, "McCarthyism" is a term foisted on us by
the CPUSA to implant in the minds of the American people the idea that it
was and is reckless and wrong to accuse Communists and their sympathizers
of aiding the totalitarian cause. The Soviet archives, the Venona intercepts
and the revelations of former high-ranking KGB officers like Gordievsky
and Mitrokhin have validated what we were told by Whitaker Chambers,
Elizabeth Bentley and Hede Massing, to name only a few of the many
courageous souls who were willing to go against dominant "intelligentsia"
and media of their day.
They too were vilified, but their enemies did not do them the honor of
making their surnames synonymous with telling the truth about an
enormous, dangerous conspiracy to destroy freedom throughout the world
and replace it with a tyranny unmatched in human history in its ruthlessness
and scope. That honor was reserved for Senator Joseph R. McCarthy
because he was the most outspoken and therefore the most vulnerable. Sad
to say there is not a politician on the national scene who has the courage to
speak out as Joe McCarthy did 50 years ago to expose the rot in our
government that endangers our future. Like Bill O'Reilly of Fox News, they
are afraid to do so for fear the New York Times will criticize them.
_____________________________________________________________

82. 82
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________

83. 83
_____________________________________________
_______________________________________________

84. 84
_____________________________________________________________
The History of General
George Catlett Marshall 1951
Senator Joseph McCarthy:
Speech delivered by Senator Joseph R. McCarthy before
the United States Senate on June 14, 1951
_____________________________________________________
How can we account for our present situation unless we believe that
men high in this Government are concerting to deliver us to disaster?
This must be the product of a great conspiracy, a conspiracy on a scale
so immense as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man.
A conspiracy of infamy so black that, when it is finally exposed, its
principals shall be forever deserving of the maledictions of all honest
men.
Who constitutes the highest circles of this conspiracy? About that we cannot
be sure. We are convinced that Dean Acheson, who steadfastly serves the
interests of nations other than his own, the friend of Alger Hiss, who
supported him in his hour of retribution, who contributed to his defense
fund, must be high on the roster. The President? He is their captive. I have
wondered, as have you, why he did not dispense with so great a liability as
Acheson to his own and his party's interests. It is now clear to me. In the
relationship of master and man, did you ever hear of man firing master?
Truman is a satisfactory front. He is only dimly aware of what is going on.
I do not believe that Mr. Truman is a conscious party to the great conspiracy,
although it is being conducted in his name. I believe that if Mr. Truman had
the ability to associate good Americans around him, he would have behaved
as a good American in this most dire of all our crises.
It is when we return to an examination of General Marshall's record since
the spring of 1942 that we approach an explanation of the carefully planned
retreat from victory. Let us again review the Marshall record, as I have

85. 85
disclosed it from all the sources available and all of them friendly. This grim
and solitary man it was who, early in World War II, determined to put his
impress upon our global strategy, political and military.
It was Marshall, who, amid the din for a "second front now" from every
voice of Soviet inspiration, sought to compel the British to invade across the
Channel in the fall of 1942 upon penalty of our quitting the war in Europe.
It was Marshall who, after North Africa had been secured, took the strategic
direction of the war out of Roosevelt's hands and - who fought the British
desire, shared by Mark Clark, to advance from Italy into the eastern plains of
Europe ahead of the Russians.
It was a Marshall-sponsored memorandum, advising appeasement of Russia
in Europe and the enticement of Russia into the far-eastern war, circulated at
Quebec, which foreshadowed our whole course at Tehran, at Yalta, and until
now in the Far East.
It was Marshall who, at Tehran, made common cause with Stalin on the
strategy of the war in Europe and marched side by side with him thereafter.
It was Marshall who enjoined his chief of military mission in Moscow under
no circumstances to "irritate" the Russians by asking them questions about
their forces, their weapons, and their plans, while at the same time opening
our schools, factories, and gradually our secrets to them in this count.
It was Marshall who, as Hanson Baldwin asserts, himself referring only to
the "military authorities," prevented us having a corridor to Berlin. So it was
with the capture and occupation of Berlin and Prague ahead of the Russians.
It was Marshall who sent Deane [Acheson] to Moscow to collaborate with
Harriman in drafting the terms of the wholly unnecessary bribe paid to Stalin
at Yalta. It was Marshall, with Hiss at his elbow and doing the physical
drafting of agreements at Yalta, who ignored the contrary advice of his
senior, Admiral Leahy, and of MacArthur and Nimitz in regard to the folly
of a major land invasion of Japan; who submitted intelligence reports which
suppressed more truthful estimates in order to support his argument, and
who finally induced Roosevelt to bring Russia into the Japanese war with a
bribe that reinstated Russia in its pre-1904 imperialistic position in
Manchuria-an act which, in effect, signed the death warrant of the Republic
of China.

86. 86
It was Marshall, with [Dean] Acheson and Vincent eagerly assisting, who
created the China policy which, destroying China, robbed us of a great and
friendly ally, a buffer against the Soviet imperialism with which we are now
at war.
It was Marshall who, after long conferences with Acheson and Vincent,
went to China to execute the criminal folly of the disastrous Marshall
mission.
It was Marshall who, upon returning from a diplomatic defeat for the United
States at Moscow, besought the reinstatement of forty millions in lend-lease
for Russia.
It was Marshall who, for 2 years suppressed General Wedemeyer's report,
which is a direct and comprehensive repudiation of the Marshall policy.
It was Marshall who, disregarding Wedemeyer's advices on the urgent need
for military supplies, the likelihood of China's defeat without ammunition
and equipment, and our "moral obligation" to furnish them, proposed
instead a relief bill bare of military support.
It was the State Department under Marshall, with the wholehearted support
of Michael Lee and Remington in the Commerce Department that sabotaged
the $125,000,000 military-aid bill to China in 1947.
It was Marshall who fixed the dividing line for Korea along the thirty-eighth
parallel, a line historically chosen by Russia to mark its sphere of interest in
Korea.
It is Marshall's strategy for Korea which has turned that war into a pointless
slaughter, reversing the dictum of Von Clausewitz and every military
theorist since him that the object of a war is not merely to kill but to impose
your will on the enemy.
It is Marshall-Acheson strategy for Europe to build the defense of Europe
solely around the Atlantic Pact nations, excluding the two great wells of
anti-Communist manpower in Western Germany and Spain and spurning the
organized armies of Greece and Turkey-another case of following the
Lattimore advice of "let them fall but don't let it appear that we pushed
them."

87. 87
It is Marshall who, advocating timidity as a policy so as not to annoy the
forces of Soviet imperialism in Asia, had admittedly put a brake on the
preparations to fight, rationalizing his reluctance on the ground that the
people are fickle and if war does not come, will hold him to account for
excessive zeal.
What can be made of this unbroken series of decisions and acts contributing
to the strategy of defeat? They cannot be attributed to incompetence. If
Marshall were merely stupid, the laws of probability would dictate that part
of his decisions would serve this country's interest. If Marshall is innocent of
guilty intention, how could he be trusted to guide the defense of this country
further? We have declined so precipitously in relation to the Soviet Union in
the last 6 years. How much swifter may be our fall into disaster with
Marshall at the helm? Where Will all this stop? That is not a rhetorical
question: Ours is not a rhetorical danger. Where next will Marshall carry us?
It is useless to suppose that his nominal superior will ask him to resign. He
cannot even dispense with Acheson.
What is the objective of the great conspiracy? I think it is clear from what
has occurred and is now occurring: to diminish the United States in world
affairs, to weaken us militarily, to confuse our spirit with talk of surrender in
the Far East and to impair our will to resist evil. To what end? To the end
that we shall be contained, frustrated and finally: fall victim to Soviet
intrigue from within and Russian military might from without. Is that
farfetched? There have been many examples in history of rich and powerful
states which have been corrupted from within, enfeebled and deceived until
they were unable to resist aggression. . . .
It is the great crime of the Truman administration that it has refused to
undertake the job of ferreting the enemy from its ranks. I once puzzled over
that refusal. The President, I said, is a loyal American; why does he not lead
in this enterprise? I think that I know why he does not. The President is not
master in his own house. Those who are master there not only have a desire
to protect the sappers and miners - they could not do otherwise. They
themselves are not free. They belong to a larger conspiracy, the world-wide
web of which has been spun from Moscow. It was Moscow, for example,
which decreed that the United States should execute its loyal friend, the
Republic of China. The executioners were that well-identified group headed
by Acheson and George Catlett Marshall.

88. 88
How, if they would, can they break these ties, how to return to simple
allegiance to their native land? Can men sullied by their long and dreadful
record afford us leadership in the world struggle with the enemy? How can a
man whose every important act for years had contributed to the prosperity of
the enemy reverse himself? The reasons for his past actions are immaterial.
Regardless of why he has done what he did, he has done it and the
momentum of that course bears him onward. . . .
The time has come to halt this tepid, milk-and-water acquiescence which a
discredited administration, ruled by disloyalty, sends down to us. The
American may belong to an old culture, he may be beset by enemies here
and abroad, he may be distracted by the many words of counsel that assail
him by day and night, but he is nobody's fool. The time has come for us to
realize that the people who sent us here expect more than time-serving from
us. The American who has never known defeat in war, does not expect to be
again sold down the river in Asia. He does not want that kind of betrayal. He
has had betrayal enough. He has never failed to fight for his liberties since
George Washington rode to Boston in 1775 to put himself at the head of a
band of rebels unversed in war. He is fighting tonight, fighting gloriously in
a war [Korea] on a distant American frontier made inglorious by the men he
can no longer trust at the head of our affairs.
The America that I know, and that other Senators know, this vast and
teeming and beautiful land, this hopeful society where the poor share the
table of the rich as never before in history, where men of all colors, of all
faiths, are brothers as never before in history, where great deeds have been
done and great deeds are yet to be done, that America deserves to be led not
to humiliation or defeat, but to victory.
The Congress of the United States is the people's last hope, a free and open
forum of the people's representatives. We felt the pulse of the people's
response to the return of MacArthur. We know what it meant. The people,
no longer trusting their executive, turn to us, asking that we reassert the
constitutional prerogative of the Congress to declare the policy for the
United States.
The time has come to reassert that prerogative, to oversee the conduct of this
war, to declare that this body must have the final word on the disposition of
Formosa and Korea. They fell from the grasp of the Japanese empire through
our military endeavors, pursuant to a declaration of war made by the

89. 89
Congress of the United States on December 8, 1941. If the Senate speaks, as
is its right, the disposal of Korea and Formosa can be made only by a treaty
which must be ratified by this body. Should the administration dare to defy
such a declaration, the Congress has abundant recourses which I need not
spell out.
Source:
From The Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the 82nd Congress,
First Session, Volume 97, Part 5 (May 28, 1951-June 27, 1951), pp. 6556-6603.
_____________________________________________________________
"America's Retreat from Victory"
The Story of George Catlett Marshall
By Senator Joseph R. McCarthy
Originally published in 1951. Shown is the John Birch Society’s
Americanist Library edition from 1965.

90. 90
Senator Joseph R. McCarthy delivered a speech in Wheeling, West Virginia,
in 1950 in which he attacked Secretary of Defense, author of the Marshall
Plan, and eventual Noble Peace Prize recipient, George Catlett Marshall.
McCarthy’s speech was published in book form in 1951 as America’s
Retreat from Victory. The subtitle was The Story of George Catlett
Marshall. It only seems logical that if you’re going after someone with the
stature of a George C. Marshall, you better have your ducks in a row.
General George Catlett Marshall
McCarthy's speech revealed little known -- and well documented facts about
the Nobel Peace Prize winner.
Marshall's Secret Past
According to McCarthy, a friend warned, “Don’t do it, McCarthy.
Marshall has been built into such a great hero in the eyes of the people
that you will destroy yourself politically if you lay hands on the laurels
of this great man.” Did the senator throw caution to the winds? His
reply, “The reason the world is in such a tragic state today is that too
many politicians have been doing only that which they consider

91. 91
politically wise --- only that which is safe for their own political
fortunes.” McCarthy pressed ahead, encouraged by a 1943 article in the
New York Times magazine by Sidney Shalett. Shalett quotes Marshall as
having said, “No publicity will do me no harm, but some publicity will do
me no good.” McCarthy says in the book/speech, “This perhaps is why
Marshall stands alone among the wartime leaders in that he has never
[as of June 1951] written his own memoirs or allowed anyone else to
write his story for him.” [One must ask himself, WHY?]
McCarthyism in action!
From one of the hearings of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations
Thorough Research
Throughout America’s Retreat from Victory the reader will notice that
McCarthy makes most of his more noteworthy (alarming/controversial)
points by quoting other authors. Under the heading of “Source Material”,
Appendix A lists more than two dozen bibliographical references from
such noteworthy authors as Winston Churchill, General Omar Bradley
and General Claire Chennault. Also quoted are a State Department White
Paper and several congressional hearings. Magazine and newspaper articles
are named and cited by author in the text as is a book written by the subjects
own wife. Mrs. George C. Marshall penned a quasi-biography in 1946,
Together, from which McCarthy quotes to confirm an incident in 1933
involving her husband’s career.

92. 92
Time Magazine Cover
From March of 1954, nine months before censure.
“The Tragedy of George Marshall”
Walter Trohan of the Chicago Tribune (later to become president of the
White House Correspondent’s Association) published a story in the
American Mercury titled, “The Tragedy of George Marshall”. According to
Trohan’s story, in 1933, Marshall, a captain at the time, via an intercession
of General Pershing, asked Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur if he
could be fast tracked. Marshall’s record lacked sufficient time with troops so
he was put in charge of one of the Army’s finest regiments (the Eighth, Fort
Screven, GA) to prove himself. In less than a year under Marshall’s
command, the Eighth Regiment dropped to one of the worst in the army
making promotion impossible. Six years later, President Roosevelt placed
George C. Marshall in command of the entire United States Army. Then
McCarthy adds, “I know of no other general who served in the military
through as many wars as Marshall with less participation in the combat of
a single one.”
Consistently quoting credible sources and using documented research to
make his points, McCarthy leads the reader through a series of events

93. 93
managed or strongly influenced by Marshall to assure the fall of
Eastern Europe and China to Stalin and the Red Armies of the
communists. The situation reached a terminal point in Tehran where
Marshall and Stalin defeated a stubborn Churchill in what McCarthy
describes as “the most significant decision of the war in Europe,” “...to
concentrate on France and leave the whole of Eastern Europe to the
Red armies.”
The liberal senator.
U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan -- His commission's report
confirmed McCarthy's claims of communist infiltration.
McCarthy chronicles Marshall’s efforts through the Yalta and Potsdam
meetings and the post war “Marshall Plan” to diminish American
influence. McCarthy details a complicated and far reaching conspiracy
naming names and including a two-page list of Marshall’s deeds to
accomplish his goal. In the end, Marshall finished his career as Secretary
of State, won a Nobel Peace Prize and died a hero. McCarthy was
censured by the U.S. Senate and died in Bethesda Hospital supposedly of
liver complications from long term alcoholism. In the seventies stories
surfaced that the “power elite” had taken McCarthy to Bethesda to “get rid
of him” prompting his supporters to advise avoiding Bethesda.

94. 94
Ironically, a 1997 report by liberal Senator Moynihan’s COMMISSION ON
PROTECTING AND REDUCING GOVERNMENT SECRECY vindicated
McCarthy. OK, well, maybe "vindicated" may not be the most appropriate
word, but Moynihan's commission did confirm that there were
communists in the State Department. Here's a summary from Appendix
"A" of the Moynihan report: "By 1950, the United States Government was
in possession of information which the American public did not know: proof
of a serious attack on American security by the Soviet Union, with
considerable assistance from an enemy within. Soviet authorities knew the
U.S. government knew. Only the American people were denied this
information."
The Official Report
This report confirmed communist activity in New York City, Los
Angeles, and Washington, D.C.

95. 95
"America's Retreat from Victory" online
America's Retreat From Victory
McCarthy's book may be available online via Amazon.
Related Articles:
• J.B. Matthews, McCarthyism, and the Religious Left
• Sensitivity International: Network for World Control
• Head of the Whole Business
• 2011: A Brave New Dystopia
• A New US Constitution
_______________________________________________

96. 96
_____________________________________________________________
Stalin’s Secret Agents:
The Subversion of
Roosevelt’s Government
By David Martin
February 4, 2013
_____________________________________________________________
Late in 2012 two notable books were published that deal with the
outcome of World War II and the Cold War. Each was written by a pair
of authors. One is long; the other is relatively short. If you only read the long
one, and prior to having read it you knew little more about the subject than
the average, college-educated American, you might find it persuasive. If you
also read the short one, though, you will realize that virtually everything that
the long one has to say about the fruits of World War II and the Cold War is
wrong.
The two books we are talking about are Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick’s
massive Untold History of the United States and the very effective antidote
to it, Stalin’s Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government by
M. Stanton Evans and Herbert Romerstein. The impression we would get
from Untold History is that the Soviet Union, whose non-aggression pact
with Nazi Germany allowed the two countries to fire the opening shots of
World War II by attacking and carving up Poland, was a passive victim of
the war and of the Cold War aftermath. Having suffered far more than their
Western allies in the war, Stalin and the Soviet Union he controlled with an
iron fist, according to Stone and Kuznick, wanted nothing more than to
rebuild and to defend themselves from renewed threats from the West.
We should remind ourselves, though, that wars are not natural phenomena
like hurricanes and earthquakes. They are political events, fought for
political objectives. And Joseph Stalin was not just the ruler of the Soviet
Union. He was the leader of the extremely virulent and aggressive
worldwide Communist movement. By any objective measure, the big

97. 97
winners in World War II were the Soviet Union and the Communist
movement. The Soviet Union became larger, swallowing up the Baltic
countries and taking part of the territory of Poland. Not just Poland, the
preservation of whose independence was the supposed casus belli of WW II
for the West, but a number of previously independent Eastern European
countries, including half of Germany, fell under the boot of Soviet-
controlled Communist tyranny. Furthermore, the stage was set by the war for
the Communist takeover of China and the northern part of
Korea.
What we learn from Evans and Romerstein is that the Soviet war and post-
war gains at the West’s expense were hardly an accident. They had ample
assistance from a Roosevelt administration that was thoroughly laced with
Stalin’s agents. The agents were sufficiently numerous and highly placed
that almost any theft of secrets they might have accomplished was small
potatoes compared to their influence upon policy. A central message of the
book – never explicitly stated – is that there was an international conspiracy
to, in effect, overthrow Western civilization. (The authors would never point
it out, but readers of the book will notice that a high percentage of the people
involved were Jewish. Readers of this review will notice, as well, that some
of the key brave people sounding the alarm over this subversion were also
Jewish.) Not only was the U.S. government penetrated at the highest level,
but this organized Communist network also apparently controlled key
positions in the U.S. opinion-molding business.
Nowhere was the subversive influence more important than at the
pivotal Yalta Conference. It was there that Roosevelt made the major
concessions that put the Red imprint on post-war Europe and opened the
door for them in East Asia. One of the reasons we were so conciliatory to
Stalin was supposedly that we needed the Soviet quid pro quo of their entry
into the war against Japan 90 days after the defeat of Germany. But,
according to Evans and Romerstein, Soviet agents of influence within the
Roosevelt government played a key role in keeping intelligence estimates
away from FDR that the Japanese were already so badly beaten that the
Soviet assistance would not be needed. Perhaps no agent was more
important than the notorious Alger Hiss. Here we pick up the Evans-
Romerstein narrative early in Chapter 3 entitled “See Alger Hiss about this.”

98. 98
Bear in mind that FDR’s new secretary of state, Edward Stettinius Jr.,
was newly appointed and had very little experience in foreign affairs.
He was, in short, in over his head:
At a Whit House briefing a month before the conference opened,
Stettinius wrote, FDR said he wasn’t overly concerned about having
any particular staffers with him at Yalta, but qualified this with two
exceptions. “The President,” said Stettinius, “did not want to have
anyone accompany him in an advisory capacity, but he felt that
Messrs Bowman and Alger Hiss ought to go.” (Authors’ footnote:
Dr. Isaiah Bowman of Johns Hopkins University, who had been
involved in the Versailles conference after World War I and was a
Stettinius adviser. He did not go to Yalta, though Alger Hiss
would do so.) No clue was provided by Stettinius or apparently by
FDR himself, as to the reason for these choices.
Alger Hiss, it will be recalled, was a secret Communist serving in the
wartime State Department, identified as a Soviet agent by ex-
Communist Whittaker Chambers, a former espionage courier for
Moscow’s intelligence bosses. This identification led to a bitter
quarrel that divided the nation into conflicting factions and would do
so for years to follow. The dispute resulted in the 1950 conviction of
Hiss for perjury when he denied the Chambers charges under oath,
denials that ran contrary to the evidence then and to an ever-
increasing mass of data later.
Though Hiss is now well-known to history, in January 1945 he was
merely one State Department staffer among many, and of fairly junior
status – a mid-level employee who wasn’t even head of a division
(third ranking in the branch where he was working). It thus seems odd
that Roosevelt would single him out as someone who should go to
Yalta – the more curious as it’s reasonably clear that FDR had never
dealt with Hiss directly (a point confirmed by Hiss in his own
memoirs).
At all events, Hiss did go to Yalta, one of a small group of State
Department staffers there, and would play a major role in the
proceedings. Such a role would have been in keeping with the
President’s expressed desire to have him at the conference. It’s not,
however, in keeping with numerous books and essays that deal with

99. 99
Yalta or Cold War studies discussing Hiss and his duel with
Chambers.
In standard treatments of the era, the role of Hiss at Yalta tends to get
downplayed, if not ignored entirely. Usually, when his presence is
mentioned, he’s depicted as a modest clerk/technician working in the
background, whose only substantive interest was in the founding of
the United Nations (which occurred some three months later).
Otherwise, his activity at the summit is glossed over as being of no
great importance.
This writer can vouch for the standard treatment of Hiss at Yalta from his
reading on the subject. The name “Alger Hiss” does not even appear on the
“Yalta Conference” Wikipedia page, a lacuna that some reader of this essay
and hopefully of Stalin’s Secret Agents, at least of Chapter 3, will be able to
correct. At the very least, Hiss, as a Soviet agent, was in place to pass along
to the opposition what the U.S. negotiating position would be. Furthermore,
with our foreign policy first team not even present at Yalta, in express
accordance with Roosevelt’s wishes, the way was clear for the influence that
Hiss wielded, which the authors go on to describe in their chapter.
The Yalta story was played out over and over in the late Roosevelt and early
Truman years. Yugoslavia was betrayed by agents who furnished
misinformation about the nature of the anti-Communist resistance to the
Nazis. Chiang Kai-shek was betrayed in China in a similar manner. Similar
misinformation was given about the Katyn Forest massacre of virtually the
entire Polish officer corps by Stalin’s forces, all to the post-war benefit of
the Communists. Perhaps the most disgraceful episode of the post-war
period, Operation Keelhaul, the return of millions of former residents of the
Soviet Union to face almost certain death, was another of the fruits of this
betrayal. An even greater potential atrocity, the Morgenthau Plan for the
destruction of the German economy, was only narrowly averted by the
resistance raised by Truman’s anti-Communist cabinet members like
Secretary of State James Byrnes, Secretary of War Henry Stimson, Secretary
of the Navy James Forrestal, and others. It was the brain child of Secretary
of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau’s (an FDR crony) top assistant, Harry
Dexter White. White, like Hiss, had been identified as a Communist agent to
FDR aide Adolf Berle in 1939. Henry Wallace, FDR’s vice-president before
Truman, who ran for president on the Progressive Party ticket in 1948 and

100. 100
darling of Stone and Kuznick, promised in the campaign that White would
be his treasury secretary if he were elected president.
Also named by Chambers as a Soviet agent along with White and Hiss, was
White House aide, Lauchlin Currie, the patron of Owen Lattimore, who
would play a key role in the loss of China to the Communists. Not named by
Chambers was the most powerful of FDR’s aides promoting Soviet interests
in the Roosevelt administration, his “assistant president,” Harry Hopkins.
Hopkins’ name, however, would turn up later among the Venona intercepts
as a likely Soviet agent, as would the name of his powerful protégé on the
staffs of both Roosevelt and Truman, David Niles.
Among the key sources for the revelations of Evans and Romerstein are the
aforementioned early revelations of Chambers as recounted in his 1952
book, Witness, Chambers’ Congressional testimony in 1948, the testimony
of another Communist defector, Elizabeth Bentley, in the same year, and the
files of the FBI and KGB files made accessible since the fall of the Soviet
Union.
How Could Roosevelt Subvert His Own Government?
For all the extremely valuable information in Stalin’s Secret Agents it falls
crucially short in the most fundamental information that it fails to impart.
We see the vital missed opportunity early in Chapter 6, “The First Red
Decade”:
In 1939, shocked by the Hitler-Stalin pact and otherwise
disenchanted, Chambers decided to break openly with Moscow and
tell the authorities what he knew about the infiltration. In September
1939, accompanied by anti-Communist writer-editor Isaac Don
Levine, he had a lengthy talk with Assistant Secretary of State Adolf
Berle, then doubling as a specialist on security matters for the White
House.
Chambers would later repeat his story to the FBI, at legislative
hearings, and to federal courtrooms, as well as in a bestselling
memoir, becoming in the process the most famous and in some ways
most important witness in American Cold War history. However, it’s
evident from the record that much of what he had to say was revealed
in this initial talk with Berle. And what he would reveal, both then and

101. 101
later, was an astonishing picture of subversion, reaching into
numerous government agencies and rising to significant levels.
Specifically, Chambers would name a sizable group of suspects then
holding federal jobs, most notably Alger Hiss, and provide examples
of activity by official U.S. staffers working on behalf of Moscow.
Judging by Berle’s notes – and a parallel set recorded by Levine – it
was a shocking tale that should have set alarm bells ringing and led
quickly to corrective action. But so far as anyone was ever able to tell,
no bells were rung or action taken. It appears, indeed, that virtually
nothing would be done about the Chambers data for years thereafter.
Berle himself would later downplay the Chambers information, saying
the people named were merely members of a “study group” and thus
not a security danger. But this version was belied by Berle’s own
notes about his talk with Chambers. The heading he gave these wasn’t
“Marxist study group,” but “Underground Espionage Agents.” As
Chambers would comment in his memoir, he was obviously
describing “not a Marxist study group, but a Communist conspiracy.”
And the people named would fully live up to that description. (pp. 78-
79)
Talk about an astonishing picture! Consider, please, the kicker in the
foregoing passage and its passive voice: “But so far as anyone was ever able
to tell, no bells were rung or action taken.”
Who didn’t ring the bells or take the action? Certainly it was not Berle:
When I called on Berle a couple of weeks later, he indicated to me
that the President had given him the cold shoulder after hearing his
account of the Chambers disclosures. Although I learned later, from
two different sources who had social relations with Berle, that
Roosevelt, in effect, had told him to "go jump in a lake" upon the
suggestion of a probe into the Chambers charges, I do not recall
hearing that exact phrase from Berle. To the best of my recollection,
the President dismissed the matter rather brusquely with an expletive
remark on this order: "Oh, forget it, Adolf.”

102. 102
The writer is none other than Isaac Don Levine, the man who set up the
Chambers-Berle meeting and took part in it. It’s on pages 197-198 of his
extraordinary 1975 book, Eyewitness to History: Memoirs and Reflections of
a Foreign Correspondent for Half a Century.
One would do better reading Wikipedia than reading Evans and
Romerstein on this question:
Berle found Chambers' information tentative, unclear, and
uncorroborated. He took the information to the White House, but the
President dismissed it, to which Berle made little if any objection.
Berle kept his notes, however (later, evidence during Hiss' perjury
trials).
From Levine we gather that that characterization of Berle’s initial reaction is
completely wrong no matter what Berle said later in protection of his party
and his former boss, but at least it tells us that Berle informed the president.
Even Ann Coulter, of all people, is better on this point than these co-
authors:
Berle urgently reported to President Roosevelt what Chambers had
said, including the warning about Hiss. The president laughed and told
Berle to go f--- himself. No action was ever taken against Hiss. To the
contrary, Roosevelt promoted Hiss to the position of trusted aide who
would go on to advise him at Yalta. Chambers's shocking and detailed
reckoning of Soviet agents in high government positions eventually
made its way to William C. Bullitt, former ambassador to Russia and
confidant of the president. Alarmed, Bullitt brought the news to
Roosevelt's attention. He, too, was laughed off.
What Evans-Romerstein and Coulter have in common is the short shrift they
give to Levine. Coulter air brushes Levine out of the picture completely,
never naming the “friend” who set up the meeting with Berle, that it was he
who told Bullitt, and not even mentioning that there was a third party present
at the Chambers-Berle meeting. Of course, she has no reference to Levine’s
book, but neither do Evans and Romerstein.
Now consider what the latter have told us about FDR handpicking the man
to go with him to Yalta when, as they relate it, there is no indication of how
he would even know who Alger Hiss was…except that he had been

103. 103
informed very authoritatively that the man was a spy for the Soviet
Union. Holy treason, Batman!
It is very, very hard to come to any other conclusion than that these two
men, who could well be described as America’s leading surviving Red
hunters, are covering up for Franklin D. Roosevelt. That impression is
greatly reinforced by Evans in a presentation on the book that he made to
The Heritage Foundation, which one can listen to here. He is asked
specifically about Roosevelt’s complicity in permitting his government to be
laced by Communist agents, and Evans attributes it all to FDR’s naiveté.
Perhaps someone should have also asked him about the failure of the FBI in
all this, the people who have the national responsibility for counter-
espionage. But the FBI ultimately works for the president. He had the power
to make them stand down, and there is every indication that that is just what
he did.
Further indication that the authors are covering up for Roosevelt is their
failure to mention at all the Soviet defector Walter Krivitsky. Krivitsky, as
former chief of Soviet intelligence in Europe, very likely knew a good deal
more about Soviet infiltration of the U.S. government than Chambers did.
But instead of being embraced and welcomed by the Roosevelt
administration, he was harassed by them. In February of 1941 he was found
dead of a gunshot wound to the head in a Washington, DC, hotel room. The
District police ruled the death a suicide after only a cursory investigation.
Who would have had the power to, in effect, make the DC police stand
down on this one?
The authors do talk about the very well connected Soviet spy, Michael
Straight, who as publisher of The New Republic hired Henry Wallace as
editor, but they have no reference to the extremely revealing biography Last
of the Cold War Spies: The Life of Michael Straight, by Australian journalist
Roland Perry. Perhaps that is because Perry, like Levine in his similarly
ignored book, has a lot to say about Walter Krivitsky. Perry even suggests
that Straight, a family friend of the Roosevelt’s working for the State
Department at the time and feeling threatened, was involved in Krivitsky’s
assassination. (See the review by Wes Vernon.)

104. 104
Another Look at Harry Hopkins
Had the authors not neglected to tell us that Berle had fully briefed FDR in
1939 on the Soviet infiltration of his government, we would read the entire
book in a different light, but particularly their Chapter 9, “Friends in High
Places.” That chapter talks about Harry Hopkins, Lauchlin Currie, and
David Niles, all members of the White House staff. Roosevelt had been
informed by Berle that Currie was a Soviet agent. Neither Hopkins nor Niles
had been named by Chambers (Niles was not yet in the White House), but
Hopkins was so aggressively pro-Soviet and pro-Stalin that one has to
wonder how FDR could not have known what would later be indicated by
the Venona intercepts and by Soviet defectors. To their credit, in Chapter 9
the authors reveal virtually all the evidence that I have in “Harry Hopkins
Hosted Soviet Spy Cell” that Hopkins was a Soviet agent. Unfortunately,
they don’t include what is fresh and new in that article, that is, the fact that
he hosted that spy cell while he was working at Roosevelt’s right hand. It’s a
shame, because it would have strengthened their argument considerably.
Hopkins, like Alger Hiss, was also a very important figure in the sell-out
to Stalin and world Communism at Yalta. The following passage is
particularly revealing:
Hopkins’s pro-Soviet leanings would be on further display in the
Yalta records, where his handwritten comments are available for
viewing. Though seriously ill at the time of the meeting, he continued
to ply his influence with FDR, who himself was mortally sick and
susceptible to suggestion in ways that we can only guess at. After
FDR had made innumerable concessions to Stalin, there occurred a
deadlock on the issue of “reparations.” At this point, Hopkins
passed a note to Roosevelt that summed up the American attitude
at Yalta. “Mr. President,” this said, “the Russians have given in so
much at this conference I don’t think we should let them down. Let the
British disagree if they want – and continue their disagreement at
Moscow [in subsequent diplomatic meetings]” (Emphasis added by
Evans and Romerstein).
One may search the Yalta records at length and have trouble finding
an issue of substance on which the Soviets had “given in” to FDR –
the entire thrust of the conference, as Roosevelt loyalist [Robert]
Sherwood acknowledged, being in the reverse direction.

105. 105
It was certainly very late in the day by that point, but FDR for a long time
had every reason to know what he was getting from his principal aide
Hopkins.
The Tell-Tale Media Role
Chapter 11 is promisingly titled “The Media Megaphone.” Unfortunately,
we get only a pecking around the periphery of the sell-out to the Soviet
Union during the Roosevelt era. We learn that I.F. Stone with his I.F.
Stone’s Weekly was a Soviet agent and that two of the staffers for one of
Oliver Stone’s heroes, columnist Drew Pearson, were Communist agents,
those being the disreputable David Karr and Andrew Older. Karr was also a
speech writer for Henry Wallace. We also learn a little bit about Communist
propagandists like Edgar Snow, who was even able to get published in the
generally conservative pages of the Saturday Evening Post.
“His most famous journalistic effort, and basis for his reputation, was
his 1938 book, Red Star Over China, which was for the most part an
unabashed commercial on behalf of the Communist Mao Tse-tung.”
They also tell us about Michael Straight and his New Republic and remind us
of the selling job for Stalin that the infamous Walter Duranty had done in the
pages of The New York Times.
When Evans and Romerstein talk about Duranty, though, they are even
easier on those to whom he reported than they are on the man to whom
Hopkins, Currie, and Niles reported:
Duranty arrived in Russia in August 1921, at the same time
as [Armand] Hammer, and over the next decade would establish
himself as the dean of Western journalists in the country. After a brief
early period of hostility, he would experience a complete conversion
and become an avid promoter of the Soviet system. Why he did so is
uncertain. It doesn’t appear he was an ideological Communist, as he
reportedly had no ideology at all beyond a kind of Nietzschean will-
to-power view that didn’t mind dictators and apparently hardened him
to scenes of suffering. This would have been useful emotional armor
in the Soviet Union in the 1930s, when the suffering was intense and
would get more so. (p. 73)

106. 106
What motivated Duranty? Perhaps Dr. James Mace can clear things up
for us a little:
In the 1980s during the course of my own research on
the Ukrainian Holodomor [famine] I came across a most interesting
document in the U.S. National Archives, a memorandum from one
A.W. Kliefoth of the U.S. Embassy in Berlin dated June 4, 1931.
Duranty dropped in to renew his passport. Mr. Kliefoth thought it
might be of possible interest to the State Department that this
journalist, in whose reporting so much credence was placed, had told
him that, " 'in agreement with The New York Times and the Soviet
authorities,' his official dispatches always reflect the official opinion
of the Soviet government and not his own."
Note that the American consular official thought it particularly
important for his superiors that the phrase, in agreement with The
New York Times and the Soviet authorities, was a direct quotation.
This was precisely the sort of journalistic integrity that was awarded
the Pulitzer Prize in 1932. – "A Tale of Two Journalists: Walter
Duranty, Gareth Jones, and the Pulitzer Prize," Ukraine List 203,
July 15, 2003.
What a novel idea? Walter Duranty, like Harry Hopkins, Lauchlin Currie,
and David Niles, was doing just what his boss expected him to do, or what
their mutual bosses expected them to do. Were they so inclined, the authors
could have done a much better job of informing their readers had they
availed themselves of this writer’s “The New York Times and Joseph Stalin.”
They could also have benefitted from reference to Freda Utley’s The China
Story and Joseph Keeley’s The China Lobby Man: The Story of Alfred
Kohlberg. Evans and Romerstein talk about the influence of the Communist
infiltrated Institute of Pacific Relations. But had they referenced these
books, they would have permitted us to see the powerful role that The
New York Times and the New York Herald Tribune played in spreading
pro-Communist IPR propaganda:
Both Freda Utley and Joseph Keeley, the author of the Kohlberg
biography, stress the near monopoly the IPR and their pro-Communist
friends had over the book publishing and reviewing industry in the
United States as it related to China in the critical period of the 1940s.

107. 107
This is Utley, page 144:
In America, during the 1940’s, the union of the friends of the Chinese
Communists enjoyed what amounted to a closed shop in the book-
reviewing field. Theirs were almost the only views expressed in such
important publications as the New York Times and New York Herald
Tribune Sunday book supplements and the Saturday Review of
Literature – publications which make or break books. (The
Sunday Book Review supplement of the New York Times seems in
recent months to have discarded many of its old reviewers in favor of
others without Communist sympathies.) If one looks through their
back numbers, one finds that it was rare that any book on China was
not given to a small group of reviewers. Week after week, and year
after year, most books on China, and on the Far East, were reviewed
by Owen Lattimore, John K. Fairbank, Edgar Snow, Nathaniel Peffer,
Theodore White, Annallee Jacoby, Richard Lauterbach, and others
with the same point of view.
Appendix H of the Keeley book on Kohlberg is a listing of the books
on China reviewed by The New York Times Book Review and the New
York Herald Tribune over the 1945-1950 period. Altogether, 31 such
books were reviewed by The Times and 36 by the Herald
Tribune. Lattimore was the leading reviewer, racking up 12
altogether. Eleven of those were in the Herald Tribune, but the most
influential one in the whole list might have been his glowing
1947 review in The Times on The Unfinished Revolution in
China by Israel Epstein. Epstein later defected to Communist China
and became its leading propagandist and a high level official in the
government. All four of Lattimore’s books over the period were
reviewed by both publications. One may assume that the reviews were
favorable; two of them were by Snow and an equal number by
Fairbank. Overlooked by Utley in her list of reviews were five in the
Herald Tribune by Lattimore’s wife, Eleanor. – “The Institute of
Pacific Relations and the Betrayal of China”
At this point something I have noted before, the observations of the son-
in-law of President Roosevelt, Colonel Curtis Dall, as relayed by Henry
Makow, might shed some useful light:

108. 108
Dall maintained a family loyalty but could not avoid several
disheartening conclusions in his book [FDR: My Exploited Father-in-
Law, 1970]. He portrays the legendary president not as a leader but as
a “quarterback” with little actual power. The “coaching staff”
consisted of a coterie of handlers (“advisers” like Louis Howe,
Bernard Baruch and Harry Hopkins) who represented the international
banking cartel. For Dall, FDR ultimately was a traitor manipulated by
“World Money” and motivated by conceit and personal ambition.
In that picture, big media with The New York Times in the forefront during
the Roosevelt-Truman years, may be likened to members of the coaching
staff. But all of them hearken to the voice of the team owner or owners, the
international banking cartel. They had financed the Bolsheviks and they
were still promoting their interests until the propaganda bubble began to
burst, starting with the testimony of Elizabeth Bentley.
Evans and Romerstein’s little book has been very well received
Taking Stock
. Of the eight customers who have reviewed it so far on Amazon.com, six
have given it the maximum of five stars. The other two gave it four. But
one of the five-star reviewers, Jerry Cooper of Napa, California,
captures the prevailing situation well with his lead-off:
Unfortunately, this book will likely only be read by those [who are]
already somewhat knowledgeable as to its shocking contents. I doubt
if it will end up on many university recommended reading lists. As a
result, many students of history will be woefully lacking in their
understanding of World War II and the Cold War Era. This book is
one of a handful of those must-reads exposing a scandal of epic
proportions. Without this missing piece of the puzzle post-WWII
history is inexplicable.
Mr. Cooper and his co-readers of the book are no doubt all wringing their
hands in frustration. At the same time, the big pro-Communist propaganda
work by Stone and Kuznick, which came out only two weeks before Stalin’s
Secret Agents, has had 135 customer reviews, with almost as high an
average favorable rating. As we note in “Oliver Stone and the Japanese
Surrender,” the book has had a little bit of help. We had thought that for the

109. 109
“team owners” Zionism was all the rage, as it has been for about as long as
anyone can remember, but looking at the strange enthusiasm being shown
for Untold History, one might well conclude that Communism is coming
back into style with them (if it ever really went out). And we really do mean
“strange enthusiasm.” Just this week we discovered two more opinion
molding organs to get on board the Stone-Kuznick fashion parade, The
American Conservative, one of whose founding editors is Patrick J.
Buchanan, and the putatively conservative Washington Times. To the
establishment Left among the book’s promoters, we can now add the
establishment Right. I really wonder what M. Stanton Evans and Herbert
Romerstein would have to say about that.
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Stalin's Secret Agents:
The Subversion of Roosevelt's Government
_____________________________________________________________

110. 110
_______________________________________________
The Vindication of Senator
Joseph McCarthy
Today as relevant as in his day—
"How can we account for our present situation unless we believe that men
HIGH in our government are concentrating to DELIVER US TO
DISASTER?"
—Senator Joseph R. McCarthy
(1908-1957 RIP)
Fifty-four years after his death, Senator Joseph McCarthy still is making
news—and still is hated by the Left, smeared by the controlled news media
and revered by Americans in the know.…

111. 111
Pat Buchanan: Of 'Treason" and Tailgunner Joe
"America's young should ask themselves: If Joe McCarthy was such a
monster, why did Joe Kennedy back him, the Kennedy girls date him,
Robert Kennedy work for him and JFK defend him as a ‘great patriot’
in his year of censure? And why was McCarthy asked to be the
godfather to Bobby Kennedy's firstborn?"
McCarthy's "witches"
"Witch-hunt? The high-profile cases cited by McCarthy — Owen
Lattimore, John Stewart Service, and Philip C. Jessup — all ended
with the senator’s charges being validated."
Revisionist critics misrepresent McCarthy's legacy
"Harry Truman dropped atomic bombs on two defenseless cities of a
prostrate nation and sent 2 million Russian prisoners back to Stalin to
be murdered in Operation Keelhaul. Yet Truman remains a hero to
those who despise McCarthy with an undying hatred." "If the late
Sen. Joseph McCarthy had been wrong about Communist infiltration
in the 1950's, wouldn't he have been refuted and forgotten? Instead,
50 years later, media connected to bankers and their allies continue to
vilify him, indicating that he struck a nerve."
The hidden truth about Joseph McCarthy
"McCarthy’s enemies—supposed champions of civil liberties—
tapped his phone, intercepted his incoming personal mail, placed a
paid spy in his office, and illegally released his tax returns to the
press (resulting in a large refund!)."

112. 112
McCarthyism: Forty questions and answers about Senator Joseph
McCarthy
Q. So, was McCarthy right or wrong about the State Department?
A. He was right. Of the 110 names that McCarthy gave to the
Tydings Committee to be investigated, 62 of them were employed
by the State Department at the time of the hearings. The
committee cleared everyone on McCarthy's list, but within a
year the State Department started proceedings against 49 of
the 62. By the end of 1954, 81 of those on McCarthy's list had
left the government either by dismissal or resignation.
McCarthyism: no longer a dirty word
"The deciphered Venona cables confirm that the American
Communist Party successfully established secret caucuses in
government agencies throughout the 1930’s and 1940’s. They prove
that 349 Americans had covert ties to Soviet intelligence – much as
McCarthy had charged."
Venona Project From the official National Security Agency website. The
Venona Secrets: Exposing Soviet Espionage and America's Traitors
Read excerpts from this book on the Communist infiltration and subversion.
Book reviews: Venona and The Haunted Wood
"Venona, the product of two American historians, and The Haunted
Wood, a collaboration of an American historian and a Russian KGB
operative–turned–journalist, provide crushingly authoritative answers
to questions that have lingered since the days when the charges and
countercharges hurled by ex–Communists and alleged Communists
riveted the nation’s attention. How prevalent was the treason
committed by Americans on behalf of Stalinist-Communist
totalitarianism? How pervasive was Communist influence in
American government? Above all, who told the truth and who lied?"
McCarthy and his colleagues
"Joe McCarthy has made a real and lasting contribution toward the
preservation and perpetuation of the free world in his fight against the

113. 113
menace of internal communist subversion. His death was as much as
that of a soldier fighting in the ranks for human liberty and eternal
truth as if it had occurred on the field of battle and been inflicted by
bullet, bayonet, or shell...."
America's Retreat From Victory
"The general picture of our steady, constant retreat from victory, with
the same men always found at the time and place where disaster
strikes America and success comes to Soviet Russia, would inevitably
have caused me, or someone else deeply concerned with the history
of this time, to document the acts of those molding and shaping the
history of the world over the past decade." (The first four chapters of
McCarthy's important book outlining foreign policy betrayal during
and immediately after World War II.)
READ AND STUDY THE WHOLE BOOK on line.
McCarthyism: The Fight for America by Joe McCarthy
McCARTHYISM. THE FIGHT FOR AMERICA. Documented answers to
questions asked by friend and foe by. SENATOR JOE McCARTHY. THE
DEVIN-ADAIR ...
_____________________________________
Joseph McCarthy speaks in 1954 to the Chicago Irish Fellowship
Society (Audio file) A brief (12 minutes) but powerful talk on the fight
against treason. The late, great senator in fine form.
"This fight is going to go on…!"
—Senator Joseph McCarthy

114. 114
____________________________________________________
- Accuracy In Media - http://www.aim.org -
AIM Report:
The Ultimate Vindication of
Senator Joseph R. McCarthy
Posted By AIM Report on December 19, 2007 @ 1:00 am In AIM
Report | 3 Comments
By Wes Vernon*
_____________________________________________________________
Senator Joseph Raymond McCarthy died 54 years ago [1957). For a
half century, elite establishmentarians, echoed (to some extent led) by
the media, have moved heaven and earth to make certain succeeding
generations swallowed their portrait of him as villainous.
Finally, America has the most thorough scholarly examination of his career
in “Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and
His Fight against America’s Enemies”. This volume results from years of
painstaking research by M. Stanton Evans, longtime journalist and author.
Unsnarling the errors, distortions and deliberate falsehoods that have been
spread regarding McCarthy’s stormy five-year expose of Soviet agents is
nothing less than a full-time job.
Why is it necessary to set the record straight on so-called “McCarthyism” at
this point? First and foremost, we have a mainstream media which go along
with or are cowed by the “political correctness” police. Attempts to deal
with today’s deadly threat are met in many media quarters with charges of
“Islamophobia.” One radio talk-show host was driven off the air in
Washington because he dared to lean on the Islamic community to speak out
more clearly against suicide bombings and terrorist attacks.

115. 115
Many in the “prestige” media seem quite comfortable with an airport
security system that, for fear of arousing the ire of the Council on American-
Islamic Relations (CAIR). Will Wand an 85-year-old grandmother from
Keokuk, Iowa and let an angry young male from Saudi Arabia zip through.
And this despite an attack on our own soil. Something that had not happened
in McCarthy’s time.
Senator McCarthy violated all the “political correctness” taboos of his day,
long before that Orwellian term was invented. In that era, “political
correctness” meant that almost anyone nailed as a Communist traitor was the
victim of a “witch hunt.”
Beyond Hiss
Much of the mainstream media sympathized with Alger Hiss, even after that
Soviet agent had gone to prison for lying about his treason. The late
Newsweek correspondent Ralph de Toledano found that many of his
colleagues stopped speaking to him after he blew the whistle on Hiss.
Just days after Hiss’s imprisonment, Joe McCarthy charged that the Hiss
case was not an isolated scandal and that the State Department routinely
hired and covered up the records of Communists and their friends.
In the fifties, Senator McCarthy blew the whistle on conspirators and their
enablers who aided and abetted the downfall of the pro-western Chinese
government of our World War II ally Chiang-Kai-Shek. Powerful media
outlets led much of America to believe the Chinese Communists who
overthrew Chiang’s government were not Communists at all but merely
“simple agrarian reformers.”
Today, 61 years later, those “reformers” run a giant prison/slave state. Red
China (a term unfashionable but accurate) has missiles pointed in our
direction and is determined to eclipse America’s role as the world’s lone
superpower.
Joe McCarthy, Aptly described by Evans as “grassroots, blue-collar all the
way”, clearly defined the enemy of that day. So too should we define today’s
threat.

116. 116
Some McCarthy Mistakes [NOBODY is perfect!!!]
Stan Evans does not shy from acknowledging McCarthy’s mistakes. The
senator, he says, was “a flawed champion” of his cause, adding,
“It would have been better had he been less impulsive, more nuanced,
more subtle in his judgments. On the other hand, somebody more
nuanced and refined would not have dreamed of grappling with the
forces deployed against him.”
Whatever his faults, in the author’s verdict, McCarthy “was a good man and
true.”
The media’s role in tilting the scales against the most controversial United
States senator in the 20th Century began the very moment he burst on the
national scene in February of 1950.
In nearly every previous book about McCarthy, including President Dwight
Eisenhower’s memoirs, the story is told that the Wisconsin senator falsely
stated in a Lincoln Day Republican speech in Wheeling, West Virginia that
he had a list of 205 Communists who were then working in the State
Department. McCarthy insisted he actually had said at Wheeling that he did
indeed have a list. But a list of 57 in the State Department “who were either
card-carrying Communists or certainly loyal to the Communist Party.”
A local reporter meeting McCarthy at the Wheeling airport asked for and got
a draft of the speech which included the “205” figure, but two witnesses
swore that the senator warned Frank Desmond of the Wheeling Intelligencer
that the speech was a preliminary draft and would be extensively revised
before delivery. Desmond ran with the “205” version anyway and it was
picked up by the AP.
The widely disseminated report that attributed the “205” figure to McCarthy
was later discredited by congressional investigators dispatched twice to
Wheeling. They effectively backed McCarthy’s version (A tape of the
speech has not survived). That has not deterred newspapers, broadcasters,
and biased or lazy “historians” from repeating it without doing the necessary
fact-checking. Certainly a classic validation that truth rarely catches up with
widely disseminated lies.

117. 117
How did the “205” figure make its way even to the rough draft of the
speech? In a two-hour interview with AIM, Evans explained that McCarthy
was getting “bits and pieces” of information in real time from several
investigations by congressional committees, the FBI, the Justice Department,
and the State Department itself. The State department cover-up allowed
Communists to “resign” with no stigma, only to pop up later in other
government positions.
The Facts
From the get-go, the media-abetting political firestorm over such side issues
as what McCarthy said or did not say at Wheeling tended (not accidentally)
to obscure the substance of what he was saying.
Media errors on McCarthy abound, even on such basics as which body of
Congress of which he was a member. Evans identifies the Los Angeles
Times, and the Washington Post as having carried articles mentioning
“Senator Joe McCarthy’s House Un-American Activities Committee.
[HUAC]” One, McCarthy was a senator, never a member of the House.
No senator can be a member of a House committee, let alone chairman
of it. Two, if writers for the “prestige” media don’t know that Congress
is a bicameral legislature, how can we expect them to understand much
else, including the difference between 205 and 57?
Even the popular TV show “Touched by an Angel” in 1997 ran an episode
imputing the Hollywood “blacklist” of Communist actors (portrayed as
innocents) to HUAC which it was implied was run by Joe McCarthy.
The New York Times (the “newspaper of record”) ran an obituary on an 88-
year old professor named Oscar Shaftel who had refused to answer questions
about Communist connections by “the Senate Internal Security
Subcommittee headed by Senator Joseph R. McCarthy.” The reality: That
panel was headed by Senator William Jenner, not by McCarthy whose
Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations had nothing to do
with Shaftel.
After Evans persisted for six weeks (to no avail) in demanding that the
Times do a correction, he went to AIM founder Reed Irvine, who wrote
directly to the Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Sr. That did the trick.

118. 118
The correction finally appeared on a Labor Day Friday next to a
correction on the identification of birds in Brooklyn.
Drew Pearson Attacks
It would be hard to find a more savage anti-McCarthy journalist than the
gossip-mongering sensationalist Drew Pearson. No single member of the
media of that time was more hell-bent on ruining lives of good Americans
and smearing the reputations of those getting in his way.
On the floor of the Senate, McCarthy cited a Civil Service Commission
security memo and sworn testimony of an ex-communist identifying
David Karr as a legman for Pearson, as a Red agent, Communist Party
member, a former reporter for the Communist Party’s Daily Worker,
and a writer for the Communist-front publication Fight. McCarthy said
Karr’s Red background manifested itself in Pearson’s columns, which
directed much of their venom at the senator.
A howl of protest went up from Senator Clinton Anderson (D-N.M.) and
others that an “upstanding newsman” had been besmirched by McCarthy.
But in more recent times, the release of decoded “Venona” Soviet
documents revealed Karr as “a competent KGB source” and “a prominent
Western financier,” the latter because of what Evans calls “his linkage to
the bizarre Moscow front man Armand Hammer.”
But Pearson’s choice of “ultra-left” legmen did not stop there. Blacklisted by
History recounts the notoriously-infiltrated World War II agency, the Office
of War Information (OWI). Among its employees, Evans reports, was Julia
Bazer, who took the Fifth Amendment when asked if she were a Communist
Party member. Bazer was the sister of Pearson reporter Andrew Older.
Mr. Older had been identified by undercover operative Mary
Markward as a Communist agent. His wife also had been so identified.
The most focused media smear on Senator McCarthy was Edward R.
Murrow’s totally distorted profile of the Wisconsin senator on his televised
“See it Now” broadcast (See Aim Report “Looney Clooney Smears Senator
McCarthy” – January-A, 2006)
Murrow’s attack on McCarthy included a film clip wherein Democrats on
McCarthy’s committee, in McCarthy’s absence, poured sympathy on Annie

119. 119
Lee Moss. This despite the fact that Moss had been identified by
undercover operative Markward as a member of the Communist Party
of the District of Columbia. The FBI had become concerned that Moss had
suddenly been shifted to the position of code clerk for the Army Signal
Corps. McCarthy’s not illogical question: Why would an Army cafeteria
worker be a Communist with no known background in this highly sensitive
work be offered that job seemingly out of the blue? This came to
McCarthy’s attention when his panel was probing the remnants of the (Julius
and Ethel) Rosenberg spy ring at Ft. Monmouth, where lax security
procedures remained after the Rosenbergs were executed.
Evans notes that neither in the 2005 George Clooney film “Good Night and
Good Luck,” nor in the original 1954 Ed Murrow presentation is any
evidence cited to indicate that Mrs. Moss was an innocent victim. In
Murrow’s case, the failure to tell the whole story might have been more
excusable since many facts in the case were not publicly known then,
“though had Murrow and Co. been the crack journalists they professed to
be, they could have dug out the facts” from hearing transcripts.
“In the case of the Clooney film, there is no excuse whatever, as the
truth about the case is fully available to anyone who bothers to review
the SACB [Subversive Activities Control Board] reports and archives
of [the FBI],” writes the author.
Clooney even admits he knew Annie Lee Moss was a Communist. The
issue, he insists, was that “she has a right to face her accuser.”
“If Clooney was indeed aware of the copious evidence on the case, as
he should have been in presuming to inform the world about it, he
certainly disguised this knowledge in his movie,” Evans retorts.
Evans’ intrepid shoe-leather sleuthing unearthed an FBI report showing
that days before the Senate hearing shown in the Murrow/Clooney
shows, the Bureau had fully briefed the Democrats on McCarthy’s
committee that Annie Lee Moss was in fact a Communist. Yet these
same committee Democrats sympathized with her at McCarthy’s
expense. Evans says by then, committee Democrats were aiding the
Eisenhower administration’s effort to bring down Senator McCarthy.
Eisenhower was surrounded by elitists and Wall-Streeters who played on the

120. 120
generals’ concern that the Monmouth probe would give the Army a bad
name.
Official “History”
In his footnotes to the 2003 release of theretofore sealed McCarthy hearings,
the Senate’s associate historian Donald Ritchie tries to trash the credibility
of undercover FBI informer Mary Markward (again, a prime witness against
Annie Lee Moss). Ritchie misapplies the SACB’s statement that
“Markward’s testimony should be assayed with caution.”
Herein lies a classic example of what Evans calls “demonstrable
obfuscations.” The SACB comment had nothing to do with Markward’s
testimony against Annie Lee Moss. Rather, the SACB quote pertained to
“the issue of payment from the FBI” and the way Markward construed it.
The SACB (and the FBI) fully vindicated Markward in the Moss affair.
“All of which,” according to Evans, “is the exact reverse of the impression
conveyed to the American public by the associate historian of the Senate.”
The Annie-Lee-Moss-as McCarthy “victim” falsehood has been swallowed
whole by such writers as William Shannon in the New York Post in 1958
(then a left-wing paper), and in 2003 by Ken Ringle of The Washington Post
and Dorothy Rabinowitz in The Wall Street Journal. Evans’ efforts to get
these papers to make corrections were shunted aside, rejected outright, or
simply ignored.
It was the Senate’s “50-year rule” that required that the McCarthy
Committee’s closed-door “executive session” hearings of 1953-54 be
made public. In the resulting nearly 5,000-page document dump, the then
committee chairman, liberal Republican Susan Collins, could count on
Ritchie to put an anti-McCarthy spin on it.
In Ritchie’s own media-related memoirs, he includes a chapter entitled “The
Friends of Joe McCarthy.” Therein he notes the demise of conservative
columnists and commentators of that era. With some caveats, Ritchie’s line
comes down to the disingenuous scenario that some or all of these pundits
and newspapers fell out of favor with the public entirely because of their
support of McCarthy.

121. 121
That is at best a half-truth, and not necessarily attributable to a spontaneous
public rejection of McCarthy. What Ritchie might have acknowledged was
the high-gear pressure applied by the Left (including the Communist Party
and its front groups) to gin up boycotts of businesses that advertised with
“the friends of Joe McCarthy.”
In 1960, Fulton Lewis, Jr. told this writer of threats against his
advertisers because of his coverage of the Army-McCarthy hearings.
Lewis survived albeit with fewer radio stations because of local
advertisers at the grassroots who approved of his reportage on the
developments at the hearings. Parts of the story that the Murrows and
the Pearsons ignored. The effort to shut up conservative commentators
of that era bore some resemblance to today’s massive drive to shut
down conservative talk radio.
Other McCarthy Cases
Following their earlier bachelor days when he and McCarthy were double-
dating, Jack Anderson, another legman (and ultimately successor) to Drew
Pearson, had given McCarthy a “raw” Pearson file on Truman White House
speechwriter David Demarest Lloyd. Anderson later claimed to be
“thunderstruck” when McCarthy supposedly read the “incomplete” file on
the Senate floor. Those comments were picked up by other writers. If those
scribes, including Anderson himself, had done some checking, they would
have known McCarthy did not rely on “raw” unverified information. These
were official findings of a congressional study, including information
secured by an undercover agent. Lloyd and his wife were tied to
Communist-related organizations (including the National Lawyers
Guild and the Washington Book shop), and a relative had a “financial
interest” in the Communist Daily Worker.
Gustavo Duran, veteran of the pro-Communist side in the Spanish Civil
War, had worked for the State Department, and then moved “with evident
ease” to employment at the United Nations. Duran was one of McCarthy’s
first cases. Time magazine made the Olympian judgment that “Duran, never
a Red, was definitely and clearly anti-Communist.” McCarthy responded by
citing a 1947 memo from one of Time’s own correspondents that Duran
was considered “flatly” to be MVD (KGB). Duran’s commander in the
fight for Communist control of Spain in the thirties praised “Comrade
Duran” as “dedicated to the party.”

122. 122
Leonard Mins, a veteran Communist foot-soldier, was contracted to write
manuals for the U.S. Armed Forces where he dealt with classified material.
He took the Fifth before McCarthy’s committee.
The media have said over and over that McCarthy never exposed a single
Communist. A statement made, for example, by CBS’s Eric Sevareid right
after McCarthy died in 1957. That is false. Just a few (of many) of
McCarthy’s cases other than those mentioned above included T. A. Bisson,
Mary Jane Keeney, Cedric Belfrage, Solomon Adler, Franz Neumann, and
William Remington.
I asked Evans if he thought McCarthy would have fared better if today’s
conservative talk radio had been around. His response was probably not.
While the usual suspects of the left-wing media powerhouses did a non-stop
smear job on the senator, there were more conservatives in the mainstream
media than there are today.
McCarthy and/or anti-communist probes were backed by Col. Robert
McCormick’s Chicago Tribune and Washington Times-Herald
(including Walter Trohan and Willard Edwards), David Lawrence’s
U.S. News and World Report, the Hearst chain, Westbrook Pegler,
George Sokolsky, Fulton Lewis, New York Telegram and Sun, New
York Daily News, Washington Daily News. All of these have either shut
down or acquired new leftward ownership (publications) or died
(individual commentators).
*Wes Vernon is a Washington-based writer & broadcast journalist.
____________________________________________________________

123. 123
_______________________________________________
Glenn Beck: History
Vindicated Joe McCarthy
Senator Joseph McCarthy and McCarthyism:
What Are the Facts?
“I have felt for a long time that he got a very bad rap. I feel he
was right on.”
Written by Thomas R. Eddlem
Friday, 25 June 2010 21:30
________________________________________________________
Joseph McCarthy Fox News host Glenn Beck aired an extraordinary
program June 24 explaining how the facts released from the files of the FBI
and the World War II-era Office of Strategic Services over the past two
decades have vindicated the controversial charges of communism in the U.S.
State Department by Senator Joseph McCarthy.
The Wisconsin Republican's name has been transformed into an epithet,
“McCarthyism,” by much of the political Left that is intended to mean
smearing political opponents with unfounded charges. While the Left and
much of the Right accepted as gospel that McCarthy's charges were false,
many conservatives (including the late William F. Buckley) have defended
McCarthy as essentially correct on the facts and the specific cases he
mentioned publicly. But in an interview with author M. Stanton Evans, Beck
gave a fair summary of Soviet penetration of U.S. government after the
Second World War that has only become known since the mid-1990s with
the release of the Venona Papers, FBI files, and other primary source
documents.
Beck asked: “The question is, was Joseph McCarthy right? Was he right?”
And the inescapable conclusion he came to after reading Evans' Blacklisted
by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy was that McCarthy

124. 124
had told the truth. (The book was reviewed by The New American here.) “I
don't want to believe this,” Beck told Evans of his reaction when Evans'
book was first published in 2007. “I put it down and I went 'I'm not ready
to hear that. I can't handle that.'" But Beck later finished the book anyway
and asked the audience, "Okay. Please, America, read this book.”
M. Stanton Evans told Beck of his research on McCarthy that
“I found a lot of stuff missing, a lot of stuff had been censored, a lot of
stuff that was in the records in one place but blacked out in another
place. Mostly what I found was that the FBI files, which backed up
what McCarthy was saying, had been withheld for 50 years. And we
now have them, or many of them, and they show essentially that he
was right in general. There was a massive penetration of the
government, and that it was covered up, and that he threatened that
cover-up. And that's why he was isolated, demonized, and destroyed.
That's the technique.”
Beck pointed out that the “Red Scare” of the 1950s had more to do with
ensuring employees of the U.S. government were loyal to their employer and
not to a rival nation rather than a mere battle against a particular political or
philosophical opinion. “If you were a Marxist then, you were a Soviet
sympathizer. You were a traitor to our country," Beck noted of the Stalinist
era. "You've got to put that into perspective.” Nevertheless, leftists are
apoplectic about the content of Beck's program, while conservative
organizations like The John Birch Society have trumpeted this first
salvo in the mainstream media to resurrect the legacy of America's most
famous anti- communist Senator.
___________________________________________
Defenses of Senator McCarthy
The Vindication of Joe McCarthy
Joe McCarthy: A Victimizer or Victim
Senator Joseph McCarthy's Charges "Now Accepted As Fact"
40 Questions and Answers About Senator McCarthy

125. 125
The Real McCarthy Record
Summary of Arthur Herman's Book on Senator McCarthy
Most-Hated Senator was Right
McCarthyism: The Rosetta Stone of Liberal Lies
Conservapedia Article on Joseph McCarthy
The Hidden Truth About Joseph McCarthy
Attacks on Senator McCarthy
Joseph McCarthy
Wikipedia Article on Joseph McCarthy
Senator McCarthy’s Writings and Speeches
America’s Retreat from Victory
The Communist Threat
The History of George Catlett Marshall
Senator McCarthy’s Response to Edward R. Murrow
Send E-Mail to Michael T. Griffith
Return to LET FREEDOM RING
_____________________________________________________

126. 126
____________________________________________________________
“Enemies from Within”:
Senator Joseph R. McCarthy’s
Speeches and Accusations of Disloyalty
_____________________________________________________________
Wisconsin Republican Joseph R. McCarthy first won election to the Senate
in 1946 during a campaign marked by much anticommunist Red-baiting.
Partially in response to Republican Party victories, President Harry S.
Truman tried to demonstrate his own concern about the threat of
Communism by setting up a loyalty program for federal employees. He also
asked the Justice Department to compile an official list of 78 subversive
organizations. As the midterm election year got underway, former State
Department official Alger Hiss, suspected of espionage, was convicted of
perjury. McCarthy, in a speech at Wheeling, West Virginia, mounted an
attack on Truman’s foreign policy agenda by charging that the State
Department and its Secretary, Dean Acheson, harbored “traitorous”
Communists. There is some dispute about the number of Communists
McCarthy claimed to have known about. Though advance copies of this
speech distributed to the press record the number as 205, McCarthy quickly
revised this claim. Both in a letter he wrote to President Truman the next day
and in an “official” transcript of the speech that McCarthy submitted to the
Congressional Record ten days later he uses the number 57. Although
McCarthy displayed this list of names both in Wheeling and then later on the
Senate floor, he never made the list public.
_____________________________________________________________

127. 127
_____________________________________________________________
Speech of Joseph McCarthy,
Wheeling, West Virginia, February 9, 1950
Ladies and gentlemen, tonight as we celebrate the one hundred forty-first
birthday of one of the greatest men in American history, I would like to be
able to talk about what a glorious day today is in the history of the world. As
we celebrate the birth of this man who with his whole heart and soul hated
war, I would like to be able to speak of peace in our time—of war being
outlawed—and of world-wide disarmament. These would be truly
appropriate things to be able to mention as we celebrate the birthday of
Abraham Lincoln.
Five years after a world war has been won, men’s hearts should anticipate a
long peace—and men’s minds should be free from the heavy weight that
comes with war. But this is not such a period—for this is not a period of
peace. This is a time of “the cold war.” This is a time when all the world is
split into two vast, increasingly hostile armed camps—a time of a great
armament race.
Today we can almost physically hear the mutterings and rumblings of an
invigorated god of war. You can see it, feel it, and hear it all the way from
the Indochina hills, from the shores of Formosa, right over into the very
heart of Europe itself.
The one encouraging thing is that the “mad moment” has not yet arrived for
the firing of the gun or the exploding of the bomb which will set civilization
about the final task of destroying itself. There is still a hope for peace if we
finally decide that no longer can we safely blind our eyes and close our ears
to those facts which are shaping up more and more clearly . . . and that is
that we are now engaged in a show-down fight . . . not the usual war
between nations for land areas or other material gains, but a war between
two diametrically opposed ideologies.
The great difference between our western Christian world and the atheistic
Communist world is not political, gentlemen, it is moral. For instance, the
Marxian idea of confiscating the land and factories and running the entire
economy as a single enterprise is momentous. Likewise, Lenin’s invention

128. 128
of the one-party police state as a way to make Marx’s idea work is hardly
less momentous.
Stalin’s resolute putting across of these two ideas, of course, did much to
divide the world. With only these differences, however, the east and the west
could most certainly still live in peace.
The real, basic difference, however, lies in the religion of immoralism . . .
invented by Marx, preached feverishly by Lenin, and carried to
unimaginable extremes by Stalin. This religion of immoralism, if the Red
half of the world triumphs—and well it may, gentlemen—this religion of
immoralism will more deeply wound and damage mankind than any
conceivable economic or political system.
Karl Marx dismissed God as a hoax, and Lenin and Stalin have added in
clear-cut, unmistakable language their resolve that no nation, no people who
believe in a god, can exist side by side with their communistic state.
Karl Marx, for example, expelled people from his Communist Party for
mentioning such things as love, justice, humanity or morality. He called this
“soulful ravings” and “sloppy sentimentality.” . . .
Today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between communistic atheism
and Christianity. The modern champions of communism have selected this
as the time, and ladies and gentlemen, the chips are down—they are truly
down.
Lest there be any doubt that the time has been chosen, let us go directly to
the leader of communism today—Joseph Stalin. Here is what he said—not
back in 1928, not before the war, not during the war—but 2 years after
the last war was ended:
“To think that the Communist revolution can be carried out
peacefully, within the framework of a Christian democracy, means
one has either gone out of one’s mind and lost all normal
understanding, or has grossly and openly repudiated the Communist
revolution.” . . .
Ladies and gentlemen, can there be anyone tonight who is so blind as to say
that the war is not on? Can there by anyone who fails to realize that the
Communist world has said the time is now? . . . That this is the time for the

129. 129
show-down between the democratic Christian world and the communistic
atheistic world?
Unless we face this fact, we shall pay the price that must be paid by those
who wait too long.
Six years ago, . . . there was within the Soviet orbit, 180,000,000 people.
Lined up on the antitotalitarian side there were in the world at that time,
roughly 1,625,000,000 people. Today, only six years later, there are
800,000,000 people under the absolute domination of Soviet Russia—an
increase of over 400 percent. On our side, the figure has shrunk to around
500,000,000. In other words, in less than six years, the odds have changed
from 9 to 1 in our favor to 8 to 5 against us.
This indicates the swiftness of the tempo of Communist victories and
American defeats in the cold war. As one of our outstanding historical
figures once said, “When a great democracy [A Republic] is destroyed, it
will not be from enemies from without, but rather because of enemies from
within.” . . .
The reason why we find ourselves in a position of impotency is not because
our only powerful potential enemy has sent men to invade our shores . . . but
rather because of the traitorous actions of those who have been treated so
well by this Nation. It has not been the less fortunate, or members of
minority groups who have been traitorous to this Nation, but rather those
who have had all the benefits that the wealthiest Nation on earth has had to
offer . . . the finest homes, the finest college education and the finest jobs in
government we can give.
This is glaringly true in the State Department. There the bright young men
who are born with silver spoons in their mouths are the ones who have been
most traitorous. . . .
I have here in my hand a list of 205 . . . a list of names that were made
known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party
and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State
Department. . . .
As you know, very recently the Secretary of State proclaimed his loyalty to a
man guilty of what has always been considered as the most abominable of

130. 130
all crimes—being a traitor to the people who gave him a position of great
trust—high treason. . . .
He has lighted the spark which is resulting in a moral uprising and will end
only when the whole sorry mess of twisted, warped thinkers are swept from
the national scene so that we may have a new birth of honesty and decency
in government.
_____________________________________________________________
Communists in the State Department
(excerpts)
Senator Joseph R. McCarthy 1950
In February of 1950, Joseph McCarthy gave this speech warning of
communism in America. He gave specific names of people working within
the State Department and listed their crimes. Those individuals lost their
jobs, even though McCarthy was never able to give any further evidence to
prove their guilt.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Tonight as we celebrate the 141st birthday of one of the great men in
American history, I would like to be able to talk about what a glorious day
today is in the history of the world. As we celebrate the birth of this man,
who with his whole heart and soul hated war, I would like to be able to
speak of peace in our time, of war being outlawed, and of worldwide
disarmament. These would be truly appropriate things to be able to mention
as we celebrate the birthday of Abraham Lincoln.
Five years after a world war has been won, men's hearts should anticipate a
long peace, and men's minds should be free from the heavy weight that
comes with war. But this is not such a period -- for this is not a period of
peace. This is a time of the Cold War. This is a time when all the world is
split into two vast, increasingly hostile armed camps -- a time of a great
armaments race. Today we can almost physically hear the mutterings and
rumblings of an invigorated god of war. You can see it, feel it, and hear it all
the way from the hills of Indochina, from the shores of Formosa right over
into the very heart of Europe itself. ...

131. 131
Today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between communistic atheism
and Christianity. The modern champions of communism have selected this
as the time. And, ladies and gentlemen, the chips are down -- they are truly
down.
Lest there be any doubt that the time has been chosen, let us go directly to
the leader of communism today -- Joseph Stalin. Here is what he said -- not
back in 1928, not before the war, not during the war -- but two years after
the last war was ended: "To think that the communist revolution can be
carried out peacefully, within the framework of a Christian democracy,
means one has either gone out of one's mind and lost all normal
understanding, or has grossly and openly repudiated the communist
revolution."
And this is what was said by Lenin in 1919, which was also quoted with
approval by Stalin in 1947: "We are living," said Lenin, "not merely in a
state but in a system of states, and the existence of the Soviet Republic side
by side with Christian states for a long time is unthinkable. One or the other
must triumph in the end. And before that end supervenes, a series of frightful
collisions between the Soviet Republic and the bourgeois states will be
inevitable."
Ladies and gentlemen, can there be anyone here tonight who is so blind as to
say that the war is not on? Can there be anyone who fails to realize that the
communist world has said, "The time is now" -- that this is the time for the
showdown between the democratic Christian world and the communist
atheistic world? Unless we face this fact, we shall pay the price that must be
paid by those who wait too long.
Six years ago, at the time of the first conference to map out peace --
Dumbarton Oaks -- there was within the Soviet orbit 180 million people.
Lined up on the anti-totalitarian side there were in the world at that time
roughly 1.625 billion people. Today, only six years later, there are 800
million people under the absolute domination of Soviet Russia -- an increase
of over 400 percent. On our side, the figure has shrunk to around 500
million. In other words, in less than six years the odds have changed from 9
to 1 in our favor to 8 to 5 against us. This indicates the swiftness of the
tempo of communist victories and American defeats in the Cold War. As
one of our outstanding historical figures once said, "When a great
democracy is destroyed, it will not be because of enemies from without but

132. 132
rather because of enemies from within." The truth of this statement is
becoming terrifyingly clear as we see this country each day losing on every
front.
At war's end we were physically the strongest nation on Earth and, at least
potentially, the most powerful intellectually and morally. Ours could have
been the honor of being a beacon in the desert of destruction, a shining,
living proof that civilization was not yet ready to destroy itself.
Unfortunately, we have failed miserably and tragically to arise to the
opportunity.
The reason why we find ourselves in a position of impotency is not because
our only powerful, potential enemy has sent men to invade our shores, but
rather because of the traitorous actions of those who have been treated so
well by this nation. It has not been the less fortunate or members of minority
groups who have been selling this nation out, but rather those who have had
all the benefits that the wealthiest nation on earth has had to offer -- the
finest homes, the finest college education, and the finest jobs in government
we can give.
This is glaringly true in the State Department. There the bright young men
who are born with silver spoons in their mouths are the ones who have been
worst.
Now I know it is very easy for anyone to condemn a particular bureau or
department in general terms. Therefore, I would like to cite one rather
unusual case -- the case of a man who has done much to shape our foreign
policy.
When Chiang Kai-shek was fighting our war, the State Department had in
China a young man named John S. Service. His task, obviously, was not to
work for the communization of China. Strangely, however, he sent official
reports back to the State Department urging that we torpedo our ally Chiang
Kai-shek and stating, in effect, that communism was the best hope of China.
Later, this man -- John Service -- was picked up by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation for turning over to the communists secret State Department
information. Strangely, however, he was never prosecuted. However, Joseph
Grew, the undersecretary of state, who insisted on his prosecution, was
forced to resign. Two days after, Grew's successor, Dean Acheson, took over
as undersecretary of state, this man -- John Service -- who had been picked

133. 133
up by the FBI and who had previously urged that communism was the best
hope of China, was not only reinstated in the State Department but
promoted; and finally, under Acheson, placed in charge of all placements
and promotions. Today, ladies and gentlemen, this man Service is on his
way to represent the State Department and Acheson in Calcutta -- by far and
away the most important listening post in the Far East.
Now, let's see what happens when individuals with communist connections
are forced out of the State Department. Gustave Duran, who was labeled as,
I quote, "a notorious international communist," was made assistant secretary
of state in charge of Latin American affairs. He was taken into the State
Department from his job as a lieutenant colonel in the Communist
International Brigade. Finally, after intense congressional pressure and
criticism, he resigned in 1946 from the State Department -- and, ladies and
gentlemen, where do you think he is now? He took over a high-salaried job
as chief of Cultural Activities Section in the office of the assistant secretary-
general of the United Nations. ...
This, ladies and gentlemen, gives you somewhat of a picture of the type of
individuals who have been helping to shape our foreign policy. In my
opinion the State Department, which is one of the most important
government departments, is thoroughly infested with communists.
I have in my hand 57 cases of individuals who would appear to be either
card-carrying members or certainly loyal to the Communist Party, but who
nevertheless are still helping to shape our foreign policy.
One thing to remember in discussing the communists in our government is
that we are not dealing with spies who get 30 pieces of silver to steal the
blueprints of new weapons. We are dealing with a far more sinister type of
activity because it permits the enemy to guide and shape our policy.
This brings us down to the case of one Alger Hiss, who is important not as
an individual anymore but rather because he is so representative of a group
in the State Department. It is unnecessary to go over the sordid events
showing how he sold out the nation which had given him so much. Those
are rather fresh in all of our minds. However, it should be remembered that
the facts in regard to his connection with this international communist spy
ring were made known to the then-Undersecretary of State Berle three days
after Hitler and Stalin signed the Russo-German Alliance Pact. At that time

134. 134
one Whittaker Chambers -- who was also part of the spy ring -- apparently
decided that with Russia on Hitler's side, he could no longer betray our
nation to Russia. He gave Undersecretary of State Berle -- and this is all a
matter of record -- practically all, if not more, of the facts upon which Hiss'
conviction was based.
Undersecretary Berle promptly contacted Dean Acheson and received word
in return that Acheson, and I quote, "could vouch for Hiss absolutely" -- at
which time the matter was dropped. And this, you understand, was at a time
when Russia was an ally of Germany. This condition existed while Russia
and Germany were invading and dismembering Poland, and while the
communist groups here were screaming "warmonger" at the United States
for their support of the Allied nations.
Again in 1943, the FBI had occasion to investigate the facts surrounding
Hiss' contacts with the Russian spy ring. But even after that FBI report was
submitted, nothing was done.
Then, late in 1948 -- on August 5 -- when the Un-American Activities
Committee called Alger Hiss to give an accounting, President Truman at
once issued a presidential directive ordering all government agencies to
refuse to turn over any information whatsoever in regard to the communist
activities of any government employee to a congressional committee.
Incidentally, even after Hiss was convicted, it is interesting to note that the
president still labeled the expose of Hiss as a "red herring."
If time permitted, it might be well to go into detail about the fact that Hiss
was Roosevelt's chief adviser at Yalta when Roosevelt was admittedly in ill
health and tired physically and mentally ... and when, according to the
secretary of state, Hiss and Gromyko drafted the report on the conference.
According to the then-Secretary of State Stettinius, here are some of the
things that Hiss helped to decide at Yalta: (1) the establishment of a
European High Commission; (2) the treatment of Germany -- this you will
recall was the conference at which it was decided that we would occupy
Berlin with Russia occupying an area completely encircling the city, which
as you know, resulted in the Berlin airlift which cost 31 American lives; (3)
the Polish question; (4) the relationship between UNRRA and the Soviet; (5)
the rights of Americans on control commissions of Rumania, Bulgaria and

135. 135
Hungary; (6) Iran; (7) China -- here's where we gave away Manchuria; (8)
Turkish Straits question; (9) international trusteeships; (10) Korea.
Of the results of this conference, Arthur Bliss Lane of the State Department
had this to say: "As I glanced over the document, I could not believe my
eyes. To me, almost every line spoke of a surrender to Stalin."
As you hear this story of high treason, I know that you are saying to
yourself, "Well, why doesn't the Congress do something about it?" Actually,
ladies and gentlemen, one of the important reasons for the graft, the
corruption, the dishonesty, the disloyalty, the treason in high government
positions -- one of the most important reasons why this continues -- is a lack
of moral uprising on the part of the 140 million American people. In the
light of history, however, this is not hard to explain.
It is the result of an emotional hangover and a temporary moral lapse which
follows every war. It is the apathy to evil which people who have been
subjected to the tremendous evils of war feel. As the people of the world see
mass murder, the destruction of defenseless and innocent people, and all of
the crime and lack of morals which go with war, they become numb and
apathetic. It has always been thus after war. However, the morals of our
people have not been destroyed. They still exist. This cloak of numbness and
apathy has only needed a spark to rekindle them. Happily, this spark has
finally been supplied.
As you know, very recently the secretary of state proclaimed his loyalty to a
man guilty of what has always been considered as the most abominable of
all crimes -- of being a traitor to the people who gave him a position of great
trust. The secretary of state, in attempting to justify his continued devotion
to the man who sold out the Christian world to the atheistic world, referred
to Christ's Sermon on the Mount as a justification and reason therefore, and
the reaction of the American people to this would have made the heart of
Abraham Lincoln happy. When this pompous diplomat in striped pants, with
a phony British accent, proclaimed to the American people that Christ on the
Mount endorsed communism, high treason, and betrayal of a sacred trust,
the blasphemy was so great that it awakened the dormant indignation of the
American people.
He has lighted the spark which is resulting in a moral uprising and will end
only when the whole sorry mess of twisted warped thinkers are swept from

136. 136
the national scene so that we may have a new birth of national honesty and
decency in government.
_____________________________________________________________
Joseph McCarthy to
President Harry Truman
February 11, 1950
In the Lincoln Day speech at Wheeling Thursday night I stated that the State
Department harbors a nest of Communists and Communist sympathizers
who are helping to shape our foreign policy. I further stated that I have in
my possession the names of 57 Communists who are in the State
Department at present. A State Department spokesman promptly denied this,
claiming that there is not a single Communist in the Department. You can
convince yourself of the falsity of the State Department claim very easily.
You will recall that you personally appointed a board to screen State
Department employees for the purpose of weeding out fellow travelers—
men whom the board considered dangerous to the security of this Nation.
Your board did a painstaking job, and named hundreds which had been
listed as dangerous to the security of the Nation, because of communistic
connections.
While the records are not available to me, I know absolutely of one group of
approximately 300 certified to the Secretary for discharge because of
communism. He actually only discharged approximately 80. I understand
that this was done after lengthy consultation with the now-convicted traitor,
Alger Hiss. I would suggest, therefore, Mr. President, that you simply pick
up your phone and ask Mr. Acheson how many of those whom your board
had labeled as dangerous Communists he failed to discharge. The day the
House Un-American Activities Committee exposed Alger Hiss as an
important link in an international Communist spy ring you signed an order
forbidding the State Department’s giving any information in regard to the
disloyalty or the communistic connections of anyone in that Department to
the Congress.
Despite this State Department black-out, we have been able to compile a list
of 57 Communists in the State Department. This list is available to you but

137. 137
you can get a much longer list by ordering Secretary Acheson to give you a
list of those whom your own board listed as being disloyal and who are still
working in the State Department. I believe the following is the minimum
which can be expected of you in this case.
1. That you demand that Acheson give you and the proper
congressional committee the names and a complete report on all of
those who were placed in the Department by Alger Hiss, and all of
those still working in the State Department who were listed by your
board as bad security risks because of their communistic connections.
2. That you promptly revoke the order in which you provided under
no circumstances could a congressional committee obtain any
information or help in exposing Communists.
Failure on your part will label the Democratic Party of being the bedfellow
of international communism. Certainly this label is not deserved by the
hundreds of thousands of loyal American Democrats throughout the Nation,
and by the sizable number of able loyal Democrats in both the Senate and
the House.
Source: U.S. Senate, State Department Loyalty Investigation Committee
on Foreign Relations, 81st Congress; Joseph McCarthy to President
Harry Truman February 11, 1950, Congressional Record, 81st Congress
_____________________________________________________________
Speech Explaining
The Communist Threat
Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-WI)
June 02, 1950
Fellow Americans, thank you very much for the opportunity to be with you
tonight to discuss a subject which, in my opinion, towers in importance
above all others. It is the subject of international atheistic communism. It
deals with the problem of destroying the conspiracy against the people of
America and free men everywhere…

138. 138
…[M]any of you have been engaged in this all-out fight against communism
long before I came on the scene. You have been engaged in what may well
be the final Armageddon foretold in the Bible-that struggle between good
and evil, between life and death, if you please.
At the start, let me make clear that in my opinion no special credit is due
those of us who are making an all-out fight against this Godless force-a force
which seeks to destroy all the honesty and decency that every Protestant,
Jew and Catholic has been taught at his mother’s knee. It is a task for which
we can claim no special credit for doing. It is one which we are obligated to
perform. It is one of the tasks for which we were brought into this world-for
which we were born. If we fail to use all the powers of mind and body which
God gave us, then I am sure our mothers, wherever they are tonight, may
well sorrow for the day of our birth…
We know that the major aim of communism, as stated by its atheistic leaders
more than 30 years ago, is to create a Red China, thence a Red Asia, wash it
with a Red Pacific-and then enslave America.
In this connection let us take a look at the magnitude of Russian success and
the enormity of our disaster in China. This is the disaster to which Mr.
Acheson refers as the dawning of a new day; the disaster to which Mr.
[Owen] Lattimore [an East Asia scholar at Johns Hopkins University] refers
as a “limitless horizon of hope.”
For whom is Mr. Acheson’s new day dawning? Who faces Lattimore’s
limitless horizon of hope? Not China. Not the forces of democracy in
America, but the military masters of the Soviet Union.
The question in the mind of a man elected to represent the people of this
Nation and indirectly the people of the world is. Why is this so?
Is it because we are less intelligent than the Communists? Is it because we
can’t match them in courage? Is it because their devotion to atheism is
greater than our devotion to God? Is it because we are less willing to stand
up and fight for what we think is right? Ladies and gentlemen, the answer to
all those questions is “No.” Then what is the answer? Is it in our leadership?
To that my answer is “Yes,” and I challenge anyone to find another answer.

139. 139
I have been naming and presenting evidence against those leaders who have
been responsible for selling into Communist slavery 400,000,000 people-
those leaders responsible for the creation of Communist steppingstones to
the American shores.
Those in power in Washington say that this is not so; that those are not the
men. Now if I have named the wrong men, then the American people are
entitled to know who is responsible for the tremendous Communist victory
in Asia and the dismal American defeat-the greatest defeat any nation has
suffered in war or peace.
It is essential, therefore, that we put the spotlight of exposure on those who
are responsible for this disaster. This is important, not for the purpose of
exposing past failures, but because those same men are now doing
America’s planning for the future. Unfortunately they have be-come so
deeply entrenched that almost every power of the Government is used to
sabotage any attempt to expose and root them out…
…I have tried to give you the highlights of a difficult and dangerous
situation that exists. You have as a flaming backdrop to my remarks the facts
of the world as you find them today. Communism is no longer a creeping
threat to America. It is a racing doom that comes closer to our shore each
day. To resist it we must be intelligently strong.
Such strength will come only from men and women dedicated to the
wholehearted defense of democracy. The average American who constitutes
the heart and soul of this Nation is so dedicated. We must be sure that those
who seek to lead up today are equally dedicated. We cannot survive on half
loyalties any more than we can find the facts of Communist conspiracy with
half-truths.
_____________________________________________________________

140. 140
_____________________________________________________________
Address on Communism
And the Candidacy of Adlai Stevenson
By Joseph R. McCarthy
Delivered 27 October 1952, Palmer House, Chicago
Thank -- Thank you, fellow Americans. I am deeply grateful, very deeply
grateful to all of you who have made this night possible. We are at war
tonight -- a war which started decades ago, a war which we did not start, a
war which we cannot stop except by either victory or death. Now the Korean
war is only one phase of this war between international atheistic communism
and our free civilization. Now we have been losing -- we've been losing that
war since the shooting part of World War II -- two ended; losing it at an
incredibly fantastic rate of speed, losing that war at the rate one hundred
million people a year.
Now for the past two and a half years I have been trying to expose and force
out of high positions in government those who are in charge of our
deliberate, planned retreat from victory. Now this fight -- this fight against
international communism should not be a contest between America's two
great political parties. Certainly, after all, the millions of Americans who
have long voted the Democrat ticket are just as loyal. They love America
just as much. They hate communism just as much as the average
Republican. Unfortunately, the millions of loyal Democrats no longer have a
party in Washington. And tonight -- tonight I shall give you the history of
the Democrat candidate for the presidency -- who endorses and would
continue the suicidal, Kremlin-directed policies of this nation.
Now I'm not going to give you speech tonight. Tonight I am a lawyer giving
you the facts and the evidence in the case of Stevenson versus
Stevenson. Now let me make it clear that I am only covering his history in so
far as it deals with his aid to the communist cause and the extent -- the extent
to which he is part and parcel the Acheson-Hiss-Lattimoregroup. Now I
perform this unpleasant task because the American people are entitled to
have the coldly documented history of this man who says, “I want to be your

141. 141
President.” Now the issue which faces a hundred and fifty million American
people tonight, very simply stated is: Will communism win or will America
win? And you the people -- you the people who are listening to me tonight
on radio, television, here in the hall, will decide that issue on November 4th
because we shall win or lose depending upon the leadership which we
choose on that day.
I shall now try to put together -- I shall now try to put together the jigsaw
puzzle of the man who wants to be President on the Truman-Acheson
ticket. And I don't call the Democrat ticket because it would be a great insult
to all the good democrats in this nation. That which I present to you tonight
is only that part of his history on which I have complete, unchallengeable
documentation. Now Stevenson has not yet heard the speech but already he
and his camp are denouncing it as a pack of lies.
Tonight -- Tonight I give you the cold record a full week -- a week and a day
-- before election so that he may have a chance to explain this record if he
can. Now these facts, my good friends, can -- can not be answered -- can not
be answered by streams of smears and lies. These facts can only be
answered by facts. And we call upon Adlai of Illinois to so answer those
facts. But time is short so let me get about the task of looking at his
record. The Democrat candidate has said, and I quote him verbatim, he said
“As evidence of my direction I have established my headquarters here
in Springfield with people of my own choosing.” In other words he
says, judge me -- "...judge me by the advisors whom I've selected."
Good, let's do that.
Let's examine -- Let's examine a few of those advisors first. First is Wilson
Wyatt, his personal manager. Now Wilson Wyatt is the former head of the
left wing ADA, the Americans for Democratic Action. The ADA has five
majors points in its program. Listen to these and remember them if you
will.
Point number one: Repeal the Smith Act, which makes it a crime to
conspire to overthrow this government.
Number two: Recognition of Red China.
Number three: Opposition to loyalty oaths.

142. 142
Number four: Condemnation of the FBI for exposing traitors
like Coplon and Gubitchev.
And number five: Continuous all out opposition of the House
Committee on Un-American Activities.
Nothing secret about that platform; they publish it day after day.
Now according to an article in New York Times -- may I have that -- which
I hold in my hand, the Democrat candidate's campaign manager, Wyatt,
condemned the government's loyalty program and here's the proof; it
condemned the loyalty program in the most vicious terms. Strangely, Alger I
mean Adlai -- Adlai in 1952, now that he's running for President says,
“I will dig out the communists using as my weapon the loyalty
program which my campaign manager damns and condemns.”
Next, and perhaps the key figure in the Stevenson camp, is his speech
writer, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., former vice-chairman of the same ADA. Now
Schlesinger has been a writer, incidentally, for the New York Post -- New
York Post whose editor and his wife admit -- admit that they were members
the Young Communist League. Now in 1946, Stevenson's speech writer
wrote that the present system in the United States makes, and I quote --
listen to this, here is his speech writer. He says,
“The present system in the United states makes even freedom loving
Americans look wistfully at Russia.”
I wonder if there's anyone in this audience tonight who is looking wistfully
at Russia. And I wonder also if some calamity would happen and Stevenson
would be elected, what job this man would have.
But perhaps the most revealing article written by Stevenson's speech writer
appeared in the New York Times on December 11, 1949, on page three. And
listen to this if you will, and I quote, he says, I happen to believe –
"I happen to believe that the Communist Party should be granted the
freedom of political action and that communists should be allowed to
teach in universities.”

143. 143
Nothing secret, right -- right, nothing secret about it. It's in the New York
Times December 11, 1949. Stevenson's speech writer saying, “I think that
communists should be allowed to teach your children,” my good
friends. And he says, Oh, but judge me -- "judge me by the advisors whom I
select."
Now let's see how Stevenson's speech writer feels on the subject of religion.
The answer is given in his review of the book of Whittaker
Chambers, Whittaker Chambers, the man whose testimony convicted Alger
Hiss. Chambers, in his book, as you know, maintain that a belief in God was
the hope of the free world, a feeling which most Americans have regardless
whether Protestant, Jewish, or Catholic. Well, Schlesinger wrote about
that. What did he say? He says this, let me quote him verbatim, he says, the
whole record –
"the whole record of history indeed gives proof that a belief in God
has created human vanity as overweening, and human arrogance as
intolerable as the vanity and arrogance of the communists. And I say
all of these documents are available for my good friends of the press
to examine, each and every one -- every one of them.”
Now, Stevenson says judge me by the people I choose as my advisors. Here
you have the philosophy of his chief advisor; the philosophy of his speech
writer laid bare. This idea, of course -- that religion should be ridiculed -- is
one of the basic principles of the Communist Party. Now if you couple --
couple this ridicule of religion with his statement that communists should be
allowed to teach your children, and you have a fairly clear portrait of the
man.
Another of Stevenson's assistants, Richard DeVoto. Now DeVoto has
violently attacked our strongest defense against communism -- the FBI. In
Harper's Magazine, as reported in the Daily Worker of December 29, 1949,
page seven, his man DeVoto denounces the FBI as, quote, “nothing but
college trained flat-feet.” Then he says this, “and I would refuse to
cooperate with the FBI.” Now the Communist Daily Worker of February
13, 1947, reports that Stevenson's man, DeVoto, headed a group seeking a
permit for a meeting for the wife of Gerhart Eisler, the communist who had
disappeared behind the iron curtain and who, as of tonight, is heading up the
anti-communist group in east Berlin. So much for that.

144. 144
The next one of the men selected by Stevenson as one of his ghost writers is
a man, Jim -- James Wechsler. Now Wechsler and his wife both admit --
both admit having been members of the Young Communist League. And I
hold in my hand an article from the New York Times which states that
Wechsler's the man who helped Stevenson write the speech -- here it is --
helped Stevenson write the speech in which Stevenson ridiculed anti-
communists, as “men who hunt for communists in the bureau of wildlife and
fisheries.” That's the speech also in which he condemned -- condemned my
exposure of communists as “low comedy.” Well I just doubt whether the
mothers and wives of the hundred and twenty thousand Korean casualties
consider it low comedy. I think they may possibly consider it a high
tragedy. I'd like to call Mr. Stevenson's attention to that.
Some light -- Some light is shed upon the importance of this man in the
Stevenson camp; but a list of long distance phone calls between the
Governor's office in Springfield and this man who says, “I belong to the
Young Communist League,” Wechsler. Here's a list of the phone calls
between Wechsler and the Governor's mansion. I will not read it over, but
it's available to the press. One of these calls particularly is important. I think
this might be called a "trigger call" -- a "trigger phone call," made just --
made just before Wechsler and two others unleashed the smear attack upon
Richard Nixon.
Well, another of the men on the democrat candidate's camp is Archibald
Macleish. Stevenson's biography on page 77 states that Macleish was the
man who brought him into the State Department. It's his own
biography. Now Stevenson has him as an advisor. How about this man
Macleish? He's got perhaps the longest record of affiliation with communist
fronts of any man that I have ever named in Washington. And Adlai says,
“Judge me by the friends I select.” To that I say, amen, Adlai, amen.
The time -- time is running out -- time is running out and I would like to give
you more about the people who are guiding Stevenson, but let's go on to
other things.
In Stevenson's biography -- and here's something which I especially call to
your attention -- in Stevenson's biography, on page 73, we find that in the
summer of 1943 -- this is his own biography -- the summer of 1943, after
Mussolini's government had fallen, Stevenson was given the task of
formulating America's post-war policy in Italy. On page 75 we find the

145. 145
statement that his recommendations were followed in Italy. When Truman
was before a crowd in -- in New York -- thank you -- New York on
Columbus day, and he confirmed the fact that Stevenson's the man who, as
he said, sowed the seeds for the immediate postwar policy in
Italy. Well, General Bedell Smith, a fine American, in his testimony and in
his book, has told what that foreign policy established by Stevenson
was. And listen to this if you will, he says that foreign policy, here's his
testimony, page 35 and 37, he says that foreign policy was, to connive -- "to
connive to bring communists into the Italian government and to bring the
Italian communist leader, Togliatti, back from Moscow.”
You get the picture of that my friends? Stevenson says, “I was the man who
formulated the policy.” Truman says, yes he did. And the head of the Central
Intelligence Agency says the policy then was “to connive to put communists
into the Italian government” -- connive, and to bring [Toggliatti], the
communist leader, back from Moscow, which they did. Keep in mind that
Bedall Smith had nothing to do with this program; he was just testifying as
to what it was.
Now I know -- I know that one of the defense -- defenses of this will be
raised by the Stevenson camp tomorrow will be that, well, Eisenhower was
in charge of the European military forces of that time. But Stevenson knows;
his camp followers know; you know and I know that Eisenhower had
nothing to do with formulating State Department policy. He had the task --
He had the task of winning the war in Europe with the loss of the smallest
amount of bloodshed and lives and he did that job very well.
Now let -- let us pick-- let us pick another piece of the jigsaw puzzle of
Stevenson's history. On September 23rd of this year, Admiral Staton, who
was a holder of the Medal of Honor, signed a statement for us; signed a
statement covering his experience with Stevenson after he, Staton, had been
assigned to the task of enforcing public law 151 and order -- and removing
the communists from the radios aboard our ships.
Well Stevenson was a special assistant at that time, in the Navy
Department. He called Admiral Staton to his office and here's the affidavit
given to us by Staton about that meeting. Hasn't been used until tonight. Let
me read just one paragraph from it. He says,

146. 146
“On arrival, Stevenson told me that he had received six or eight of the
communist cases which my board had recommended for removal, and
that he wanted to discuss them with me.” Still quoting the admiral,
“Stevenson said that he could not see that we had anything against
them and stated that we should not be hard on the communists. The
conference ended with Stevenson disagreeing with our
recommendations to fire the communists.”
This was in 1943, my good friends, and two or three days ago Stevenson
went on the air and said, but he said, “Oh, in 1943, I was warning about the
dangers of communism in the Mediterranean.” Well -- Well immediately --
immediately after Staton appeared at Stevenson's office and said, “Mr.
Stevenson, get rid of those communists; the law provides you must.” But he
said no. What happened to Staton, he was retired to inactive duty.
And now another part of the jigsaw puzzle of Stevenson's history is his
membership over many years on the central committee of the World
Citizen's Association. Now I know that you may find some good people on
that organization; you may even find some good Republicans. But Stevenson
was not merely a member of the group. Stevenson was one of the twelve-
man, policy-forming committee. Now this is quite enough, really quite
enough. But time is so short I'll only cover plank five in their platform. I
hold their platform in my hands. Keep in mind that the twelve men,
including Stevenson, drafted this platform. Let me read plank number five:
“National states must be subordinate to world civilization; their
jurisdiction must be limited by world law; and any local legislation
contrary to world law must be null and void.”
Now what does this mean my good friends? What does this mean to the
hundred and fifty million American people? It means that a world
organization, such as the United Nations, could veto -- veto any state or
federal law or any part of our Constitution.
This becomes doubly significant in view of the recent revelations that twelve
-- twelve of the men who were recommended by the State Department to the
United Nations have been dropped because they refused to say under oath
whether or not they were -- had been members of the Communist Party;
twelve of the men in this world organization which should have the power to
veto your laws. Well -- Well Stevenson's own office has been stating that he

147. 147
was a member of this unusual organization for only -- only -- 1941. I have
here a copy of Who's Who, which he gives them a signed statement
admitting he was amember up until 1945. I have a copy of the letterhead of
this organization, February 1948, carrying Stevenson, not as a member but
as part of the central committee, twelve man governing body. Well, why is
this significant? Simply my friends, simply because you're asked to elect a
presidential candidate who proposed to fly the flag of a super-world
government over the stars and stripes. But let's move on to another part of
the jigsaw puzzle.
Now, while you would think -- while you may think there can be no
connection between the debonair Democrat candidate and a dilapidated
Massachusetts barn, I want to show you a picture of this barn and explain the
connection. Here's the outside of a barn. Give me the picture showing the
inside, if you will. Here is the outside of the barn up at Lee, Massachusetts.
It looks it couldn't house a farmer's cow or goat -- the outside. Here's the
inside: a beautifully paneled conference room with maps of the Soviet
Union. Well, in what way does Stevenson tie up with this? My -- My
investigators went up and took pictures of this barn after we had been tipped
off what was in it -- tipped off that there was in this barn all the missing
documents from the communist front -- IPR -- the IPR which has been
named by the McCarran Committee -- named before the McCarran
Committee as a cover shop for communist espionage. When we went up and
we found in the room adjoining this conference room, 200,000 -- 200,000 of
the missing IPR documents. The hidden files showing the vouchers, among
other things; showing money from Moscow; and the entire interlocking
group of communists. And, Senator McCarran -- Senator McCarran --
Senator McCaran's committee unanimously -- a committee of four
democrats and three republicans -- a committee of four democrats, three
republicans -- unanimously found that the IPR was communist controlled,
communist dominated, and shaping our foreign policy.
Now let's take a look at a photostat of a document taken from that
Massachusetts barn. One of those documents was never supposed to have
seen the light of day. Rather interesting, it is. This is the document which
shows that Alger Hiss and Frank Coe recommended Adlai Stevenson to the
Mount Tremblant Conference which was called for the purpose of
establishing foreign policy -- postwar foreign policy -- in Asia. Now, as you
know, Alger Hiss is a convicted traitor. Frank Coe has been named under
oath before congressional committees seven times as a member of the

148. 148
Communist Party. Why? Why do Hiss and Coe find that Adlai Stevenson is
the man they want representing them at this conference? I don't know.
Perhaps Adlai knows.
We now come to the much discussed testimony by Adlai Stevenson in the
trial of Alger Hiss. Now, my good friends, I haven't considered -- I have not
considered this fact standing alone as overly important in the Stevenson
record. It is only a link in the chain of events which prove the case
in Stevenson versus Stevenson. Now what does impress me, however, is the
deathly fear that Governor Stevenson displays when additional links tying
him to Alger Hiss are brought forth. We find that he very cleverly attempts
to imply that his knowledge of Hiss was casual, remote, and that he was not
vouching for Hiss's character at the trail.
I hold in my hand a petition which has never been made public before either
in -- in the New York courts, a petition by the Hiss lawyers when they asked
the court to admit Stevenson's statement. You recall Stevenson said,
“I will sign a statement but I will not go to New York and under cross-
examination.”
Let me read this one small section of this affidavit to you -- and the entire
affidavit is available to the press. Here's the affidavit of Hiss' lawyer:
“Governor Adlai Stevenson of Illinois has been closely associated
with Alger Hiss in the course of certain international diplomatic
undertakings. They were together at the San Francisco conference, at
the United Nations at which the charter of the UN was adopted. And
they were also together at the London conference which preceded and
prepared the agenda for the San Francisco conference.” They say
this, “The testimony of Governor Stevenson would be of great
importance to Alger Hiss.”
Now I want you to examine closely the statement Governor Stevenson made
at Cleveland Ohio, about two days ago, the 23rd, which he attempted to
defend his support of the reputation of Hiss -- Hiss the arch-traitor of our
time. Stevenson said this last Thursday, and I quote him. He said,
“I said his reputation was good. I did not say that his reputation
was very good.”

149. 149
Now here -- here we have -- here we have a man that says, “I want to be
your President,” claiming that Hiss's reputation was good but not very
good. Now I say, my good friends, that if he had such misgivings, he should
not have vouched for Hiss at all. There are -- There are no degrees of loyalty
in the United States; a man is either loyal or he's disloyal. There -- There is -
- There is -- There is no such thing -- There is no such thing as being a little
bit disloyal or being partly a traitor.
Now I note that the television man is holding up a sign saying 30 seconds to
go. I have much, much more of the documentation here. I'm sorry we can't
give it to our television audience and I want our audience to know it is not
the fault of the television stations. We've only arranged for half an hour, and
that half an hour is about up. But with your permission, my good friends,
when we go off the air I would like to complete for this audience, the
documentation....
_____________________________________________________________
Joseph R. McCarthy
Response to E.R. Murrow on CBS' "See It Now"
Delivered 6 April 1954

150. 150
Edward R. Murrow: One month ago tonight we presented a report on
Senator Joseph R. McCarthy. We labeled it as controversial. Most of that
report consisted of words and pictures of the Senator. At that time we said,
"If the Senator believes we have done violence to his words or pictures, if he
desires to speak to answer himself, an opportunity will be afforded him on
this program. The Senator sought the opportunity, asked for a delay of three
weeks because he said he was very busy and he wished adequate time to
prepare his reply. We agreed. We supplied the Senator with a kinescope of
that program of March 9, and with such scripts and recordings as he
requested. We placed no restrictions upon the manner or method of the
presentation of his reply, and we suggested that we would not take time to
comment on this particular program. The Senator chose to make his reply on
film. Here, now, is Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, junior Senator from
Wisconsin.
Joseph McCarthy: Good evening. Mr. Edward R. Murrow, Educational
Director of the Columbia Broadcasting System, devoted his program to an
attack on the work of the United States Senate Investigating Committee, and
on me personally as its chairman. Now over the past four years he has made
repeated attacks upon me and those fighting Communists.
Now, of course, neither Joe McCarthy nor Edward R. Murrow is of any
great importance as individuals. We are only important in our relation to the
great struggle to preserve our American liberties. The Senate Investigating
Committee has forced out of government, and out of important defense
plants, Communists engaged in the Soviet conspiracy. And you know it's
interesting to note that the viciousness of Murrow's attacks is in direct ratio
to our success in digging out Communists.
Now, ordinarily -- ordinarily, I would not take time out from the important
work at hand to answer Murrow. However, in this case I feel justified in
doing so because Murrow is a symbol, a leader, and the cleverest of the
jackal pack which is always found at the throat of anyone who dares to
expose individual Communists and traitors. I am compelled by the facts to
say to you that Mr. Edward R. Murrow, as far back as twenty years ago, was
engaged in propaganda for Communist causes. For example, the Institute of
International Education, of which he was the Acting Director, was chosen to
act as a representative by a Soviet agency to do a job which would normally
be done by the Russian Secret Police [The KGB]. Mr. Murrow sponsored a
Communist school in Moscow. In the selection of American students and

151. 151
teachers who were to attend, Mr. Murrow's organization acted for the
Russian espionage and -- and propaganda organization known as Voks¹ (V-
O-K-S). And many of those selected were later exposed as Communists.
Murrow's organization selected such notorious Communists as Isadore
Begun, David Zablodowsky. (Incidentally, Zablodowsky was forced out of
the United Nations, when my chief counsel presented his case to the grand
jury and gave a picture of his Communist activities).
Now, Mr. Murrow, by his own admission, was a member of the IWW (that's
the Industrial Workers of the World), a terrorist organization cited as
subversive by an attorney general of the United States, who stated that it was
an organization which seeks, and I quote:
"to alter the government of the United States by unconstitutional
means."
Now, other government committees have had before them actors, screen
writers, motion picture producers, and others, who admitted Communist
affiliations but pleaded youth or ignorance. Now, Mr. Murrow can hardly
make the same plea. On March 9 of this year, Mr. Murrow, a trained
reporter, who had traveled all over the world, who is the Educational
Director of CBS, followed implicitly the Communist line, as laid down in
the last six months, laid down not only by the Communist Daily Worker, but
by the Communist magazine Political Affairs and by the National
Conference of the Communist Party of the United States of America.
Now the question. Why is it important to you, the people of America, to
know why the Educational Director and the Vice President of CBS so
closely follow the Communist Party line? To answer that question we must
turn back the pages of history.
A little over a hundred years ago, a little group of men in Europe conspired
to deliver the world to a new system, to Communism. Under their system,
the individual was nothing; the family was nothing; God did not even exist.
Their theory was that an all-powerful State should have the power of life or
death over its citizens without even a trial; that everything and everybody
belonged to the rulers of the states. They openly wrote -- Nothing's secret
about it -- that, in their efforts to gain power, they would be justified in
doing anything; they would be justified in following the trail of deceit, lies,
terror, murder, treason, blackmail. All these things were elevated to virtues

152. 152
in the Communist rule book. If a convert to Communism could be persuaded
that he was a citizen of the world, it of course would be much easier to make
him a traitor to his own country.
Now for 70 years the Communists made little progress. Let me show you a
map of the world as it stood in the middle of the First World War of 1917,
before the Russian Revolution. You will see there is not a single foot of
ground on the face of the globe under the domination or control of the
Communists, and bear in mind that this was only 36 years ago. In 1917 we
were engaged in a great World War in defense of our way of life and in
defense of American liberty. The Kaiser was obliged to divide his armies
and fight in both eastern and the western fronts. In the midst of the war, the
Russian people overthrew their Czarist master and they set up a democratic
form of government under the leadership of Alexander Kerensky. Now,
Kerensky's government instantly pledged all-out support to the allies. At this
instant the imperial German government secretly financed the return to
Russia of seven Communist exiles led by Nicolai Lenin, exiles who had
been forced to flee the country, a rather important event in the history of the
world.
Now, once in Russia, by the same methods which the Communists are
employing in the United States today, they undermined the Army; they
undermined the Navy; the civilian heads of the government. And in one
hundred days those seven Communists were literally the masters of Russia.
Now, with all of -- of the wealth of the nation at their command, they
proceeded to finance Communist parties in every country in the world. They
sent to those countries trained propagandists and spies. In every country they

153. 153
of course had to find glib, clever men like Edward R. Murrow who would
sponsor invitations to students and teachers to attend indoctrinational
schools in Moscow, exactly as Murrow has done. They trained Communists
in every country in the world. Their sole purpose was [to] infiltrate the
government, and once Communists were in government they in turn brought
others in.
Now let us look at the map of the world as it was twenty years ago. At that
time there was one country with 180,000,000 people in Communist chains.
Now let us look at a map of the world as of tonight, this 6th day of April,
nineteen hundred and fifty-four. Over one-third of the earth's area under
Communist control and 800,000,000 people in Communist chains, in
addition to the 800,000,000 in Communist chains in Europe and Asia.
Finally, the Communists have gained a foothold and a potential military base

154. 154
here in our half of the world, in Guatemala, with the Communists seeping
down into the Honduras. My good friends, how much of this was achieved
by military force and how much was achieved by traitors and Communist-
line propagandists in our own government and in other free governments?
Let's start in Europe, if we may. They took by military force a little piece of
Finland. In the same way they took three small Baltic states: Latvia,
Lithuania, and Estonia. They took half of Poland in the same way. They
acquired the rest of Poland through Polish traitors and Communists in our
own government, who gave American dollars and American support to the
Communists in Poland. They took over Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary,
without firing a single shot. They did this by the infiltration of Communists
in key spots in the governments. The Communists took over Czechoslovakia
without firing a shot. This they did by the infiltration of Communists into the
Czechoslovakian government also. And listen to what a high official in the
anti-Communist government of Czechoslovakia had to say about the
Communist enslavement of Czechoslovakia. Here's what he said. He said,
In my country, the pattern was identical to what it is in the United
States [today]. If anyone, before the Communists took over, dared to
attack those Communists who were preparing and shaping the policy
of my government, shaping the policy to betray my people, he was
promptly attacked and destroyed by a combination of Communists,
fellow travelers and those unthinking people who thought they were
serving the cause of liberalism and progress, but who were actually
serving the cause of the most reactionary credo of all times,
Communism.
Still quoting: "Because of those people, night has fallen upon my nation and
slavery upon my people."
Now, shifting to another area of the world, to the East, how about this vast
land area and the teeming masses of China? Let's just take a look at that
map, ² if you please. Keep in mind that a few short years ago China was a
free nation, friendly to the United States. Now, were the --were -- let's take a
look at that map. Were those 400,000,000 Chinese captured by force of
arms? Certainly not. They were delivered -- delivered to Communist slave
masters by the jackal pack of Communist-line propagandists, including the
friends of Mr. Edward R. Murrow, who day after day shouted to the world

155. 155
that the Chinese Communists were agrarian reformers, and that our ally, the
Republic of China, represented everything that was evil and wicked.
Now my good friends, if there were no Communists in our government,
would we have consented to and connived to turn over all of our Chinese
friends to the Russians? Now my good friends, if there had been no
Communists in our government, would we have rewarded them with all of
Manchuria, half of the Kurile Islands and one-half of Korea? Now how
many Americans -- how many Americans have died and will die because of
this sell-out to Communist Russia? God only knows.
If there were no Communists in our government, why did we delay for 18
months, delay our research on the hydrogen bomb, even though our
intelligence agencies were reporting day after day that the Russians were
feverishly pushing their development of the H-bomb? And may I say to
America tonight that our nation may well die -- our nation may well die --
because of that 18-months deliberate delay. And I ask you, who caused it?
Was it loyal Americans? Or was it traitors in our government?
It is often said by the left wing that it is sufficient to fight Communism in
Europe and Asia, but that Communism is not a domestic American issue.
But the record, my good friends, is that the damage has been done by
cleverly calculated subversion at home, and not from abroad. It is this
problem of -- of subversion that our Committee faces.
Now let us very quickly glance at some of the work of our Committee, some
of the work it's done in slightly over a year's time. For example, 238
witnesses were examined in public session; 367 witnesses examined in
executive session; 84 witnesses refused to testify as to Communist activities
on the ground that, if they told the truth, they might go to jail; 24 witnesses
with Communist backgrounds have been discharged from jobs [in] which
they were handling secret, top-secret, confidential material, individuals who
were exposed before our Committee.
Of course you can't measure the success of a committee by a box score,
based on the number of Communist heads that have rolled from secret jobs.
It is completely impossible to even estimate the -- the effect on our
government of the day-to-day plodding exposure of Communists. And that
is, of course, why the Murrows bleed. For example, the exposure of only one
Fifth Amendment Communist in the Government Printing Office, an office

156. 156
having access to secret material from almost every government agency,
resulted in an undisclosed number of suspensions. It resulted in the removal
of the Loyalty Board, and the revamping of all the royal -- of the loyalty
rules, so that we do have apparently a good, tight loyalty set up in the
Printing Office at this time. Also disclosure of Communists in the military
and in the radar laboratories resulted in the abolition of the Pentagon board
which had cleared and ordered reinstated Communists who had for years
been handling government secrets. Also, as a result of those hearings, Army
orders have been issued to prevent a recurrence of the Major [Irving] Peress
scandal, which was exposed by the Committee. Now to attempt to evaluate
the effect of the work of an investigating committee would be about as
impossible as to attempt to evaluate the effect of well-trained watchdogs
upon the activities of potential burglars.
We Americans live in a free world, a world where we can stand as
individuals, where we can go to the church of our own choice and worship
God as we please, each in his own fashion, where we can freely speak our
opinions on any subject, or on any man. Now whether -- whether we -- we
shall continue to so live has come to issue now. We will soon know whether
we are going to go on living that kind of life, or whether we are going to live
the kind of life that 800,000,000 slaves live under Communist domination.
The issue is simple. It is the issue of life or death for our civilization.
Now Mr. Murrow said on this program -- and I quote -- he said:
"The actions of the junior Senator from Wisconsin have given
considerable comfort to the enemy."
That is the language of our statute of treason -- rather strong language. If I
am giving comfort to our enemies, I ought not to be in the Senate. If, on the
other hand, Mr. Murrow is giving comfort to our enemies, he ought not to be
brought into the homes of millions of Americans by the Columbia
Broadcasting System.
Now this is a question which can be resolved with very little difficulty. What
do the Communists think of me? And what do the Communists think of Mr.
Murrow? One of us is on the side of the Communists; the other is against the
Communists, against Communist slavery.
Now the Communists have three official publications in America, and these
are not ordinary publications. They have been officially determined to be the

157. 157
transmission belts through which Communists in America are instructed as
to the party-line, or the position which Communist writers and playwrights
must take -- also, of course, telecasters, broadcasters. The first of these is a
booklet which I would like to show you, if I may. It's entitled "The Main
Report,"³ delivered at the National Conference of the Communist Party of
the U.S.A. -- published in New York in October, 1953. The report states,
quote:
"The struggle against McCarthyism is developing currently along the
following main line" -- Keep in mind this is a Communist
publication giving instructions to members of the Party -- "along
the following main line: the struggle against witch hunting, the
struggle against investigations of the McCarthy/McCarran type, and
defense of the victims of McCarthyism such as Owen Lattimore, etc.
In addition there is the direct attack on McCarthy."
Let me ask you, does that sound somewhat like the program of Edward R.
Murrow of March 9 over this same station?
Now in this -- in this report, the Communists do not hesitate to instruct -- to
instruct the comrades that their fight on McCarthy is only a means to a larger
end. Again, let me quote from the instructions from the Communist Party to
its membership, on page 33, I quote:
Our main task is to mobilize the masses for the defeat of the foreign
and domestic policy of the Eisenhower Administration and for the
defeat of the Eisenhower regime itself. The struggle against
McCarthyism contributes to this general objective.
Just one more quotation, if I may, from page 31 of these instructions of the
Communist Party to its members, and I quote: "Since the elections,
McCarthyism has emerged as a menace of major proportions." I think
maybe we know what the Communist Party means by "a menace of major
proportions." They mean a menace of major proportions to the Communist
Party [and its goals and objectives].
Now let's take 30 seconds or so, if we may, to look a little further to see
who's giving comfort to our enemies. Here is a Communist Daily Worker of
March 9, containing seven articles and a principal editorial, all attacking
McCarthy. And the same issue lists Mr. Murrow's program as -- listen to this
-- "One of tonight's best bets on TV." And then -- just one more -- here's the

158. 158
issue of March 17. Its principal front-page article is an attack on McCarthy.
It has three other articles attacking McCarthy. It has a special article
by William Z. Foster, the head of the Communist Party in America -- and
now under indictment on charges of attempting to overthrow this
government by force and violence -- this article by Foster, praising Edward
R. Murrow. Just one more, if I may impose on your time: the issue of March
26. This issue has two articles attacking witch-hunting, three articles
attacking McCarthy, a cartoon of McCarthy, and an article in praise of Mr.
Edward R. Murrow.
And now I would like to also show you the Communist political organ,
entitled Political Affairs. The lead article is a report dated November 21,
1953 of the National Committee of the Communist Party of the United
States, attacking McCarthy and telling how the loyal members of the
Communist Party can serve their cause by getting rid of this awful
McCarthy.
Now, as you know, Owen Lattimore has been named as a conscious,
articulate instrument of the Communist conspiracy. He's been so named by
the Senate Internal Security Committee. He is now under criminal
indictment for perjury with respect to testimony in regard to his Communist
activities. In his book Ordeal by Slander, he says -- I think I can quote him
verbatim -- he says,

159. 159
"I owe a very special debt to a man I have never met. I must mention
at least Edward R. Murrow."
Then there's the book by Harold Laski, admittedly the greatest Communist
propagandist of our time in England. In his book Reflections on the
Revolution of Our Times he dedicates the book to "my friends E. R. Murrow
and Latham Tichener, with affection." Now, I am perfectly willing to let the
American people decide who's giving comfort to our enemies. Much of the
documentation which we have here on the table tonight will not be available
to the American people by way of television. However, this will all be made
available to you within the next two weeks.
In conclusion, may I say that under the shadow of the most horrible and
destructive weapons that man has ever devised, we fight to save our country,
our homes, our churches, and our children. To this cause, ladies and
gentlemen, I have dedicated and will continue to dedicate all that I have and
all that I am. And I want to assure you that I will not be deterred by the
attacks of the Murrows, the Lattimores, the Fosters, the Daily Worker, or the
Communist Party itself.
Now I make no claim to leadership. In complete humility, I do ask you and
every American who loves this country to join with me.
Murrow: That was film of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, presented at our
invitation. It was in response to a program we presented on March 9th. This
reporter undertook to make no comment at this time, but naturally reserved
his right to do so subsequently.
Good night, and good luck.
_____________________________________________________________

160. 160
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________

161. 161
_____________________________________________________________
Sen. McCarthy Pins Mayor Brunton Over Red Links
www.arcataeye.com/.../sen-mccarthy-pins-mayor-brunton-over-red-links...
Mayor Shawn Brunton and Sen. Joseph McCarthy gesture vigorously during
Senate hearings. PHOTO APPROVED BY FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION [FBI]
Mayor Brunton hunkers down in the face of
Sen. McCarthy’s interrogation.
_____________________________________________________________

162. 162
_____________________________________________________________
McCarthy and His Colleagues
_____________________________________________________________
Many Americans have been led to believe that Senator Joseph
McCarthy was a loathsome bully who misused the power of his
office to unleash a reign of terror against innocent individuals. But
many of McCarthy's Senate colleagues — like millions of his
other contemporaries — held the senator in much higher esteem.
_____________________________________________________________
Senator McCarthy was an advocate of Americanism and a foe of everything
smacking of un-Americanism. Just as he served in the Armed Forces during
World War II with courage and patriotism, so did he serve his country for
more than 10 years in the United States Senate with ability and distinction.
— Senator Strom Thurmond
In my judgment, Joe McCarthy was a courageous American whose Irish
background and religious convictions could not leave him complacent in
meeting a challenge which all our people agree represents a continuing and
constant threat to our American way of life. He challenged us to pursue an
effective course in meeting the menace which faces us still after he has gone,
the menace to freemen in free societies born of the godless international
Communist tyranny. It was against this menace to freemen everywhere that
my colleague, the junior Senator from Wisconsin, devoted his efforts and,
indeed, his life....
Senator Joe McCarthy was not the first and, I pray, will not be the last to
warn of the dangers to our society that are inherent in the philosophy of
peaceful coexistence with the followers of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and
Khrushchev. Although Joe McCarthy has gone, the danger to our Nation
and the free world remains.
— Senator William Knowland

163. 163
While Senator McCarthy fought fiercely and to the bitter end for any cause
in which he believed, he was still a kindly and deeply religious man.
— Senator Milton Young
All of us owe Joe McCarthy a great debt of gratitude for the fact that he did
help us focus, through a considerable period of time, the attention of a great
many Americans, and the attention of people in many other countries of the
world, to the fact that Communism is here and needs to be destroyed and
cannot be ignored, and that Communism must be fought with different types
of rules than can be used in fighting against the ordinary type of conspiracy
or the ordinary type of criminal groups which seek to destroy America.
— Senator Karl Mundt
It has been said here that he was not the first to call the country's attention to
the dangers of the Communist conspiracy … but no one warned and
alerted the people of this country more effectively than did Joe
McCarthy during the time he had the opportunity to guide the
Committee on Government Operations and the subcommittee thereof,
the Permanent Investigating Subcommittee. I admired Joe McCarthy
because of his courage. He was a man of courage. No enemy can ever say
otherwise. I admired him … for his independence. He was not a rubber
stamp. He would call attention to the evils or to the things which were
wrong in his own party, just as quickly as he would point it out if the error
was being made by a member of the Democratic Party. I admired him, too,
because he had deep convictions. He did not change his mind easily. Once
be became convinced, he fought for his convictions.
— Senator John McClellan
It is my conviction that had it not been for Joseph McCarthy's unrelenting
campaign against this international conspiracy, communism would be in a
far stronger position in this country today.
— Senator Chapman Revercomb

164. 164
If Senator Joseph McCarthy had been a petty or a vengeful man, he could
have used the vote of censure to tear the Senate of the United States into
bitter factions. But he understood the Communist mentality too well. He
knew that was what they wanted, and what they expected. He would not
injure the Senate of the United States, to get a little personal revenge.
Once the vote was cast, he asked nothing of his supporters. He turned a
smiling, friendly face to his traducers. No man in public life has been
more shamefully maligned. For the first time in our history, I believe,
the meanness of his enemies pursued a man beyond the grave.
— Senator William Jenner
… Joe McCarthy has made a real and lasting contribution toward the
preservation and perpetuation of the free world in his fight against the
menace of internal subversion. His death was as much as that of a soldier
fighting in the ranks for human liberty and eternal truth as if it had
occurred on the field of battle and been inflicted by bullet, bayonet, or
shell....
To millions who mourn his death, Joe McCarthy's life and works need
no vindication and no justification before the bar of ultimate justice and
the throne of his God. His heart was pure; his purpose was noble.
— Senator James Eastland

165. 165
I know I have not been alone in reflecting upon what might have been done
to ward off the unhappy event which climaxed Senator McCarthy's crusade
against communism. Here was a man who was hated and vilified, not for
his faults, but for his virtues. Nevertheless, he insisted on standing the
savage ordeal alone. He did not want his friends to be tarred and
feathered by the brush that was being prepared for him.
— Senator John Bricker
Joe McCarthy had a cause. The cause was this Republic and its perpetuity.
That was what impelled him onward. What he did was voluntary; he did not
have to do it. He did not have to accept "the slings and arrows of outrageous
fortune," as Shakespeare has put it. He could have coasted; he could have
been a conformist; he could have kept his eye always on his constituency
and the next election. But he was not impelled to do that....
I have often wondered whether I would have done what Joe McCarthy did. I
have some doubt about it. I think in moments I would have quailed. I am
afraid that in moments when the load became so heavy and the fury so great,
I might have faltered. He did not falter under any attack. He did not
falter under any assault of character which was made upon him, day
after day. He had the courage to withstand the attacks. He excelled in
the human attributes of loyalty and devotion to his country, and had the
courage to express and articulate his devotion in everyday life.
— Senator Everett Dirksen
Do not mourn Joe McCarthy. Be thankful that he lived, at the right time, and
according to the talents vested in him by his Maker.
Be grateful, too, that when it came his time to die, he passed on with the
full assurance that, because he lived, America is a brighter, safer, more
vigilant land today [In 1957.]
—Senator Barry Goldwater
All quotations in this column appear in a book entitled Joseph Raymond
McCarthy, Late a Senator from Wisconsin, Memorial Addresses Delivered
in Congress, published by the U.S. government printing office in 1957.
_____________________________________________________________

166. 166
____________________________________________________________
ATTAC REPORT
| Back to Regional | Features Page | Contact Us | Subscribe for
Updates | Deutsch |
From the Archives
_____________________________________________________________
Soviet Moles in the CIA, part 1:
The High-Level Cover-up
(The Inside Story: World Report
v2:1, September 1995)
________________________________________________________________________
The Committee for State Security (KGB) has always been the
foundation of the Soviet police state. It has kept the borders tightly sealed
against escape, maintained thousands of concentration camps, and actively
spied on the Soviet population at home while arming terrorists and operating
sophisticated spy networks abroad. The Communists have depended on
the KGB for their hold on power.
Thus the “death” of Soviet Communism in 1991 should have ended the
KGB. Among other consequences, Soviet espionage against the United
States should have collapsed with the “end” of the Cold War. The Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI), anticipating this change, has already
diverted hundreds of its officers from counterintelligence against Soviet
agents into the war on drugs and other campaigns.1
Instead, the opposite has happened. Immediately before
resigning, Mikhail Gorbachev increased the KGB’s budget by
20%.2
Since Boris Yeltsin came to power, the KGB’s foreign section has
been renamed the Federal Intelligence Service (SVR in Russian), and its
operations have been expanded yet again. One news report admitted that

167. 167
“Russian President Boris Yeltsin has cultivated the former KGB and
even strengthened its authority,” while according to another source,
“Russian spy operations against the US have shown little decline
following the collapse of the former USSR. Western intelligence
agencies report that Russian spying is on the rise around the world.”3
Indeed, the FBI is now reporting a startling rise in the number of Soviet
agents operating in the US.4
Given the atmosphere of wishful thinking created by the news media, it is no
wonder that Americans were taken by such surprise on February 21, 1994,
when Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer Aldrich Ames was
arrested as a Soviet spy. But the Ames case is only the tip of the iceberg.
Western intelligence agencies, including the CIA, are now so heavily
infiltrated as to render them virtually useless against Soviet aggression.
Our own intelligence agencies, in fact, are lulling the West to sleep by
reassuring us that Soviet Communism is probably dead.
Ames: agent of the new Cold War
The news media has largely downplayed the damage caused by Ames, as
well as the growing evidence of a much larger Soviet network inside
Western intelligence circles.
Ames was a major figure in the CIA. He joined the agency in 1962 and
spent the next two decades gradually working his way up the ranks. By 1985
he became chief of counterintelligence for the Soviet Bloc Division — an
incredibly sensitive position, giving him authority over the debriefing of
defectors from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
During the next six years, serious problems developed. At least ten, and
possibly dozens, of CIA intelligence operations failed; covert foreign
contacts “suddenly stopped cooperating”; and at least eight CIA agents
were uncovered and assassinated, as were two FBI agents.5
By 1990, the
CIA’s Counterintelligence Center finally noticed that Ames was paying cash
for a home and car too expensive for his salary, and that he had been
involved with some of the agency’s recent disasters. The Center issued a
memo to the Office of Security, requesting an investigation. The memo
was ignored.6

168. 168
The CIA, meanwhile, was recruiting members of the Stasi (the East German
secret police) to act as spies for the United States. But in 1991, the CIA and
FBI discovered that all of these “spies” had been double agents — in other
words, they were secretly working for the Stasi, passing disinformation to
the CIA. Someone inside the CIA must have betrayed these operations to the
enemy.
The ensuing investigation found about twenty suspects. One was Aldrich
Ames, who had worked with some of the Stasi contacts. Ames was given a
polygraph lie-detector test, or “fluttered.” Yet despite results that FBI
officials now admit were suspicious, and despite the 1990 memo, Ames
was cleared.7
And promoted. Ames was now transferred to the “Black Sea Counter-drug
Offensive,” a small but growing CIA operation inside the “former” Soviet
Union. Recent evidence shows that this project was, in part, a cover for
teams of the CIA and US Special Forces who were training elite military
units under Eduard Shevardnadze, the Communist dictator of Soviet
Georgia. Merely one month after Ames arrived in Soviet Georgia in 1993,
CIA agent Fred Woodruff was mysteriously assassinated — receiving a
bullet in the head while being driven on a remote road outside the city of
Tbilisi.
British intelligence analyst Christopher Story has revealed that Soviet
Georgia is now a major route for shipment of morphine and other drugs
into Europe. During his involvement in the “Counter-drug” project, Ames
began receiving millions of dollars from the Soviets, leading to speculation
that he may have also helped the Communists set up their drug-smuggling
operation. Aldrich’s wife, Maria del Rosario Ames, was later arrested
along with her husband for helping him in his espionage; she was
Colombian, a possible link to the drug cartels.8
During 1993, the FBI finally noticed that Aldrich Ames had been
making unauthorized trips to Colombia and Venezuela, had maintained
contacts with Soviet KGB officers in the United States and other
countries without informing the CIA, had illegally collected large
numbers of classified CIA documents in his office and home, and was
receiving millions of dollars from unknown sources. Finally, the FBI opened
an investigation under the code name NIGHTMOVER, leading to Ames’
arrest this year.

169. 169
Ames confessed to being a Soviet spy, and was convicted. But the real
story is far more ominous. Ames was only one of dozens of suspected
spies in the CIA’s Soviet Bloc Division; indeed, he could not have single-
handedly betrayed all of the CIA projects that failed. More importantly, the
FBI revealed that Ames had been given many CIA documents from
operations well outside his authority, meaning that other spies must have
worked with him.9
Although the CIA is refusing to look for more spies, several shocking
incidents over the past 40 years have proven the agency is heavily
infiltrated by Soviet moles.
Too many moles to count
Penetration of the CIA is certainly not a new Soviet goal. The Communists
found their best opportunity at the time the CIA was first created —
during World War II, when the new agency was known as the Office of
Strategic Services (OSS).
Nathaniel Weyl, who broke with the Communist Party, USA, wrote that “In
the Office of Strategic Services… employment of pro-Communists was
approved at very high levels provided that they were suited for specific
jobs.”10
As it turned out, OSS director General William “Wild Bill”
Donovan had systematically recruited his OSS personnel directly from
Communist Party membership.
Nor was Donovan shy about admitting this. When confronted by the FBI
with clear evidence of Communist agents in the OSS, Donovan boasted, “I
know they’re Communists; that’s why I hired them.”11
When the OSS became the CIA in 1947, the original personnel were
largely retained, Communists and all. By 1952, CIA director Walter
Bedell Smith publicly confirmed that hidden Communist agents were
working inside his agency.12
Since no one in the Executive branch seemed to be interested in rooting out
these spies, Congress began to take an interest. Joseph
McCarthy’s subcommittee specifically raised the idea of a formal
investigation, as later described by legal advisor Roy Cohn:

170. 170
One desired investigation that never got started was that of the
Central Intelligence Agency, headed by Allen W. Dulles. Our staff
had been accumulating extensive data about its operations and
McCarthy was convinced that an inquiry was overdue.
Our files contained allegations gathered from various sources
indicating that the CIA had unwittingly hired a large number of
double agents — individuals who, although working for the CIA, were
actually Communist agents whose mission was to plant inaccurate
data.…
…although we spent far more for intelligence than other countries,
the quality of the information we were receiving was so poor that at
times the CIA found out what was happening only when it read the
newspapers.…
When the news broke out that McCarthy was contemplating an
inquiry into the CIA, consternation reigned at 1600 Pennsylvania
Avenue [the White House]. Vice-President Nixon was assigned to
the delicate job of blocking it.13
Block it Nixon did, and no outside investigation of spies in the CIA has
ever been held. The consequences were obvious. Even the
Eisenhower administration was forced to admit in 1954 that CIA
intelligence measures against the Soviet Bloc had been a dismal
failure.14
Since the end of World War II and continuing to this day, the
United States has never been able to infiltrate the KGB or recruit
double agents of any significance.
But the final proof of massive Soviet penetration emerged during the
1960s, with the spectacular defection of the highest-level KGB officer
ever to reach the West.
The Golitsyn Coup
Anatoliy Golitsyn, a Ukrainian born in 1926, joined the Communist Party
of the Soviet Union in 1945 as he prepared to become a military officer. He
began several years of training in intelligence and acquired a position in
the KGB by 1948. By the early 1950s, he had risen to an important
enough position to co-author a plan for restructuring Soviet intelligence,

171. 171
which brought him into direct contact with Soviet dictator Joseph
Stalin and other top officials.
Four years of study at the KGB Institute in Moscow brought Golitsyn closer
to the inner circle of Communist power during the late 1950s. He then
worked until 1960 as a top analyst for the KGB in its Moscow
headquarters, ultimately reaching the rank of major.
Golitsyn was one of the youngest officers ever promoted to such a high
position, and the discovery of the KGB’s innermost secrets rapidly
disillusioned him. He managed to have himself reassigned to Finland with
his wife and daughter in 1961. Three days before Christmas, he suddenly
presented himself at the US embassy to announce his defection. Within 72
hours, the US Air Force evacuated Golitsyn and his family to Frankfurt,
West Germany, just before he had to return to Moscow. After lie-detector
tests showed he was telling the truth, he was transferred to the United
States for a full debriefing.
Golitsyn’s shocking information plunged the CIA, and other Western
intelligence services, into a state of turmoil for over a decade. He
revealed that the KGB placed the bulk of its resources not on stealing
secrets, as the West commonly believed, but on deceiving and
manipulating Western nations into gradually surrendering to
Communism. Every time our intelligence experts would exploit some
source of information from the Soviet Union, the KGB would “poison” that
source with disinformation. By sending false defectors who were secretly
working for the KGB, or by leaking falsified documents, or by organizing
phony opposition movements inside the Soviet Bloc, the KGB could
influence Western policymaking with seemingly reliable information. Using
such techniques, the Communists could make the West believe that the
Soviet and Chinese Communists were at war with one another. Or that
Communism had “died.”
The Golitsyn revelations shook the CIA to the core. Much of the
intelligence being gathered could no longer be trusted; apparent
successes in stealing Soviet secrets were actually Communist victories in
deceiving us. Many CIA officials became furious with Golitsyn, and
refused to listen.

172. 172
To carry out such a huge but delicate operation, the Soviets needed spies in
Western intelligence agencies for feedback. These moles would tell the KGB
whether the disinformation was being believed, allowing the Soviets to alter
the deception to give it more plausibility.15
Because of his former access to KGB intelligence, Golitsyn was able to
prove the extent to which Soviet moles had infiltrated sensitive
positions. For example, through his ability to recognize a wide array of top-
secret NATO documents, he showed that the KGB had agents planted
throughout the NATO command structure. His evidence was further
confirmed in 1967 by the testimony of Giorgio Rinaldi, an Italian who
admitted to being involved with some 300 NATO officers in a massive
Soviet spy network — one that was never uncovered or removed.16
Recent
years have seen further confirmation of Golitsyn’s allegations. On
November 17, 1994, former NATO official Rainer Rupp was convicted in a
German court for his role as a Soviet spy. Operating under the KGB code
name TOPAZ during the 1970s and 1980s, Rupp and his wife (code-named
TURQUOISE) had passed “strategies, codes and military preparedness
plans” from NATO headquarters to the East German secret police, who
transferred the secrets to the KGB.17
Golitsyn also had knowledge of secrets from the highest levels of the
French government, and said the information had come from a Soviet spy
ring operating under the code name SAPPHIRE. His evidence implicated
several members of French Intelligence (SDECE), including the chief of
counterintelligence and President Charles de Gaulle’s own intelligence
advisor. Rather than investigating and stopping the ring, however, the
French government and SDECE moved to cover up the evidence. Days
after one of the spies was identified, he was murdered — apparently to
protect the rest of the spy ring.
According to Golitsyn, Soviet control over the SDECE was so complete that
the French agency was already functioning as a virtual arm of the KGB.
Based on reports he had seen before defecting, he predicted that the KGB
would soon use the SDECE as a front for spying on American nuclear
deployment. French officer Philippe de Vosjoli, who was liaison between
the SDECE and the CIA, disbelieved Golitsyn — until a few months later,
when he received precisely such an order to set up a spy ring to monitor
US nuclear facilities. De Vosjoli refused to obey the order and, learning
that he was targeted for assassination upon his return to France, defected to

173. 173
the United States.18
The SDECE subsequently carried out the operation
against the US under the code name BIG BEN.19
The information supplied by Golitsyn also revealed a powerful spy ring
of five Soviet agents operating at the highest levels of the British
Ministry of Intelligence. Three had already been exposed, and a fourth —
Kim Philby — was uncovered in subsequent years. Based on additional
evidence provided by Golitsyn, some members of the British MI5 conducted
an investigation which concluded that the “fifth man” of the Soviet ring was
none other than Sir Roger Hollis, the director of MI5. An MI6
officer, Stephen de Mowbray, tried to warn the prime minister, but was
fired. Hollis himself was never fully investigated. Golitsyn’s evidence also
pointed to at least two close advisors to Prime Minister Harold Wilson as
being Soviet agents, but MI5 blocked an investigation.20
Golitsyn was able to show Soviet infiltration in the intelligence services
of West Germany, Austria, Canada, Australia, and others. But his most
important spy revelations concerned infiltration of the CIA itself. He knew
of one mole code-named SASHA; months of investigation finally uncovered
a lower-level Soviet spy. But the stolen secrets Golitsyn had seen while in
Moscow came from much higher sources, and could not have come from a
single agent. To test Golitsyn’s claim that many moles had burrowed into the
highest levels of the CIA, the Counterintelligence Division issued “marked
cards” — tiny leaks of information that can be traced. Using this method,
the Office of Security and the Counterintelligence Division proved the
information was being leaked from within the Soviet Bloc Division, and
by multiple spies.21
The next logical step was to conduct investigations to identify the spies. But,
as we shall review in part 2 of this analysis, those probes were blocked —
with disastrous results.
The CIA, and virtually all of Western intelligence, has been thoroughly
compromised by networks of Soviet spies. Nor has the “death” of Soviet
Communism changed anything. Aldrich Ames, having worked for years as
an agent of the KGB, in 1991 made an effortless transition to the renamed
KGB (SVR) without any break in his activities.22
So, too, have hundreds of
thousands of other Soviet agents throughout the world, whose activities
are now sharply increasing.

174. 174
In Part 2: The secret “inner” KGB, CIA intelligence disasters, suppression
of key evidence, and the CIA campaign to discredit Golitsyn.
References
1. Story, C., Soviet Analyst 22:7-8, March 1994, p. 20.
2. McAlvany, D., McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, Sept./Oct. 1991, p. 22.
3. US News & World Report, Feb. 8, 1993, and Washington Times, Nov. 15,
1992, as quoted in McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, Jan. 1994, pp. 20-22.
4. Ibid., p. 22; Sinai, R., Associated Press, “Cold War over? Not for
spies,” Contra Costa Times, 3-5-92, p. B1.
5. Story, C., March 1994, Op cit., p. 3.
6. Pincus, W., Washington Post, “CIA memo warned about Ames 3 years
before arrest,” SF Chronicle, 8-2-94, p. A6.
7. Pincus, W., Smith, J.R., & Thomas, P., Washington Post, “East German
Stasi files pointed to Ames as long-sought mole,” SF Chronicle, 3-7-94, p.
A9.
8. Story, C., March 1994, Op cit., p. 18; Story, C., Soviet Analyst 22:4, Sept.
1993, pp. 15-16; Story, C., Soviet Analyst 22:3, July 1993, pp. 7-8.
9. Pincus, W., Smith, R.J., & Thomas, P., Op cit.
10. Weyl, N., The Battle Against Disloyalty, Cromwell, New York, 1951, p.
180, as quoted in Smith, R.H., OSS, Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, CA,
1972, p. 10.
11. Smith, R. H., Op cit., p. 11.
12. Burnham, J., The Web of Subversion, Western Islands, Belmont, MA,
1965, p. 182.
13. Cohn, R., McCarthy: The Answer to “Tail Gunner Joe”, Manor Books,
New York, 1977, pp. 63-64.

175. 175
14. Martin, D.C., Wilderness of Mirrors, Harper & Row, New York, 1980,
p. 62.
15. Epstein, E.J., Deception, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1989, chapter 5.
16. “300 officers bared as red NATO spies,” Los Angeles Herald-Examiner,
3-22-67, pp. 1, 10.
17. “Ex-spy jailed for selling NATO secrets to East Bloc,” SF Chronicle, 11-
18-94, p. A12.
18. Epstein, E.J., Op cit., pp. 65-66, 68-70.
19. Mangold, T., Cold Warrior, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1991, p. 131.
20. Epstein, E.J., Op cit., pp. 71-73, 80-82; Wright, P. with Greengrass,
P., Spycatcher, Viking, New York, 1987, passim.
21. Epstein, E.J., Op cit., pp. 75-78.
22. Story, C., March 1994, Op cit., p. 5.
_____________________________________________________________
Soviet Moles in the CIA, part 2:
The High-Level Cover-up
(The Inside Story: World Report
v2:1, September 1995)
________________________________________________________________________
When KGB Major Anatoliy Golitsyn defected to the United States in
1961, he brought a message that was most unwelcome. Not only did he
prove the existence of large networks of Soviet spies operating in all
Western intelligence agencies, but he also showed that the Soviets were
using our own intelligence apparatus against us. While the CIA and other
services were chasing after Soviet state secrets, the KGB was carefully
leaking “secrets” that were carefully concocted disinformation. According to

176. 176
Golitsyn, the Communists placed higher priority on deceiving the West
into gradual surrender than on protecting their own secrets. In other
words, the Soviets were not playing the “Cold War game”; they were
fighting to win.
To carry out a successful long-term deception, as Golitsyn explained, the
Soviets had to restructure the KGB itself. After all, any disinformation
scheme would inevitably be exposed through the very process of delivering
the deception. A percentage of those KGB agents in contact with Western
agents would defect or otherwise betray the plan. To prevent this from
happening, the Soviets had to make sure that only a tiny core of personnel —
those not in contact with the West — would actually know the plan. The rest
of the KGB would implement the strategy without understanding it.
Golitsyn had not only observed the KGB restructuring first-hand, he had
actually participated in it. The process had begun in 1953 upon the death
of dictator Joseph Stalin, whose violent purging of fellow Communists had
left behind a leadership vacuum. A power struggle ensued, threatening to
destabilize the entire Communist system. Stalin’s successors quickly decided
to reinstitute V. I. Lenin’s concept of “democratic centralism,” in which no
single individual holds the fulcrum of power. If the Communists could be
re-united under an all-powerful central committee, the Communist Bloc
could launch a long-term offensive against the West.
Party leader Nikita Khrushchev decisively beat all opposing factions in
1957, and immediately began building democratic centralism. Factional
infighting was ended, and coordination between Communist governments
was re-established. Suddenly the Soviet leadership turned its attentions
toward creating a new strategic deception policy. The top intelligence
officials began studying the writings of Lenin and ancient Chinese
strategist Sun Tzu.
Quickly the entire Communist structure in the Soviet Union was rebuilt,
though in secret. From 1958 to 1960, the Communist Party Central
Committee created such new agencies as the Department of Foreign Policy
and the Department of Active Operations to coordinate international
deception. The Committee of Information, which carried out operation
to influence Western political leaders, was shifted to the authority of the
Central Committee. And the KGB was put under a new
chairman, Aleksander Shelepin.

177. 177
The KGB underwent the largest and most important rearrangement.
Not only did its counterintelligence directorate expand, but a special
top-secret new “inner level” was created to coordinate strategic
deception. Known as Department D, it was immediately staffed with some
fifty or sixty intelligence specialists, all highly experienced and trusted
officers of the Soviet secret police. These men had special access to the
highest state secrets, and were given the authority to coordinate the most
powerful agencies of the Soviet government. Department D was designed to
be the high command of the Communist disinformation campaign.
This “inner” KGB has remained so secret that no Soviet defector, other than
Golitsyn, has known of its existence. Golitsyn himself was not a member
of it, but he was intimately involved in creating it. In 1952 to 1953, he
had been appointed to a small team of experts who planned the restructuring
of the KGB; Golitsyn’s plan was adopted by Shelepin in 1959, by which
time the 32-year-old Golitsyn was studying at the KGB Institute in Moscow
— and therefore was privy to the details of the KGB reorganization.
Later that year, Golitsyn helped implement the deception strategy as a
new senior analyst in the KGB’s Information Department.
Golitsyn was astonishingly young for his high position, a result of his
intellectual acumen. Had the Soviets been more careful, they would not have
promoted him so soon, for by 1956 the young Golitsyn had become
thoroughly disillusioned with Communism. The launching of the new
deception strategy finally convinced him he had to defect to warn the West,
and he spent the next few years carefully gathering information that would
expose the Communist plans.
Using his position, Golitsyn managed to be assigned with his wife and
daughter to the Soviet embassy in Finland. In December 1961, when he
received orders to return to Moscow, he realized he had run out of time.
He took his family and the few documents he could carry, and defected
to the United States embassy. Thus began the controversy that would
eventually split the CIA.1
Through the looking glass
Golitsyn’s message was not popular within the CIA. Although he proved
himself by helping expose Soviet spy rings in the highest levels of Western
intelligence services [see Part 1 in the Nov. 1994 issue — Eds.], he was

178. 178
telling the CIA that much of its hard-earned intelligence data was
merely disinformation concocted by the KGB’s Department D. He also
shattered all hopes that Communism might disintegrate spontaneously.
According to Golitsyn, the Soviet reorganization after Stalin had destroyed
all opposition to the regime while permanently healing all factions, splits,
and power struggles within the government. Evidence of infighting among
the Communists, of popular resistance against Communism, or even of
“democratization” in Communist Bloc nations, was an illusion being
created by the KGB.
Golitsyn told his CIA debriefers that the Soviets, knowing that Western
agencies would not believe propaganda published in the official Soviet news
media, used more clever methods to deliver disinformation. The Soviets
might allow rumors to “slip” during off-the-record conversations with
Western political leaders. Or they might leak special documents or
communiqués, allowing Western intelligence officers to believe they had
stolen it without Soviet knowledge. Or they might pay phony “dissidents” or
create illusory “opposition movements” behind the iron curtain, who would
pass along “information” that would seem more credible.
But most startlingly of all, Golitsyn revealed that the Soviets understood
well the Western dependence on KGB defectors. Department D played
on this vulnerability by dispatching phony defectors — double agents
who would pretend to expose KGB “secrets” that would now be wholly
accepted by gullible Western intelligence services. Meanwhile, KGB
spies inside the CIA or other agencies would quietly monitor Western
reactions to specific items of disinformation, thus completing the
“feedback loop” for the Soviets.
Thus deception could not only be engineered on a grand scale, but could
even be fine-tuned for maximum believability.
None of this was idle speculation. In January of 1962, days after escaping to
the West, Golitsyn predicted that his own defection would force the
Soviets to send false defectors from the KGB and the GRU (military
intelligence) to contradict his information.
Within weeks, he was already proved correct. The KGB dispatched a
“diplomat” who tried to defect to the CIA in Paris, followed by a similar
attempt at the American embassy in Moscow. The Soviets bungled both

179. 179
efforts. Finally two Soviet agents working at the United Nations — one
from the GRU, the other from the KGB — almost simultaneously
contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and offered to leak
Soviet secrets. The FBI assigned them the codenames TOP
HAT and FEDORA; the CIA named them SCOTCH and BOURBON. In
June yet another such officer, this time from the KGB’s Second Chief
Directorate, approached the CIA in Switzerland and also began providing
secrets. His name was Yuri Nosenko; he was labeled AE/FOXTROT in
CIA files (he subsequently defected to the United States in early 1964).2
“Suddenly, in the spring of 1962, the CIA was awash with penetrations of
Soviet intelligence — more at one time than during its entire history,”
wrote journalist David C. Martin years later.3
And, exactly as Golitsyn had predicted, all three “defectors” began
providing information that directly contradicted his own. Where
Golitsyn had warned of high-level penetrations of the CIA by Soviet spies,
Nosenko instead blamed the leaks of information on a low-level code clerk
in the US embassy. Golitsyn’s charge that Soviet moles had betrayed CIA
spy Petr Popov was also contradicted by Nosenko, who claimed that the
Soviets had traced Popov’s handler merely by spraying an invisible chemical
tracer on his shoes. Eerily, TOP HAT and FEDORA were coincidentally
able to confirm Nosenko’s key allegations. All three confirmed Golitsyn’s
less important information, but directly contradicted his evidence of top
moles in the CIA.4
If Nosenko, TOP HAT, and FEDORA were right, then the Soviets had failed
to infiltrate the CIA, and could not pull off sophisticated deception
campaigns. If Golitsyn was right, the CIA was already dominated by the
KGB, and these other “defectors” were themselves part of the
disinformation. CIA officials rapidly polarized into two warring camps
on this issue, precipitating a fight that would tear the agency apart for
the next decade.
Agents of deception
Into the fray stepped James Jesus Angleton, the venerated chief of the
CIA’s Counterintelligence Division. A brilliant spymaster with a penchant
for detecting disinformation, he immediately recognized in Golitsyn a

180. 180
profound source of intelligence. And when Nosenko made his
appearance to discredit Golitsyn, Angleton smelled a rat.
Angleton persuaded key members of the Soviet Bloc Division, the branch of
the CIA responsible for handling defectors, that Nosenko was a phony
defector. By 1963, Angleton had Golitsyn transferred to his authority,
and together the two men launched a series of investigations into
Nosenko and other suspect defectors, as well as searching for Soviet spies in
the CIA.
It was not long before Nosenko’s story began falling apart. Although he
claimed to be a lieutenant colonel in the KGB with access to high-level
secrets, he could not remember important details of his operations. Under
interrogation, he admitted the contradiction but then began changing his
story repeatedly. When intelligence experts determined that Nosenko could
not have held the rank of lieutenant colonel, he admitted having merely been
a captain; when confronted with evidence that he had not, as previously
claimed, received a particular communication from Moscow, Nosenko again
admitted lying. Further interrogation caused him to admit having lied
about numerous facts, including his reason for defecting in the first
place.
More disturbingly, however, the documents Nosenko had brought from the
Soviet Union had themselves been fabricated to back up his false identity.
This could mean only one thing: the KGB itself had doctored the items as
part of a deception.5
TOP HAT and FEDORA were also caught participating in the game.
FBI surveillance convinced Assistant Director William C. Sullivan that
both “defectors” were false, although he was unable to persuade his boss, J.
Edgar Hoover, who angrily refused to believe that the Soviets had deceived
the FBI. Furthermore, FEDORA independently “confirmed” Nosenko’s lies
about his rank and communications — again proving KGB involvement.
The final evidence surfaced in 1978, when the FBI discovered that the KGB
had already long known about FEDORA’s leaking of information to the
West. FEDORA returned to Moscow — and was enthusiastically
promoted by the KGB! TOP HAT was exposed in a similar way.
In more recent years, the Soviet embassy itself has recommended Nosenko
as a source of accurate information for at least one American journalist.6

181. 181
The Soviets did not, of course, stop with these double agents. In 1966, the
KGB dispatched yet another supposedly important defector, Igor
Kochnov. Codenamed KITTY HAWK by the CIA, Kochnov also insisted
that the Soviets had no spies in the CIA or FBI, while he again tried to
“confirm” the claims of Nosenko. Once Angleton identified KITTY
HAWK as a phony defector, the Soviet returned to Moscow and
provided no more “information.”7
Oleg Gordievsky, an officer in the KGB’s First Chief Directorate, joined
this growing list of double agents in 1974, when he first began leaking
secrets to England’s MI6. In 1985, he defected to the West under suspicious
circumstances. Although supposedly arrested by the KGB on suspicion of
spying for England, he was not executed. “A generation earlier he would
simply have been liquidated,” writes Gordievsky (with a co-author) of
himself. “Nowadays the KGB had to have evidence.”8
Starting with this
obvious lie, Gordievsky’s story becomes even more absurd. Despite his
arrest for treason, he claims the KGB nevertheless allowed him enough
freedom that he could repeatedly make contact with British agents and even
escape the Soviet Union itself — on foot.9
To top it all off, his family was
subsequently released from the Soviet Union.10
Unlike Golitsyn, who still remains under deep cover to prevent
assassination by the Soviets, Gordievsky maintains a high-profile life in
London. Gordievsky insists that the KGB has had no spies in British
intelligence since 1961, and ridicules former MI5 officer Peter Wright for
fingering over 200 suspects — including former MI5 director Sir Roger
Hollis — as a result of investigations under project FLUENCY. Gordievsky
also bitterly denies Golitsyn’s revelation of the existence of Department D in
the KGB, while he staunchly defends Nosenko as a genuine defector.
Gordievsky has advised such prominent individuals as Prime
Minister Margaret Thatcher and Presidents Ronald Reagan and George
Bush, and his 1990 book, KGB: The Inside Story, has been published
widely.11
Desperate to cover up the Golitsyn revelations at any cost, and unable to
assassinate him, the Soviets have adopted a saturation approach to
drown out his information with a torrent of disinformation. Since 1962,
the Soviets have sent at least 15 “defectors” to contradict Golitsyn and
support Nosenko, including those listed above. The staggering quantity of
such deception tends to obscure the paradoxes in each defector’s story.

182. 182
The battle for the CIA
Yet despite all the clear evidence of a vast Soviet deception program using
false defectors, and despite growing evidence of Soviet spies in the highest
ranks of the CIA, Angleton and Golitsyn ultimately lost the struggle to
save the agency.
Virtually every investigation Angleton initiated was either blocked,
terminated, or undermined. He was never allowed to uncover a single
major spy or false defector. Angry CIA officers in every department
frantically derailed his probes, and howled protests every time he
questioned the reliability of a defector. Gradually Angleton’s enemies
closed ranks to destroy him.
The purge began in 1969, on orders from above, by phasing out
Golitsyn’s advisory relationship with the CIA. President Richard Nixon,
who in the early 1950s had blocked an investigation by Senator Joseph
McCarthy of Communist spies in the CIA [See Part 1— Eds.], wanted
nothing to interfere with his program of détente.12
Then came William E. Colby, who in 1973 was promoted to Executive
Comptroller, the number three position in the CIA. His career had
certainly raised eyebrows. He had come from the CIA’s covert action wing
in Vietnam, rather than involvement in true intelligence work. As chief of
the CIA’s Rome station in the 1950s, Colby had fought hard to provide
covert CIA support to Communist front organizations in Italy — over
Angleton’s vigorous opposition. During the Vietnam War, Colby vetoed
Angleton’s plan to use counterintelligence to weed out Communist
infiltrators in the South Vietnamese government, thus ensuring that
hundreds of Communists would continue to paralyze the war effort
from within. Most suspiciously of all, Colby met several times with a
Soviet GRU agent in Vietnam — without notifying the CIA. Colby even
managed to shut down a CIA program to investigate Communists in
American labor unions. Although CIA officials constantly overlooked
Colby’s actions and promoted him, the Counterintelligence Division had
long suspected Colby of being a Soviet mole.13
In January of 1973, Colby issued a new directive to all CIA stations
worldwide. These orders permanently changed the operational methods of
the CIA, effectively overturning every warning Golitsyn and Angleton

183. 183
had ever given. Any information provided by defectors was henceforth
automatically to be accepted, so long as it was basically consistent with the
majority of other defectors’ stories. Thus Nosenko, FEDORA, TOP HAT,
and many other phony defectors were legitimized. The new policy
assumed that the Soviets do not send false defectors, and that the Soviets
are only interested in stealing secrets, not in carrying out strategic deception.
Even the word “disinformation” was redefined as Soviet attempts to place
propaganda in the Western news media, not as attempts to deceive
intelligence agencies. And all searches for Soviet moles were ended.
In the wake of the 1974 Watergate scandal, Colby became Director of
the CIA. Within months, he had carefully severed Angleton’s
connections in the intelligence world, mobilized most of the agency’s
personnel in a united front against Angleton, and then fired him. All of
Angleton’s top staffers departed with him. To make matters worse, Nosenko
himself was officially rehabilitated — and brought in as a consultant to help
train the new counterintelligence staff. The new CIA policy remains in
effect today.14
In the years since the purge of Angleton and Golitsyn, the CIA has been
wracked with scandals of Soviet spies and false defectors. The recent case of
Soviet mole Aldrich Ames was preceded in the 1970s by William P.
Campiles, who gave the Soviets an extremely sensitive spy satellite manual,
and in the 1980s by Edward Lee Howard. Presumably these represent
merely the tiny tip of the iceberg.
The CIA still refuses to admit that any Soviet “defectors” may be phony,
but one case in particular turned into a public relations disaster for the
agency. Vitaliy Yurchenko, who had held such top positions as chief of the
KGB’s counterintelligence department, suddenly defected to the United
States in July of 1985. Among other operations against the US, he had been
in charge of sending “dangles” — Soviet double agents who would approach
the FBI and offer “secrets” so as to mislead American intelligence gathering.
One of Yurchenko’s CIA debriefers was none other than Aldrich Ames,
who would not be discovered as a Soviet spy for another nine years.
Like Nosenko two decades earlier, Yurchenko insisted that the Soviets
had no spies inside the CIA. Indeed, he specifically backed up Nosenko as
being a genuine defector, and he told the CIA that the Soviets had blown
Western spy operations using invisible chemical tracers and ex-agents of

184. 184
the CIA. Officials at the agency, including Director William Casey,
enthusiastically promoted Yurchenko to the news media and Congress.
But three months after Yurchenko’s defection, he surprised his
handlers by redefecting to the Soviets, who welcomed and promoted
him. To embarrass the CIA, Yurchenko held a press conference for
American reporters, at which he alleged that the CIA had kidnapped and
drugged him. In other words, the Soviets were openly laughing at the
CIA’s gullibility.
Unwilling to admit that Golitsyn and Angleton might have been right in
the first place, the CIA planted a phony story in the news media that
Yurchenko had been captured and shot by the Soviets; shorty
thereafter, Yurchenko appeared live on Soviet television to refute the
charge. Nevertheless, to this day the CIA blindly insists that, somehow,
Yurchenko really had been a genuine defector. After all, CIA policy
dictates that the Soviets do not send false defectors.15
So desperate has the CIA been to cover up Soviet deception operations from
the public that the agency has resorted to a full smear campaign against
Golitsyn and the now-deceased Angleton. In his 1984 book, New Lies For
Old, Golitsyn drew on his personal knowledge from within the KGB to
predict that Department D would orchestrate the “death” of
Communism, starting no later than 1989. The Berlin Wall would be torn
down, Solidarity would be allowed to achieve power in Polish elections, the
Soviet Union would break up, and a crisis would be manufactured in
Yugoslavia. Point for point, Golitsyn predicted the events of Europe
since 1989 with chilling accuracy, and warned that the Soviets would be
using the deception to prepare for a takeover of Western Europe.
As if to neutralize Golitsyn’s warnings, the CIA has recently planted
numerous stories in the media to discredit him. Articles in major national
news magazines and a special documentary on PBS in 1990 have been
followed by such books as Tom Mangold’s Cold Warrior and David
Wise’s Mole hunt, both books savagely attacking Angleton and Golitsyn
as “paranoid cold warriors.” Both Mangold and Wise masquerade as
independent journalists, but both acknowledge that the information for their
books came directly from large numbers of helpful CIA officials. As author
Edward Jay Epstein has pointed out, the CIA frequently plants its own
books in the public domain under false cover. This is done by cultivating

185. 185
certain authors, providing them complete manuscripts (or at least sufficient
material to write books), and using connections in the publishing industry to
arrange for the books’ distribution and promotion by major companies. This
method allows the CIA to publish viewpoints that appear to come from
independent sources.16
Both the Mangold and Wise books present the Golitsyn/Nosenko debate
in a severely lopsided way. Mangold’s book even goes so far as to ignore
completely Golitsyn’s accurate predictions of “change” in Eastern Europe,
declaring brazenly that “History has dealt harshly with Anatoliy Golitsyn
the prophet.… As a crystal-ball gazer, Golitsyn has been unimpressive.”
Mangold continues by carefully skipping over Golitsyn’s already-fulfilled
predictions, quoting a few sentences out of context so as to change their
meaning altogether.17
But in light of the evidence that the CIA is riddled with Communist
spies, it is little wonder the agency strains so hard to convince
Americans that Communism is truly “dead.”
References
1. The story of Department D is told in Golitsyn, A., New Lies for Old,
Dodd, Mead & Co., New York, 1984, esp. chapter 6; see also Epstein,
E.J., Deception, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1989, esp. chapter 5.
2. Martin, D.C., Wilderness of Mirrors, Harper & Row, New York, 1980,
pp. 110-114; Mangold, T., Cold Warrior, Simon & Schuster, New York,
1991, pp. 410-411; Epstein, Op cit., pp. 74-75.
3. Martin, Op cit., p. 114.
4. Ibid., pp. 112-114; Epstein, Op cit., pp. 47-49, 74-75.
5. Martin, Op cit., pp. 161-162, 164, 172-174; Epstein, Op cit., p. 60;
Mangold, Op cit., pp. 163, 397.
6. Epstein, Op cit., pp. 13, 48-49, 60, 96; Martin, Op cit., pp. 161-162;
Mangold, Op cit., p. 411.
7. Martin, Op cit., pp. 191-192; Mangold, Op cit., pp. 409-410.

186. 186
8. Andrew, C. & Gordievsky, O., KGB: The Inside Story, Harper Collins,
New York, 1990, p. 13.
9. Ibid., pp. 8-16.
10. Story, C., Soviet Analyst, vol. 22:7-8, March 1994, p. 15.
11. Andrew & Gordievsky, Op cit., pp. 7-8; Mangold, Op cit., pp. 111, 204;
Story, Op cit., p. 12.
12. Epstein, Op cit., p. 98.
13. Ibid., pp. 98, 100; Martin, Op cit., pp. 183-184, 217; Mangold, Op cit.,
pp. 309-315; Epstein, E.J., Legend, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1978, pp. 272,
329.
14. Epstein, Deception, Op cit., pp. 90-91, 100-101, 196-199;
Epstein, Legend, Op cit., p. 273; Mangold, Op cit., pp. 205-206, 313-317.
15. Epstein, Deception, Op cit., pp. 199-214; Story, Op cit., p. 24; Mangold,
Op cit., p. 402.
16. Mangold, Op cit.; Wise, D., Molehunt, Random House, New York,
1992; Epstein, Deception, Op cit., pp. 12-20.
17. Mangold, Op cit., pp. 355-356.
_____________________________________________________________

187. 187
_____________________________________________________________
The Perestroika Deception : Memoranda to
the Central Intelligence Agency
And
New Lies for Old: An ex-KGB Officer Warns
How Communist Deception Threatens
Survival of The West
_____________________________________________________________

188. 188
_____________________________________________________________
Soviet Espionage in the U.S.
_____________________________________________________________
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from History of Soviet and Russian espionage in the United
States)
Not to be confused with Russian espionage in the United States.
Since the late 1920s, the Soviet Union, through
its GRU, OGPU and NKVD intelligence services, used Russian and foreign-
born nationals as well as Communist, and people of American origin to
perform espionage activities in the United States.[1][2][3]
These various
espionage networks had contact with various U.S. government agencies,
transmitting to Moscow information that would have been deemed
confidential.[1][2][3]
Contents
• 1 First efforts
• 2 Browder and Golos networks
• 3 Secret apparatus
• 4 Soble spy ring
• 5 Wartime espionage
o 5.1 Atomic bomb secrets
o 5.2 The Silvermaster spy ring
• 6 Aftermath
• 7 See also
• 8 References
• 9 Further reading
• 10 External links
First efforts
During the 1920s Soviet intelligence focused on military and industrial
espionage in the United States, specifically in the aircraft and munitions
industries, and penetrating the mainline federal government bureaucracies,

189. 189
such as the United States Department of State and War Department.[citation
needed]
These efforts had mixed results. A front organization was created by
a NKVD agent in 1928 for the infiltration and placement of scientists into
industry and government: the Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists,
and Technicians (FAECT). "The FAECT never attracted enough followers
to make an impact in labor conditions, but it served the progressive cause in
other ways."[4]
Browder and Golos networks
One chief aim was the infiltration, placement, and subversion of American
political life at all levels of society. Earl Browder, General Secretary of
the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA), served as an agent
recruiter himself on behalf of Soviet intelligence.[1][5]
Browder later stated that "by the mid-thirties, the Party was not putting its
principal emphasis on recruiting members." Left unstated was his intent to
use party members for espionage work, where suitable. Browder advocated
the use of a United Front involving other members of the left, both to
strengthen advocacy of pro-Soviet policy and to enlarge the pool of potential
recruits for espionage work. The illegal residency of NKVD in the US was
established in 1934 by the former Berlin resident Boris Bazarov.[6]
In
1935, NKVD agent Iskhak Akhmerov entered the US with false identity
papers to assist Bazarov in the collection of useful intelligence, and operated
without interruption until 1939, when he left the US. Akhmerov's wife, an
American who worked for Soviet intelligence, was Helen Lowry (Elza
Akhmerova), the niece of CPUSA General Secretary Earl Browder. Recent
information from Soviet archives have revealed that Browder's younger
sister Marguerite worked until 1938 as an NKVD operative in Europe. She
discontinued this work only when Browder himself requested her release
from duty, fearful that her work would compromise his position as General
Secretary.[1]
In the 1930s, the chief Soviet espionage organization operating in the U.S.
became the GRU. J. Peters headed the secret apparatus that supplied internal
government documents from the Ware group to the GRU. Browder assisted
Peters in building a network of operatives in the administration of
President Franklin D. Roosevelt. This group included Alger Hiss, John Abt,
and Lee Pressman. Courier for the group at the time was Whittaker
Chambers. Browder oversaw the efforts of Jacob Golos and his
girlfriend, Elizabeth Bentley, whose network of agents and sources included

190. 190
two key figures at the Department of Treasury, Nathan Gregory
Silvermaster and Harry Dexter White.
One early Soviet spy ring was headed by Jacob Golos. Jake Golos (birth
name Jacob Golosenko, Tasin, Rasin or Raisen) was a Ukrainian-born
Bolshevik revolutionary and Soviet secret police (NKVD) operative in the
USSR. He was also a longtime senior official of the CPUSA involved in
covert work and cooperation with Soviet intelligence agencies. He took over
an existing network of agents and intelligence sources from Earl Browder.
Golos' controller was the head of the NKVD's American desk, Gaik
Ovakimian, also known as "The Puppetmaster", who would later serve a key
role in the assassination of Leon Trotsky.[7]
Golos was the "main pillar" of
the NKVD intelligence network. He had worked with Soviet intelligence
from the mid-1930s, and probably earlier. He was not merely a CPUSA
official assisting the NKVD (an agent or “probationer” in Soviet intelligence
parlance) but held official rank in the NKVD, and claimed to be an
oldtime Chekist.
Golos established a company called World Tourists with money from Earl
Browder, the General Secretary. The firm, which posed as a travel agency,
was used to facilitate international travel to and from the United States by
Soviet agents and CPUSA members. World Tourists was also involved in
manufacturing fake passports, as Browder used such a false passport on
covert trips to the Soviet Union in 1936.[2]
At World Tourist, Golos
frequently met Bernard Schuster, an NKVD agent (code
name ECHO and DICK) and Communist Party functionary who carried out
background investigations for Golos as part of the vetting process of agent
candidates.[8]
In March 1940, Golos pled guilty to being an
unregistered foreign agent, paid a $500 fine, and served probation in lieu of
a four-month prison sentence.
Soviet intelligence did not like Golos' refusal to allow Soviet contact with
his sources (a measure implemented by Golos to protect himself and to
ensure his continued retention by the NKVD). The NKVD suspected Golos
of Trotskyism and tried to lure him to Moscow, where he could be arrested,
but the US government got to him first. But even then, he did not reveal his
agent network. After Browder went to prison in 1940, Golos took over
running Browder's agents. In 1941, Golos set up a commercial forwarding
enterprise, called the US Shipping and Service Corporation, with Elizabeth
Bentley, his lover, as one of its officers.[1][2]

191. 191
Sometime in November 1943, Golos met in New York City with key figures
of the Perlo group, a group working in several government departments and
agencies in Washington, D.C. The group was already in the service of
Browder. Later that same month, after a series of heart attacks over the
previous two years, Golos died in bed in Bentley's arms. Bentley then took
over his operations (thus the reference in the decrypts to him as a “former”
colleague).[citation needed]
Secret apparatus
By the end of 1936 at least four mid-level State Department officials were
delivering information to Soviet intelligence: Alger Hiss, assistant to
Assistant Secretary of State Francis Sayre; Julian Wadleigh, economist in
the Trade Agreements Section; Laurence Duggan, Latin American division;
and Noel Field, West European division. Whittaker Chambers later testified
that the plans for a tank design with a revolutionary new
suspension invented by J. Walter Christie (then being tested in the U.S.A.)
were procured and put into production in the Soviet Union as the Mark BT,
later developed into the famous Soviet T-34 tank.[9][10][11]
In 1993, experts from the Library of Congress traveled to Moscow to copy
previously secret archives of Communist Party USA (CPUSA) records, sent
to the Soviet Union for safekeeping by party organizers. The records provide
an irrefutable record of Soviet intelligence and cooperation provided by
those in the radical left in the United States from the 1920s through the
1940s. Some documents revealed that the CPUSA was actively involved in
secretly recruiting party members from African-American groups and rural
farm workers. The records contained further evidence that Soviet
sympathizers had indeed infiltrated the State Department, beginning in the
1930s. Included were letters from two U.S. ambassadors in Europe
to President Franklin D. Roosevelt and a senior State Department official.
Thanks to an official in the State department sympathetic to the Party, the
confidential correspondence, concerning political and economic matters in
Europe, ended up in the hands of Soviet intelligence.[12]
In the late 1930s and 1940 the OGPU, known as the Political Directorate,
used the U.S. as one of several staging areas for multiple OGPU plots to
murder exiled Soviet leader Leon Trotsky, then living in Mexico City. It was
American Communists who infiltrated Trotsky’s killer, the CatalanRamón
Mercader, into his own household. They were also central to the NKVD's
unsuccessful efforts to free the killer from a Mexican prison. [citation needed]

192. 192
Soble spy ring
Jacob Albam and the Sobles (Jack and Myra) were indicted on espionage
charges by the FBI in 1957; all three were later convicted and served prison
terms. The Zlatovskis remained in Paris, France, where the laws did not
allow their extradition to the United States for espionage. Robert Soblen was
sentenced to life in prison for his espionage work at Sandia National
Laboratories, but jumped bail and escaped to Israel. After being expelled
from that country, he later committed suicide in Great Britain while awaiting
extradition back to the United States.[1][13]
Wartime espionage
During the second world war, Soviet espionage agents obtained classified
reports on electronic advances in radio-beacon artillery fuses by Emerson
Radio, including a complete proximity fuse (reportedly the same fuse design
that was later installed on Soviet anti-aircraft missiles to shoot down Francis
Gary Powers' U-2 in 1960).[citation needed]
Thousands of documents from
the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics(NACA) were
photocopied or stolen, including a complete set of design and production
drawings for Lockheed Aircraft's new P-80 Shooting Star fighter jet.[14]
Atomic bomb secrets
Joseph Stalin directed Soviet intelligence officers to collect information in
four main areas. Pavel Fitin, the 34-year-old chief of the KGB First
Directorate, was directed to seek American intelligence concerning Hitler's
plans for the war in Russia; secret war aims of London and Washington,
particularly with regard to planning for Operation Overlord, the second front
in Europe; any indications the Western Allies might be willing to make a
separate peace with Hitler; and American scientific and technological
progress, particularly in the development of an atomic weapon.
The Silvermaster spy ring
The United States Treasury Department was successfully penetrated by
nearly a dozen Soviet agents or information sources, including Harold
Glasser and his superior, Harry Dexter White, assistant secretary of the
treasury and the second most influential official in the department.[1][2]
In
Late May 1941 Vitaly Pavlov, a 25-year-old NKVD officer, approached
White and attempted to secure his assistance to influence U.S. policy
towards Japan. White agreed to assist Soviet intelligence in any way he
could. The principal function of White was to aid in the infiltration and

193. 193
placement of Soviet operatives within the government, and protecting
sources.[citation needed]
When security concerns arose around Nathan Gregory
Silvermaster, White protected him in his sensitive position at the Board of
Economic Warfare. White likewise was a purveyor of information and
resources to assist Soviet aims, and agreed to press for release of German
occupation currency plates to the Soviet Union. The Soviets later used the
plates to print unrestricted sums of money to exchange for U.S. and Allied
hard goods.[15]
In August 1945 Elizabeth Bentley, fearful of assassination by the Soviet
MGB, turned herself in to the government.[citation needed]
She implicated many
agents and sources in the Golos and Silvermaster spy networks, and was the
first to accuse Harry Dexter White of acting on behalf of Soviet interests in
releasing occupation plates to Moscow, later confirmed by Soviet archives
and former KGB officers.[5][15]
Aftermath
President Harry S. Truman's Executive Order 9835 of 22 March 1947
tightened protections against subversive infiltration of the US Government,
defining disloyalty as membership on a list of subversive organizations
maintained by the Attorney General. However Truman was opposed to
the McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950, calling it a "Mockery of the Bill
of Rights" and a "long step towards totalitarianism".[16]
See also
• American espionage in the Soviet Union
• Russian espionage in the United States
• List of Soviet agents in the United States
• List of Americans in the Venona papers
• Active measures
• Ware group
• Golos spy ring
• Silvermaster spy ring
• Perlo group
• Whittaker Chambers
• Alger Hiss
• Ethel and Julius Rosenberg
• Pavel Sudoplatov

194. 194
• Lev Vasilevsky
• Amerasia
• Farewell Dossier
• Venona project
• The Americans (2013 TV series)
References
1. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g
Haynes, John Earl, and Klehr,
Harvey, Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America, Yale
University Press (2000) ISBN 0-300-08462-5
2. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e
Weinstein, Allen; Vassiliev,
Alexander (1999). The Haunted Wood: Soviet Espionage in America-
-the Stalin Era. New York:Random House.
3. ^ Jump up to:a b
Retrieved Papers Shed Light On Communist
Activities In U.S., Associated Press, January 31, 2001
4. Jump up^ "Engineering Communism: How Two Americans
Spied for Stalin And Founded the Soviet Silicon Valley". Steven T.
Usdin, Yale University Press. October 10, 2005, pg 28
5. ^ Jump up to: a b
Sudoplatov, Pavel Anatoli, Schecter, Jerrold
L., and Schecter, Leona P., Special Tasks: The Memoirs of an
Unwanted Witness — A Soviet Spymaster, Little Brown, Boston
(1994)
6. Jump up^ Christopher Andrew and Vasili
Mitrokhin, The Mitrokhin Archive: The KGB in Europe and the West,
Gardners Books (2000), ISBN 0-14-028487-7
7. Jump up^ Alexander Vassiliev’s Notes on Anatoly Gorsky’s
December 1948 Memo on Compromised American Sources and
Networks; John Earl Haynes, “KGB officer Gaik Badelovich
Ovakimian worked as a Soviet spy in the United States from 1933
until 1941 when he was arrested and deported. He was identified in
the Venona cables under the cover name Gennady. Elizabeth
Bentley reported that Golos identified Ovakimian as his chief contact
with the KGB until the arrest.”
8. Jump up^ VENONA documents NY-MOSCOW, Nos. 1221,
1457, and 1512 (1944)
9. Jump up^ Chambers, Whittaker (1952). Witness. Random
House. p. 498.ISBN 0-89526-571-0.

195. 195
10. Jump up^ Suvorov, Viktor, Icebreaker, London: Hamish
Hamilton Ltd. (1990),ISBN 0-241-12622-3
11. Jump up^ Tanenhaus, Sam (1998). Whittaker Chambers: a
biography. New York: Random House. ISBN 0-375-75145-9.
12. Jump up^ Retrieved Papers Shed Light On Communist
Activities In U.S., Associated Press, January 31, 2001
13. Jump up^ Cooperation, Time, August 19, 1957
14. Jump up^ Feklisov, Aleksandr, and Kostin, Sergei, The Man
Behind the Rosenbergs, Enigma Books (2001)
15. ^ Jump up to:a b
Schecter, Jerrold and Leona, Sacred Secrets:
How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History,
Potomac Books (2002)
16. Jump up^ Spartacus. "Internal Security Act". schoolnet.co.uk.
Retrieved2011-04-11.
Further reading
• Chambers, Whittaker (1952). Witness. Random House. ISBN 0-
89526-571-0.
• John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr, and Alexander Vassiliev, Spies: The
Rise and Fall of the KGB in America (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2009)
• John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, Venona: Decoding Soviet
Espionage in America, Yale University Press
• Allen Weinstein and Alexander Vassiliev, The Haunted Wood: Soviet
Espionage in America--the Stalin Era (New York: Random House, 1999)
External links
• Soviet Technospies from the Dean Peter Krogh Foreign Affairs
Digital Archives
• For new evidence on Soviet espionage in the United States, see former
KGB officer Alexander Vassiliev's Notebooks From the Cold War
International History Project (CWIHP)
• V.I. Lenin, Terms of Admission into Communist International, (July
1920) First published 1921, The Second Congress of the Communist
International, Verbatum Report, Communist International, Petrograd
• Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive. CI Reader:
American Revolution into the New Millennium A Counterintelligence

196. 196
Reader Volume 3, Chapter 1: Cold War Counterintelligence. PDF
file. office of the Director of Central Intelligence. Retrieved June 21,
2005.
• Proyect, Louis. Harvey Klehr's "The Secret World of American
Communism". Published online May 25, 2002. Retrieved June 21, 2005.
• Robert Louis Benson and Michael Warner, eds., Venona: Soviet
Espionage and the American Response, 1939-1957, (Washington, D.C.:
National Security Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, 1996)*Vassiliev,
Alexander (2003), Alexander Vassiliev’s Notes on Anatoly Gorsky’s
December 1948 Memo on Compromised American Sources and
Networks, retrieved 2012-04-21
• The Hanford Site, Historic docs, Section 8 - Site Security
• Discouraged, Disillusioned and Duped, Eyewitness account of the era
• Razvedka, Intelligence Information and the Process of Decision
Making: Turning Points of the Early Period of the Cold War (1944–
1953)Archived March 20, 2006 at the Wayback Machine (In Russian).
• Interview with Ralph De Toladano
• History of Russian foreign intelligence in North America (Russian),
Official site of Foreign Intelligence Service (Russia)
• Film: The KGB Connections: An Investigation Into Soviet Operations
in North America, 1982, Public domain: Video on YouTube.
Whittaker Chambers | Witness in the Alger Hiss Case, Anti-Communist, ex-
Communist, Spy, Editor, Journalist, Intellectual, Writer, Translator, Poet
Categories:
• Cold War history of the United States
• Espionage by period
• History of the United States government
• Russia intelligence operations
• Soviet Union–United States relations
• Russia–United States relations
• Soviet intelligence agencies
• Cold War history of the Soviet Union
_____________________________________________________________

197. 197
_____________________________________________________________
The Venona Secrets: The Definitive Exposé
of Soviet Espionage in America
_____________________________________________________________

198. 198
_____________________________________________________________
List of Soviet Agents
In the United States
________________________________________________
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is a list of people who may or may not have worked for intelligence
organizations of the Soviet Union and Soviet-aligned countries against the
United States.
For more information, see:
Main article: History of Soviet espionage in the United States
Contents
• 1 Czechoslovakia (StB)
• 2 Hungary
• 3 Poland
• 4 Soviet Union
o 4.1 NKVD and KGB
4.1.1 The "Berg" – "Art" Group
4.1.2 Buben group
4.1.3 Mocase
4.1.4 Perlo group
4.1.5 Redhead group
4.1.6 Rosenberg ring
4.1.7 Silvermaster group
4.1.8 Sound and Myrna groups
4.1.9 Ware group
o 4.2 KGB Illegals
o 4.3 GRU
4.3.1 Karl group
4.3.2 Portland ring

199. 199
4.3.3 Sorge ring
4.3.4 Others
o 4.4 GRU Illegals
4.4.1 Naval GRU
• 5 Unknown affiliation, to sort
• 6 See also
• 7 References
• 8 External links
Czechoslovakia
• Karl Koecher, the mole who penetrated the CIA
Hungary
• Clyde Lee Conrad, U.S. Army NCO who betrayed NATO secrets.
Poland
• Marian Zacharski, Polish Intelligence officer arrested in 1981.
Among other things, he won access to material on the then-
new Patriot and Phoenix missiles, the enhanced version of the Hawk air-
to-air missile, radar instrumentation for the F-15 fighter, "stealth radar"
for the B-1and Stealth bombers, an experimental radar system being
tested by the U.S. Navy, and submarine sonar.
Soviet Union
NKVD and KGB
• Aldrich Ames, CIA officer spying for the Soviet Union beginning in
1985 as a 'walk-in' to the Soviet Embassy in Washington, D.C.
• Marion Davis Berdecio, friend of Judith Coplon and Flora
Wovschin from their days at Barnard College
• William Weisband, U.S. Army signals intelligence staffer
and NKVD agent handler

200. 200
The "Berg" – "Art" Cell
• Alexander Koral, former engineer of the municipality of New York.
• Helen Koral, Berg’s wife, housewife.
• Byron T. Darling, engineer for the Rubber Company.[1][2]
• A. A. Yatskov
• George Blake, United Kingdom SIS officer who betrayed existence
of the Berlin Tunnel under the Soviet sector and who probably betrayed
Popov.
• Felix Bloch, U.S. State Department economic officer. Robert
Hanssen warned Soviets about the investigation into his activities [3]
[6]
• Christopher John Boyce and Daulton Lee, American walk-in spy
for the Soviet Union, known as the Falcon and the Snowman.
Buben Cell
• Louis F. Budenz, former member of the Central Committee of
the Communist Party USA, former editor of the newspaper Daily
Worker, professor at Fordham University.
• Robert Menaker, commercial traveler (traveling salesman) to a
variety of trade firms
• Salmond Franklin, without specific assignments, husband of “Rita.”
Used as a “signaler” [Russian: sviazist = communications man]
• Sylvia Caldwell, technical secretary for a Trotskyist group in New
York City.
• Lona Cohen, sentenced to 20 years; subject of Hugh Whitemore's
drama for stage and TV Pack of Lies
• Morris Cohen sentenced to 25 years; subject of Hugh Whitemore's
drama for stage and TV Pack of Lies
• Judith Coplon, KGB counter-intelligence operative in the U.S.
Department of Justice; two convictions overturned on technicalities
• Eugene Dennis, senior member of the Communist Party USA
leadership, convicted of advocating the overthrow of the U.S.
government an sentenced to five years
• Dieter Gerhardt, South African Navy Commodore who was
convicted of spying for the Soviet Union; alleged that the Vela
Incident was a joint Israeli-South African nuclear test after being
released in 1994 and emigrating to Switzerland

201. 201
• Theodore Hall, physicist who supplied information from Los
Alamos during World War II, a NYC walk-in, never prosecuted
• Robert P. Hanssen, Federal Bureau of Investigation agent convicted
of spying for the Soviet Union, betrayed tunnel under new Mt Alto
Soviet Embassy in Washington DC; may have done most damage since
Philby
• Reino Häyhänen, Finn who worked in the US as a Soviet spy
directed by Rudolf Abel, used the VIC cypher, defected to the US [7]
• Edward Lee Howard, ex-Central Intelligence Agency officer who
sold info and escaped to Soviet Union in 1985
• Clayton J. Lonetree, U.S. Marine Embassy guard Sergeant suborned
by female KGB agent ('Violetta Sanni') in Moscow, turned himself in to
authorities in December 1986, convicted 1987
Mocase Cell
• Boris Morros, Hollywood producer
• Jack Soble, sentenced to 7 years, brother of Robert Soblen
• Myra Soble, sentenced to 5½ years
• Robert Soblen, sentenced to life for spying at Sandia Lab, etc., but
escaped to Israel, then committed suicide
• Jane Zlatovski
• Mark Zborowski
Perlo Cell
• Victor Perlo, was the Chief of the Aviation Section of the War
Production Board during World War II; head of branch in Research
Section, Office of Price Administration Department of Commerce;
Division of Monetary Research Department of the Treasury; and later
the Brookings Institution
• Harold Glasser, Director, Division of Monetary Research, United
States Department of the Treasury; United Nations Relief and
Rehabilitation Administration; War Production Board; Adviser on North
African Affairs Committee; United States Treasury Representative to
the Allied High Commission in Italy
• Alger Hiss, Director of the Office of Special Political Affairs United
States Department of State
• Charles Kramer, Senate Subcommittee on War Mobilization; Office
of Price Administration; National Labor Relations Board; Senate

202. 202
Subcommittee on Wartime Health and Education; Agricultural
Adjustment Administration; Senate Subcommittee on Civil Liberties;
Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee; Democratic National
Committee
• Harry Magdoff, Statistical Division of War Production Board and
Office of Emergency Management; Bureau of Research and Statistics,
WTB; Tools Division, War Production Board; Bureau of Foreign and
Domestic Commerce, United States Department of Commerce
• Allen Rosenberg, Board of Economic Warfare; Chief of the
Economic Institution Staff, Foreign Economic Administration; Senate
Subcommittee on Civil Liberties; Senate Committee on Education and
Labor; Railroad Retirement Board; Counsel to the Secretary of the
National Labor Relations Board
Redhead Cell
• Hedwiga Gompertz, Wacek’s wife, sent to the U.S. in 1938 to carry
out fieldwork assignments, defected in 1948
• Paul Massing, scientist at Columbia University’s Institute of Social
Research.
• Laurence Duggan (aka 19th), former employee of the State
Department. Suicide.
• Rudolf Roessler chief of the very successful, and very odd, Lucy spy
ring of World War II
Rosenberg Cell
• Joel Barr, met Julius Rosenberg at City College of New York, later
spied with him and Al Sarant at Army Signal Corps lab in New Jersey;
escaped prosecution by fleeing to Soviet bloc in 1950. Died 2007.
• Abraham Brothman, indicted, convicted, and served two years in
prison on a charge of conspiring to obstruct justice, along with co-
defendant Miriam Moskowitz.[4]
Abraham Brothman gave secret
industrial information to Elizabeth Bentley, who turned it over to the
Soviet Union.[5]
• Klaus Fuchs, physicist who supplied information about the British
and American atomic bomb research to the Soviet Union; sentenced to
14 years in the UK.
• Vivian Glassman, fiancée of Joel Barr [8]
• Harry Gold, courier sentenced to 30 years

203. 203
• David Greenglass, draftsman at Los Alamos in World War II, gave
atomic bomb drawings to his sister Ethel Rosenberg, and eventually the
Soviets; sentenced to 15 years
• Ruth Greenglass, escaped prosecution in exchange for her husband's
testimony against his sister and brother-in-law, the Rosenbergs
• Miriam Moskowitz, convicted of obstruction of justice for
helping Harry Gold concoct a phony story for a 1947 grand jury
investigation[6]
and served two years in prison[7]
for assisting her business
partner, Abraham Brothman.[5]
Moskowitz did not testify in her own
defense, stating later that she was "intimate" with Brothman and did not
want to be "branded a harlot".[8]
She was never convicted of being a spy
for the Soviet Union,[6]
but was convicted on the testimony of Harry
Gold and Elizabeth Bentley.[9]
• William Perl, active in Young Communist League at CCNY, then
met Al Sarant at Columbia University; served 5 years for perjury
• Morton Sobell, involved with Barr, Perl and Julius Rosenberg
at CCNY; sentenced to 30 years at Alcatraz
• Ethel Rosenberg, executed at Sing Sing prison near her native New
York City for conspiracy to commit espionage
• Julius Rosenberg, executed at Sing Sing prison near his native New
York City for conspiracy to commit espionage
• Al Sarant, stole radar secrets at Army Signal Corps lab in New
Jersey, then he and his mistress abandoned their families for the
protection of his Soviet masters in 1950
• Andrew Roth, Office of Naval Intelligence liaison officer
with United States Department of State
• Saville Sax college friend of Theodore Hall assisted with Hall's
disclosure to the Soviets of Los Alamos research and
development [9] [10]
Silvermaster Cell
• Nathan Gregory Silvermaster, Chief Planning Technician,
Procurement Division, United States Department of the Treasury; Chief
Economist, War Assets Administration; Director of the Labor Division,
Farm Security Administration; Board of Economic Warfare;
Reconstruction Finance Corporation Department of Commerce
• Helen Silvermaster (wife)
• Schlomer Adler, United States Department of the Treasury

204. 204
• Norman Chandler Bursler, United States Department of
Justice Anti-Trust Division [10][dead link]
• Frank Coe, Assistant Director, Division of Monetary Research,
Treasury Department; Special Assistant to the United States Ambassador
in London; Assistant to the Executive Director, Board of Economic
Warfare; Assistant Administrator, Foreign Economic Administration
• Lauchlin Currie, Administrative Assistant to President Roosevelt;
Deputy Administrator of Foreign Economic Administration; Special
Representative to China
• Bela Gold, Assistant Head of Program Surveys, Bureau of
Agricultural Economics, Agriculture Department; Senate Subcommittee
on War Mobilization; Office of Economic Programs in Foreign
Economic Administration
• Sonia Steinman Gold, Division of Monetary Research U.S. Treasury
Department; U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on
Interstate Migration; U.S. Bureau of Employment Security
• Irving Kaplan, Foreign Funds Control and Division of Monetary
Research, United States Department of the Treasury Foreign Economic
Administration; chief advisor to the Military Government of Germany
• George Silverman, civilian Chief Production Specialist, Material
Division, United States Army Air Forces Air Staff, War Department,
Pentagon
• William Henry Taylor, Assistant Director of the Middle East
Division of Monetary Research, United States Department of Treasury
• William Ullman, delegate to United Nations Charter meeting
and Bretton Woods conference; Division of Monetary Research,
Department of Treasury; Material and Services Division, Air Corps
Headquarters, Pentagon
• Anatole Volkov
• Harry Dexter White, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; Head of
the International Monetary Fund[11]
Sound and Myrna Cells
• Solomon Adler, United States Department of the Treasury
• Cedric Belfrage, journalist; British Security Coordination
• Elizabeth Bentley courier messenger for Communist spy rings on the
American East Coast in the 1930s, testified about her activities in
hearings in the 1940s and 1950s

205. 205
• Frank Coe, Assistant Director, Division of Monetary Research,
Treasury Department; Special Assistant to the United States Ambassador
in London; Assistant to the Executive Director, Board of Economic
Warfare; Assistant Administrator, Foreign Economic Administration
• Lauchlin Currie, Administrative Assistant to President Roosevelt;
Deputy Administrator of Foreign Economic Administration; Special
Representative to China
• Rae Elson, an active Communist, and courier of
the CPUSA underground, was chosen by Joseph Katz to replace Bentley
at the Soviet front organization, U.S. Shipping and Service Corporation.
• Edward Fitzgerald, War Production Board
• Charles Flato, Board of Economic Warfare; Civil Liberties
Subcommittee, Senate Committee on Education and Labor
• Bela Gold, Bureau of Intelligence, Assistant Head of Program
Surveys, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Agriculture Department;
Senate Subcommittee on War Mobilization; Office of Economic
Programs in Foreign Economic Administration
• Sonia Steinman Gold, Division of Monetary Research U.S. Treasury
Department; U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on
Interstate Migration; U.S. Bureau of Employment Security
• Irving Goldman, Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs
• Jacob Golos, the "main pillar" of the NKVD intelligence network in
the U.S., died in the arms of comrade Elizabeth Bentley
• Gerald Graze, United States Civil Service Commission; Department
of Defense, U.S. Navy official
• Maurice Halperin, Chief of Latin American Division, Research and
Analysis section, Office of Strategic Services; United States Department
of State
• Julius Joseph, Far Eastern section (Japanese Intelligence) Office of
Strategic Services
• Irving Kaplan, United States Department of the Treasury Foreign
Economic Administration; United Nations Division of Economic
Stability and Development; Chief Advisor to the Military Government of
Germany
• Joseph Katz
• Duncan Lee, counsel to General William Donovan, head of Office of
Strategic Services
• Helen Lowry, (Elza Akhmerova), Akhmerov wife, American-born
and raised, Soviet citizen

206. 206
• Harry Magdoff, Chief of the Control Records Section of War
Production Board and Office of Emergency Management; Bureau of
Research and Statistics, WTB; Tools Division, War Production Board;
Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, United States Department
of Commerce; Statistics Division Works Progress Administration
• Jenny Levy Miller, Chinese Government Purchasing Commission
• Robert Miller, Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs;
Near Eastern Division United States Department of State
• Willard Park, Assistant Chief of the Economic Analysis Section,
Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs; United Nations
Relief and Rehabilitation Administration
• Victor Perlo, chief of the Aviation Section of the War Production
Board; head of branch in Research Section, Office of Price
Administration Department of Commerce; Division of Monetary
Research Department of Treasury; Brookings Institution, head of Perlo
group
• Mary Price, stenographer for Walter Lippmann of the New York
Herald
• William Remington, War Production Board; Office of Emergency
Management, convicted for perjury, killed in prison
• Ruth Rivkin, United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation
Administration
• Allan Rosenberg, Board of Economic Warfare; Chief of the
Economic Institution Staff, Foreign Economic Administration; Civil
Liberties Subcommittee, Senate Committee on Education and Labor;
Railroad Retirement Board; Counsel to the Secretary of the National
Labor Relations Board
• Bernard Schuster[12]
• Greg Silvermaster, Chief Planning Technician, Procurement
Division, United States Department of the Treasury; Chief Economist,
War Assets Administration; Director of the Labor Division, Farm
Security Administration; Board of Economic Warfare; Reconstruction
Finance Corporation Department of Commerce
• John Spivak, journalist[citation needed]
• William Taylor, Assistant Director of Monetary Research, United
States Department of Treasury
• Helen Tenney, Office of Strategic Services
• Lud Ullman, delegate to United Nations Charter meeting and Bretton
Woods conference; Division of Monetary Research, Department of

207. 207
Treasury; Material and Services Division, Air Corps Headquarters,
Pentagon
• David Weintraub, United States Department of State; head of the
Office of Foreign Relief and Rehabilitation Operations; United Nations
Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA); United Nations
Division of Economic Stability and Development
• Donald Wheeler, Office of Strategic Services Research and Analysis
division
• Anatoly Gorsky, (Anatoly Veniaminovich Gorsky, A. V. Gorsky),
“Vadim”, former rezident of the MGB USSR in Washington
• Olga Pravdina, former employee of the Ministry of Trade, wife of
“Sergei,” the rezident in New York; author of Gorsky
Memo (see Vladimir Pravdin)[13]
• Vladimir Pravdin, “Sergei”, Tass, former rezident of the MGB
USSR in New York
• Mikhail A. Shaliapin [Shalyapin], “Stock” [“Shtok”][14]
• Gaik Badelovich Ovakimian, former rezident of the MGB USSR in
New York
• Iskhak Abdulovich Akhmerov, “Albert” – former Illegal
Rezident of the MGB USSR in New York
• Michael Straight, speechwriter for President Franklin Roosevelt
• John Anthony Walker US Navy senior enlisted man who spied for
the Soviet Union for decades, enlisting family and friends to do so as
well
Ware Cell
• Whittaker Chambers, Department of State, testified against Alger
Hiss
• Henry Collins, National Recovery Administration; Department of
Agriculture
• John Herrmann, CPUSA operative and courier, eventually drank
himself to death in Mexico
• Alger Hiss, Department of State, sentenced to 5 years for perjury
• Donald Hiss, Department of State, younger brother of Alger Hiss
• Victor Perlo, became spymaster of Perlo group during World War II
• George Silverman, Harvard-educated statistician who gave
secret Pentagon documents to Nathan Silvermaster group during World
War II

208. 208
• Harry Dexter White, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; head of
the International Monetary Fund which he helped establish along with
theWorld Bank
• Bill Weisband, United States Army Signals Security Agency
• Enos Wicher, professor at Columbia University who also worked
at Columbia's Division of War Research; stepfather of College recruiter
and State Department spy Flora Wovschin
•
KGB Illegals
• Rudolf Abel, aka William Fischer, Illegal Rezident in the 1950s
• A. I. Akhmerov, “Albert” – former Illegal Rezident of the MGB
USSR in New York
•
GRU
• Arvid Jacobson
Karl Cell
• Noel Field, United States Department of State
• Harold Glasser, Director, Division of Monetary Research, United
States Department of the Treasury; United Nations Relief and
Rehabilitation Administration; War Production Board; Adviser on North
African Affairs Committee; United States Treasury Representative to the
Allied High Commission in Italy
• Alger Hiss, United States Department of State, sentenced to 5 years
for perjury
• Donald Hiss, United States Department of State; United States
Department of Labor; United States Department of the Interior
• Victor Perlo, chief of the Aviation Section of the War Production
Board; head of branch in Research Section, Office of Price
Administration Department of Commerce; Division of Monetary
Research Department of Treasury; Brookings Institution, head of Perlo
group
• J. Peters
• William Ward Pigman, National Bureau of Standards; Labor and
Public Welfare Committee

209. 209
• Vincent Reno, mathematician at United States Army Aberdeen
Proving Ground
• George Silverman, Director of the Bureau of Research and
Information Services, US Railroad Retirement Board; Economic Adviser
and Chief of Analysis and Plans, Assistant Chief of Air Staff, Material
and Services, War Department
• Julian Wadleigh, United States Department of State
• Harry Dexter White, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; Head of
the International Monetary Fund
• Viktor Vasilevish Sveshchnikov, United States War Department
Portland Ring
• Konon Molody (aka Gordon Lonsdale)
• Juliet Poyntz
• Fred Rose (politician), Canadian Member of Parliament, first elected
from the Labour-Progressive Party (Canada) 1943
• Milton Schwartz
Sorge Ring
• Chen Han-seng
• Hotsumi Ozaki
• Agnes Smedley
• Lydia Stahl
• Joseph Benjamin Stenbuck
• Irving Charles Velson, Brooklyn Navy Yard; American Labor
Party candidate for New York State Senate
• Flora Wovschin, NKVD operative in U.S. State Department,
comrade of Marion Davis Berdecio and Judith Coplon from their days at
Columbia University
• Vasily Zarubin, husband of Elizabeth Zubilin
• Elizabeth Zubilin, recruiter in U.S. of whom Pavel Sudoplatov, head
of NKVD Fourth Directorate said, "In developing J. Robert Oppenheimer
as a source, Elizabeth Zubilin was essential."

210. 210
Others
• Alexander Orlov, KGB adviser to the Republican government during
the Spanish Civil War who defected to the United States in 1938.
•
GRU Illegals
• Moishe Stern
• Alfred Tilton
• Alexander Ulanovsky
• Ignacy Witczak
•
Naval GRU
• Jack Fahy (Naval GRU), Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American
Affairs; Board of Economic Warfare; United States Department of the
Interior
• Edna Patterson Naval GRU, served in US August 1943 to 1956
Unknown affiliation, to sort
• Morris Cohen (Soviet spy) sentenced to 25 years; subject of Hugh
Whitemore's drama for stage and TV Pack of Lies
• Lona Cohen, Soviet spy sentenced to 20 years; subject of Hugh
Whitemore's drama for stage and TV Pack of Lies
• George Koval
• Samuel Krafsur, TASS reporter who was mentioned prominently in
the Venona Files.
• Earl Edwin Pitts
See also
• Active measures
• List of cryptographers
• List of Americans in Venona papers
• Treason
• List of fictional secret agents

211. 211
References
1. Jump up^ Hayes commentary
2. Jump up^ Haynes, John Earl (February 2007), Cover Name,
Cryptonym, CPUSA Party Name, Pseudonym, and Real Name Index:
A Research Historian's Working Reference, retrieved 2007-04-29
3. Jump up^ Victor Cherkashin (Author), Gregory Feifer, Spy
Handler: Memoir of a KGB Officer, Basic Books (January
2005), ISBN 0-465-00968-9, pages 246-247.
4. Jump up^ [1] National Committee to Reopen the Rothenberg
Case
5. ^ Jump up to: a b
[2] National Security Archive, More Cold War
Espionage Transcripts Unsealed
6. ^ Jump up to: a b
Guilty Time: December 04, 1950
7. Jump up^ [3] Miriam Moskowitz's memoir of McCarthyism :
The New Yorker
8. Jump up^ "The Grey Zone". Snap Judgement. Episode 210 (in
English). 19 Oct 2012. 30 minutes in. PRX and NPR. KBGA 89.9
FM, WCAI/WNAN, and WRNC-LP.
9. Jump up^ [4] Early Cold War Spies: The Espionage Trials that
Shaped American Politics, by John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr
10. Jump up^ Underground Soviet Espionage (NKVD) in
Agencies of the United States Government
11. Jump up^ Steil, Benn (2013). The Battle of Bretton Woods:
John Maynard Keynes, Harry Dexter White, and the Making of a New
World Order. Princeton University Press. pp. 4,
23. ISBN 9780691149097.
12. Jump up^ Earl M. Hyde, Bernard Schuster and Joseph Katz:
KGB Master Spies in the United States, International Journal of
Intelligence and Counter Intelligence, Volume 12, Issue 1 March
1999.
13. Jump up^ Underground Soviet Espionage (NKVD) in
Agencies of the United States Government, FBI Silvermaster
file, Vol. 82, pg. 327 pdf, October 21, 1946.
14. Jump up^ *Alexander Vassiliev, Notes on A. Gorsky’s Report
to Savchenko S.R., 23 December 1949. [5]

212. 212
External links
• Vassiliev, Alexander (2003), Alexander Vassiliev’s Notes on Anatoly
Gorsky’s December 1948 Memo on Compromised American Sources and
Networks, retrieved 2012-04-21
• Soviet Spies Working in the United States
• Official SVR site (Russian)
Categories:
• Soviet spies against the United States
• History of the United States government
• Intelligence operations
• Soviet intelligence agencies
• Russia intelligence operations
_____________________________________________________________

213. 213
____________________________________________________________
Betrayal by Rulers
(Soviet Infiltration and Subversion)
____________________________________________________________

214. 214
_____________________________________________________________
The Venona Project
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Venona project was a counter-intelligence program initiated by the
United States Army Signal Intelligence Service (a forerunner of the
National Security Agency) that lasted from 1943 to 1980.[1]
The program
attempted to decrypt messages sent by Soviet Union intelligence agencies,
including its foreign intelligence service and military intelligence
services.[2]
During the program's four decades, approximately 3,000
messages were at least partially decrypted and translated.[3]
The project
produced some of the most important breakthroughs for western counter-
intelligence in this period, including the discovery of the Cambridge spy
ring[4]
and the exposure of Soviet espionage targeting the Manhattan
Project.[5]
The project was one of the most sensitive secrets of United States
intelligence. It remained secret for over a decade after it ended and was not
officially declassified until 1995.
Contents
[hide]
• 1 Background
o 1.1 Commencement
• 2 Decryption
o 2.1 Breakthrough
o 2.2 Results
o 2.3 Significance
• 3 Bearing of Venona on particular cases
o 3.1 Julius and Ethel Rosenberg
o 3.2 Klaus Fuchs
o 3.3 Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White
o 3.4 Donald Maclean and Guy Burgess
o 3.5 Soviet espionage in Australia
o 3.6 Ramón Mercader

215. 215
4 Public disclosures
• 5 Texas textbook controversy
• 6 Critical views
• 7 See also
• 8 Notes
• 9 References and further reading
o 9.1 Books
o 9.2 Online sources
Background
Gene Grabeel, the first cryptoanalyst of the Venona project[6]
During the initial years of the Cold War, the Venona project was a source of
information on Soviet intelligence-gathering activity that was directed at the
Western military powers. Although unknown to the public, and even to
Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman, these programs were
of importance concerning crucial events of the early Cold War. These
included the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg spying case and the defections
of Donald Maclean and Guy Burgess to the Soviet Union.
Most decipherable messages were transmitted and intercepted between 1942
and 1945. Sometime in 1945, the existence of the Venona program was
revealed to the Soviet Union by the NKVD agent and United States Army
SIGINT analyst and cryptologist Bill Weisband.[7]
These messages were
slowly and gradually decrypted beginning in 1946 and continuing (many
times at a low-level of effort in the latter years) through 1980, when the
Venona program was terminated, and the remaining amount of effort that
was being spent on it was moved to more important projects.

216. 216
To what extent the various individuals were involved with Soviet
intelligence is a topic of dispute. While a number of academics and
historians assert that most of the individuals mentioned in the Venona
decrypts were most likely either clandestine assets and/or contacts of Soviet
intelligence agents,[8][9]
others argue that many of those people probably had
no malicious intentions and committed no crimes.[10][11][12]
Commencement
The Venona Project was initiated in 1943, under orders from the deputy
Chief of Military Intelligence (G-2), Carter W. Clarke.[13]
Clarke
distrusted Joseph Stalin, and feared that the Soviet Union would sign a
separate peace with the Third Reich, allowing Germany to focus its military
forces against Great Britain and the United States.[14]
Code-breakers of the
US Army's Signal Intelligence Service (commonly called Arlington Hall)
analyzed encrypted high-level Soviet diplomatic intelligence messages
intercepted in large volumes during and immediately after World War II by
American, British, and Australian listening posts.[15]
Decryption
This message traffic, which was encrypted with a one-time pad system, was
stored and analyzed in relative secrecy by hundreds of cryptanalysts over a
40-year period starting in the early 1940s. Due to a serious blunder on the
part of the Soviets, some of this traffic was vulnerable to cryptanalysis. The
Soviet company that manufactured the one-time pads produced around
35,000 pages of duplicate key numbers, as a result of pressures brought
about by the German advance on Moscow during World War II. The
duplication—which undermines the security of a one-time system—was
discovered and attempts to lessen its impact were made by sending the
duplicates to widely-separated users.[16]
Despite this, the reuse was detected
by cryptologists in the US.

217. 217
Breakthrough
Genevieve Feinstein [17]
The Soviet systems in general used a code to convert words and letters into
numbers, to which additive keys (from one-time pads) were added,
encrypting the content. When used correctly, one-time pad encryption is
unbreakable.[18]
Cryptanalysis by American and British code-breakers
revealed that some of the one-time pad material had incorrectly been reused
by the Soviets (specifically, entire pages, although not complete books),
which allowed decryption (sometimes only partial) of a small part of the
traffic.
Generating the one-time pads was a slow and labor-intensive process, and
the outbreak of war with Germany in June 1941 caused a sudden increase in
the need for coded messages. It is probable that the Soviet code generators
started duplicating cipher pages in order to keep up with demand.
It was Arlington Hall's Lieutenant Richard Hallock, working on Soviet
"Trade" traffic (so called because these messages dealt with Soviet trade
issues), who first discovered that the Soviets were reusing pages. Hallock
and his colleagues (including Genevieve Feinstein, Cecil Phillips, Frank
Lewis, Frank Wanat, and Lucille Campbell) went on to break into a
significant amount of Trade traffic, recovering many one-time pad additive
key tables in the process.

218. 218
Meredith Gardner (far left); most of the other code breakers were
young women.
A young Meredith Gardner then used this material to break into what turned
out to be NKVD (and later GRU) traffic by reconstructing the code used to
convert text to numbers. Samuel Chew and Cecil Phillips also made valuable
contributions. On 20 December 1946, Gardner made the first break into the
code, revealing the existence of Soviet espionage in the Manhattan
Project.[19]
Venona messages also indicated that Soviet spies worked in
Washington in the State Department, Treasury, Office of Strategic Services,
and even the White House. Very slowly, using assorted techniques ranging
from traffic analysis to defector information, more of the messages were
decrypted.
Claims have been made that information from the physical recovery of code
books (a partially burned one was obtained by the Finns) to bugging
embassy rooms in which text was entered into encrypting devices (analyzing
the keystrokes by listening to them being punched in) contributed to
recovering much of the plaintext. These latter claims are less than fully
supported in the open literature.
One significant aid (mentioned by the NSA) in the early stages may have
been work done in cooperation between the Japanese and Finnish
cryptanalysis organizations; when the Americans broke into Japanese codes
during World War II, they gained access to this information. There are also
reports that copies of signals purloined from Soviet offices by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) were helpful in the cryptanalysis. The Finnish
radio intelligence sold much of its material concerning Soviet codes
to OSS in 1944 during Operation Stella Polaris, including the partially
burned code book.[20]

219. 219
Results
NSA reported that (according to the serial numbers of the Venona cables)
thousands of cables were sent, but only a fraction were available to the
cryptanalysts. Approximately 2,200 messages were decrypted and translated;
about half for the 1943 GRU-Naval Washington to Moscow messages were
broken, but none for any other year, although several thousand were sent
between 1941 and 1945. The decryption rate of the NKVD cables was as
follows:
• 1942 1.8%
• 1943 15.0%
• 1944 49.0%
• 1945 1.5%
Out of some hundreds of thousands of intercepted encrypted texts, it is
claimed under 3,000 have been partially or wholly decrypted. All the
duplicate one-time pad pages were produced in 1942, and almost all of them
had been used by the end of 1945, with a few being used as late as 1948.
After this, Soviet message traffic reverted to being completely
unreadable.[21]
The existence of Venona decryption became known to the Soviets within a
few years of the first breaks.[citation needed]
It is not clear whether the Soviets
knew how much of the message traffic or which messages had been
successfully decrypted. At least one Soviet penetration agent, British Secret
Intelligence Service representative to the U.S. Kim Philby, was told about
the project in 1949, as part of his job as liaison between British and U.S.
intelligence. Since all of the duplicate one-time pad pages had been used by
this time, the Soviets apparently did not make any changes to their
cryptographic procedures after they learned of Venona. However, this
information allowed them to alert those of their agents who might be at risk
of exposure due to the decryption.
Significance
The decrypted messages gave important insights into Soviet behavior in the
period during which duplicate one-time pads were used. With the first break
into the code, Venona revealed the existence of Soviet espionage[22]
at Los
Alamos National Laboratories.[23]
Identities soon emerged of American,
Canadian, Australian, and British spies in service to the Soviet government,
including Klaus Fuchs, Alan Nunn May, and Donald Maclean. Others

220. 220
worked in Washington in the State Department, the Treasury, Office of
Strategic Services,[24]
and even the White House.
The decrypts show the U.S. and other nations were targeted in major
espionage campaigns by the Soviet Union as early as 1942. Among those
identified are Julius and Ethel Rosenberg; Alger Hiss; Harry Dexter
White,[13]
the second-highest official in the Treasury Department; Lauchlin
Currie,[25]
a personal aide to Franklin Roosevelt; and Maurice Halperin,[26]
a
section head in the Office of Strategic Services.
The identification of individuals mentioned in Venona transcripts is
sometimes problematic, since people with a "covert relationship" with
Soviet intelligence are referenced by cryptonyms.[27]
Further complicating
matters is the fact the same person sometimes had different cryptonyms at
different times, and the same cryptonym was sometimes reused for different
individuals. In some cases, notably Hiss, the matching of a Venona
cryptonym to an individual is disputed. In many other cases, a Venona
cryptonym has not yet been linked to any person. According to authors John
Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, the Venona transcripts identify
approximately 349 Americans whom they claim had a covert relationship
with Soviet intelligence, though fewer than half of these have been matched
to real-name identities.[28]
However, not every agent may have been
communicating directly with Soviet intelligence. Each of those 349 persons
may have had many others working for, and reporting only to, them.
The Office of Strategic Services, the predecessor to the CIA, housed at one
time or another between fifteen and twenty Soviet spies.[29]
Duncan
Lee, Donald Wheeler, Jane Foster Zlatowski, and Maurice Halperin passed
information to Moscow. The War Production Board, the Board of Economic
Warfare, the Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs and
the Office of War Information, included at least half a dozen Soviet sources
each among their employees. In the opinion of some, almost every American
military and diplomatic agency of any importance was compromised to
some extent by Soviet espionage.[30]
Some scholars and journalists dispute the claims by Haynes, Klehr, and
others concerning the precision of the matching of cryptonyms to actual
persons.[31]
Also contested is the implication that all 349 persons identified
had an intentional "covert relationship" with Soviet intelligence; it is argued,
in some cases, the individual may have been an unwitting information
source or a prospect for future recruitment by Soviet intelligence.

221. 221
Bearing of Venona on particular cases
Venona has added information—some unequivocal, some ambiguous—to
several espionage cases. Some known spies, including Theodore Hall, were
neither prosecuted nor publicly implicated, because the Venona evidence
against them was not made public.
The identity of Soviet source cryptonymed '19' remains unclear. According
to British writer Nigel West, '19' was president of Czechoslovak
government-in-exile Edvard Beneš.[32]
Military historian Eduard
Mark[33]
and American authors Herbert Romerstein and Eric Breindel
concluded it was Roosevelt's aide Harry Hopkins.[34]
According to American
authors John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, source code-named '19' could
be someone from the British delegation to the Washington Conference in
May 1943.[35]
Moreover, they argue no evidence of Hopkins as an agent has
been found in other archives, and the partial message relating to "19" does
not indicate if this source was a spy.[36]
However, Vasily Mitrokhin was a KGB archivist who defected from the
Soviet Union with copies of KGB files. He claimed Harry Hopkins was a
secret Russian agent.[37]
Moreover, Oleg Gordievsky, a high-level KGB
officer who also defected from the Soviet Union, reported that Iskhak
Akhmerov, the KGB officer who controlled the clandestine Soviet agents in
the U.S. during the war, had said Hopkins was “the most important of all
Soviet wartime agents in the United States."[38]
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg
Main article: Julius and Ethel Rosenberg
Venona has added significant information to the case of Julius and Ethel
Rosenberg, making it clear Julius was guilty of espionage, but also showing
that Ethel was probably no more than an accomplice, if that.[citation
needed]
Venona and other recent information has shown, while the content of
Julius' atomic espionage was not as vital as alleged at the time of his
espionage activities, in other fields it was extensive. The information
Rosenberg passed to the Soviets concerned the proximity fuze, design and
production information on the Lockheed P-80 jet fighter, and thousands of
classified reports from Emerson Radio. The Venona evidence indicates
unidentified sources code-named "Quantum" and "Pers" who facilitated
transfer of nuclear weapons technology to the Soviet Union from positions
within the Manhattan Project. According to Alexander Vassiliev's notes
from KGB archive, "Quantum" was Boris Podolsky and "Pers" was Russell

222. 222
W. McNutt, an engineer from the uranium processing plant in Oak
Ridge.[39][40]
Klaus Fuchs
Main article: Klaus Fuchs
Venona is also responsible for the exposure of the atomic spy Klaus Fuchs.
The Venona documents released in 1950 disclose information about the
clandestine activities of Klaus Fuchs under his code names of CHARLES
and REST. During his time on the Manhattan Project, the NSA learned of
this relations with the KGB.[41]
On April 10, 1945, the Moscow office sent a
message to New York concerning Fuchs' contribution to the Soviet atomic
bomb development. This letter stated that Fuchs “is of great value," and his
reports “contain information received for the first time about the
electromagnetic method of separation of the atomic bomb." [42]
Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White
Main articles: Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White
According to the Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy, the
complicity of both Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White is conclusively
proven by Venona,[43][44]
stating "The complicity of Alger Hiss of the State
Department seems settled. As does that of Harry Dexter White of the
Treasury Department." In his 1998 book, Senator Moynihan expresses
certainty about Hiss's identification by Venona as a Soviet spy, writing "Hiss
was indeed a Soviet agent and appears to have been regarded by Moscow as
its most important."[45]
Several current authors, researchers, and archivists consider the Venona
evidence on Hiss to be inconclusive.[46]
Donald Maclean and Guy Burgess
When Kim Philby learned of Venona in 1949, he obtained advance warning
that his fellow Soviet spy Donald Maclean was in danger of being exposed.
The FBI told Philby about an agent cryptonymed 'Homer', whose 1945
message to Moscow had been decoded. As it had been sent from New York
and had its origins in the British Embassy in Washington, Philby, who
would not have known Maclean's cryptonym, deduced the sender's identity.
By early 1951, Philby knew U.S. intelligence would soon also conclude
Maclean was the sender, and advised Moscow to recall Maclean. [clarification
needed]
This led to Maclean and Guy Burgess' flight to Russia in May 1951.[47]

223. 223
Soviet espionage in Australia
In addition to British and American operatives, Australians collected
Venona intercepts at a remote base in the Outback.[citation needed]
The Soviets
remained unaware of this base as late as 1950.[48]
The founding of the Australian Security Intelligence
Organisation by Labor Prime Minister Ben Chifley in 1949 was considered
highly controversial within Chifley's own party.[citation needed]
Until then,
the left-leaning Australian Labor Party had been hostile to domestic
intelligence agencies on civil-liberties grounds and a Labor government
founding one seemed a surprising about-face.[citation needed]
But the
presentation of Venona material to Chifley, revealing evidence of Soviet
agents operating in Australia, brought this about. As well as Australian
diplomat suspects abroad, Venona had revealed Walter Seddon
Clayton (cryptonym 'KLOD'), a leading official within the Communist Party
of Australia(CPA), as the chief organiser of Soviet intelligence gathering in
Australia.[49]
Investigation revealed that Clayton formed an underground
network within the CPA so that the party could continue to operate if it were
banned. [citation needed]
Ramón Mercader
Main article: Ramón Mercader
Ramón Mercader was a Spanish communist who became infamous as the
assassin of the Russian Marxist revolutionary Leon Trotsky in 1940, in
Mexico. Declassified archives have shown that he was a Soviet agent.[50]
Upon being arrested for the assassination, Mercader claimed to be "Jacques
Mornard", and that Trotsky died during a quarrel they had relating to
Mercader/Mornard's desire to marry a woman whom Trotsky did not want
him to marry.[51]
Mercader's true identity was confirmed by the Venona
project.[52]
Public disclosure
For much of its history, knowledge of Venona was restricted even from the
highest levels of government. Senior army officers, in consultation with the
FBI and CIA, made the decision to restrict knowledge of Venona within the
government (even the CIA was not made an active partner until 1952). Army
Chief of Staff Omar Bradley, concerned about the White House's history of
leaking sensitive information, decided to deny President Truman direct
knowledge of the project. The president received the substance of the

224. 224
material only through FBI, Justice Department, and CIA reports on
counterintelligence and intelligence matters. He was not told the material
came from decoded Soviet ciphers. To some degree this secrecy was
counter-productive; Truman was distrustful of FBI head J. Edgar
Hoover and suspected the reports were exaggerated for political purposes.
Some of the earliest detailed public knowledge that Soviet code messages
from World War II had been broken came with the release of Robert
Lamphere's book, The FBI-KGB War, in 1986. Lamphere had been the FBI
liaison to the code-breaking activity, had considerable knowledge of Venona
and the counter-intelligence work that resulted from it. MI5 assistant
director Peter Wright's 1987 memoir, Spycatcher, however, was the first
detailed account of the Venona project, identifying it by name and making
clear its long-term implications in post-war espionage.
Many inside the NSA had argued internally that the time had come to
publicly release the details of the Venona project, but it was not until 1995
that the bipartisan Commission on Government Secrecy, with
Senator Moynihan as chairman, released Venona project materials.
Moynihan wrote:
"[The] secrecy system has systematically denied American historians access
to the records of American history. Of late we find ourselves relying on
archives of the former Soviet Union in Moscow to resolve questions of what
was going on in Washington at mid-century. [...] the Venona intercepts
contained overwhelming proof of the activities of Soviet spy networks in
America, complete with names, dates, places, and deeds."[53]
One of the considerations in releasing Venona translations was the privacy
interests of the individuals mentioned, referenced, or identified in the
translations. Some names were not released because to do so would
constitute an invasion of privacy.[54]
However, in at least one case,
independent researchers identified one of the subjects whose name had been
obscured by the NSA.
The dearth of reliable information available to the public—or even to the
President and Congress—may have helped to polarize debates of the 1950s
over the extent and danger of Soviet espionage in the United States. Anti-
Communists suspected many spies remained at large, perhaps including
some known to the government. Those who criticized the governmental and
non-governmental efforts to root out and expose communists felt these
efforts were an overreaction (in addition to other reservations
about McCarthyism). Public access—or broader governmental access—to

225. 225
the Venona evidence would certainly have affected this debate, as it is
affecting the retrospective debate among historians and others now. As the
Moynihan Commission wrote in its final report:
"A balanced history of this period is now beginning to appear; the Venona
messages will surely supply a great cache of facts to bring the matter to
some closure. But at the time, the American Government, much less the
American public, was confronted with possibilities and charges, at once
baffling and terrifying."
The National Cryptologic Museum features an exhibit on the Venona project
in its "Cold War/Information Age" gallery.
Texas textbook controversy
Controversy arose in 2009 over the Texas State Board of Education's
revision of their high school history class curricula to suggest Venona
shows Senator Joseph McCarthy to have been justified in his zeal in
exposing those whom he believed to be Soviet spies or communist
sympathizers.[55]
Critics assert most people and organizations identified by
McCarthy were not mentioned in the Venona content and that the sources
for his accusations remain largely unknown.[56]
Critical views
The majority of historians are convinced of the historical value of the
Venona material. Intelligence historian Nigel West believes that "Venona
remain[s] an irrefutable resource, far more reliable than the mercurial
recollections of KGB defectors and the dubious conclusions drawn by
paranoid analysts mesmerized by Machiavellian plots."[57]
However, a number of writers and scholars have taken a critical view of the
translations released by the NSA. A few critics, including Robert and
Michael Meeropol, the sons of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, and activist
lawyer William Kunstler, cast doubt on the authenticity of the Venona
material, suggesting that it might have been at least in part forged.[58]
Other critics have questioned the accuracy of the translations and the
identifications of cover names that the NSA translations give. Writers Walter
and Miriam Schneir, in a lengthy 1999 review of one of the first book-length
studies of the messages, object to what they see as the book’s
overconfidence in the translations’ accuracy, noting that the undecrypted
gaps in the texts can make interpretation difficult, and emphasizing the

226. 226
problem of identifying the individuals mentioned under cover names.[59]
To
support their critique, they cite a declassified memorandum, written in 1956
by A. H. Belmont, who was assistant to FBI director J. Edgar Hoover at the
time.[60]
In the memo, Belmont discusses the possibility of using the Venona
translations in court to prosecute Soviet agents, and comes out strongly
opposed to their use. His reasons include legal uncertainties about the
admissibility of the translations as evidence, and the difficulties that
prosecution would face in supporting the validity of the translations.
Belmont highlights the uncertainties in the translation process, noting that
the cryptographers have indicated that “almost anything included in a
translation of one of these deciphered messages may in the future be
radically revised." He also notes the complexities of identifying people with
cover names, describing how the personal details mentioned for cover name
“Antenna" fit more than one person, and the investigative process required
to finally connect “Antenna" to Julius Rosenberg. The Schneirs conclude
that "A reader faced with Venona's incomplete, disjointed messages can
easily arrive at a badly skewed impression."[61]
Many of the critiques of the Venona translations have been based on specific
cases. The Schneirs' critique of the Venona documents was based on their
decades of work on the case of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. Another critique
of the Venona translations came from the late Rutgers University law
professor John Lowenthal, who as a law student worked as a volunteer for
Alger Hiss's defense team, and later wrote extensively on the Hiss
case.[62]
Lowenthal's critique focused on one message (Venona 1822 KGB
Washington-Moscow 30 March 1945),[63]
in which the comments identified
the cover name 'Ales' as "probably Alger Hiss." Lowenthal raised a number
of objections to this identification, rejecting it as "a conclusion
psychologically motivated and politically correct but factually
wrong."[64]
Lowenthal's article led to an extended debates on the 'Ales'
message,[65]
and even prompted the NSA to declassify the original Russian
text.[66]
Currently Venona 1822 is the only message for which the complete
decrypted Russian text has been published.
Victor Navasky, editor and publisher of The Nation, has also written several
editorials highly critical of John Earl Haynes' and Harvey Klehr's
interpretation of recent work on the subject of Soviet espionage.[31]
Navasky
claims the Venona material is being used to “distort … our understanding of
the cold war" and that the files are potential “time bombs of
misinformation."[10]
Commenting on the list of 349 Americans identified by
Venona, published in an appendix to Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in

227. 227
America, Navasky wrote, "The reader is left with the implication— unfair
and unproven— that every name on the list was involved in espionage, and
as a result, otherwise careful historians and mainstream journalists now
routinely refer to Venona as proof that many hundreds of Americans were
part of the red spy network."[10]
Navasky goes further in his defense of the
listed people and has claimed a great deal of the so-called espionage that
went on was nothing more than “exchanges of information among people of
good will" and that “most of these exchanges were innocent and were within
the law."[11]
According to historian Ellen Schrecker, "Because they offer insights into the
world of the secret police on both sides of the Iron Curtain, it is tempting to
treat the FBI and Venona materials less critically than documents from more
accessible sources. But there are too many gaps in the record to use these
materials with complete confidence."[67]
Schrecker believes the documents established the guilt of many prominent
figures, but is still critical of the views of scholars such as John Earl Haynes,
arguing, "complexity, nuance, and a willingness to see the world in other
than black and white seem alien to Haynes' view of history."[68]
See also
• Espionage Act of 1917
• History of Soviet and Russian espionage in the United States
• List of Americans in the Venona papers
• List of Soviet agents in the United States
• McCarthyism
• Taman Shud Case
• Elizabeth Bentley
Notes
1. Jump up^ Benson, Robert L. (2001). The Venona Story (PDF). Fort George G.
Meade, MD: National Security Agency, Center for Cryptologic History. p. 1.
2. Jump up^ Benson 2001, p. 5
3. Jump up^ Benson 2001, p. 7
4. Jump up^ Benson 2001, p. 34
5. Jump up^ Benson 2001, pp. 20–22. Benson gives a basic list of the relevant
messages; other accounts include Haynes and Klehr, p. 304, and West, p. 197.
6. Jump up^ "'Remembrances of Venona' by Mr. William P. Crowell", NSA. 11 July
1995.
7. Jump up^ Andrew, Christopher (1996). For the President's Eyes Only: Secret
Intelligence and the American Presidency from Washington to Bush. Harper Perennial.

228. 228
8. Jump up^ "How VENONA was Declassified", Robert L. Benson, Symposium of
Cryptologic History; October 27, 2005.
9. Jump up^ "Tangled Treason", Sam Tanenhaus, The New Republic, 1999.
10. ^ Jump up to:a b c
Navasky, Victor (July 16, 2001). "Cold War Ghosts". The Nation.
Retrieved 2006-06-27.
11. ^ Jump up to:a b
Tales from decrypts. The Nation, 28 October 1996, pp. 5–6.
12. Jump up^ Schrecker, Ellen. "Comments on John Earl Haynes', "The Cold War
Debate Continues: A Traditionalist View of Historical Writing on Domestic Communism and
Anti-Communism"". Retrieved 2006-06-27.
13. ^ Jump up to:a b
Benson 2001
14. Jump up^ "Haynes & Klehr ''New York Times'' 1999". Nytimes.com. Retrieved 2014-
02-15.
15. Jump up^ Yuri Modin, My Five Cambridge Friends, 1994, Ballantine Books, ISBN 0-
374-21698-3, p. 194
16. Jump up^ Cryptologic Almanac 50th Anniversary Series -- VENONA: An Overview
(DOCID: 3575728). Released by NSA on 06-12-2009, FOIA Case # 52567.
17. Jump up^ "Women in Cryptologic History - Genevieve Feinstein - NSA/CSS".
Nsa.gov. 2009-01-15. Retrieved 2014-02-15.
18. Jump up^ Francis Litterio. "Why Are One-Time Pads Perfectly Secure?". Archived
from the original on 2008-05-16.
19. Jump up^ Daniel Patrick Moynihan (1997). "Report of the Commission On Protecting
And Reducing Government Secrecy; Appendix A: The Experience of The Bomb". United
States Government Printing Office. Retrieved 2006-06-18.
20. Jump up^ West, Nigel (2000). Venona: the greatest secret of the Cold War. London:
HarperCollins. pp. 3–10.ISBN 9780006530718.
21. Jump up^ Haynes, John Earl and Klehr, Harvey (2000). Venona: Decoding Soviet
Espionage in America. Yale University Press. p. 55. ISBN 0-300-08462-5.
22. Jump up^ Moynihan, Daniel Patrick (1998). Secrecy : The American Experience.
Yale University Press. p. 54. ISBN 0-300-08079-4. "these intercepts provided... descriptions
of the activities of precisely the same Soviet spies who were named by defecting Soviet
agents Alexander Orlov, Walter Krivitsky, Whittaker Chambers, and Elizabeth Bentley."
23. Jump up^ Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy. "A Brief
Account of the American Experience" (PDF).Report of the Commission on Protecting and
Reducing Government Secrecy. VI; Appendix A. US Government Printing Office. pp. A–27.
Retrieved 2006-06-26. "Thanks to successful espionage, the Russians tested their first atom
bomb in August 1949, just four years after the first American test. As will be discussed, we
had learned of the Los Alamos spies in December 1946—December 20, to be precise. The
US Army Security Agency, in the person of Meredith Knox Gardner, a genius in his own right,
had broken one of what it termed the Venona messages—the transmissions that Soviet
agents in the United States sent to and received from Moscow."
24. Jump up^ Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy. "A Brief
Account of the American Experience" (PDF).Report of the Commission on Protecting and
Reducing Government Secrecy. VI; Appendix A. US Government Printing Office. pp. A–7.
Retrieved 2006-06-26. "KGB cables indicated that the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) in
World War II had been thoroughly infiltrated with Soviet agents."
25. Jump up^ "Eavesdropping on Hell" (PDF). National Security Agency. Retrieved 2006-
06-26. "Currie, known as PAZh (Page) and White, whose cover names were YuRIST (Jurist)
and changed later to LAJER (Lawyer), had been Soviet agents since the 1930s. They had
been identified as Soviet agents in Venona translations and by other agents turned witnesses
or informants for the FBI and Justice Department. From the Venona translations, both were
known to pass intelligence to their handlers, notably the Silvermaster network."
26. Jump up^ Warner, Michael (2000). "The Office of Strategic Services: America's First
Intelligence Agency; Chapter: X-2". Central Intelligence Agency Publications. Retrieved 2006-
06-27.[dead link]
27. Jump up^ Moynihan, Daniel Patrick (1998). Secrecy : The American Experience.
Yale University Press. p. 54. ISBN 0-300-08079-4.

229. 229
28. Jump up^ Haynes, John Earl and Klehr, Harvey (2000). Venona: Decoding Soviet
Espionage in America. Yale University Press. p. 12. ISBN 0-300-08462-5.
29. Jump up^ Warner, Michael (2000). "The Office of Strategic Services: America's First
Intelligence Agency; Chapter: X-2". Central Intelligence Agency Publications. Archived
from the original on 2007-05-10. Retrieved 2006-06-26.
30. Jump up^ Peake, Hayden B. (Summer 2000). "The Venona Progeny". Naval War
College Review LIII (3). Archived from the original on August 17, 2000. Retrieved 2006-06-
26.
31. ^ Jump up to:a b
Haynes, John Earl; Herman, Arthur (February 2000). "Joseph
McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated
Senator" (Speech). Venona Exchange. Washington: Haynes. Retrieved 4 July 2013.
32. Jump up^ Nigel West, Venona, największa tajemnica zimnej wojny, Warszawa 2006,
p.138.
33. Jump up^ Eduard Mark. "Venona's Source 19 and the Trident Conference of May
1943: Diplomacy or Espionage?". Intelligence and National Security. London, Summer 1998,
pp. 1–31
34. Jump up^ Romerstein, Herbert and Breindel, Eric (2000). The Venona Secrets:
Exposing Soviet Espionage and America's Traitors. Regnery Publishing. p. 214. ISBN 0-
89526-275-4.
35. Jump up^ Haynes, John Earl and Klehr, Harvey (1999). Venona: Decoding Soviet
Espionage in America. Yale University Press. pp. 205–206. ISBN 0-300-07771-8.
36. Jump up^ "H-Net Discussion Networks - VENONA, the KGB, and Harry Hopkins
[Haynes/Klehr]". H-net.msu.edu. 1999-07-14. Retrieved 2014-02-15.
37. Jump up^ "The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History
of the KGB," by Vasily Mitrokhin and Christopher Andrew.
38. Jump up^ "KGB: The Inside Story of Its Foreign Operations from Lenin to
Gorbachev," by Oleg Gordievsky and Christopher Andrew.
39. Jump up^ New York Times Book Review of "Venona - Decoding Soviet Espionage
in America"
40. Jump up^ Haynes, John Earl; Klehr, Harvey E.; Vassiliev, Alexander (2009). Spies:
The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America. New Haven: Yale University Press. pp. 73,
339. ISBN 0-300-12390-6.
41. Jump up^ Vassiliev-Notebooks-and-Venona-Index-Concordance.pdf, ed. 2013, pp:
325, 343
42. Jump up^ [1], NSA: Venona Monographs, pp: 8,14, 18-20
43. Jump up^ [2], NSA, ed. 2013, pp: 325, 343
44. Jump up^ "Appendix A; SECRECY; A Brief Account of the American
Experience" (PDF). From "Report Of The Commission On Protecting And Reducing
Government Secrecy". United States Government Printing Office. 1997. pp. A–37.[dead link]
"The
complicity of Alger Hiss of the State Department seems settled. As does that of Harry Dexter
White of the Treasury Department."
45. Jump up^ Linder, Douglas (2003). "The Venona Files and the Alger Hiss Case".
Retrieved 2006-06-27.
46. Jump up^ Moynihan, Daniel Patrick (1998). Secrecy: The American Experience.
Yale University Press. pp. 145–147. ISBN 0-300-08079-4.
47. Jump up^ See, for example:
Lowenthal (Autumn 2000). "Venona and Alger Hiss" (PDF). Intelligence and National Security.
p. 119. Retrieved2006-09-13.,
Navasky, Victor (July 16, 2001). "Cold War Ghosts". The Nation. Retrieved September
22, 2011.,
Theoharis, Athan (2002). Chasing Spies: How the FBI Failed in Counter-Intelligence But
Promoted the Politics of McCarthyism in the Cold War Years. Ivan R. Dee. ISBN 1-56663-
420-2.
48. Jump up^ Yuri Modin, My Five Cambridge Friends, 1994, Ballantine, p. 190–199
49. Jump up^ Yuri Modin, My Five Cambridge Friends, 1994, Ballantine, p. 191

230. 230
50. Jump up^ Andrew, Christopher. "The Defence of the Realm. The Authorised History
of MI5", 2008. ISBN 978-0-14-102330-4, p.371
51. Jump up^ Sayers, Michael, and Albert E. Kahn. The Great Conspiracy against
Russia. Second Printing (Paper Edition). London: Collet's Holdings Ltd., 1946, pp. 334-5.
52. Jump up^ Schwartz, Stephen; Sobell, Morton; Lowenthal, John (2 April
2001). "Three Gentlemen of Venona". The Nation. Retrieved 27 June 2014.
53. Jump up^ Moynihan, Daniel Patrick (1998). Secrecy : The American Experience.
Yale University Press. p. 15. ISBN 0-300-08079-4.
54. Jump up^ Benson, Robert Louis. "Venona Historical Monograph #4: The KGB in
San Francisco and Mexico City and the GRU in New York and Washington". National
Security Agency Archives, Cryptological Museum. Retrieved 2006-06-18.
55. Jump up^ "Historians speak out against proposed Texas textbook changes |
National Council for the Social Studies". Socialstudies.org. 2010-03-18. Retrieved 2014-02-
15.
56. Jump up^ "Rehabilitating Joseph McCarthy?". TFN Insider. 2009-10-29.
Retrieved 2014-02-15.
57. Jump up^ West, Nigel (1999). Venona--The Greatest Secret of the Cold War. Harper
Collins. p. 330. ISBN 0-00-653071-0.
58. Jump up^ Schneir, Walter; Miriam Schneir (1999-07-05). "Cables coming in from the
cold. (Review of Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America, by John Earl Haynes and
Harvey Klehr)". Nation 269 (1): 25–30. ISSN 0027-8378. Retrieved2013-10-03.
59. Jump up^ The memo is now available on line at "FBI Records on Venona". FBI
Records: The Vault. Retrieved 2013-10-03.
60. Jump up^ Schneir, Walter; Miriam Schneir (1999-07-05). "Cables coming in from the
cold. (Review of Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America, by John Earl Haynes and
Harvey Klehr)". Nation 269 (1): 28. ISSN 0027-8378. Retrieved2013-10-03.
61. Jump up^ For Lowenthal's work on the Hiss case see the Alger Hiss Story website,
hosted at NYU.
62. Jump up^ Available at the NSA's Venona website.
63. Jump up^ Lowenthal, John (2000). "Venona and Alger Hiss". Intelligence and
National Security 15 (3): 98–130.doi:10.1080/02684520008432619.
64. Jump up^ The first response to Lowenthal was Mark, Eduard (2003). "Who was
‘Venona's’ ‘Ales’? cryptanalysis and the Hiss case". Intelligence and National Security 18 (3):
45–72. doi:10.1080/02684520412331306920. Following this there was an extended
discussion on h-net diplo list and the h-net list for the history of American communism. For a
summary of a draft response from Lowenthal (he died in 2003) see Lowenthal, David; Roger
Sandilands (2005). "Eduard Mark on Venona's ‘Ales’: A note". Intelligence and National
Security 20 (3): 509–512.doi:10.1080/02684520500269051. Another response following this
was Bird, Kai; Svetlana Chervonnaya (2007). "The Mystery of Ales (Expanded Version)". The
American Scholar. This gave rise to a conference paper: Haynes, John Earl; Harvey Klehr
(2007-10-19). ""Ales" is Still Hiss: The Wilder Foote Red Herring". Archived from the
original on 2012-07-28. (archived version) and finally a response from Mark again (he died in
2009): Mark, Eduard (2009). "In Re Alger Hiss". Journal of Cold War Studies 11 (3): 26–
67. doi:10.1162/jcws.2009.11.3.26.
65. Jump up^ See Schindler, John R. (2005-10-27). "Hiss in VENONA: The Continuing
Controversy". Archived from the originalon 2013-06-03. (archived version).
66. Jump up^ Schrecker, Ellen (1998). Many are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America.
Little, Brown. pp. xvii–xviii. ISBN 0-316-77470-7.
67. Jump up^ Schrecker, Ellen. "Comments on John Earl Haynes', "The Cold War
Debate Continues: A Traditionalist View of Historical Writing on Domestic Communism and
Anti-Communism"". Retrieved 2006-06-27.

231. 231
References and further reading
Books[edit]
• Aldrich, Richard J. (2001). The Hidden Hand: Britain, America and Cold War Secret
Intelligence. John Murray Pubs Ltd. ISBN 0-7195-5426-8.
• Bamford, James (2002). Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security
Agency. Anchor Books. ISBN 0-385-49908-6.
• Benson, Robert Louis (1996). Venona: Soviet Espionage and the American Response 1939–
1957. Aegean Park Press. ISBN 0-89412-265-7.
• Budiansky, Stephen (2002). Battle of Wits: The Complete Story of Codebreaking in World War
II. Free Press. ISBN 0-7432-1734-9.
• Haynes, John Earl and Klehr, Harvey (2000). Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in
America. Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-08462-5.
• Haynes, John Earl; Klehr, Harvey E.; Vassiliev, Alexander (2009). Spies: The Rise and Fall of
the KGB in America. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-12390-6.
• Lamphere, Robert J.; Shachtman, Tom (1995). The FBI-KGB War: A Special Agent's Story.
Mercer University Press. ISBN 0-86554-477-8.
• Schrecker, Ellen (1998). Many Are the Crimes : McCarthyism in America. Little,
Brown. ISBN 0-316-77470-7.
• Schrecker, Ellen (2006). Cold War Triumphalism: The Misuse of History After the Fall of
Communism. New Press. ISBN 1-59558-083-2.
• Romerstein, Herbert and Breindel, Eric (2000). The Venona Secrets: Exposing Soviet
Espionage and America's Traitors. Regnery Publishing. ISBN 0-89526-275-4.
• Theoharis, Athan (2002). Chasing Spies: How the FBI Failed in Counterintelligence But
Promoted the Politics of McCarthyism in the Cold War Years. Ivan R. Dee. ISBN 1-56663-420-2.
• Trahair, Richard C.S and Miller, Robert (2009). Encyclopedia of Cold War Espionage, Spies,
and Secret Operations. Enigma Books. ISBN 978-1-929631-75-9.
• Warner, Michael (1996). Venona - Soviet Espionage & American Response. Aegean Park
Press. ISBN 0-89412-265-7.
• West, Nigel (1999). Venona--The Greatest Secret of the Cold War. Harper Collins. ISBN 0-00-
653071-0.
• Wright, Peter; Paul Greengrass (1987). Spycatcher: The Candid Autobiography of a Senior
Intelligence Officer. Viking. ISBN 0-670-82055-5.
Online sources
• "NSA official Venona site". National Security Agency. Retrieved 2006-07-09.
• Venona PDFs, arranged by date (NSA)
• "Selected Venona Messages". Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved 2007-11-08.
• "The American Response to Soviet Espionage". CIA. 1996. Retrieved 2007-11-08.
• Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Chairman (1997). "Report of the Commission On Protecting And
Reducing Government Secrecy". United States Government Printing Office. Retrieved 2006-06-
18.
• "MI5 Releases to the National Archives". MI5. Retrieved 2006-07-09.[dead link]
• Naranjo, Denis. "Venona Chronology 1939–1996". Retrieved 2006-07-09.
• "Red Files: Interview with Cecil Philips, US Signal Intelligence Service". PBS. Retrieved 2006-
07-09.
• Benson, Robert L. "The Venona Story". National Security Agency. Archived from the
original on 2006-06-14. Retrieved 2006-06-18.

232. 232
• Fox, John F., Jr. (2005). "In the Enemy’s House: Venona and the Maturation of American
Counterintelligence". FBI. Archived from the original on 2006-11-15. Retrieved 2006-11-17.
• Romerstein , Herbert and Breindel, Eric (2000). "Preface to The Venona Secrets". Regnery
Publishing. Retrieved 2006-11-17.[dead link]
• "SECRETS, LIES, AND ATOMIC SPIES", PBS Transcript, Airdate: February 5, 2002
Categories:
• Venona project
• Military projects
• National Security Agency
• Espionage projects
• History of cryptography
• Spy rings
• Cold War espionage
• Soviet Union–United Kingdom relations
• Soviet Union–United States relations
_____________________________________________________________

233. 233
____________________________________________________________
APPENDIX
____________________________________________________________
Why There Is No Difference
Between the Republican &
Democrat Socialist Parties
--By Robert D. Gorgoglione Sr.--
In the tradition of Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson
and of course Senator Joseph R. McCarthy
_____________________________________________________________
“It is a known fact that the policies
of the government today, whether
Republican or democratic, are closer
to the 1932 platform of the
Communist Party than they are to
either of their own party platforms in
that critical year”
Walter Trohan,
Columnist emeritus for the Chicago Tribune,
October, 1969
_____________________________________________________________

234. 234
_____________________________________________________________
Ten Reasons Why There Is No Difference Between
The Republican & Democrat Socialist Parties
By Robert D. Gorgoglione Sr.
_____________________________________________________________
1. Both parties voted for the Federal Reserve central banking system.
2. Both parties voted for the Communist Graduated Income Tax.
3. Both parties voted for ending the representation of the Sovereign States
in the U.S. Senate, thus destroying the Constitutional checks and balances of
power between the Federal & State Governments.
4. Both parties voted for a declaration of war against Germany (WW I).
5. Both parties voted for FDR’s Socialistic “New Deal” by voting for
multiple socialist and unconstitutional legislative acts.
6. Both parties voted for freezing all trade with Japan while freezing all
her assets in the U.S. These acts led to the attack on Pearl Harbor & WW II.
7. Both parties voted for our coming under the control of the Communist
controlled United Nations and gradually ending our National Sovereignty.
This also forced us into no-win wars in Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan
and Iraq etc. None of these nations were a threat to the U.S.
8. Both parties voted for The Patriot Act, The Dept of Homeland Security
and the TSA & NSA. Etc. These acts were essential to creating a Communist
State in America.
9. Both parties voted for numerous and endless gun control laws. You
cannot establish a Communist State with a heavily armed population.
10. Both parties voted for The Environmental Protection Agency and The
War on Drugs, both of which have eviscerated the 4th
Amendment etc.
On July 14, 1969, U.S. News and World Report noted:
The late Norman Thomas, who ran unsuccessfully for President six times on the
Socialist Party ticket, observed in 1964 that the Democrats “have through the years
taken over measures once regarded as Socialist, but then so have the Republicans.”
_______________________________________________________________________

235. 235
_____________________________________________________________
Additional Reasons for the Criminal Charge that
The Republican & Democrat Parties are Socialist
By the mid 1950's, Norman Thomas, six time candidate for President of the
U.S. on the Socialist Party ticket, proclaimed that practically all of the
planks of the Socialist Party platform of 1932 had been adopted by
both the Democrat and Republican parties.
In 1957, the "Harvard Times-Republican” of April 18 quoted Norman
Thomas as follows:
“The United States is making greater strides toward Socialism under
Eisenhower than even under Roosevelt, particularly in the fields of
Federal spending and welfare legislation.”
In 1962 Norman Thomas summed up the whole situation as follows:
“The difference between Democrats and Republicans is: Democrats
have accepted some ideas of Socialism cheerfully, while Republicans
have accepted them reluctantly.” (Cleveland Plain Dealer, October
19, 1962.)
(From page 130 of The Naked Capitalist, A review on Dr. Carroll
Quigley’s Book: Tragedy and Hope, Published privately by Dr.
Cleon Skousen, 1970)
On July 14, 1969, U.S. News and World Report noted:
“The late Norman Thomas, who ran unsuccessfully for President six
times on the Socialist Party ticket, observed in 1964 that the
Democrats “have through the years taken over measures once
regarded as Socialist, but then so have the Republicans but to a
slightly less degree.” The Republican Platform of 2000

236. 236
Republican & Democrat Parties have adopted
the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto of 1848
Although Karl Marx advocated the use of any means, especially
including violent revolution, to bring about socialist dictatorship, he
suggested ten political goals for developed countries such as the United
States. How far has the United States -- traditionally the bastion of freedom,
free markets, and private property -- gone down the Marxist road to fulfill
these socialist aims? You be the judge. The following are Karl Marx's ten
planks from his Communist Manifesto 1848.
1. Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of
land to public purpose.
The courts have interpreted the 14th Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution (1868) to give the government far more "eminent
domain" power than was originally intended, Under the rubric of
"eminent domain" and various zoning regulations, land use
regulations by the Bureau of Land Management, property taxes, and
"environmental" excuses, private property rights have become very
diluted and private property in lands, vehicles, and other forms are
seized almost every day in this country under the "forfeiture"
provisions of the RICO statutes and the so-called War on Drugs..
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
The 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913 (which some
scholars maintain was never properly ratified), and various State
income taxes, established this major Marxist coup in the United States
many decades ago. These taxes continue to drain the lifeblood out of
the American economy and greatly reduce the accumulation of
desperately needed capital for future growth, business starts, job
creation, and salary increases.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Another Marxian attack on private property rights is in the form
of Federal & State estate taxes and other inheritance taxes, which
have abolished or at least greatly diluted the right of private property
owners to determine the disposition and distribution of their estates

237. 237
upon their death. Instead, government bureaucrats get their greedy
hands involved
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
We call it government seizures, tax liens, "forfeiture" Public "law" 99-
570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives
private land to the Department of Urban Development; the
imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against
the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation
of property without due process.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a
national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
The Federal Reserve System, created by the Federal Reserve Act of
Congress in 1913, is indeed such a "national bank" and it politically
manipulates interest rates and holds a monopoly on legal
counterfeiting in the United States. This is exactly what Karl Marx
had in mind and completely fulfills this plank, another major socialist
objective. Yet, most Americans naively believe the United States. is
far from a Marxist or socialist nation.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in
the hands of the state.
In the U.S., communication and transportation are controlled and
regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
established by the Communications Act of 1934 and the Department
of Transportation and the Interstate Commerce Commission
(established by Congress in 1887), and the Federal Aviation
Administration as well as Executive orders 11490, 10999 -- not to
mention various state bureaucracies and regulations. There is also the
federal postal monopoly, AMTRAK and CONRAIL -- outright socialist
(government-owned) enterprises. Instead of free-market private
enterprise in these important industries, these fields in America are
semi-cartelized through the government's regulatory-industrial
complex.

238. 238
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the
state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement
of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
While the U.S. does not have vast "collective farms" (which failed so
miserably in the Soviet Union), we nevertheless do have a significant
degree of government involvement in agriculture in the form of price
support subsidies and acreage allotments and land-use controls. The
Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture. As well as the
Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the
Evironmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management,
Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and
the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of Industrial armies,
especially for agriculture.
We call it the Social Security Administration and The Department of
Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank
has caused the need for a two "income" family. Woman in the
workplace since the 1920's, the 19th amendment of the U.S.
Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions,
affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course
Executive order 11000. And I almost forgot...The Equal Rights
Amendment means that women should do all work that men do
including the military and since passage it would make women subject
to the draft.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual
abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more
equable distribution of the population over the country.
We call it the Planning Reorganization Act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17
1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders
11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public "law" 89-136.

239. 239
10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of
children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education
with industrial production, etc. etc.
People are being taxed to support what we call 'public' schools, which
train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it
the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based
"Education.”
So, is the U.S. a "free country" today? Hardly! Not compared to what
it once was. Yet, very few Americans today challenge these Marxist
institutions, and there are virtually no politicians calling for their repeal
or even gradual phase-out. While the United States of America may still
have more freedoms than most other countries, we have nonetheless lost
many crucial liberties and have accepted the major socialist attacks on
freedom and private property as normal parts of our way of life. The
nation, whose founders included such individualists as Thomas Jefferson,
George Mason, James Madison, John Adams and Patrick Henry, has
gradually turned away from the principles of individual rights, limited
constitutional government, private property, and free markets and instead
we increasingly have embraced the failed ideas and nostrums of
socialism and fascism. We should hang our heads in shame for having
allowed the Republican & Democrat Parties to implement the goals and
program of communism in the United States. But, it is not too late to reverse
these pernicious burdens and instead enact pro-freedom reforms to put our
nation back on track again. It can be done.
In some ways the socialists and communists has a head start over us on the
pro-freedom Right. The enemies of American Liberty do admittedly
dominate the entertainment industry, television news media, and academia --
but we have the tremendous strategic advantage that reality (including man's
nature) is on our side; so, unlike the communist, socialists and "liberals"
(welfare-state fascists), we are not in the position of having to advocate a
system which constantly tries to "make water to go uphill" -- or force human
beings into a rigid utopian staitjacket based on the whims of some clique of
central planning bureaucrats. We know that individual liberty for peaceful
people within a constitutional republic works in practice; our country's
history demonstrates that. The piecemeal abandonment of those principles
and institutions which once made America great has proved to be a dead-end
road to failure. Such key statist achievements as the income tax,

240. 240
government schools, fiat money and central banking (the Federal
Reserve), "environmentalist" regulations, property forfeiture laws, and
other Marxist planks and leftist institutions must be rolled back and
repealed altogether if we are to survive and restore the Constitution to
its former glory.
Those who would carry forward the ideas and principles of self-ownership,
private property, free markets, laissez faire, the rule of law, and
constitutionalism which informed America's founders must become more
active on the key ideological battle fronts. We need more influence not just
in politics, but in areas of entertainment, academia, journalism, think tanks,
churches, literature, art, and other venues of expression and activism.
Marxism and socialism have proved to be colossal failures all over the
world.
As Frederic Bastiat wrote in his classic “The Law” just
prior to his death, "let us now try liberty"!
___________________________________________________________
The Republican & Democrat Parties are also charged
With Completing the Communist Goals and Program of
“Toward Soviet America”.
In 1932, William Z. Foster, Chairman of the Communist Party USA
authored the book Toward Soviet America. Beginning on Page 277 he
declared that there would be:
....revolutionary nationalization or socialization [such as
environmentally restrictive controls and regulation] of the large
privately–owned ... factories, mines and power plant, ... railroads,
waterways, airways, bus lines [and] ... the whole body of forest,
mineral deposits, lakes, etc. ( National Parks and forests etc.)
On page 281, he added:
There will also be ... social insurance against unemployment, old age
[Social Security]....free medical services [Medicare, Medicaid &
Socialized Universal Health Care.] ...All houses and other buildings
will be socialized. [Government zoning, planning and safety

241. 241
regulations etc.]
Now comes the shocker beginning on pages 316 - 317:
Superstition [religion] will vanish in the realm of science; ... class
ideologies ... will give place to scientific materialist philosophy
[Humanism]. ....the schools, colleges and universities will be grouped
under the National [Federal] Department of Education ... studies will
be revolutionized being cleansed of religious, patriotic, and other
features of bourgeois [middle class] ideology.
Science will become materialistic, hence truly scientific: God will be
banished from the laboratories as well as from the schools. ....there
will be a great organization of science, backed by the full power of the
government. [Sound familiar?]
On page 318 we read:
A National Department of Health [the Department of Health and
Human Services] will be set up. A free medical service ... will be
established. (Socialized Universal Health Care).
Foster - Toward Soviet America - The Book the Communists Tried
to...
Speak Up For Truth: Toward Soviet America
The Communist Takeover of America: 45 Declared Goals...
You have been given the irrefutable evidence of the
criminal charge that the Republican & Democrat Parties are
socialist. I rest my case!
So now, if you wish to live in the
“Union of Soviet Socialist States of America”,
continue voting for republicans & Democrats.
_______________________________________________
CONTINUED

242. 242
_____________________________________________________________
Emblem of the coming
“World Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”
By way of “The Perestroika Deception”
The Perestroika Deception - Spirit Of Truth Page PDF
To read & study this book, Copy the above link, then paste & search
_____________________________________________________________

243. 243
_____________________________________________________________
“World Union of Socialist Soviet Republics”
_____________________________________________________________
The Communist’s version of this “New World Order” was issued by the
official 1936 program of the Communist International, an arm of the
Kremlin, is as follows:
Dictatorship can be established only by a victory of socialism in
different countries or groups of countries [European Union, North
American Union etc.] after which the proletariat [Communist]
republics would unite on federal lines with those already in existence
[Russia, China etc.] and this system of federal unions would expand at
length forming the “World Union of Socialist Soviet Republics.”
(Hearings before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations,
July 11, 1956 p. 196 and The Fearful Master: A Second Look at
the United Nations by G. Edward Griffin, Western Island, 1964.)
The above program was further developed by William Z Foster,
National chairman of the Communist Party, U.S.A., from 1933-1957,
when he wrote:
A Communist world will be a unified, organized world [world
government-integrated socialized world economy]. The economic
system will be one great organization, based upon the principle of
planning now dawning in the USSR. The American soviet government
will be an important section in this world government. . . . (William
Z. Foster, Toward Soviet America, Balboa Island, California,
Elgin Publications, 1961, pp. 326-327.)
_____________________________________________________________
See the solution on the next page

244. 244
_____________________________________________________________
After reviewing this shocking evidence,
Do you still wish to support these two Socialist parties?
Join the party of principle without the “spirit of party”.
www.independentamericanparty.org
________________________________________
Toward Socialist America,
by Robert D. Gorgoglione Sr. (2013)
WHY ARE THESE MEN
IN TOTAL AGREEMENT?
The answers are found in this book.
“Every man's life is at the call of the nation and so
must be every man's property. We are living today in a
highly organized state of socialism. The state is all; the
individual is of importance only as he contributes to
the welfare of the state. His property is his only as the
State does not need it. He must hold his life and
possessions at the call of the State.”
--Bernard Baruch
“Everything for the State, nothing outside the State, Nothing above the State!”
--Benito Mussolini
“We are socialist, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system . . . , and
we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”
--Adolph Hitler
“Every new local or federal public ownership project is an added nail in the coffin
that will finally contain capitalism.”
--Joseph Stalin www.archivepublishers.com Part of a 7 Volume Set
_______________________________________________________________________

245. 245
_____________________________________________________________
Republican Party,
Communist from the Start
By Alan Stang
February 1, 2008
www.NewsWithViews.com
_____________________________________________________________
Many patriots these days lament that the Republican Party has “lost its
way” and “gone wrong.” It has “diverged” from the fiscally responsible,
small government philosophy of Republican heroes like Robert Taft
whom Eisenhower’s handlers finagled out of the nomination for
President in 1952. We are told that is why today’s Republican
Establishment hates Dr. Ron Paul with such a passion; that they hate him
because, like Taft, he is the quintessential Republican. Patriots who say that
are mistaken, of course. The reason the Republican Establishment hates
Dr. Paul is precisely that he is not a traditional, mainstream
Republican, that his platform of freedom is an aberration. The
Republican Party didn’t “go wrong,” didn’t “go left.”

246. 246
It has been wrong from the beginning, from the day it was founded. From
the beginning, the Republican Party has worked without deviation for
bigger, more imperial government, for higher taxes, for more wars, for
more totalitarianism. From the beginning, the Republican Party has
been Red [Communist].
Why? In 1848, Communists rose in revolution across Europe, united by a
document prepared for the purpose, entitled Manifesto of the Communist
Party. Its author was a degenerate parasite named Karl Marx, whom a small
gang of wealthy Communists – the League of Just Men – hired for the
purpose. The Manifesto told its adherents and its victims what the
Communists would do.
But the Revolution of 1848 failed. The perpetrators escaped, just ahead
of the police. And they went, of course, to the United States. In 1856, the
Republican Party ran its first candidate for President. By that time, these
Communists from Europe had thoroughly infiltrated this country,
especially the North. Many became high ranking officers in the Union
Army and top government officials.
Down through the decades, Americans have wondered about Yankee
brutality in that war. Lee invaded the North, but that sublime Christian hero
forbade any forays against civilians. Military genius Stonewall Jackson
stood like a stone wall and routed the Yankees at Manassas, but when
Barbara Frietchie insisted on flying the Yankee flag in Frederick, Maryland,
rather than the Stars and Bars, that sublime Christian hero commanded,
according to John Greenleaf Whittier, “‘Who touches a hair of yon gray
head/Dies like a dog! March on!’ he said.”
But the Yankees, invading the South, were monsters, killing, raping and
destroying civilian property. In one Georgia town, some 400 women were
penned in the town square in the July heat for almost a week without access
to female facilities. It got worse when the Yankee slime got into the liquor.
Some two thousand Southern women and children were shipped north to
labor as slaves. Didn’t you learn that in school?
Sherman’s scorched earth March to the Sea was a horror the later
Nazis could not equal. Why? Because the Yankees hated Negro slavery so
much? There can be no doubt that the already strong Communist
influence in the North, combined with that of the maniacal abolitionists,

247. 247
was at least one of the main reasons. Slavery was a tardy excuse, an
afterthought they introduced to gain propaganda traction.
In retrospect, it appears that because nothing like this had ever happened
here, Lee and Jackson did not fully comprehend what they were fighting.
Had this really been a “Civil” War, rather than a secession, they would and
could easily have seized Washington after Manassas and hanged our first
Communist President and the other war criminals. Instead they went home,
in the mistaken belief that the defeated Yankees would leave them alone.
Lee did come to understand – too late. He said after the war that had he
known at the beginning what he had since found out, he would have fought
to the last man.
What was the South fighting? Alexander Hamilton was the nation’s first
big government politician. Hamilton wanted a strong central
government and a national bank. Vice President Aaron Burr killed
Hamilton in a duel. The problem was that Burr didn’t kill him soon enough.
Henry Clay inherited and expanded Hamilton’s ideas in something
called the “American System,” which advocated big government
subsidies for favored industries and high, ruinous tariffs, what we today
call “socialism for the rich.” Clay inspired smooth talking railroad lawyer
Abraham Lincoln, who inherited the Red escapees from the Revolution of
1848 and became our first Communist President.
All of this comes again to mind with the recent publication of Red
Republicans: Marxism in the Civil War and Lincoln’s Marxists (Universe,
Lincoln, Nebraska, 2007) by Southern historians Walter D. Kennedy and Al
Benson, Jr. You must read this book, because it irrefutably nails down
everything I have said above and then some. Let’s browse through Red
Republicans, and, as we do so, remember that the reason most Americans
have never heard of all this is that the winner writes the history.
For instance, August Willich was a member of the London Communist
League with Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Needless to say, Willich
became a major general in the Union Army. Robert Rosa belonged to
the New York Communist Club and was a major in the 45th New York
Infantry. Brigadier general Louis Blenker of New York was a
“convinced Marxist.” His 10,000 man division looted people in Virginia,
inspiring the term “Blenkered.” Many of his men were fresh from

248. 248
European prisons. Our first Communist President knew this, but turned
them loose on the people of the South.
In Red Republicans we learn of nine European revolutionaries convicted
of treason and banished to Australia. They escaped to the United States
and Canada. Three or four of them, with no military experience,
became Union generals, joining at least three other Marx confidants who
already held that rank.
“Every man of the nine became a member of the Canadian
Parliament, a governor of a territory or state in the Union, party
leader, prime minister or attorney general.”
Many of these men, not all, were Germans, some four thousand of
whom escaped to this country. Known as Forty-Eighters, they quickly
added violent abolitionism and feminism to their Communist beliefs. In
Missouri, Forty-Eighter Franz Sigel became a Union general and had
uniforms made for his Third Infantry Regiment that closely resembled the
uniforms worn by socialist revolutionaries in Germany in 1849.
Forty-Eighters who became high ranking Union commanders included
Colonel Friedrich Salomon, Ninth Wisconsin, Colonel Fritz Anneke,
Thirty Fourth Wisconsin and Colonel Konrad Krez, Twenty Seventh
Wisconsin. Communist journalist Karl Heinzen wrote:
“If you have to blow up half a continent and cause a bloodbath to
destroy the party of barbarism, you should have no scruples of
conscience. Anyone who would not joyously sacrifice his life for the
satisfaction of exterminating a million barbarians is not a true
republican.”
Heinzen came to this country and supported Lincoln.
Joseph Weydemeyer had to flee Germany when the Communist
Revolution failed. In London he belonged to the Communist League and
was a close friend of Marx and Engels. He came to this country in 1851,
supported Lincoln, maintained his close friendship with Marx and became a
Brigadier General in the Union Army.
Dedicated socialist Richard Hinton had to leave England. In this country
he became a Union colonel, a Radical Republican and an associate of

249. 249
maniac John Brown’s. So was Allan Pinkerton, who financed him. At one
meeting with Brown, Pinkerton told his son:
“Look well upon that man. He is greater than Napoleon and just as
great as George Washington.”
Yes, Pinkerton was the great detective who founded the agency that
bears his name. Why didn’t you know that? In Kansas, mass murderer
Brown enjoyed the support of wealthy Yankees (the Secret Six). August
Bondi and Charles Kaiser, who worked with Brown there, were Forty
Eighters.
What about Marx himself? Marx fled to England, where he is buried. He
became the European correspondent for socialist Horace Greeley’s New
York Tribune, whose Managing Editor, Charles Dana, was a Communist.
Dana hired Marx as a foreign correspondent. Marx wrote often of his
kinship with the new Republican Party. Dana’s generosity to Marx kept
that scumbag alive.
Remember that Marx never worked a day to support his family, but did find
time to impregnate their maid. Dana later became Assistant Secretary of
War. All these people were in place when our first Communist President
was elected on the Republican ticket in 1860 and provoked Lincoln’s
Communist War to Destroy the Union.
The GOP Convention of 1860 took place in Chicago, a flaming center of
German Communism. Many such Reds were delegates, including
Johann Bernhard Stallo and Frederick Hassaurek from Ohio and
Heinrich Bornstein from Missouri, a friend of Marx. Socialist Carl
Schurz was a delegate from Wisconsin. To guarantee German support in
Illinois, Lincoln secretly bought the Illinois Staats Anzieger. After the
election he awarded the editor a consular post.
Socialist Friedrich Kapp was editor of the New Yorker-Abendzeitung.
He wrote propaganda for the new Republican Party and helped mightily to
deliver the German-American vote to Lincoln. With other Forty-Eighters,
he was an elector for Lincoln in 1860. Remember, these are just a few
examples. You really need to read the book. Call, toll-free 1 (800) 288-4677
to order.

250. 250
Remember that slavery, for these Communists, was just an afterthought, a
tool. Before the War for Independence, it was the Southern colonies that
petitioned the King to stop importing slaves into the South. Did you
know that Jefferson tried to include in the Declaration of Independence a
complaint against the King because his government had forbidden the
colonies to end the slave trade? Jefferson’s language was deleted to avoid
giving offense to New England, which was making buckets of money
trading slaves.
Indeed, did you also know that if slavery was what the South fought to
defend, all it had to do was stay in the Union? Lincoln made clear that he
would defend slavery and would not free slaves owned by a man in a
state within the Union:
“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the
institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no
lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”
Remember that the Emancipation Proclamation came well into the war. It
was a propaganda stunt that freed only the slaves in areas controlled by
the Confederacy; in other words, none. Meanwhile, prominent abolitionist
Robert E. Lee, the first man Lincoln offered command of the Union Army,
had freed his family’s slaves long before the war. So, what were the
Communists who came here after?
Republican Senator John Sherman, brother of the monster who
Marched to the Sea, advised his fellow senators to
“nationalize as much as possible [making] men love their country
before their states. All private interests, all local interests, all banking
interests, the interests of individuals, everything, should be
subordinate now to the interests of the Government.”
Germany was a decentralized collection of independent states. The goal
of the Forty Eighters there was a “united, indivisible republic” in which
those states would be dissolved. Land and private industry would be
confiscated. The government would be transformed into a Socialist
dictatorship. These are the ideas the Forty Eighters came to implement
here. By the way, that is what Hitler did in the 1930s. That is what the
fleeing Communists found so attractive in Lincoln.

251. 251
So, again, the Republican Party did not “go wrong.” It was rotten from
the start. It has never been anything else but red. The characterization of
Republican states as “red states” is quite appropriate. What do these
revelations mean to us? Again, Dr. Paul is an aberration. He is not a
“traditional Republican.” A “traditional Republican” stands for high
taxes, imperial government and perpetual war. So of course the Republican
Party will do everything it can to sandbag Dr. Paul. Expect that. It rightly
considers him an interloper who doesn’t belong there. Yes, because of
decades of perversion of popular opinion about the Republican Party, he
must run as a Republican. But no patriot loyalty, and certainly no trust,
should be forthcoming, because the Party is a sidewinder that will betray
him in a Ghouliani minute.
Dr. No is on one side. The Republicrat Party is on the other.
© 2008 - Alan Stang - All Rights Reserved
Alan Stang was one of Mike Wallace’s original writers at Channel 13 in
New York, where he wrote some of the scripts that sent Mike to CBS. Stang
has been a radio talk show host himself. In Los Angeles, he went head to
head nightly with Larry King, and, according to Arbitron, had almost twice
as many listeners. He has been a foreign correspondent. He has written
hundreds of feature magazine articles in national magazines and some
fifteen books, for which he has won many awards, including a citation from
the Pennsylvania House of Representatives for journalistic excellence. One
of Stang’s exposés stopped a criminal attempt to seize control of New
Mexico, where a gang seized a court house, held a judge hostage and killed
a deputy. The scheme was close to success before Stang intervened. Another
Stang exposé inspired major reforms in federal labor legislation.
His first book, it’s Very Simple: The True Story of Civil Rights, was an
instant best-seller. His first novel, The Highest Virtue, set in the Russian
Revolution, won smashing reviews and five stars, top rating, from the West
Coast Review of Books, which gave five stars in only one per cent of its
reviews.
Stang has lectured in every American state and around the world and has
guested on many top shows, including CNN’s Cross Fire. Because he and
his wife had the most kids in Santo Domingo, the Dominican Republic,
where they lived at the time, the entire family was chosen to be actors in

252. 252
“Havana,” directed by Sydney Pollack and starring Robert Redford, the
most expensive movie ever made (at the time). Alan Stang is the man in the
ridiculous Harry Truman shirt with the pasted-down hair. He says they
made him do it.
Website: AlanStang.com
E-Mail: stangfeedback@gmail.com
_____________________________________________________________

253. 253
McCarthy - Capitol Steps
Image Galleries:
Community: McCarthy
The flag-draped coffin containing the body of Senator McCarthy is
carried up the steps of the U.S. Capitol for funeral services in the
Senate chamber after an earlier service at St. Matthew's Cathedral,
May 6, 1957.
_____________________________________________________________

254. 254
_____________________________________________________________
About the Editor
_____________________________________________________________
I was born on December 21st
, 1943 in Baltimore Maryland along the
“Mason-Dixon Line” six months before D-Day.
At age 2, my family moved to Worcester Massachusetts Where I grew up
with a love of science and history. By age 18 (1962), my main interest
turned to history and current events which I followed very closely.
With the Berlin Crises, the Cuban “Bay of Pigs” betrayal etc (1961)., my
awareness of the threat and danger of Communism intensified to the point
that I went to my high school library (Jan. 1962) and borrowed two of J.
Edgar Hoover’s books, “Masters of Deceit” and “A Study of Communism”.
This was the beginning of a life long study of not only communism, but also
history, and Constitutional law in accordance with the “original intent” of
those who framed it. I also developed a keen interest in political economy
and political science.
I never attended a university or college. I have been self-educating myself
for over 50 years. (I took a 6 week course in U.S. History (1945-1975).
When I got through with the professor, he did not know whether he was
coming or going. I have library which I have been building up since 1966.
In 1964, while working at a Republican campaign office supporting then
U.S. Senator from Arizona, Barry Gold Water for president, I started reading
“None Dare Call it Treason”. My life was never the same again. I came to
realize that there was a great Communist-Insider international criminal
Conspiracy [A great secret combination] that had gained great influence and
control within the Federal Government.
This caused me to look into the John Birch Society which I joined in March
of 1966 where I viewed an extraordinary introductory film entitled
“Stand up for Freedom” featuring Ezra Taft Benson. In June of the
following year, I was baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints.

255. 255
From the mid 60’s to the 1980’s, I made it a point to attend meetings of
Communist and Communist Front organizations such as the Progressive
Labor Party, The Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), and the
International Committee Against Racism etc. I felt that it was not enough to
just read and study the subject of communism, but to also oppose, meet and
deal with them on a personal level. I even had the opportunity to meet
members of the South African communist and terrorist “African National
Congress” (ANC) and even confronted communist Black Panther member
Angela Davis in an elevator ride. These are just a few examples of many
such incidents.
Between 1974 and 2007, I ran for public office eight times as an
independent for City Counsel, First Selectman, State Representative and for
Lieutenant Governor on the American Independent Party ticket in
Connecticut in 1974. After moving to Idaho Falls in June of 2008, I
campaigned for a seat in the Idaho State House of Representatives in 2012
and 2014.
On June 10th
, of 2008, after saying good-by to our four children, I and my
wife, the former Ellyn Palmer, arrived in the GREAT state of Idaho. We
have never met so many wonderful and patriotic individuals and people with
such a great love of Liberty, the Constitution and country as we have since
arriving in Idaho.
Robert D. Gorgoglione Sr.
3354 E. Iona Rd., Idaho Falls, Idaho
208 290 9022
robert.gorgoglione43@gmail.com
_____________________________________________________________