Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism

НазваниеLiberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism
Размер0.98 Mb.
1   ...   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   ...   44

Owen Lattimore, poor beleaguered "victim" of McCarthyism, hailed Stalin's murderous show trials as "the sort of habitual rectifica­tion" that would encourage others to tell the truth. As he put it, "That sounds like democracy to me."24 Russia was awash in the blood of this Felliniesque hoax. But Lattimore gushed with admiration. Lincoln Steffens said famously after a visit to Stalin's Russia, "I have been over into the future - and it works."25 Theodore Dreiser wrote of the abject poverty in the Soviet Union: "There is poverty. There are beggars in the streets. But, Lord how picturesque! The multi-colored and volumi­nous rags on them!"26

From his hideout in Mexico, Trotsky denounced the show trials as a "frame-up," saying the confessions "contain such inherent improba­bilities" as to convince "any unprejudiced person that no effort was made to ascertain the truth."27 American liberals were evidently not the "unprejudiced" witnesses Trotsky had hoped for. In 1992, the Times referred to "recent revelations about Stalin's purges and other Soviet deeds."28 Who was hiding that from the Times?

While tens of millions were being executed, torn from their fami­lies, subjected to forced starvations as a matter of government policy, packed on trains, and sent to Siberian gulags in the glorious USSR, about two hundred people in America were blacklisted from a single frivolous industry. They could still go to Paris or sell real estate or do any number of things. They just couldn't work in the movies. That was the only price they paid for shilling for a mass murderer.

There is no evidence that a single person committed suicide because of McCarthy. One suicide preposterously but stead­fastly attributed to McCarthy was that of Ray Kaplan. The Kaplan suicide is a good example of how risible liberal propaganda becomes his­torical fact. The story began with McCarthy's investigation of a bitter dispute within the Voice of America about where to locate a satellite transmitter. It appeared to be more than a technical dispute. If, as some of the VOA engineers claimed, locating the transmitter in Seattle would frustrate the signal, it would defeat the whole purpose of VOA. Taxpayer money would be wasted on a useless installation that would not allow America's "voice" to be heard much beyond the greater Seat­tle area. The peculiar ken of some government engineers to locate the VOA transmitter where it was useless raised obvious questions.

Ray Kaplan was among those who opposed the Seattle installation. Naturally, therefore, when McCarthy held hearings on the transmitter dispute, Kaplan was happy to testify. But before he got the chance, Kaplan committed suicide by leaping in front of a truck. He left a sui­cide note, saying, "When the dogs are set upon you, everything you have done from the beginning of your life is suspect." Liberals simply assume the "dogs" referred to McCarthy - despite the fact that Kaplan was caught up in a rancorous battle within VOA. But blaming McCar­thy was consistent with the left's heartfelt belief that McCarthy was a brute and Communists were gentle little lambs. Whittaker Chambers might have told them otherwise.29

A few days after Kaplan's suicide, a particularly charming VOA employee, William Mandel, interrupted McCarthy's questioning to shout out, "You murdered Ray Kaplan!"30 And thus, notwithstanding its manifest absurdity, the story was set: McCarthy had somehow driven Kaplan to suicide by championing his cause.31 It would be as if Linda Tripp had turned up dead during the investigation of Bill Clin­ton, and liberals decided to blame Ken Starr. McCarthy was bewil­dered by the accusation, saying Kaplan "had no fear of this committee whatsoever." To the contrary, Kaplan had "expressed the desire to appear and testify."32

Like so much nonsense about McCarthy, the story of how he drove a sympathetic witness to suicide is now written into the history books. McCarthy biographer David Oshinsky strongly suggests McCarthy was to blame for Kaplan's suicide, sinisterly noting that McCarthy sus­pected foul play, but "the coroner disagreed."33 What does that prove? On the basis of the Communist Party's aggressive use of defenestration and other staged "suicides," McCarthy was not making rash assump­tions. But whether or not there was foul play, it is an undisputed fact that McCarthy was Kaplan's champion, not his inquisitor.

McCarthy's real "victims" were not sympathetic witnesses, frivolous Hollywood screenwriters, or irrelevant blowhard col­lege professors. They were elite WASP establishment policy-makers. Sedition always held a strange attraction for Ivy League types with three names, like John Stewart Service, Harry Dexter White, George Catlett Marshall, and William Sloan Coffin. It was a quirky thing about WASPs. They took perverse pride in harboring the periodic traitor. Their reaction to Alger Hiss was the concentrated expression of that sentiment. Even John Foster Dulles and Dwight Eisenhower had defended Hiss. Eisenhower was better than any Democrat, but he was part of the elite establishment. President Truman had tried to persuade Eisenhower to run as a Democrat, and Barry Goldwater ridiculed Eisenhower's policies as the "dime store New Deal."34 Damning Eisen­hower with robust praise when he won the Republican nomination, the New York Times called it "a people's victory."35

They all liked one another, these Anglophile blue bloods. They went to Yale, played cricket, became Rhodes scholars, wrestled in the mud together at the Skull and Bones society, and went to parties where Dean Acheson was invariably a guest. They were well-born and looked good in dinner jackets. Protecting traitors was part of the bonhomie of the ruling class. It was as if the WASPs had developed some XXY chromosome that led to overt treason. They had ruled magnificently for many years, but their blood had gotten thin. Angry ethnics like Joe McCarthy made much better Americans.

George Catlett Marshall was the prime example of the ruling elite's exasperating self-satisfaction. Marshall had been a superb mili­tary leader in World War II - principally by choosing General Dwight Eisenhower to lead the Allied forces. But Marshall went on to serve President Truman in various capacities, including as ambassador to China, secretary of state, and secretary of defense, and as a policy­maker. Marshall was the Zelig of disaster. He supported enormous con­cessions to Stalin at Yalta, including turning over Poland to the USSR. He helped consign a billion people to a totalitarian dungeon in China. He played a central role in Truman's firing General Douglas MacArthur. One has to observe only the veneration of Marshall on the PBS webpage to realize that his civilian career was not all sunshine and song.

There was rarely as incompetent a figure as Marshall, but the blue bloods brooked no criticism of their boy. When McCarthy attacked Marshall, the establishment reacted with sputtering rage. Contrary to popular mythology, McCarthy never called Marshall a "traitor," a "Communist," or a "coward."36 He simply detailed Marshall's record. Marshall had been implacably blind to the intentions of Mao's Communists. He doggedly refused to believe Mao was anything other than a simple agrarian reformer. An OSS officer desperately tried to warn Marshall that Mao was a Marxist, but Marshall was too busy put­ting the final touches on his bow tie for a fancy dinner party to listen. When Mao's second in command, Zhou Enlai, left a notebook on Mar­shall's private plane containing the names of Maoist spies who had infiltrated the Nationalist Chinese government, Marshall ordered his underling to return the notebook without even taking a little peek.37

Marshall's work in losing China to Communism was so impressive, he even won the Nobel Peace Prize for it. This represented a break with long-standing tradition to award the prize only to civilian peaceniks, such as Jimmy Carter, Rigoberta Menchu, Kofi Annan, Woodrow Wilson (for founding the League of Nations in 1919 and put­ting an end to war just in the nick of time), Amnesty International, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, and Linus Pauling.

Though his name adorns the Marshall Plan, it is a fact that George Marshall opposed the whole point of the plan. The Marshall Plan is rightly hailed as a crucial element in preventing a Soviet takeover of all of Europe. The United States poured billions of dollars into Western Europe to jump-start their war-torn economies. By allowing non-Communist European nations to flourish, the Marshall Plan strength­ened Western Europe, and immunized it from the allures of Soviet Communism. This precise virtue of the Marshall Plan was opposed by one George Marshall. Marshall never envisioned the plan as a weapon in the Cold War at all, but rather a pointless do-gooder welfare scheme for the world at large. In a proposal of stunning stupidity, Marshall wanted to include the Soviet Union and its satellite states in the Mar­shall Plan. As he put it in the speech credited with unveiling the plan, "Our policy is directed not against any party of doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos . . . Any government that is willing to assist in the task of recovery will find full cooperation, I am sure, on the part of the United States government."38

President Truman continued the charade, allowing Stalin to put in a bid, though the Republicans in Congress would never have approved a massive foreign aid program for the Soviet Union. In the event, Stalin haughtily turned down the Democrats' proposed largesse, not being overly concerned with the material well-being of his subjects. The Marshall Plan is now cited by liberals as a brilliant Democrat strata­gem against the Soviet Union. It was - but only despite Truman and Marshall. Fortunately, the actual Marshall Plan bore very little relation to what Marshall had proposed. The Republicans modified the "Mar­shall Plan" submitted by Truman in another way. Congress included hah0 a billion dollars in aid to Nationalist China and additional military aid to Greece and Turkey. Truman had requested no aid for Nationalist China whatsoever. Prescient little fellow that he was, Truman could already foresee that China would be lost and no one could be accused of "losing" it.

McCarthy was not the only Republican to attack Marshall, but he was the most penetrating.39 In an erudite sixty-thousand-word speech that was later turned into a book titled America's Retreat from Victory, McCarthy recited chapter and verse of Marshall's disastrous policy decisions. He began by saying, "I realize full well how unpopular it is to lay hands on the laurels of a man who has been built into a great hero. I very much dislike it, but I feel that it must be done if we are to intelligently make the proper decisions in the issues of life and death before us."40 He laid out his case for several hours one day on the Sen­ate floor - with facts and dates and names. Even McCarthy-haters admitted that his case against Marshall was based on a laboriously assembled record.41

After detailing Marshall's stunning naiveté toward Stalin and Mao, McCarthy made a remark that stung the entire liberal establishment: "If Marshall was merely stupid, the laws of probability would dictate that part of his decisions would serve America's interests."42

Liberals were aghast. Just because millions of people kept being enslaved as a direct result of their policies, it was no reason to get snippy. The New York Herald-Tribune proclaimed McCarthy's speech "an offense against good taste." Colliers said of McCarthy, "Why not spank him?"43 In their usual cogent style, liberals simultaneously called the speech a "stink bomb" and attacked McCarthy for the eru­dition of his speech, claiming it was so well written that he must have had a speechwriter. McCarthy's principal speechwriter on the Marshall speech was widely assumed to be the acclaimed journalist Forrest Davis.44 When President Kennedy had speechwriters, it was evidence of his elegance and grace. But when McCarthy had a speechwriter, it somehow showed the dark underbelly of the conservative movement. As was usually the case with anyone McCarthy attacked, Marshall was subjected to undeserved praise and liberal emoluments for the rest of his life. Richard Rovere hailed Marshall as "the very image of the strong, noble, gentle Southern man of arms" in the tradition of Robert E. Lee.45

No discussion of the victims of "McCarthyism" is complete without mentioning McCarthy's biggest star - Owen Lattimore. Joining a long list, Lattimore boasted that it was he who coined the word "McCarthy-ism." Lattimore came to McCarthy's attention after he was named as a Soviet agent by a former Communist. For many years, Louis Budenz had been a leader in the CPUSA (Communist Party USA) and editor of the Daily Worker. Other Soviet agents named by Budenz were con­firmed by the Venona Project.46 Among those he identified as a Soviet spy was Owen Lattimore.

Somewhat surprisingly, Lattimore's name has not yet turned up in the Venona cables as a Soviet agent. This glaring oversight can only be attributed to the limited number of cables that have been decoded. As the saying goes, if Lattimore wasn't being paid by Moscow, he was being gypped. Lattimore's friends were Soviet spies. His employees were Soviet spies. His associates were Soviet spies. He was hand-picked by a Soviet spy on Roosevelt's staff to "advise" Chiang Kai-shek. Thanks to Lattimore's learned counsel, U.S. policy-makers abandoned Chiang Kai-shek and supported Mao Zedong, the greatest mass murderer in history. If Lattimore was not the Soviet's "top espi­onage agent," as McCarthy claimed, McCarthy was still more accurate about Lattimore than Al Gore was in anything he ever said about the Internet.

When he was called before two Senate committees in the early fifties, Lattimore's first line of defense to McCarthy's charges was to indignantly deny ever having worked for the government. Evidence tending to contradict Lattimore's denial that he was "mixed up with the State Department" included the facts that he used an office at the State Department, he took phone calls at the State Department, and he answered mail addressed to Lauchlin Currie at the State Department.47 Currie was a top White House official and also a Soviet agent, proved by Venona.48 As White House liaison to the State Department, his office was in the State Department Building. In a letter dated June 12, 1942, Lattimore informed an acquaintance, "I am in Washington about 4 days a week, and when there can always be reached at Lauchlin Currie's office, room 228, State Department Building; telephone National 1414, extension 90."49

Lattimore also denied under oath that he had reviewed Currie's mail at the State Department:

ROBERT MORRIS, COMMITTEE COUNSEL: "[I]sn't it a fact that when Currie went away for a period of time he would ask you to take care of his mail at the White House?"


MORRIS: "Is it your testimony that you did not at the request of Lauchlin Currie take care of his mail at the White House when he was away?"

LATTIMORE: "That certainly is my statement."50

Then the committee produced a letter dated June 15, 1942, say­ing, "Currie asked me to take care of his correspondence while he is away and in view of your telegram of today, I think I had better tell you that he has gone to China on a special trip. This news is absolutely confidential until released in the press."51 For these and other lies before a Senate Committee, Lattimore was eventually indicted on seven counts of perjury. Despite the New York Times's ardent desire, occasionally printed as fact, Lattimore was never "acquitted" of the perjury charges. The charges against him were dismissed on technical grounds. But in the alternative universe created by the New York Times it is factually reported that "Mr. Lattimore was later acquitted of a per­jury charge."52

Liberals treated Lattimore like some sort of abstract intellectual, practically a poet, with no interest in politics whatsoever. To this day, liberals deny that Lattimore had any connection to the State Depart­ment, as if by refusing to admit something they can prevent it from being true. A 1995 column in the Washington Post stated, "Lattimore, of course, had never been in the State Department nor had he even served as a consultant to it."53 To say Lattimore had no effect on Amer­ica's China policy because he was not a permanent employee of the State Department would be like saying Dick Morris had no effect on Clinton's campaign strategy because he was not on the White House payroll. To be sure, Morris never drew green U.S. Treasury checks, but he was a close advisor to those who did. Lattimore actually was on the U.S. payroll, drawing paychecks from both the Office of War Information and the State Department as a member of the State Department's Pauley Mission to Japan.
1   ...   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   ...   44


Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconBooks on the Cold War

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconIn the decade after the end of the cold war

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconCold War Development of Scalar Interferometry

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconEast Asia in the Post-Cold War Era

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism icon1 New Approaches to Cold War: History and Current International Politics

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconThe Otherworld War (The Multiverse War) Cover Blurb

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconPaper presented at the International Conference on The History of the Cold War, Cortona, Italy, October 5–6, 2001

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconWar and peace? An agenda for peace research in geography. Nick Megoran, Newcastle University. Needs – engaging war. Maybe as crit geop section Abstract

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconAnTir/West war was lots of fun! The fighting was great! The results of the war met with an unfortunate accident so we can only assume AnTir won! (of course, we can as easily assume the West won!)

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconBiography
«terrorism, war, internal and external security» "terrorisme, guerre, sécurité intérieure, sécurité extérieure", unanimously awarded,...
Разместите кнопку на своём сайте:

База данных защищена авторским правом © 2014
обратиться к администрации
Главная страница