re: The Truth About McCarthyism: Modern Parallels

quote:

---

All screenwriters huh? Were they producing propoganda films?

---

Have you watched Hail Caesar, by chance? It touches on this in such a candid way that I can't believe they actually showed it.

Without spoiling much, it shows how a communist academic captures the minds of Hollywood screenwriters, among other plot lines.

The "problem" is that we may have elected The Manchurian Candidate. Look, the peeing stuff? Mox nix. Collaborating with our enemy to affect the election? (If proven) We can't have that. So, it must be investigated. Everyone agree there at least needs to be an investigation?

quote:

---

All screenwriters huh? Were they producing propoganda films?

---

You can research that yourself, but why does it matter? Do we not have freedom of expression?

quote:

---

You can research that yourself, but why does it matter? Do we not have freedom of expression?

---

No need to research it. You answered the question & confirmed exactly what I expected.

quote:

---

You can research that yourself, but why does it matter? Do we not have freedom of expression?

---

Forgive me if I believe that media that is explicitly antithetical to our enterprise shouldn't be viewed or questioned with a very leery eye.

The Republicans investigated Hillary every time she farted. We're not going to investigate whether the new President is the Manchurian Candidate?

quote:

---

That is stupid. If the committee had proof, they would have used it.

---

You are misinformed

The Venona project (1943–80) was a counter-intelligence program initiated by the U.S. Army’s Signal Intelligence Service (later the National Security Agency).[1] The purpose of the Venona project was the decryption of messages transmitted by the intelligence agencies of the Soviet Union, e.g. the NKVD, the KGB (First Chief Directorate) and the GRU (military intelligence).[2] During the 37-year duration of the Venona project, the Signal Intelligence Service decrypted and translated approximately 3,000 messages from Russian to English;[3] the Signal-Intelligence yield included discovery of the Cambridge Five espionage ring in the UK[4] and Soviet espionage of the Manhattan Project in the U.S.[5] The Venona project remained secret for more than fifteen years after it concluded, and some of the decoded Soviet messages were not declassified and published until 1995.

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.



LINK

quote:

---

HempHead

---

You'd love this presentation. It feels like listening to someone explain a spy novel. Especially how they sabotaged the Republic of China.

quote:

---

During the early war years, Service wrote increasingly critically harsh reports on the Kuomintang and Chiang Kai-shek. Service criticized the Nationalist government as "fascist," "undemocratic," and "feudal."[6] This caught the attention of John P. Davies, a Foreign Service Officer working as a diplomatic attaché to General Joseph Stilwell. In the summer of 1943, Davies managed to have Service, among two others, assigned to him to assist him in his duties. When the U.S. Army Observation Group, also known as the Dixie Mission, was formed to travel to the Communist territory, Davies selected John Service to be the first State Department official to visit the region.

---

quote:

---

John Service arrived in Yan'an, the headquarters of the Communist Party of China, on July 22, 1944. There Service met and interviewed many of the top leaders of the CPC, such as Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai. Service wrote many reports over the next four months that praised the CPC, and described its leaders as "progressive" and "democratic."[7] Once, Service wrote that "The Communists are in China to stay and China's destiny is not Chiang's but theirs."[8] He continued to criticize the Nationalists or KMT under Chiang Kai-shek as corrupt and incompetent in writing. Service and the other American political officers eventually advocated a policy of support for the CPC as well as the Nationalists. They believed a civil war was inevitable and that the CPC would triumph. If the U.S. supported the CPC in a coalition with the nationalists, they felt, the U.S. could steer the communists out of the Soviet orbit, where they might be pushed if antagonized by the United States.

The new U.S. Ambassador to China, Patrick Hurley, also tried to bring unity between the communists and the nationalists, but he failed to understand the political dynamic that caused the rift between the two parties, who would later become the two Chinas. Hurley initially accepted a five-point plan that would have brought the communists into a power-sharing arrangement with the nationalists. Chiang rejected this plan and countered with a three-point plan that would leave the communists with no real power in a government run by Chiang and his supporters. Hurley came to support Chiang's view exclusively. He rejected the recommendations of Service and the other Foreign Service officers to accept the growing power of the communists and to accommodate this power. Hurley eventually had Service and the rest of the political officers recalled from China. Hurley later blamed them for U.S. diplomatic failures in China.[9]

---

quote:

---

Here it is pal.

---

I would prefer that you not cut my statements in order to make your point, as you left out a very critical part of the statement

quote:

---

I believe that media that is explicitly antithetical to our enterprise shouldn't be viewed or questioned with a very leery eye.

---

ETA: I said "shouldn't" instead of "should" which is probably part of the confusion.