As the title says....Were the US government really that paranoid about communism in the 70's? I'm English and don't know much about US politics. Just watched The Front and enjoyed it but was really suprised by how ridiculously over-paranoid the Government was portrayed to be! I know it was satirical, but was it accurate of the state of affairs at the time?
shareAlthough this movie was made in the 1970s, the movie was actually set in the 1950s when yes, the government was really that paranoid about communism over-throwing the government. It was post WWII, and McCarthyism was running rapant throuhgout washington, and instead of directing investigations into Congress, the heat was put on the entertainment industry- t.v. and movies. The movie was not "portraying" the Government to be so paranoid, they truly were that way with many writers, actors, and directors who were blacklisted at the time. Name names or lose your career. Woody Allen was satirical- the inquiries and commitees were not.
shareOK. Thanks for that. ;)
shareHUAC which was the one focusing on Hollywood (McCarthy did no investigations of Hollywood) preceded McCarthy
shareNot a bright spot in our nations history thats for sure. If there was ever a list of "the worst American of all time" MCcarthy and J. Edgar Hoover should be ranked in the top five imo.
shareYou should read the Venona reports (came to light after the fall of the USSR). Apparently...the rest weren't paranoid. Actually the commies had infiltrated and your "worst" Americans were right. And you are misguided and uninformed. There is nothing good or cool about communists. Ask the millions murdered by Stalin what they think about communism.
shareWe have to look at the history to best understand the McCarthy hearings, I think.
During the Spanish Civil war in the mid to late 1930's, when we were still experiencing the effects of the Depression, then, yes, many people did look to see what a better way of providing for thier family would be. And on paper -- Communism has good and bad aspects. The goal is about equality. It is about leveling the playing field. It is about providing for the proletariat. . .so of course, you would have had people inquiring about whether that was possibly a right choice. We were all working class then. And the Soviet Union and Stalin had literally transformed their country from a peasant society to a major industrial power by the end of the 1930's. This certainly caught the eye of many struggling Americans. ***Remember that time frame.
And in terms of the Spanish Civil War, after Franco revolted (having just lost the election months earlier)--the Italians and fascists (Nazis)came to his aid and the Communist Russians came to the aid of the Populists. That is an example of when some Americans got politically active and obviously generally against fascism. But the times were different. It was BEFORE WWII. Hitler was the problem. And it was AFTER WWII that we really became afraid of Communism and it spreading. It was during the Cold War.
Stalin took Marxist-Lenin Communist and changed it to his own, which is now know as Stalinism. . .and it did come to be based less on the philosophical and more on the ego of the man, as opposed to the initial idealogy. And many died if they challenged that ego.
And despite some other successes politically, that influenced how people thought.
But the question is, is it the political ideology you are discussing. . .or those associated with it? Indeed, they are different things.
For the most part, people did move on in their thinking. . .without Communism, as they recognized that it didn't work. But the people in the 50's were being questioned about a time that was absolutely not the same as the time they were living in then. Their actions were very often taken out of context to prove a point about something that was not even against the law. Now you can argue that, but that is a fact. You can disagree with Socialism or Communism or Liberal Democracy, but as Americans, we all are supposed to have the freedom to believe what we want. And those are valid political idealogies based on something.
And then they would either lose careers, have to lie to try to please the HUAC, name the names of their friends and then on top of that live with themselves.
I don't know just some thoughts.
Kelly
Are you saying that Marxism-Leninism was a better brand of communism than Stalinism? Really?
Regarding the whole McCarthism myth, I could maybe take some of those Hollywood types seriously if they acknowledge that some... any... one of the individuals accused of unamerican activities deserved it. However, they seem to be in complete denial, kind of like those who deny the Holocaust ever happened.
Are you saying that Marxism-Leninism was a better brand of communism than Stalinism? Really?
First, is that question because I am saying either form is "good"?
Because I'm not--saying that either form is good, that is. But I don't think that we, as a society take time enough to really know what it is that we are talking about.
I try to research things, and I just keep on learning.:)
Anyway, I wasn't saying one over the other, I was simply stating that they were different. And that there did tend to be more of an initial philosophical basis for Marxism-Leninism---I'm talking about the actual idealogy---the formations of what they wanted to achieve.
Stalinism took that and really is more about a style of governing. It is much less about the ideals, then it is about the meat.
At least that is my understanding.
In terms of it being a Myth, I would say that it is a combination. Certainly there were those who had affiliations. And others who did not. And people had years ruined because of it. . .because of a political belief that was not illegal, but very unpopular and in the midst of a cold war.
I read somewhere though that a member of the Hollywood Ten said that people still claim that they were victims or political martyrs. And he said that that simply wasn't true. They weren't martyrs, they just did what they had to.
I certainly understand your point. It gets a bit extreme. There really need to be some middle ground.
Kelly
Try being Right-wing in show business today. They troll the Internet to find examples of past "racism," "sexism" "homophobia "etc.
shareThe facts that there were spies here (and pretty much everywhere else in the world), and that the Soviet empire was rotten to the core, and that Stalin was an unspeakable monster who caused more people to be killed than Hitler ever did, do not justify persecuting and ruining the lives of people who had (for instance) supported the anti-fascists in the Spanish Civil War, or supported labor unions, or signed petitions for causes that appeared, at the time, to be just and right.
Indeed there were many good (some even cool) people who idealistically thought that some degree of socialism would be good for U.S. society, especially in light of the egregious injustice, corruption and lopsided economic situations that plagued so much of this country. Those with any real sense were quickly disillusioned with the Soviet regime, once they came to see, hear or experience what it really was like. But to persecute them for being attracted to a system where (so they were told) people help each other, don't make workers into barely more than slaves in order to put still more millions into the pockets of corrupt fat cats who already have far more wealth than they and their families could ever use, and where racial and ethnic discrimination don't exist--to persecute them for thinking that sounded like a good idea, is simply wrong. Having shining ideals for one's society and country, even ones that turn out to be unattainable, does not constitute treason. So, fine, prosecute the real criminals and traitors, but the HUAC, McCarthy and his bunch went far beyond that, runined many lives and helped create a nightmare episode for our country.
I think a few messed up lives to stop the spread of communism is fine. "The egregious injustice, corruption and lopsided economic situations" were far worse in commie countries than it ever was in America. And---if all the other systems were so attractive, why didn't they move over there and join them. Why? Was is because they liked the freedom American offered? Like the millions of illegal immigrants who are here. I don't see "slaves to fat cats" getting in makeshift rafts to escape the US to reach the socialist paradise of Cuba...no, in fact, it's the other way around. And finally...the nightmare episode created by McCarthy was nothing compared to the horrors of a Soviet dominated United States he was fighting against. And what's more...McCarthy was right.
shareWhat are you smoking? The loss of freedom for anybody is unamerican; if people want to be opressed, then it's a breach of the first ammendment to disallow that.
But a similar situation can be seen as Bush invaded Iraq. The Iraqis fought against the invasion for precisely the same reason that Americans fought against Soviets (they don't want to change their way of life, even though the new way might be better). But I guess that just proves that the Soviets just didn't want us. Who would? The country of decadence and imports?
I seriously doubt that McCarthy was right or the blacklist was needed. Very few people would have turned to communism because Americans are a bunch of materialistic, self-serving zealots whose religion is dictated by billboards and TV commercials.
I'd like to note that I'm mostly apolitical. I don't believe that there's anything wrong or right about communism or any other regime. They all look good on paper, but are ultimately ruined by the evil politicians that run the government. The same is true for America, where the government has been bought by Microsoft and the film and music industry. No matter what the country and what the regime, it'll fail eventually.
Oh brother.
Okay, most Russians were not happy under communism. That is not to say that they have a perfect or even good econonic system now, but it is too soon after the fall of communism to make ultimate judgments. And by the way, it is laughable to say there was no racism or prejudice under the Soviet system. Ask a few Russian Jews...
Well, of course the situation was far worse in Russia; anyone who argues the contrary is a fool. But to imply that it excuses anything is fairly ridiculous in itself. If the Nazis kill millions of people, am I excused in walking across the street and shooting my neighbor? It's "better," isn't it? Maybe if I just slap him around a bit. Actually, I have reason to believe he runs a child pornography ring. I can't tell you where I got my information, but trust me, I'm an honest guy. So, let's say I shoot my neighbor, and when his house is being cleared out the movers find crates filled to the brim with illegal porn hidden under the floorboards and previously unbeknownst to anyone but the dead pervert! Yeah, McCarthy was right, in a manner of speaking, but his failure to provide evidence for his accusations is inexcusable, regardless of whether they hit the mark or not. There were indeed spies on our soil who deserved appropriate consequences for their actions, but here's a huge difference between grandstanding politicians and NSA/CIA/MI5 guys gathering and analyzing intelligence to protect their countries.
shareSome facts:
1. Both Fascist and Communist dictatorships killed their own people. But Fascist dicatorships did so at nowhere NEAR the rate of Communist dictatorships. Whenever anyone tried to say such in the 50's, 60's, and 70's, the liberal American press denied such allegations, and called the accuser a "McCarthyite".
2. We have freedom in America. If anyone wants to be a Communist, thats fine with me. However, most of the Communists in America were loyal to the Soviet Union, which was our enemy, and devoted to destroying our way of life. This complicates things.
3. America was in a war. No, it wasnt a shooting war, but it was a serious war just the same. Had we lost it, our way of life wouldve ended. And, as most agree today, its the best way of life. Idiot leaders not withstanding.
>1. Both Fascist and Communist dictatorships killed their own people. But Fascist dicatorships did so at >nowhere NEAR the rate of Communist dictatorships. Whenever anyone tried to say such in the 50's, >60's, and 70's, the liberal American press denied such allegations, and called the accuser a >"McCarthyite".
It's completely untrue that Stalin's crimes went unreported by the "liberal" American press during the decades you mention. In fact, Khrushchev announced it all to the world in 1956, and it's been part of the historical record since then. As for Fascism, the Nazis under Hitler certainly took as many innocent lives as Stalin did. "Liberal" Hollywood blacklisted Americans who weren't even Communists anymore, why would you believe the press would protect Stalin's rep?? Ever heard of the red-baiter Walter Winchell?
>2. We have freedom in America. If anyone wants to be a Communist, thats fine with me. However, >most of the Communists in America were loyal to the Soviet Union, which was our enemy, and >devoted to destroying our way of life. This complicates things.
I'll take you up on your logic - 1) we have freedom in America, ergo 2) it's fine if anyone wants to be a Communist. The fact is, it was NOT fine under the law and paranoid atmosphere in the late 40s through 50s to belong to the CPUSA, which was treated as a criminal conspiracy and not given the protection afforded to political beliefs. The fact is, the people being persecuted were NOT even members of the Communist Party when they were before HUAC. Some of them belonged in the 30s, when capitalism 1.0 had failed big time and fascism threatened to take over the world. Almost all of those left when they realized communism wasn't a grassroots movement but one controlled by Moscow, either that or they were expelled. Others never belonged, but were "fellow travelers" - disciples of Trotsky. Many if not most of them were Jewish, which was a factor in their persecution.
But really it's not about whose right or wrong or more evil. This is about beliefs, and in America no one should have to betray their beliefs or conscience. That is the rock of the very first Amendment in our Bill of Rights, which allows us to be Americans in the first place. If you look at the writers blacklisted by Hollywood, you'll see that even after exile and devastation, they returned to make some of the best movies in the 60s and 70s.
>3. America was in a war. No, it wasnt a shooting war, but it was a serious war just the same. Had we >lost it, our way of life wouldve ended. And, as most agree today, its the best way of life. Idiot leaders >not withstanding.
To pervert the Bill of Rights, and make people betray their conscience, is to begin to end our way of life. Can you imagine that something you think in good faith will end you in jail?? It doesn't matter if it's right or wrong - lots of people believe in ID or Scientology or the Confederacy, but this is America and we don't imprison people or fire them or force them to testify against themselves because of it.
The idea that since the other side is "more" evil we should be allowed to get away with some stuff is the horrible sort of logic that leads to My Lai and napalm and Abu Ghraib, not to mention Pinochet and the contras and the Shah. The argument "America was at war" was used in all those cases. Equally wrong is the idea that this method is more effective in preserving our way of life. With all that napalm and all the atrocities, we still lost Vietnam. Who would have thunk it?
To be American, to be a democracy, means we are different in kind, not in degree.
To say that we were better than Stalin, is really weak.
good god. what kind of headcase are you? Your only two post are on this? You somehow don't strike me as someone who's actually sat down and even watched the Front. If you ever wondered why your country has such an image problem abroad then views like that play right into the hands of those who are quite happy to see America burn.
But as to the 70s and american paranoia. I recently saw the US vs John Lennon doc and there's enough in that to show that as long as idiots like Hoover and Strom Thurmond are influential then America isn't quite so fond of free debate. And more recently, the doc on Murdoch's Fox News, Outfoxed.
[deleted]
>> I think a few messed up lives to stop the spread of communism is fine. <<
That's because you're a self centered rectum... a follower of that drunken demagogue McCarthy.
For what it's worth (for those who stumble on this thread in the future), the large point that (I can't believe I actually have to say this next part) supporters of McCarthy are missing is that people were persecuted for an ideological belief on American soil. That people were communists is totally irrelevant to whether or not they were spies, and the valid methods of exposing spies did not then, and do not now, include holding congressional hearings to grill artists about whether they did or didn't read certain magazines.
So whether or not communists had infiltrated government is irrelevant. McCarthy's persecution of anyone who dared to hear out supporters of different political philosophies is not vindicated by the fact that somewhere, someone involved in government was a spy.
You are lecturing, yet you get your facts WRONG. Please learn some history. McCarthy concentrated on people in the government. He was chairman of the Senate Government Operations committee. McCarthy focused on Department of Defense and state personnel. We know now that while there were excesses, in some of the most famous cases McCarthy was correct
The Hollywood Blacklist is about HUAC, which started in 1938, a few months after Stalin and Hitler created an alliance that enabled them to start World War two by jointly invading Poland. This even led to a split in the US communist party and US communists themselves were infighting and exposing each other.
HUAC, which was a Democrat dominated committee, concentrated on views of people in the press and entertainment worlds. BTW. Bobby Kennedy was one of the most energetic staffers on that committee
We know now that while there were excesses
in some of the most famous cases McCarthy was correct
a few months after Stalin and Hitler created an alliance that enabled them to start World War two by jointly invading Poland.
And you, genius, ask the millions of 10 year-old African children who work in illegal conditions for ten cents what they think about capitalism. Oh, actually, I don't think they are even in conditions of answering that.
But, anyway, it doesn't matter, since they aren't Americans, right?
Using Stalin as an example of communism is like using Reagan as an example of democracy. And I hope you (well, not you, nhminilab, but the other people reading this post) know what I mean.
(Sorry for my poor english, but it's not my everyday language)
Reagan was democratically elected and did a really good job.
shareIt was perfectly legal to be a Communist in the U.S of the 1950's just as it is legal now. it is equally legal to be right wing.
I think there was and still is plenty of 'good' in being socialist or communist. 'Cool' is not really a political term.
A wonderful democracy like the U.S.A needs broad political perspectives. the witch hunts were a stain on American democracy.
pretty tough competition for that top 5 mind you.
shareIn the 1950's and 1960's, there was a great deal of propaganda about the dangers of Communism. Communists were supposed to have sent agents to infiltrate college campuses and cause them to protest in the Civil Rights movement, etc. We children were supposed to beware that evil Communists could somehow drug us and cause us to give up the American way and to be converted into dispicable Communists. Communists also tried to contaminate our milk and do all kinds of things that a good public health department should have been able to defeat.
However, on February 21, 1972, Nixon, a former anti-Communist who made his career as an anti-Communist crusader, started breaking down the barriers by visiting "Red China." See http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/21/newsid_2728000/2728761.stm
Later that year, during the week of May 22-30, 1972, "Nixon Meets with Brezhnev," http://www.coldwarfiles.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=events.details&thisunit=0&eventid=333.
Therefore, by the time the movie, The Front was released, relations between the US and Communist countries had been reëstablished, and the movie was not considered to be scandalous, although there were some who were uncomfortable with it.
The "Hollywood Ten" were blaclisted by HUAC (House Un-American Activities Committee). Senator Joseph McCarthy as his title suggests was a SENATOR. He was NEVER a member of the House. The lies about McCarthy have been told so many times that they are now thought to be the truth. McCarthy was a patriotic American, he wanted to know why there were Communists in high level positions of government and the armed forces. With the release of "The Venona Papers" (the actual Soviet cables of the '30's, '40's, and '50's) in the late 1990's, McCarthy was proven right. There REALLY were (proven) Communist spies in high levels of government. Maybe McCarthy's methods were a little harsh, but he was Not the monster he is made out to be. Please read The Venona Papers before you lash out at this comment.
shareBRAVO!
FINALLY, someone who knows the difference betwen HUAC and McCarthy!
-30-
My God, a little disambiguation, and you wet your pants. McCarthy was a liar and a bully who produced no evidence to support his claims, as opposed to the legitimate intelligence organizations, you know, like the FBI, who were actually privy to real information concerning Communist inflitration. McCarthy lied waving laundry lists in his hand, lied about there being shrapnel in his body, lied about the age of his opponent during his first political campaign, and was censured by the United States Senate and denounced by the United States Army, and by Presidents Eisenhower and Truman. If anything, Venona proves that McCarthy, by blurring the lines of innocence and guilt, served as the most effective operative the Soviet Union ever had. Anyone who defends him not only needs a reality check, but a good dose of sunshine and some time away from their Anne Coulter books.
sharePresident Truman once called McCarthy, "the best asset the Kremlin has". McCarthy once went so far as to accuse George Marshall, Truman's Secretary of Defense, architect of the Marshall Plan for the post-war reconstruction of Europe, and winner of the 1953 Nobel Prize, of being part of a "conspiracy so immense and an infamy so black as to dwarf any previous venture in the history of man". Perhaps the most depicable example of his bullying was when, during his cross-examination of one General Zwicker, a WWII battlefield hero, McCarthy was not getting the answers he wanted and felt the need to liken the General's intelligence to that of a "five year old child" and stated the General was "not fit to wear that uniform". This from a guy who got injured during the war by falling from a ladder. Edward R. Murrow said the following on his show: "His primary achievement has been in confusing the public mind, as between the internal and the external threats of Communism. We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men." Of course, he was then accused by McCarthy of being a communist. In 1953, Vermont Republican Senator Ralph E. Flanders stated, ""Were the Junior Senator from Wisconsin in the pay of the Communists he could not have done a better job for them." On December 2nd, 1954, the United States Senate voted 67-22 to "condemn" McCarthy on charges of that he "failed to cooperate with the Subcommittee on Rules and Administration", "repeatedly abused the members who were trying to carry out assigned duties", and 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". And when records and transcipts of from the McCarthy-chaired Senate subcommittee's closed meeting were released to the public in 2003-2004, Senators Susan Collins(R-ME) and Carl Levin(D-MI), composed the following preface: "Senator McCarthy’s zeal to uncover subversion and espionage led to disturbing excesses. His browbeating tactics destroyed careers of people who were not involved in the infiltration of our government. His freewheeling style caused both the Senate and the Subcommittee to revise the rules governing future investigations, and prompted the courts to act to protect the Constitutional rights of witnesses at Congressional hearings... These hearings are a part of our national past that we can neither afford to forget nor permit to reoccur."
share[deleted]
This is all hearsay. You are actually repeating comments by Senator McCarthy haters. Why don't you read McCarthy's ACTUAL words? Available is "Congressional Record" Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy, Delivered In The United States Senate 1950-1951. Gordon Press 1975. This is NOT hearsay, but speeches and debates made on the Senate floor and in The Congressional Record. Including "Retreat From Victory" the REAL George C. Marshall story. Oh, and Marshall's original "Marshall Plan" included hundreds of millions in aid to The Soviet Union. Then read "The Venona Papers" 1995, the actual Soviet cables of the 1940's and 1950's. Yes, there were (now proven) Communist spies in high levels of the government. Learn to think for yourself. As I stated in an earlier post, the lies about McCarthy have been repeated so many times, that they are now thought to be the truth. The truth is in the reality of McCarthy"s speeches, NOT comments made by Liberals who despised him for rooting out spies like Harvard's Alger Hiss. By the way McCarthy wasn't "CONDEMNED" (See how liberal history can change the words?)he was CENSURED.
shareYou mean "liberals" like Dwight D. Eisenhower and Ralph E. Flanders and Susan Collins? And attacking Marshall again, dignifying loon conspiracy theories and waving around the Venona Cables, which compiles information from sources McCarthy was not privy to? And as for "Retreat From Victory", there are people who've written books saying that the world is flat, that evolution is a crock, and that man didn't land on the moon, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. And FYI, "condemn" was the word used in the "censure" resolution. But I am sure that if I had written that McCarthy was "censured", you would have replied that he was "condemned", and then you would have followed that statement with the same lame crack about "liberals" distorting history. This from a guy who admires a guy who called Gen. George Marshall an "evil genius".
shareLet's agree to disagree. You believe the line that McCarthy was a monster who ruined lives and left suicides in his wake. I believe that McCarthy was a patriotic American who just wanted to find out the truth about security risks in high levels of government and the armed forces. I believe his investigations were thwarted by the liberal press and the good ol' boy network of Ivy Leaguers. You do know that after he got out of jail, Alger Hiss had a "Chair" named for him at Harvard? "McCarthy never was privy to the Venona Cables"? To me that shows he was ahead of his time in his investigations into security risks in high levels. 'Nuff said. I do not want to argue with you. Good luck to you, and keep your faith. That is what makes America great. And thanks for not getting personal, so many people use personal invectives to try to discredit others. Sincerely, Stanley
shareby stanleybix-1 (Mon Apr 9 2007 05:41:19)
I believe that McCarthy was a patriotic American who just wanted to find out the truth about security risks in high levels of government and the armed forces.
AGREED! McCarthy may have had his faults, but basically, I think he was pretty much on the money.
Marshall was partly responsible for the loss of China.
shareMarshall was partly responsible for the loss of China.
shareRe: Were the US government really that paranoid about communism in the 70's?
by - stanleybix-1 on Sat Aug 5 2006 19:19:04
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Maybe McCarthy's methods were a little harsh, but he was Not the monster he is made out to be. Please read The Venona Papers before you lash out at this comment."
Thank you for your post about Senator Joseph McCarthy, even though I'm a little late. I, also feel that McCarthy was essentially accurate in his beliefs. In 1965, I never thought I'd live to see the day when college students would riot, turn on the military and society in general. Little did I know that I'd be proven wrong about four to five years later. Thanks about the tip about the Venona Papers.
A few random responses to McCarthy supporters:
According to Richard Rovere's book about McCarthy, McCarthy was casting about for an issue that would bring him notice and plucked communism out of the air over dinner with someone.
Every detail in "The Front" originates in actual events. Cf the books "Naming Names," "Inside Out," "Tender Comrades," "I'd Hate Myself in the Morning," "The Lardners," and others.
HUAC and McCarthy were obviously not the same, but they did the same things in different Congerssional houses. HUAC was a permanent House committee that originated in a temporary committee active decades before. HUAC remained active through the 1960s or early 1970s. Red-baiting has occurred off and on in US history throughout the 20th century. Eleanor Roosevelt was constantly slandered by red-baiters, as were the labor movement and unions.
McCarthy's reign of terror was finally put to rest when he fabricated accusations that the Army had been infiltrated by communists. The Army's counsel, Welch, said famously to him, "Sir, have you no decency?"
Some people named names to save their careers. Others did it for money: paid informers, who made up whatever they had to (see "Deadly Farce: Harvey Matusow and the Informer System in the McCarthy Era.")
Anyone who says that just "a few lives" were worth the sacrifice (1) can't count and (2) would probably be the first to squawk if blacklisted (for a decade!) or imprisoned by mistake.
People were blacklisted for being in the communist party in this country when it was perfectly legal, decades before Stalin.
People were blacklisted because their names were confused with other people's (as in the brief Harry Stone scene in "The Front").
People were blacklisted for being antifascist (Ring Lardner, Jr, one of the Hollywood Ten, was accused of being a "premature antifascist").
People were blacklisted for donating money to Russian war relief (when Russia was a U.S. ally) and for signing petitions that had nothing to do with communism.
People were blacklisted because they had been part of the Group Theater.
An actress was blacklisted because cars were seen in front of her house when parked for a meeting at a neighbor's house.
People were blacklisted for signing petitions.
People were blacklisted for knowing people who knew people who knew people...
People were blacklisted for supporting Paul Robeson, the actor, singer, and intellect. After Robeson's 1949 Peekskill, NY, concert, he and those in the audience were viciously, physically attacked by racists.
Two wrongs do not make a right. Because Stalin was an evil dictator does not justify the deprivation of livelihood and the civil rights assured by the US Constitution.
But sure, praise McCarthy and avoid movies in which blacklistees participated. (The American Legion organized movie boycotts in the 1950s.) You won't see "M*A*S*H" or "The Bishop's Wife," or you might want to avoid Sean Penn films (his father was blacklisted). Too many to mention, but they're catalogued in "Blacklisted: The Film Lover's Guide to the Hollywood Blacklist." You'll want to avoid the work of the playright Berthold Brecht, a refugee from the Nazis who came to America only to be hounded out after being one of the Hollywood 19 (later, the Hollywood Ten).
Some blacklistees changed careers or took their lives. Others (while they still had passports) left the country, temporarily or permanently, to work in Mexico, Italy, England, and France, somehow without bringing down the governments of those countries.
And what is fascinating are the modern parallels. By that rather twisted "brake a few eggs" rationale, the United States government can imprison anyone they please for indefinite periods of time without being charged or sent to black sites to be tortured using "enhanced interrogation" techniques. Or the violating the rights of the few for the better good, or some such rubbish. We must oppose such behavior at all costs, as free thinkers and as a society that believes in freedom, not the "freedom" that Dubya yammers on about.
share[deleted]
The 70s???
I continue to be amazed at the willful ignorance of kids who have grown up with 24 hour per day access to virtually limitless information.
>The 70s???
>I continue to be amazed at the willful ignorance of kids who have grown up with 24 hour per day access to virtually limitless information.
In your desperate bid to be seen and reply with a witty remark, I'd advise you to actually 'read' the first few posts in this forum. The confusion was by someone who said they weren't American and weren't that familiar with American history. This was cleared up by the second poster. So bravo for reading the topic and replying without reading the message.
Yes, the country was that paranoid and fearful and worse. Many, many innocent lives were destroyed and so needlessly. The entertainment industry as others noted was overwhelmingly targeted in what I think was a way for the politicians like McCarthy and Richard Nixon to gain headlines. Many people attacked were: using their rights of free speech were members of the communist party but saw it much the same way as people saw the republican and democratic party membership or as many today are still members of the Communist party and every four years they run a candidate for the Presidential election. There were also those who merely supported and organized and donated money, food and supplies to our World War 2 ally, Russia. Then there were those who were deemed communist and never were. A famous example of this is the academy award winning actress Lee Grant who was branded a communist simply because she gave a eulogy at the funeral of the great character actor, J. Edward Bromberg. Ms. Grant's career was running high from her Cannes Film Festival award as best actress in "Detective Story", but due to the black list it was over 25 years before she appeared in another film. J. Edward Bromberg and John Garfield were among those who actually died from the stress of being persecuted by the government. And in this film as many stated Lloyd Gough, director Martin Ritt and the late, great Zero Mostel were blacklisted as well.
shareMcarthy did no investigation of Hollywood. McCarthy investigated State and Defense. And in addition to using bad methods he did uncover plots and spies that we now know since the opening of Russian archives, were in fact soviet spies
AS far as Hollywood hat was an investigation by Democrat dominated Committee. Robert F. Kennedy whom the left idolizes was one of the most rabid anti communists attacking Hollywood.
And you don't mean Nixon was destroying people like Lee grant --you mean both Robert and John KENNEDY
I couldn't agree more, JimmyJazz35. What's even more pathetic is that those supporting McCarthy, especially those not even born until after his death, don't even realize that McCarthy was essentially an opportunist, not a patriot. If defending Communists had been the path to political success, he would just as gladly have taken that approach. All he wanted was a visceral, hot-button issue he could ride to the top.
Also interesting is their contention that being a Communist, or believing in some ideas labeled as Communist, was somehow illegal. Actively trying to overthrow the government? Yeah, THAT was illegal -- though the most rabid right-wingers of today, who advocate the very same thing, call themselves patriots, don't they? But simply belonging to a political party, even the Communist Party, wasn't a crime; and not everyone who believed in some Communist or even just socialist ideas was scheming to destroy America.
Funny how so many right-wingers say in one breath, "We're the greatest country on earth because of all our freedoms!" Yet whenever someone tries to make use of those freedoms in a way they don't like, look out! Treason! Un-American! You know the regurgitated sound bites ...
Exactly right. First and foremost McCarthy was a politician interested in accruing power. After that came his supposed patriotism. More people were blacklisted for NOT TALKING about ANYTHING than were ever proved to have been communists. This movie has it exactly right, except that until McCarthy was called out by fellow Senators there was no one who could have gotten away with telling the committee to F itself. Franklin Roosevelt told the nation "We have nothing to fear except fear itself," and though he was talking about the financial situation in the Great Depression, it has never been proven more conclusively than by the havoc created by Joseph McCarthy as chair of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
"The value of an idea has nothing to do with the honesty of the man expressing it."--Oscar Wilde
Please learn some history. McCarthy concentrated on people in the government. He was chairman of the Senate Government Operations committee. McCarthy focused on Department of Defense and state personnel. We know now that while there were excesses, in some of the most famous cases McCarthy was correct
The Hollywood Blacklist is about HUAC, which started in 1938, a few months after Stalin and Hitler created an alliance that enabled them to start World War two by jointly invading Poland. This even led to a split in the US communist party and US communists themselves were infighting and exposing each other.
HUAC, which was a Democrat dominated committee, concentrated on views of people in the press and entertainment worlds. BTW. Bobby Kennedy was one of the most energetic staffers on that committee
Your droning about McCarthy when the UAC was before him, and the Hollywood ten as 1947, shows you ignorance of US history
All you have on your side is misinformation and namecalling. There's nothing in your post I have to answer. History is past and can't be changed. I was alive then, and saw it happen.
"The value of an idea has nothing whatsoever to do with the sincerity of the man who expresses it."
You go the fact completely wrong, were corrected with objective facts, and now throw a hissy fit?
Your statement was totally incorrect. Don't blame me.
Prove what you posted are "objective facts." Give me a link to a verifiable reference.
"The value of an idea has nothing whatsoever to do with the sincerity of the man who expresses it."-Oscar Wilde
Not really, it was the '-ism' du jour. Since then there's been druggism, welfarism (for poor people that is, not rich bastards), Islamism and constitutionalism.
Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.