Reconsidering Joe McCarthy

Its time to rethink Our recent past; He Understood our Domestic Enemies

Slow work on Grant over the last month, but things are progressing as we hit 1870. More on that in a future post. This post is lengthy and why I have not posted in a while. I wanted to firm this up a bit.

Joe McCarthy, it is commonly argued by our “divine” elites, is a disgraced former Senator from Wisconsin who lied about the infiltration of communism in our government. Yet, he was pointing a light on the administrative state. The administrative state’s mouthpiece, the media, all parroted the government message. Take a look at one example, and note the inflamed language that in reality is far more incensed about McCarthy than McCarthy ever was about communists in our government:

When the media employs slanderous language like this—(McCarthy’s reign of Terror)—it is not just laughable, but not ever backed up by example. This is by design. A good amount of the people will accept the propaganda. There was no free market in government press release news agencies in the 1950s. Oh sure people knew the media was “liberal” but they had no idea it was essentially controlled by a ruling class already quietly going about their globalist business.

There was even fewer television networks—all were essentially the same. The only possible chance one had at catching any “conservative” news was the small local newspaper, which took liberty to edit AP news stories for bias. I know, because into the 1970s/80s we still did that, and I did that personally.

The other possible place one could find anything close to “conservative” news was from the stealthy Paul Harvey. But even he was broadcast mainly on country music stations, and though wildly popular, his reach was limited to that format for the most part. He got his break reading the news and became nationally syndicated in 1951.

McCarthy may have made mistakes, and gotten out over his skis, become infatuated with his own abilities, etc., yet those later missteps (if they were missteps!) do not not take away from his rather factual arguments. The enemies (the left, the “deep state”) was already firing on all cylinders by this time and they slandered and libeled the Senator. Meny such cases.

McCarthy’s influence did not just appear ex nihilo—he was, at least early on in his career, a cogent, and reasoned force on behalf of the republic. I will take one example—a speech he gave in the Senate on June 14, 1951.

The speech ravages in particular alleged “war hero” George Marshall. His career is notable, and even Winston Churchill praised him for helping to “organize” victory in WW2. For anyone who knows Churchill grand acumen, this is not necessarily high praise. At best, it is measured and limited praise.

Ultimately, he is known for the Marshall Plan. Marshall was for most of his career, a government employee serving in the army, but always in or near Washington D.C. It should be no surprise he ended up serving political positions after WW2 in the Dept. of State and Dept. of Defense. He jumped form one political appointment to another after the war. He was not, as it were, a military man of action; he was essentially a desk general.

To McCarthy.

The beginning of the speech is a fire:

…the facts which bear on the question of why we fell from our position as the most powerful Nation on earth at the end of World War II to a position of declared weakness by our leadership.

In fact, McCarthy believed we gave up victory in World War 2—the thesis of his long speech is that we essentially surrendered to the globalist cabal. If this sounds fantastically reckless to you, answer me this elitist: what wars have we “won” since WW2? Answer? ZERO. Not one. We have not sunk an aircraft carrier since 1945.

McCarthy was onto something.

I do not think we need fear too much about Communists dropping atomic bombs on Washington. They would kill too many of their friends that way.

What caused this effectual surrender? Our elites and most notably, the administrative apparatus in our government, like Marshall, made sure to make one weakening decision after another.

McCarthy spends most of his time speaking about the end of WW2 at Yalta where, Churchill was sidelined, and the USA sided with Stalin on almost every point of the post war landscape. The USA was stronk according to our experts in government, and yet,

we cannot pursue intelligent policies that would bring victory, nor can we make use of sound military principles which might minimize bloodshed and prevent the appalling destruction of Korea. We are in a war of alliance, yet our allies are at best nominal assistance and at worst a conflicting hinderance.

Wait what year did he say this? Yesterday? Sure seems like nothing has changed for over 70 years. Korea was the recent war we were losing at the time. McCarthy knew we were losing it.

How did this happen? Well with the progressive penchant for globalizing foreign policy through the United Nations—the Democrat demon child of the modern age. We could not prosecute the war because we had to get UN approval, and well, not all the members would approve.¹ Quaint. McCarthy thought this was national suicide.

He goes on:

We were not misled and enfeebled by abstractions such as collective security and by tortured, twisted reasoning of men of little minds and less morals who for the first time in the history of this Nation argue that we should not vigorously fight back when attacked and in every way possible protect the lives of our men for fear of making an enemy or potential enemy mad, and that we dare not win a war.

In fact Truman gave an address where he said “even IF we win the war. …” McCarthy rightly asks “IF?” The use of words—a hesitation, capitulation—were subtly questioning our own abilities to win. Why?

It is at this point, McCarthy goes into a long evidentiary expedition using the words of our own political actors and commanders—many who published books after WW2. It is a masterful use of their arguments against them.

In every instance before the close of the war, as we mopped up the operation, Marshall and the government assisted Stalin in a deliberate attempt to achieve their aims at the expense of ours. While we refused to assert our newly won powar dominance and make Russia submit, Russia was saying in the end, only they, or the USA would survive the next conflict. They also publicly stated their opposition to our interests—so much for them being an “ally.” Marshall appears to either ignore this, not take it seriously, or agreed with it.

Even during the war, Marshall’s malfeasance was evident. McCarthy quotes from Churchill’s Hinge of Fate, where Winston accounts that he had to cajole and beg the USA to open a front, but that he was rebuffed. This would eventually be called Operation Sledgehammer—a landing in France. Churchill wanted an invasion of the underbelly—North Africa. He was opposed to Sledgehammer because it would have placed Brits at the most risk—after all, they would have to execute it.

In the end, a flabbergasted Churchill blamed Marshall not only for the awful Sledgehammer plans, but also the nixing of the invasion of North Africa. Indeed, Marshall was overruled by FDR on some proposals, but always dragged his feet on winnable excursions. One example of this is he opposed, for the most part, the invasion of Sicily, and Italy. If that line would have been pursued, the USA could have cut off from Russia much of its territories it would come to control. It may have also ended the war sooner. How? Read on!

McCarthy notes of Churchill approvingly, the PM could see the long view clearly—he knew what Europe would become. McCarthy eloquently said “victory is one thing; where you stand at the end of the war is another.”² Eventually by 1943, Marshall prevailed more and more over Churchill. Italy was essentially abandoned and Stalin halted the troops from moving farther north. Marshall and Eisenhower agreed with all of this. Yet, if they would have continued, they would have struck Germany a mighty blow, and saved the Balkans from decades of tyranny.

This is where McCarthy’s use of primary sources is so compelling. Quoting from Robert E. Sherwood’s book from 1948:

Stalin then expressed the opinion that it would be unwise to scatter forces in various operations through the eastern Mediterranean. He said he thought Overlord (the name given the cross channel invasion) should be considered the basis of all operations in 1944 and that after the capture of Rome, the forces used there should be sent into southern France to provide a diversionary operation in support of Overlord. He even felt that it might be better to abandon the capture of Rome altogether.

Of course that never happened—but the British and US forces did not move out of Italy (that I know of). I believe the 10th Mountain Division stayed in Northern Italy the entire time and the British moved around the horn but stayed in the North. Still, the soft underbelly of the Germans were left to the Russians. Churchill wanted a tripartite shared rule of the Balkans—Soviets objected and USA did not insist Churchill’s point. Churchill was defeated on this point.

Again Sherwood: Stalin recognized Marshall wanted Overlord and so saw him as their “friend.” Stalin and his aids frequently praised Marshall to FDR—in any sane world this would be a red flag (Ha! A Pun!). In the end, the entirety of the Balkans were handed over to the Russians. And who was it who knew what the Balkans would become? No American politician, but a British Statesman saw it clearly (OK, and PATTON).

General Mark Clark in his 1950 book Calculated Risk noted (by McCarthy) that if the campaign in Italy proceeded, it would have changed the entire post-war history by weakening the Soviets: it was “one of the outstanding political mistakes of the war.”

Note: This all was a political decision made by those who squandered the strategic success that may have come from it. Who would that be? Eisenhower and Marshall, if not FDR himself. Clark was essentially sidelined after the war for daring to speak up about the inevitable mistake that came to pass. Many of the generals who opposed the opinions of Marshall were, by this time, sidelined. MacArthur would be one of those—more on this later.

McCarthy asks the right questions: Why were we stopped in Berlin? Why did Patton not take Prague? Etc., Etc. The answer is obvious. Marshall ❣️ Soviet and 🔪 UK. By the time the socialist Labour party took over in the UK, Mars`hall all of a sudden ❣️ the UK.

We have been reviewing General Marshall’s record as it applies to the war in Europe with an eye to his competence and the extant to which he backed up Stalin in political decisions

McCarthy was not doing anything outside the duties of anyone surviving in Congress—that is he deigned to dare to act as a member of Congress and conduct oversight. The military was not outside the purview of the Congress, and those who wanted to wield the power of Congress granted by the Constitution, were perfectly in bounds of the law and the spirit of our Founding.

McCarthy acted responsibly.

Driving the Stake into Marshall

McCarthy made a sound argument stating that it is not Marshall’s motives, it is his “actions” that should occupy our attention.

In a hearing before on the Hill, Robert Alexander in the visa division at State testified that a number of communists were allowed to enter our country. Marshall was Sec. of State at the time. Soon after his testimony, the State Dept notified Alexander he would be held accountable for his testimony—no whistle blower law then! But even now, it only applies to Dems not white hats, so…there still is no real whistle blower law.

Congress then found out through a CIA letter in response to a Senator’s question that many of these communists let in were of high rank in the communist party. Even the NY Sun reported that hundreds came into the country to “stir up trouble.” Also many had high positions in our government. This was all true by the way.

At this point McCarthy goes on for pages listing the intricate details of China’s communist takeover, and how Russia and Marshall played a role in assisting that development in all that. This led to the problems troops faced in Korea with the sudden attacks across the border from China communists without the ability of the troops to do anything about it in response—and certainly they were forbidden from speaking of the reality that was in fact going on.

It was Marshall (and other members at State like Alger Hiss!) who never said a contrary word about the Chinese Communists—in fact they were “liberal” at heart.³ They only had the interest in the progress of their own people. So kind!

There is nowhere in it a phrase suggesting that the United States has a stake in what happens to China. There is no indication of any special interest on the part of the country whose representative Marshall presumably was.

In essence, McCarthy notes that the USA funded the Chinese communists (Chairman Mao) by not giving assistance to Chang Kai-Shek—in other words, the state dept. helped Mao come to power. McCarthy could have made the point less subtle: In the globalist concerns for keeping the peace, and especially under the Marshall plan, which, gave monies and other assistance to the allies because, as Marshall put it, economic stability = political stability. This was seen as a way to stave off communism. At least in public speech it was part of the rationale for the plan. Never mind it also was not true even if it was a motive.

So we should not be shocked that it failed. U.S. policy actually helped communism to take root. That is McCarthy’s point.

McCarthy is also saying this: If you really want to prevent communism from spreading, you should have 1) struck Russia when they were weak at the end of the war, and not given them a stake-hold in the Balkans, and 2) helped the Chinese defeat the communists in China. McCarthy noted the inconsistency: Oh, you’ll help out Europe to “prevent communism” but then state it is not in your interest to help China “prevent communism?”

This was the foreign policy of the government under Truman that continued through Eisenhower. What was that policy? Talk strong on Communism in speech, but appease them in action. And, if you get into a conflict with them, do not really act as if you are going to win and then do not win.

the Unites States was then pursuing one policy with two contradictory Horns. Upon one horn, we were appearing to be standing in the friendly sponsorship of South Korea; on the other we were preparing to let her fall into the maw of Russian imperialism.

McCarthy notes that Owen Lattimore (no friend of the senator, and someone who was a progressive believing he had a scientific explanation for all of “politics”) wrote of Marshall’s mind that, “the United States [decided] to abandon [China, because] it was an untenable position.”⁴ Lattimore continued: Marshall made a plan to "allow them to fall without making it look as if the United States had pushed them."

Yes, the United States created Mao and elevated him all the way back including the time before WW2 concluded. Lattimore noted that we pushed Chang Kai-shek “over a cliff” in support of the reds. It appears it is still policy to support the Red Chinese now with the CCP.

Conclusion

The last three pages of the speech are rhetorical gold. I wish I could quote the entire thing, but in interest of space, the summation is that America stood at the pinnacle of power at the end of WW2. By 1951, it squandered its power and acted weakly. McCarthy is not exactly blame it all on the subversive communist elements in the administrative state and among our elites, but that is the motive he wants to convey. Incompetence certainly played a role here—the experts were idiots. However, at one point he asks of the civil servants in the state dept—just who are they speaking for?

McCarthy does not devleop it, but he had a sense that the government was circumventing the consent of the governed. He even stated that Truman (the presidency) had no control over his own brach because of the elements in the government that were unremovable and unelected.

On the same day as the McCarthy speech, MacArthur also gave a speech in Texas that was widely covered. I post the column below:

McArthur was removed for daring to speak out against the feeble response to the communist threat. Both he and McCarthy said we will not win wars like this, and so they have been proven correct.

I am sure there are events and information that people may bring up to defend, or explain better, the reasoning behind policy at this time. Details certainly matter. Yet that was not the purpose here. The overall trend of America’s weakness is the point that the public considered, and then rejected—in part because ALL the media and the ruling class had surrendered to our enemies. That point? America adopted a position of weakness after the war because of their ideological sympathy with leftist and communist thought. In that, not too few men were right, but every one of them were silenced.

This speech was the dagger in Marshall, however. It was McCarthy’s greatest scalp. Marshall resigned a few months later because of “health” reasons, but everyone knew McCarthy successfully prosecuted the man. The ruling class never forgave him for it. And while McCarthy would go on to state Eisenhower was a communist sympathizer, thus testing the patience of the public, it should be noted that Eisenhower’s farewell speech noted the war machine that had taken over much of the government. He was intimately aware of this problem inside our government, and did nothing about it except complain as he’s leaving office. WEAK.

McCarthy would die a few years later. According to the propaganda of the ruling class and their media dogs, he passed because of alcoholism that had overtaken him. He was embarrassed that his wild communist infiltration claims were “proven” to be not true. Laughable. He was correct. However, the cause of his death is unknown. His death certificate says he dies of hepatitis with a cause unknown. I will leave all that right there for you to chew on.

The ruling class and media libeled and slandered McCarthy to the point that even the people believed what he did was radical and untrue. We were not yet adept at how corrupt our government and our media was by then. A Democrat was elected in his place, and Republicans ran from his legacy. It was a major victory for the early deep state and one we are only now seeing the demonic fruits.

1. Congressional Record, 1st Sess., Vol. 97, Part 5, 6557.

2. Ibid., 6562.

3. Ibid., 6591.

4. Ibid., 6599.