History Lesson: Tail-Gunner Joe, "A Conspiracy so Immense"

William F. Buckley says: "McCarthy's record is... not only much better than his critics allege, but, given his metier, extremely good.... [he] should not be remembered as the man who didn't produce 57 Communist Party cards but as the man who brought public pressure to bear on the State Department to revise its practices and to eliminate from responsible positions flagrant security risks."

Elliot Abrams says: "McCarthy did not need to show that specific employees were guilty of espionage; they needed only to show that there was some evidence that an employee was a security or loyalty risk, and that the State Department... had willfully overlooked it.... What were the charges? They ranged from accusations of actual espionage--handing secret documents over to Soviet agents--to involvement in dozens of Communist-front organizations.... Buckley and Bozell asked, 'Did McCarthy present enough evidence to raise reasonable doubt as to whether all loyalty and security risks had been removed from the State Department?' The verdict rendered here is that he did. In most of his cases McCarthy adduced persuasive evidence; the State Department's efforts stood condemned; and the screams of 'Red Scare' were efforts to occlude the truth."

Here's what Joe McCarthy says:

Tail Gunner Joe: Joe McCarthy's Senate speech of 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 bad the ability to associate good Americans around him, be 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 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 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 MacArtbur 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.

It was Marshall, with 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 194S.

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."

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.

How, if they would, can they, break these ties, how 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 be did, be 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 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 do, 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 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.

Comments

[Samuel Knight]

To summarize: McCarthy tried to rip apart the reputations the two men who more than any others won the Cold War: Harry Truman and George Marshall. Harry Truman because he implemented the containment strategy and George Marshall because he conceived and guided the Marshall Plan that built the front line democracies who ended up being the "free world".

That's the issue that Democrats should be talking about today. Republicans always talk about macho bullshit, but Democrats put in place the strategies to win the wars in WW II, Korea, and the Cold War. Yes, Vietnam was a disaster, but let's remember that Nixon was President during a longer period of time than Johnson.

[James Wimberley]

So it was Joe McCarthy who invented the phrase "the world-wide web"!

[ccobb]

I was trying to think of some intelligent thing to add, but the strongest thought running through my head is, man, that dude was f**king nuts.

[Steven Donegal]

But McCarthy was right...Alger Hiss was a Communist. So there!

[marcel]

Brad: I am not sure whether to be impressed or worried at your command of McCarthy's speeches and the (dead-trees version no less) history of the NR. Is this just preparation for the day you forget to buy toilet paper? Is there some deep dark secret in your past such as that you are, like Garry Wills, a former acolyte of Buckley?

[dcbob]

Yes, like the proverbial stopped clock, McCarthy turned out to be right about something. BFD. The rest of his agenda was as dopey as that of his ideological ancestors and descendants. English-speaking conservatives have been pushing the War on Terrorism theme since printing presses gave them access to an ignorant, credulous public - it's a nearly unbroken line at least back to early Stuart-era Puritans harping about a second Armada.

My dad joined the Foreign Service in 1952, and despite the fact that he was a West Point grad and a Korean war vet, the fact that one of his academic references had been a communist in the 1920s kept him from being assigned to a post for nearly a year. Shades of today's Department of Homeland Security. Uncle Joe's demagoguery gave the old man a chance to perfect his golf game on Haines Point at the public expense - probably the only positive thing McCarthyism accomplished.

[cactus]

If Marshall was a Soviet spy because he did things the Soviets wanted, what does that make GW? GW pulled out of Saudi Arabia (which Bin Laden wanted), he hasn't gotten Bin Laden (which Bin Laden wanted), and seemingly made every detrimental decision possible on Iraq (which Bin Laden wanted). Bin Laden may not have been thinking of a massive deficit, but no doubt he approves of the country's weakened financial position.

You'd figure "thinkers" who approve of McCarthy would realize - if McCarthy were around today, he'd be pointing a finger at GW and GW's supporters.

[Roger Bigod]

There's a glaring problem of motive in McCarthy's accusations. There's nothing in Marshall's family background or personal history to suggest any interest in abstract politics, much less radical politics. No reason for any grievance against the US. No basis for blackmail.

I'd never realized how nasty and comprehensive the charges were. It's a black mark against Eisenhower that he was slow to defend Marshall. Perhaps it reflected careerist caution to line things up, but McCarthy's claims were outrageous.

[bakho]

McCarthy is like so many jackasses that overstate the true power of the US in WWII and understated the contributions of the Soviets and other allies. Had the Germans not lost 3 million (mostly killing 20 million Soviets) the US and Britain would have had a far more difficult time in western Europe.

Similarly, the Japanese were bogged down in a land war in Asia in which they lost over 2 million soldiers, mostly killing 10 million Chinese and eventually did not have enough troops left to adequately defend their islands against the initially outmanned Americans. The Japanese surrender forced the Japanese military to leave other Asian countries, but that was enforced by nationalist forces, not "American liberators". McCarthy undervalues the efforts of our Asian allies in the defeat of Japan.

The very large Soviet Union had a huge army at the end of WWII that would have been difficult for the US to defeat and would have been a bad idea to even try. The US had a difficult enough time providing assistance to devastated portions of western Europe and could not have handled providing for an even more devastated post WWII Eastern Europe at the same time. As posted above, the US basically won the Cold War through more rapid recovery and economic development of Western Europe, the very policies that McCarthy did not like.

Basically McCarthy was attacking the State Department for not supporting BAD foreign policy. It is much like the Bush attack on the State Department for not supporting the failed Bush "pre-emptive war" doctrine.

[Esq.]

Wow. I knew that McCarthy had attacked Marshall, but not to what extent. The fact fact that anyone took that BS seriously, for even a moment, is truely stunning.

Then again, imagine what people will say about Powell's UN speach in 50 years.

[CK]

Replace Acheson with Rice
Replace Marshall with Cheney
Change the "old" countries to your prefered "string puller" countries.
It reads pretty damn well doesn't it?
Plus ça change plus ça memé chose.

[Blissex]

All this just shows two things:

* How dementedly delirious some conservatives are, including the otherwise suave Buckley.

* How amazing that demented deliriousness does deliver votes in the USA.

At least this makes american politics, with its delusional right wing extremes (from McCarthy to militias), more entertaining than european politics, where common sense usually prevails.

But then we can be in some ways thankful to Berlusconi for trying to provide some of the same delirious entertainment, and amazingly it does buy votes for him. :-)

[andres]

Ouch. My reading on the late 1940's and 1950's is sadly deficient, which is probably why I still can't understand why Joseph McCarthy was taken so seriously for so long.

I guess I'll ask the gallery here in order to spare me some research: if we don't take McCarthy as a given, i.e. if we correctly assume that he did not create anti-communist hysteria even though he became a prime participant, _where_ did the anti-communist hysteria begin? I doubt it was either Churchill's speech or Chambers' accusation against one state department official--these were merely the emblems which the hysteria hooked on to. And TNR was still only a gleam in the twisted eye of Bill Buckley. So which publications, and which editors, did the most to turn a justified fear of Soviet foreign policy into the worst witch hunt ever seen in this country? If anyone knows some book titles that address this question, please pass them on, thanks.

[anne]

The roots of witch hunting are found in the Depression in what Benjamin Friedman and John Kenneth Galbraith explain could have been a manner of "fascism" to rise in the discontent and misery and fear in America. Democracy could well have been sorely threatened. There was an anti-intellectual strain, a racial fear, the strain of a terrible war, that left us vulnerable even as America would thrive through the 1950s.

[anne]

Be ever so thankful for Franklin Roosevelt:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/18/opinion/18herbert.html?ex=1271476800&en=9f23787f95925a8f&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

April 18, 2005

A Radical in the White House
By BOB HERBERT

Last week - April 12, to be exact - was the 60th anniversary of the death of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. "I have a terrific headache," he said, before collapsing at the Little White House in Warm Springs, Ga. He died of a massive cerebral hemorrhage on the 83rd day of his fourth term as president. His hold on the nation was such that most Americans, stunned by the announcement of his death that spring afternoon, reacted as though they had lost a close relative.

That more wasn't made of this anniversary is not just a matter of time; it's a measure of the distance the U.S. has traveled from the egalitarian ideals championed by F.D.R. His goal was "to make a country in which no one is left out." That kind of thinking has long since been consigned to the political dumpster. We're now in the age of Bush, Cheney and DeLay, small men committed to the concentration of big bucks in the hands of the fortunate few.

To get a sense of just how radical Roosevelt was (compared with the politics of today), consider the State of the Union address he delivered from the White House on Jan. 11, 1944. He was already in declining health and, suffering from a cold, he gave the speech over the radio in the form of a fireside chat.

After talking about the war, which was still being fought on two fronts, the president offered what should have been recognized immediately for what it was, nothing less than a blueprint for the future of the United States. It was the clearest statement I've ever seen of the kind of nation the U.S. could have become in the years between the end of World War II and now. Roosevelt referred to his proposals in that speech as "a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race or creed."

Among these rights, he said, are:

"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.

"The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.

"The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.

"The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.

"The right of every family to a decent home.

"The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.

"The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment.

"The right to a good education."

I mentioned this a few days ago to an acquaintance who is 30 years old. She said, "Wow, I can't believe a president would say that." ...

[Blissex]

«if we correctly assume that he did not create anti-communist hysteria even though he became a prime participant, _where_ did the anti-communist hysteria begin?»

Going back in time, it began with the conservative reaction to FDR and the New Deal, which they saw as a stealthy communist putsch, a betrayal of the constitution no less obnoxious than the 13th and 14th amendment. Really...

The agenda of a significant part of the conservative movement for the past 60 years has been to return to the good old pre-FDR days, when the US army would be called upon to machine gun strikers and other rabble...

But as to the specifics of the 50s, you may notice that was the period when sci-fi films where about aliens threating suburbia etc.

It was all a giant subconscious reactions to the terrifying and unprecedented situation where the Bomb threatened american cities, and newspapers talked about megadeaths and people were digging anti fallout shelters.

America up to that point had been mostly disconnected from the world, not physically threatened by anything. A huge change.

A few thousand civilian deaths a few years ago (a tragedy, but a monthly or weekly tally in less fortunate parts of the world) have resulted in the USA invading two countries and suspending civil liberties and international treaties, try to imagine the mood when the threat was of *dozens of millions* of civilian deaths.

In a way it is surprising that McCarthyism did not result in the establishment forced labour gulags in Alaska for potential fifth columnists...

[Blissex]

«I mentioned this a few days ago to an acquaintance who is 30 years old. She said, "Wow, I can't believe a president would say that." ...»

I may be wildly wrong, but I think that the major difference since then is the rise and rise of Ayn Rand as the inspiration and ideology of the right.

It is hard to prove, but I detect an increasing penetration of Rand-style thinking in the politics and policies of the conservative movement in the past 2-3 decades. Never mind that Greenspan was described fairly as Rand's vicar on earth :-).

[anne]

http://www.calvorn.com/gallery/photo.php?photo=6534&u=4|2|...

Cedar Waxwing Bathing in a Waterfall
New York City--Central Park, The Pool.

What a cleverly interesting comment; I am regularly surprised by the attraction of Ayn Rand for students.

[Charles]

Shorter WFB:

"So what if McCarthy was 99% wrong?

People overlook the fact that he was 1% right!"

[A. Zarkov]

George Marshall was on of McCarthy’s hit list. It’s ironic that Marshall himself was not above a little red baiting when it suited his purposes. From the Truman library:

“November 24, 1947: Secretary of State George Marshall writes to Under Secretary of State Robert Lovett to inform him that British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin had told him that British intelligence indicated that Jewish groups moving illegally from the Balkan states to Palestine included many Communists.”

Marshall of course bitterly opposed the creation of a Jewish state.

“March 21, 1948: President Truman writes in his diary regarding the confusion caused by the State Department's handling of the trusteeship issue: "I spend the day trying to right what has happened. No luck. Marshall makes a statement. Doesn't help a bit."

”May 12, 1948: President Truman meets in the Oval Office with Secretary of State George Marshall, ... He says that if Truman follows Clifford's advice and recognizes the Jewish state, then he (Marshall) would vote against Truman in the election. Truman does not clearly state his views in the meeting.”

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/israel/palestin.htm

[Blissex]

As to the subject of what presidents today would or would not say:

«I mentioned this a few days ago to an acquaintance who is 30 years old. She said, "Wow, I can't believe a president would say that." ...»

Here is a delightful quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft-Hartley_Act

«The Labor-Management Relations Act, commonly known as the Taft-Hartley Act, is a United States federal law that severely restricts the activities and power of labor unions. The Act, still largely in effect, was sponsored by Senator Robert Taft and Representative Fred A. Hartley, Jr..

U.S. President Harry S. Truman described the act as a "slave-labor bill" and vetoed it.»

No surprise that McCarthy would attack Truman so ferociously...

BTW I think the original NRA went way too far, and I find the "closed shop" abysmal and medieval, and secondary strikes dangerous, but it is hard to imagine why the "union shop" or "union security" should be restricted or outlawed; after all if free workers contract with free employers to establish a union shop... Sixty days notice for strikes is way too long.

But of course the real kicker is the right to permanently replace strikers, invented out of thin air by the Supreme Court, to work around the prohibition to fire workers on strike.

[andres]

"It is hard to prove, but I detect an increasing penetration of Rand-style thinking in the politics and policies of the conservative movement in the past 2-3 decades. Never mind that Greenspan was described fairly as Rand's vicar on earth :-)."

"What a cleverly interesting comment; I am regularly surprised by the attraction of Ayn Rand for students."

The reason for Rand's appeal is her novels, and even I have to admit that her earlier ones, _We the Living_ and _The Fountainhead_, are actually quite decent as novels, though not in the great literature range.

Fortunately, my main introduction to Objectivism was not from Ayn Rand's novels but from _The Objectivist Lexicon_ edited by Harry Binswanger (sp?). This contains not just quotes from her novels but also her polemical writings on philosophy, economics and politics; these writing reveal her as the crypto-fascist she actually was ("Not better dead than red. Rather, better make the reds dead!").

Still, I think Rand's influence among the modern Republican party is wildly overestimated, Alan Greenspan notwithstanding. Rand was an extreme libertarian and some of her social/religious views (atheism, rejection of conservatism as a political outlook, pro-choice on abortion) would stick in the craw of the Faithful. So I doubt she's really influential today, fortunately for all of us.

[christofay]

Oh, come on, Ayn Rand?

More like all spew all the time radio with the Nuke Gangrene being held up as a model solon on the nightly teevee news.

Greenspan was the last man to read an Ayn Rand cover to cover, and the damage was permanent. As far as I know, none of her books have been adapted for the big or small screen so how could today's Young Republicans pick up the cultural influence?

[christofay]

"You happy, clown?"

Excellent writing from a close Ayn Rand reader. Put that man in the University of Chicago literature dept immediately.

[masaccio]

I cannot understand the popularity of Ayn Rand myself. Atlas Shrugged is just boring, badly written and poorly conceived. Fountainhead contains a sex scene that should be required reading in Bushian abstinence only classes. It would teach kids that sex is boring, so they might as well save it for baby-making.

[ajay]

"As far as I know, none of her books have been adapted for the big or small screen so how could today's Young Republicans pick up the cultural influence?"

The Fountainhead, starring Gary Cooper. (1949) And, checking imdb, there was a TV version of We the Living.

[RKKA]

""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." ... and millions were kiled by Communists.

Happens to be true. You happy, clown?"

And what if Marshall was correct that the strategy he advocated was the most effective for bringing the war to a rapid and victorious conclusion, thereby saving millions of lives? And what if the strategy you prefer would have prolonged the war, allowing the Nazis to kill millions more? Would you still take Stalin's agreement as a reason to criticize Marshall?

It appears so. But then, your capacity to consider serious questions is indicated by your posting name.

[liberal]

screwyou wrote, " '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' ... and millions were kiled by Communists."

As posters bakho and RKKA hinted, the US/British strategy in Europe relied on the Soviets doing most of the actual work on the ground. (Most Wehrmacht casualties were inflicted by the Soviets; the fraction inflicted by the West was pretty small, maybe 1/6 th or 1/8 th.)

Of course, there was an alternative strategy: an Anglo-American invasion France at a much earlier date (which AFAICT Stalin would have favored). Would have been much bloodier for Britain and the US.

[bakho]

Stalin was clearly brutal and killed millions. He was not a nice guy. The FSU was built by the expansion of the Russian empire. Like any empire, the FSU collected nations under its control that maintained more loyalty to the old "nation" than to the new Soviet Union. Stalin carried out a program of exporting peoples from nations (such as Chechnya) to Sibera and gulags elsewhere in the Soviet Union. This is much the same policy that the US itself practiced with its native American population and with similar results. Large percentages of peoples relocated to new areas don't live long, especially if access to food an medicines in the new area is less than adequate.

We see with the breakup of the FSU, the unleashing of old ethnic tensions that have given rise to the Chechen war and other conflicts. How many people have died in that war? There are only "good estimates" but maybe 200,000-250,000 Chechens (military and civilian) and another 50,000 Russians? This is only one small area.

The breakdown in Soviet hegemony in Afghanistan led to 1 million civilian deaths and 5 million refugees. Afterward, Afghanistan sunk into warlordism with many more deaths until the rise of the Taliban pushed the warlords to the edges of the country.

Yes Stalin was a brutal murderer. But the US fighting a war with the Soviet Union after WWII could have easily led to millions of more casualties and had the US won, the FSU could have broken up into ungovernable warring factions the way that Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and now Iraq have done. 2 million Asians died in the proxy war in Vietnam and another quarter million in Korea.

If one considers the Marshall plan and the massive amount of US economic aid required to rebuild Western Europe and deal with the millions of homeless wandering Europe, the US had its hands full enough with the limited area of responsibility. To have fought the Soviets over already devastated territory in Eastern Europe would have killed far more people and increased the devastation and the misery.

You don't always get what you want. Sometimes choices between the lesser of two evils must be made. McCarthy and other jackasses assume that the result of a US Soviet war would have made all of Eastern Europe resemble post-war France and Germany. What if it looked more like current day Chechnyia, Iraq, or Afghanistan?

[RKKA]

"Vietnam reached its peak under LBJ; Nixon managed to fend off the North Vietnamese much better than LBJ with very few troops. The war was lost when a DEMOCRATIC Congress withdrew support for South Vietnam after the Watergate scandal..."
False.

Support in Congress for financial aid to South Vietnam continued past Watergate.

"United States Aid to Indochina." July 1974. 29 pp. Report by House
Foreign Affairs Committee staff consultants John M. Brady and John H.
Sullivan. Really interesting report by a (bipartisan) team of
Congressional staffers who travelled to SE Asia in the summer of '74.
Note that as of July '74, Nixon was asking for just under $1 billion
(about $920 million) for South Vietnam in FY 1974... and just 750
million for FY 1975.

"Conference Report on Foreign Assistance Act of 1974". December 17,
1974. 53 pp. Full text of the Act, which gave $617 million in "postwar
reconstruction" aid to Indochina (of which $450 million was for South
Vietnam), with explanations, and descriptions of the House-Senate
differences and how they had been reconciled. Does not include
military assistance. Various limits on the amounts that could be spent
in particular ways. House Report 93-1610.

[Roger Albin]

"Truman got the US stuck in a "quagmire" in Korea. Ike ended the war by some of that Republican "macho bullshit" you seem to dislike--he threatened to use nukes (after years of back and forth under Truman, Ike ended the war within 6 months)."

Well, no. Eisenhower accepted a stalemate. Both sides were exhausted and by this phase of the war it had become clear to both sides that victory was not possible. Eisenhower's election campaign featured the promise that if elected, he would personally go to Korea, the implication being that he would produce victory. In fact, far from utilizing "Republican Macho Bullshit", his Korean policy was rather cautious. Eisenhower's caution, a consistent theme of his administration (think about Hungary in 1956), was widely criticized by the Right at the time.

As for Nixon and the claim that "Vietnam reached its peak under LBJ; Nixon managed to fend off the North Vietnamese much better than LBJ with very few troops." Don't forget that the original US goal was to do more that "fend off" the North Vietnamese. If Nixon did better in this respect, it was partly because he accepted a much more limited goal, which was to obtain a figleaf peace treaty. Nixon was responsible for very aggressive bombing of the North and the Cambodian invasion, a significant expansion of the war.

[RKKA]

"Of course, there was an alternative strategy: an Anglo-American invasion France at a much earlier date (which AFAICT Stalin would have favored). Would have been much bloodier for Britain and the US."

Not really. Hitler did not give priority for preparing German forces in France until November 1943, and Speer's reorganization of the German war economy did not bear fruit until late 1943. Germany's armaments production vastly expanded in early 1944. Invading France in 1943 would have found the German garrison there consisting of 40-year old reservists in fortress regiments with no transport watching unfortified beaches, green recruits training on captured Czechoslovak, Polish, and French equipment, and shattered wrecks of divisions recovering from their experiences in the East.

Not at all what we ran into on 6 June 1944.

As for Churchill's proposed effort in the Balkans instead of Operation Overlord, I can only quote Matthew 16:26:

"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the Balkans, and lose the Ruhr?"

[Blissex]

"It is hard to prove, but I detect an increasing penetration of Rand-style thinking in the politics and policies of the conservative movement in the past 2-3 decades."

The reason for Rand's appeal is her novels,»

In part (as demonstrated in this intellectual autobio: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/autobio.htm), but really because her ethics are so convenient: according to those ethics screwing the poor is not just profitable, but also a moral imperative, because the poor are parasitical ballast holding down the deserving rich.

In other words, her argument is the novel concept that the poor, by sheer malice and weight of numbers, brutally exploit the hard working and meritorious rich.

Because the rich are such because they deserve to be, and if someone is poor it is because they prefer to be immoral parasites to working and creating wealth.

So for example the poor should be taxed harder than the rich both to punish the poor for being slothful and exploitative, and to give them a stronger incentive to become rich by creating wealth instead of stealing it.

«reveal her as the crypto-fascist she actually was ("Not better dead than red. Rather, better make the reds dead!").»

Well, I would say that «crypto-fascist» is the new black :-)

«Still, I think Rand's influence among the modern Republican party is wildly overestimated, Alan Greenspan notwithstanding. Rand was an extreme libertarian and some of her social/religious views (atheism, rejection of conservatism as a political outlook, pro-choice on abortion) would stick in the craw of the Faithful. So I doubt she's really influential today, fortunately for all of us.»

Ah but the modern Republican movement has two sides: the rich side and the faith side, and the latter is the instrument that delivers the numbers for the other side to win.

Someone in a previous comment called them quite suggestively the ''contributing base'' and the ''voting base''.

Do you think that the rich Republicans really care about gay marriage, except as a way to ally themselves with a large base of useful votes?

I think that it is Ayn Rand's "compelling" argument that the poor immorally exploit the rich that is the ethical underpinning of most of the current Republican economic policies.

[andres]

Hmm. Good point. Rand's appeal is potentially much stronger among Wall Street Republicans, Alan Greenspan being the prime example. Still, don't deceive yourself that the relationship between the "contributing base" and the "voting base" is that easy and simple. Most "contributing base" Republicans are starting to realize that the President and his main advisor are more politically attached to the "voting base", while the vice-president is a shameless opportunist who has been the main director of war profiteering for the non-Wall Street corporations, to the detriment of the government finances.

Ayn Rand's hallmark was that she had pretensions to being a world-changing philosopher, the Karl Marx of capitalism. Unfortunately for her, even the Wall Street Republicans who benefit from her advocacy have about as much use for philosophy as dandruff--Alan Greenspan seems to be the only exception, but sometimes I wonder about him also (he never did make any move to bring back the gold standard, one of his main positions when he was a self-identified Objectivist).

[Team Fortress 2]

If Nixon did better in this respect, it was partly because he accepted a much more limited goal, which was to obtain a figleaf peace treaty. Nixon was responsible for very aggressive bombing of the North and the Cambodian invasion, a significant expansion of the war.