The prelude to McCarthyism was a little known historical event called WW2. The United States gave (not loaned) a brutal, belligerent, communist dictatorship staggering amounts of money & material, which they used to help establish friendly dictatorships across Eurasia, from East Germany, to China (simultaneously, the US put an arms embargo on the legitimate government who were fighting the communists), to North Korea. I note the last two are still potential global flashpoints to this day.
One might reasonably assume there was some communist sympathy among the civil service built around a four term president - whose earliest diplomatic mission was to establish relations with the USSR in 1933.
Except McCarthyism was an utter failure in terms of rooting out spies. We sure did so great, blacklisting a bunch of hollywood actors and narcing on our coworkers who just wanted a union. God forbid we have free speech and association right?
Meanwhile the actual Manhattan project was chock full of soviets.
McCarthyism is just what happens when you listen to paranoid demagogues. It was literally a culture war against liberals. Gee, sounds familiar.
Manhattan Project was 1942 ~ 1946, while McCarthyism was 1947 ~ 1959.
Contributing to the rise of McCarthyism was:
>a growing obsession with perceived dangers posed by internal subversion in general and Soviet and Communist Party espionage in particular, fueled by reports, some public and some held within the government, of Russian spy operations in North America, accompanied by a new Communist "hard" line that echoed general Cold War tensions;
So, correct: The Manhattan Project(full of academics, some(many?) of whom happened to be liberal) was as you put it "chock full of soviets" and the natural reaction to that realization was to clamp down on liberals.
> which they used to help establish friendly dictatorships across Eurasia, from East Germany, to China (simultaneously, the US put an arms embargo on the legitimate government who were fighting the communists)
How did Russia establish a friendly communist government in Hungary in 1919 when it had no troops there? Actually England armed the Romanians to overthrow the Hungarian communist government.
Of course, the US, England etc. invaded Russia and fought the Red Army during/after World War I with the Polar Bear expedition etc.
Stalin dissolved the Comintern during World War II, and the Communist Party USA dissolved as a political party as well at that time.
With Albania and Yugoslavia, Red Army troops passed quickly through a small corner of Yugoslavia and offered little help to Tito.
Insofar as China, the Soviet ambassador as far as I know was the only one who accompanied Chiang Kai Shek to Taiwan. Mao took China back from the Japanese with little help.
Greece probably would have become communist after World War II, but for the Truman doctrine and US involvement, Russia did not get involved at all.
Moscow's lack of support helped in the breaks in relations - with Yugoslavia, Albania and the Sino-Soviet split.
The Russian people also paid a staggering price to defeat the Nazis in the East. The Soviet post WW2 occupation of Eastern Europe was also, in part, do to the paranoia of being invaded. Hence the response to Western activities in Ukraine in the 21st Century.
Clearly the price was not staggering enough if they still had enough soldiers and material to support aforementioned puppet governments. The western world missed a huge opportunity to bleed them dry.
Many Americans pre-WW2 didn't want their country to get involved, either. At the end of the day, it was dragged into that war anyway. Perfect isolationism is not sustainable; you have to be smart about picking your battles, yes, but if you keep running away from them on foreign ground, you will eventually have to fight them on your own.
Ehh...many people love to say things like "America shouldn't be the world police", but then when something bad happens in the world, it becomes "Why aren't we doing anything??? We're complicit!"
I think the biggest recent example is the Russian war in Ukraine. Usually it is liberal-types arguing against American forays into the business of other countries, but they are the same group demanding more money and weapons be sent to Ukraine.
All North Korea and China have to do is convince the people of South Korea and Taiwan of the enormous benefits of being annexed. If they're unable to pull off even that, then they only have themselves to blame.
The prelude to McCarthyism was a little known historical event called WW2. The United States gave (not loaned) a brutal, belligerent, communist dictatorship staggering amounts of money & material, which they used to help establish friendly dictatorships across Eurasia, from East Germany, to China (simultaneously, the US put an arms embargo on the legitimate government who were fighting the communists), to North Korea. I note the last two are still potential global flashpoints to this day.
One might reasonably assume there was some communist sympathy among the civil service built around a four term president - whose earliest diplomatic mission was to establish relations with the USSR in 1933.
Both Nazi Germany and Communist Russia had many sympathizers in the west before their giant crimes against humanity were revealed.
They were right about communists sympathizers spying for the USSR within the government too - eg Alger Hiss and Harry White.
Except McCarthyism was an utter failure in terms of rooting out spies. We sure did so great, blacklisting a bunch of hollywood actors and narcing on our coworkers who just wanted a union. God forbid we have free speech and association right?
Meanwhile the actual Manhattan project was chock full of soviets.
McCarthyism is just what happens when you listen to paranoid demagogues. It was literally a culture war against liberals. Gee, sounds familiar.
Wasn't the blacklist unilaterally implemented by the heads of studios? It's not like Congress disallowed those people from working.
Manhattan Project was 1942 ~ 1946, while McCarthyism was 1947 ~ 1959.
Contributing to the rise of McCarthyism was: >a growing obsession with perceived dangers posed by internal subversion in general and Soviet and Communist Party espionage in particular, fueled by reports, some public and some held within the government, of Russian spy operations in North America, accompanied by a new Communist "hard" line that echoed general Cold War tensions;
So, correct: The Manhattan Project(full of academics, some(many?) of whom happened to be liberal) was as you put it "chock full of soviets" and the natural reaction to that realization was to clamp down on liberals.
Where could I read more about this?
Start with Lend Lease
> which they used to help establish friendly dictatorships across Eurasia, from East Germany, to China (simultaneously, the US put an arms embargo on the legitimate government who were fighting the communists)
How did Russia establish a friendly communist government in Hungary in 1919 when it had no troops there? Actually England armed the Romanians to overthrow the Hungarian communist government.
Of course, the US, England etc. invaded Russia and fought the Red Army during/after World War I with the Polar Bear expedition etc.
Stalin dissolved the Comintern during World War II, and the Communist Party USA dissolved as a political party as well at that time.
With Albania and Yugoslavia, Red Army troops passed quickly through a small corner of Yugoslavia and offered little help to Tito.
Insofar as China, the Soviet ambassador as far as I know was the only one who accompanied Chiang Kai Shek to Taiwan. Mao took China back from the Japanese with little help.
Greece probably would have become communist after World War II, but for the Truman doctrine and US involvement, Russia did not get involved at all.
Moscow's lack of support helped in the breaks in relations - with Yugoslavia, Albania and the Sino-Soviet split.
What you're saying is rather ahistorical.
The Russian people also paid a staggering price to defeat the Nazis in the East. The Soviet post WW2 occupation of Eastern Europe was also, in part, do to the paranoia of being invaded. Hence the response to Western activities in Ukraine in the 21st Century.
Clearly the price was not staggering enough if they still had enough soldiers and material to support aforementioned puppet governments. The western world missed a huge opportunity to bleed them dry.
Oh boy. Go back to Twitter/X.
That's a bit rude - I"m also on bluesky and linkedin.
There is so many falsehoods in this statement that I don't even know where to begin.
> I note the last two are still potential global flashpoints to this day.
in the sick minds of US americans, only global hegemony is allowed. Submit or die.
You realize that many Americans don't want our country meddling in the affairs of others, right? We are powerless to stop it.
Many Americans pre-WW2 didn't want their country to get involved, either. At the end of the day, it was dragged into that war anyway. Perfect isolationism is not sustainable; you have to be smart about picking your battles, yes, but if you keep running away from them on foreign ground, you will eventually have to fight them on your own.
Ehh...many people love to say things like "America shouldn't be the world police", but then when something bad happens in the world, it becomes "Why aren't we doing anything??? We're complicit!"
I would say those are two separate groups of people. At the very least, I personally do not say the latter.
I think the biggest recent example is the Russian war in Ukraine. Usually it is liberal-types arguing against American forays into the business of other countries, but they are the same group demanding more money and weapons be sent to Ukraine.
When something bad happens, we were usually already involved in some way or other, often by funding or arming one of the sides.
I think the US have done an admirable job at being world police in the Asia Pacific.
Middle East and Europe post-USSR the track record is much worse.
Agreed.
But this why the Elites are meddling: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4Nr85irW3g0
All North Korea and China have to do is convince the people of South Korea and Taiwan of the enormous benefits of being annexed. If they're unable to pull off even that, then they only have themselves to blame.