Sen Joe McCarthy: American Patriot and Hero

[Mark LaRochelle]

Name ONE thing that Oppenheimer did as a communist that inhibited the Manhattan Project, the development of the atomic bomb and the delivery of the atomic bomb.

As far as I know, Oppenheimer didn't do anything to inhibit the development of the atomic bomb. Everything I have read shows just the opposite, that he worked like the devil to get the thing up and working as soon as possible.

Gen. Leslie Groves, Oppenheimer's boss in the Manhattan Project, gave him very high marks for his indispensable role in bringing the atomic bomb into existence, although Groves did admit to some suspicion that Oppenheimer might have been involved in the establishment of rules that "tended to break down compartmentalization" of data at Los Alamos, making it exceedingly difficult to control the diffusion of secrets and prevent espionage. Groves blamed this "breakdown" for the fact that David Greenglass and Klaus Fuchs were able to commit atomic espionage while working under Oppenheimer's supervision. (We now know that these were not the only Soviet spies at Los Alamos: Theodore Hall, Boris Podolsky and Russell McNutt were even more successful -- not only in transmitting more damaging information than Fuchs and Greenglass, but in avoiding detection.)

Groves also expressed concern when some of the people Oppenheimer brought into the project became enmeshed in this conspiracy. For example, FBI surveillance caught Joe Weinberg, one of Oppenheimer's Berkeley grad students (who got into the project with Oppenheimer as a reference), covertly transferring information to NKVD agent "Steve Nelson" (Stephan Mesarosh); even after FBI surveillance caught another Oppenheimer protegé, Giovanni Lomanitz, covertly supplying Mesarosh highly sensitive information, Oppenheimer still fought to stop the Army from removing Lomanitz from the project. What concerned Groves most, however, was Oppenheimer's admitted lying and covering up for the secret Communist Haakon Chevalier, who tried (and failed) to recruit Oppenheimer into the conspiracy. Even after Oppenheimer named Chevalier, Groves said he "had the very definite impression that Dr. Oppenheimer wanted to protect his friends of long standing, possibly his brother" Frank, a Communist Party member Oppenheimer had brought into the project.

Groves said he knew that Oppenheimer represented a risk, but it was a calculated risk. Since the Nazi-Soviet pact had broken down, thought Groves, Oppenheimer's secret membership in the Communist Party might even be a positive in the war against the Axis. And who can argue with the results?

Oppenheimer's problems came afterward, during the Cold War. The calculus of risk involved in giving a Communist access to nuclear secrets when the adversary was the Nazis became very different once the adversary became the Soviets. Oppenheimer became obsessed with the idea that to prevent the destruction of the human race the U.S. had to turn its nuclear monopoly over to the UN or other international control. After he tried to persuade President Truman to do this, Truman became furious, telling Acheson, "I don't want to see that son-of-a-bitch in this office ever again."

When the Soviets broke the U.S. nuclear monopoly in 1949, the U.S. embarked on a crash program to develop the hydrogen bomb. Although he had been gung-ho in the development of the A-bomb, Oppenheimer took a different stance on the H-bomb. This development he did try mightily to inhibit. The Atomic Energy Commission asked Oppenheimer, chairman of the AEC's General Advisory Committee (GAC) on Science, what the GAC members thought of the H-bomb. One GAC member, Glen Seaborg, wrote to Oppenheimer, "I have been unable to come to the conclusion that we should not” proceed with this crash program to develop an H-bomb. “I would have to hear some good arguments before I could take on sufficient courage to recommend not going toward such a program."

Just as he had in the Chevalier incident, Oppenheimer lied, telling the AEC he found "a surprising unanimity [among GAC members]—to me very surprising—that the United States ought not to take the initiative... in an all out program for the development of thermonuclear weapons."

But what really persuaded the AEC that Oppenheimer had become an unacceptable risk were his 1953 meetings in Paris with Chevalier, whom Oppenheimer had admitted had tried to recruit him into atomic espionage for the Soviets. As a member of the GAC, Oppenheimer was required by law to report all such encounters; this he failed to do, fomenting suspicion that he was up to something covert.

I wouldn't call it "un-American" but, according to members of the underground Communist cell at Berkeley, during the Nazi-Soviet pact Oppenheimer was the author of a notorious pamphlet denouncing FDR as a "counter-revolutionary war-monger" for giving aid the the British, who were then fighting for their lives under the Nazi blitz.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Truman Library. Original transcripts from the interview. McKinzie also wrote a book on it.

Thank you, gadawg, for identifying your source. You're a scholar and a gentleman. (By the way, what's the name of the McKinzie book?) I originally suspected that this was your source, but I had discarded that hypothesis because your quote of Gen. Snow is slightly different from what Snow actually says in the transcript, posted at

Truman Library - Conrad E. Snow Oral History Interview

You quote Snow as saying



What Snow actually says in the transcript is "I accused Senator McCarthy of making false statements about matters, that he must have known were false" (p. 30) and "I told Senator McCarthy to his face at that hearing that he was making statements that were untrue and he knew they were untrue." (p. 31)

I remember discussing this interview with Evans while he was writing Blacklisted by History. I thought I knew a lot about McCarthy from reading Oshinsky, Rovere, Reeves, etc., and I was always looking for something to trip Evans up. I brandished this interview and told him it seemed pretty damning for McCarthy. As usual, Evans directed me to the primary source, the hearing transcripts. What I found there shattered some of my fondest illusions.

In his congressional testimony, Snow, then chairman of the State Department Loyalty-Security Board, accused McCarthy of lying. Sen. Homer Ferguson (R-MI) said, "[W]e are going to ask for the proof that these statements by Senator McCarthy were false....” Asked for examples of lies he alleged McCarthy had told. Snow responded: "the accusation is that the State Department had 205, or whatever number he chose to call it, known Communists.... He made the same statement over and over again."

Snow made three false statements here: the number of suspects, the allegations against them, and their locations.

In place of “helping to shape our foreign policy,” Snow said “the State Department”; in place of “57,” he said “205, or whatever number he chose to call it” (he made the “205” allegation more explicit in the McKinzie interview: “In February, 1950, Senator Joseph M. McCarthy stated publicly that there were 205 known Communists in the State Department.” [p. 50]); and in place of “individuals who would appear to be either card carrying Communists or certainly loyal to the Communist Party,” he said “known Communists.”

Regarding the number of suspects: The charge that McCarthy had said “205” (rather than “57,” as he claimed) in Wheeling, was first made by Sen. William Benton (D-CT), as the very first charge in a bill he wrote to eject McCarthy from the Senate. The Senate (then under control of the Democratic Party) sent staff investigators to Wheeling to try to substantiate Benton's charges. The investigation concluded that what McCarthy actually said was "I have in my hand 57 cases of individuals who would appear to be either card-carrying members or certainly loyal to the Communist Party, but who nevertheless are still helping to shape our foreign policy” -- exactly what McCarthy claimed he had said. According to one investigator: “The newly unearthed evidence demolished Senator Benton’s charges in all their material respects and thoroughly proved Senator McCarthy’s account of the facts to be truthful.” The investigative memo on all this was quietly buried, but the charge that McCarthy had said “205” was likewise dropped. Thus McCarthy's statement is recorded in the Congressional Record to this day as reading "57," not "205."

McCarthy asked, "Mr. Snow, are you aware of the fact that the investigators for the Gillette-Monroney Committee went to Wheeling, W.Va., and completely disproved what you have said?" Snow replied: "I am not aware of that." McCarthy asked, "Did you not read that in the paper?" Snow answered "No, sir." McCarthy asked, "Did you not think that before going out and making that statement, that you should check on matters like that?"

Even Benton didn't deny that McCarthy had said “individuals who would appear to be either card carrying Communists or certainly loyal to the Communist Party,” rather than “known Communists.” As I mentioned:

Fellow-travelers who were not CP members but were “loyal to the Communist Party” were explicitly targeted by the Truman Loyalty Order (“Membership in, affiliation with or sympathetic association with any foreign or domestic organization, association, movement, group or combination of persons, designated by the Attorney General as totalitarian, Fascist, Communist

Benton likewise never denied that McCarthy had said “helping to shape our foreign policy” (not “in the State Department”). Not all McCarthy's suspects were in the State Department; some were at Treasury, Commerce the UN, etc. (Likewise, even Benton never claimed that McCarthy used the number 205 “over and over again”; his allegation was that McCarthy had used this number only once, in the Wheeling speech, thereafter switching to 57.)

Snow's next example of an alleged lie was McCarthy's statement that the State Department's personnel files had been tampered with. Snow knew this charge was false, he testified, because the files had been in his possession since June 9, 1947. But McCarthy's statement had referred to depositions from four current and former State Department employees, stating that they had been ordered to remove material from these files in 1946.

McCarthy asked Snow, "Are you aware of the fact that the statements cover a period of time before June 9, 1947?" Snow replied: "No, sir." Astonishingly, Snow admitted, "I was so confident that the files had never been rifled that I had no presentiment of any duty to investigate what the basis of your speech was."

Snow's next example of an alleged lie was McCarthy's statement that Dean Acheson (then Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs) had ousted both J. Anthony Panuch, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Administration (in charge of security), and and State Department security officer Robert Bannerman from the department.

Panuch had reported to the FBI that Alger Hiss, then Director of the State Department's Office of Special Political Affairs, was part of “an enormous espionage ring in Washington” back in 1946 -- two years before Whittaker Chambers' testimony; the same year, Bannerman had recommended the dismissal of William Stone, director of the State Department's Foreign Economic Administration (controlling the export of military technology).

Among other peculiarities, Stone had been a member of the board of the journal Amerasia, in the offices of which the OSS had discovered hundreds of stolen classified U.S. government documents; he was also a founder of the U.S. branch of the Institute for Pacific Relations, which was identified in a unanimous report of the bipartisan Senate Judiciary Committee as “a vehicle used by the Communists to orientate American far eastern policies toward Communist objectives.” He was nevertheless cleared by the State Department board chaired by Snow. When McCarthy blew the whistle, Truman's Civil Service Loyalty Review Board took Stone's case out of Snow's hands for review, whereupon Stone abruptly resigned.

McCarthy asked Snow, "Do you say I lied when I said Acheson had gotten rid of them [Panuch and Bannerman]?" Snow replied: "Yes." McCarthy asked, "You know that Bannerman and Panuch are no longer there, do you not?" Snow answered: "I don't know that; no." McCarthy asked "...on what theory can you say I was lying when you now tell us you do not know who the men were; you do not know who fired them; you do not even know how they were forced out of the department?"

Yes, Snow accused McCarthy of lying, but when asked for specifics, it turned out that he didn't know what he was talking about: He didn't know that a congressional investigation had found one of his charges to be false; he didn't know about the depositions showing another to be false; and he didn't even know that Bannerman and Panuch had been ousted, much less who was or was not responsible.

Not only did Snow fail to show that McCarthy knew what he was saying was false, he failed even to show that it was wrong. Moreover, even if McCarthy had been wrong in any of these statements, Snow had zero evidence to back up his accusation that McCarthy knew what he was saying was wrong. Since Snow's allegations against McCarthy actually were false, should we jump to the conclusion that Snow was lying? Since he assumed without evidence that McCarthy was guilty, should we apply the same standard to Snow? I don't know whether Snow knew what he was saying was false, or if he really was as clueless as he appeared to be. When he repeated these false allegations to McKinzie 20 years later, I don't know whether Snow remembered that what he was saying was false, or if his memory was playing tricks on him. So I'll give him the benefit of the doubt he denied to McCarthy.

Nevertheless, if Snow was telling the truth, then he didn't bother to check the facts before going off half-cocked to make wild, unfounded, and false allegations of serious wrongdoing, with reckless disregard for the character of his target.

That's pretty much a textbook definition of “McCarthyism.”

Snow never made any false allegations.

Asked for examples of lies he alleged McCarthy had told. Snow responded: "the accusation is that the State Department had 205, or whatever number he chose to call it, known Communists.... He made the same statement over and over again."

I actually read the post you were responding to. Why don't YOU try it?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The righties continue to lie.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The righties continue to lie.

By "lie" you mean quoting testimony made by Gen Snow to Congress? Right?

 

[mdn2000]

The far right's evidence has been discounted time and time again, and the far right here won't evaluate the counter evidence, so all they can do now is attack personality

When the far right begins strawman argumentation, they admit they have lost the discussion.

Guys, why won't you answer though I have posted this at least ten times, "Why was it JM's own party members who pulled him down?"

My evidence has yet to be addressed, Oppenhiemer.

I can see how you can read my post as insulting, in hindsight it reads that way, the Dumb Country Boy remark is another user I did not wish to identify personally, the user will recognize this description of himself for its a quote of his own he made in reference of himself.

If you notice I do not randomly join a debate with you, that is because I do not know enough of the many subjects you participate in. I have not studied Mccarthy, I know a bit, I hear a bit, and I trust what I hear because of the people who state it. I have yet to find anything that counters the facts I gather from my sources.

I cannot address your point without a huge internet search, my typical way of addressing subjects that interest me is to buy dozens of books and read them. Dozens of used books that seem relevant, books by people who lived in the times and books by historians.

If the arguement is that Mccarthy was grasping at straws and there was not a threat then that is easily proven as bullshit. I do not need to address Mccarthy at all to show the historical facts. The facts stand on thier own.

If your arguement is that Mccarthy was a drunk, great, big deal.

Oppenhiemer factually consorted with known Communists.

When I use the term Communist and as the term is used historically its not used in reference to an ideology, that is Marxism. Communism is the specific to the USSR, to state people knowingly associated with Communists states said person was associating with a person who affiliated with the Communism, or Communist working with the USSR.

This is not a matter that Mccarthy thought Liberal Ideology was Marxist, Mccarthy did not attack Ideology, Mccarthy went after people known to be working or connected or contacting Communist working directly with Communist as in Communism is specific to Russia.

Is that clear, the fight was not against ideology, it was a fight against Communist connected to or working with the USSR against the USA from within our corporations to our government.

I think the left must make this discussion about Mccarthy because the facts are to ugly, the facts stand on thier own, facts and investigations conducted by Truman and his administration, concerns identified by the Roosevelt administration, facts that are established long before Mccarthy.

Oppenhiemer, so simple, impossible to refute, to discuss Oppenhiemer the truth is painfully clear. Those who attack Mccarthy either knowingly or unwittingly are diverting the attention away from the facts.

Communist were actively spying and stealing and working from within our government.

Go ahead and call me a "dumb country boy". Doesn't matter to me.
Sticks and stones.
That is all you have. I addressed Oppenheimer. He was the head of The Manhattan Project and won the war for us in the Pacific.
Is it against the law to be a communist?
Facts are a real bitch for you, aren't they?
Talk is cheap. I used to let my pads do the talking.
Name callers are weak.

Name callers are weak, thats right, that makes you the weakest, you called me a name before I called you a name, you put words in my mouth I never said as well. So yes name callers are weak and when combined with a hypocrite you get a pure dumb ass.

You called yourself a dumb country boy, twice, correct. You get from me what you give, thats all, you think its weak, not as weak as you, your a lousy hypocrite and a troll as far as I am concerned. Further you behave as an authoritarian thug.

Further and to the point, I did not read your last post if you responded to mine, I have so little regard for what you post I ignored it.

You addressed Oppenheimer, I will not go back and see what you read, if you beleive that Oppenheimer was in charge of the Manhatten project you are completely ignorant of the facts.

Ever here of a Colonel Richard Groves.

Gaawg, you do not even know who was in charge of the Manhatten project, you cannot even double check your so oblivious to your ignorance.

Oppenheimer did not win the war for us, he was one man.

So in response you ask is it against the law to be Communist, what in the hell does that got to do with 1945 or the years that followed.

Further are stating Oppenheimer was a Communist, because I never stated that, not once.

Was he, maybe if something came out in recent years but when they stripped Oppenheimer of his Security Clearance the trial specifically stated Oppenheimer was not a card carrying Communist.

Gadag, you are very under-educated in regards of to this specific topic.

You really put your foot in your mouth.

 

[HUGGY]

Frankie...I've struggled with the point of this thread. It can't really be about McCarthy. It must be about your fear of communism. Didn't you get the memo? Communism fails all on it's own. Our newest and bestest enemy is Islam. McCarthy's warnings were stupid. He way over rated them.

 

[mdn2000]

Name ONE thing that Oppenheimer did as a communist that inhibited the Manhattan Project, the development of the atomic bomb and the delivery of the atomic bomb.

As far as I know, Oppenheimer didn't do anything to inhibit the development of the atomic bomb. Everything I have read shows just the opposite, that he worked like the devil to get the thing up and working as soon as possible.

Gen. Leslie Groves, Oppenheimer's boss in the Manhattan Project, gave him very high marks for his indispensable role in bringing the atomic bomb into existence, although Groves did admit to some suspicion that Oppenheimer might have been involved in the establishment of rules that "tended to break down compartmentalization" of data at Los Alamos, making it exceedingly difficult to control the diffusion of secrets and prevent espionage. Groves blamed this "breakdown" for the fact that David Greenglass and Klaus Fuchs were able to commit atomic espionage while working under Oppenheimer's supervision. (We now know that these were not the only Soviet spies at Los Alamos: Theodore Hall, Boris Podolsky and Russell McNutt were even more successful -- not only in transmitting more damaging information than Fuchs and Greenglass, but in avoiding detection.)

Groves also expressed concern when some of the people Oppenheimer brought into the project became enmeshed in this conspiracy. For example, FBI surveillance caught Joe Weinberg, one of Oppenheimer's Berkeley grad students (who got into the project with Oppenheimer as a reference), covertly transferring information to NKVD agent "Steve Nelson" (Stephan Mesarosh); even after FBI surveillance caught another Oppenheimer protegé, Giovanni Lomanitz, covertly meeting with Mesarosh, Oppenheimer still fought to stop the Army from removing Lomanitz from the project. What concerned Groves most, however, was Oppenheimer's admitted lying and covering up for the secret Communist Haakon Chevalier, who tried (and failed) to recruit Oppenheimer into the conspiracy. Even after Oppenheimer named Chevalier, Groves said he "had the very definite impression that Dr. Oppenheimer wanted to protect his friends of long standing, possibly his brother" Frank, a Communist Party member Oppenheimer had brought into the project.

Groves said he knew that Oppenheimer represented a risk, but it was a calculated risk. Since the Nazi-Soviet pact had broken down, thought Groves, Oppenheimer's secret membership in the Communist Party might even be a positive in the war against the Axis. And who can argue with the results?

Oppenheimer's problems came afterward, during the Cold War. The calculus of risk involved in giving a Communist access to nuclear secrets when the adversary was the Nazis became very different once the adversary became the Soviets. Oppenheimer became obsessed with the idea that to prevent the destruction of the human race the U.S. had to turn its nuclear monopoly over to the UN or other international control. After he tried to persuade President Truman to do this, Truman became furious, telling Acheson, "I don't want to see that son-of-a-bitch in this office ever again."

When the Soviets broke the U.S. nuclear monopoly in 1949, the U.S. embarked on a crash program to develop the hydrogen bomb. Although he had been gung-ho in the development of the A-bomb, Oppenheimer took a different stance on the H-bomb. This development he did try mightily to inhibit. The Atomic Energy Commission asked Oppenheimer, chairman of the AEC's General Advisory Committee (GAC) on Science, what the GAC members thought of the H-bomb. One GAC member, Glen Seaborg, wrote to Oppenheimer, "I have been unable to come to the conclusion that we should not” proceed with this crash program to develop an H-bomb. “I would have to hear some good arguments before I could take on sufficient courage to recommend not going toward such a program."

Just as he had in the Chevalier incident, Oppenheimer lied, telling the AEC he found "a surprising unanimity [among GAC members]—to me very surprising—that the United States ought not to take the initiative... in an all out program for the development of thermonuclear weapons."

But what really persuaded the AEC that Oppenheimer had become an unacceptable risk were his 1953 meetings in Paris with Chevalier, whom Oppenheimer had admitted had tried to recruit him into atomic espionage for the Soviets. As a member of the GAC, Oppenheimer was required by law to report all such encounters; this he failed to do, fomenting suspicion that he was up to something covert.

I wouldn't call it "un-American" but, according to members of the underground Communist cell at Berkeley, during the Nazi-Soviet pact Oppenheimer was the author of a notorious pamphlet denouncing FDR as a "counter-revolutionary war-monger" for giving aid the the British, who were then fighting for their lives under the Nazi blitz.

Nice post.

I wish I was at home, I have a copy of the transcripts of the AEC trial at home in a book. Extremely incredible that this guy was allowed in the door at Los Alamos, but then again, who knows, its hard to grasp a point in history without living in those times and being intimately connected to the event.

I like when they state Oppenheimer had, "alleged ties". The "alleged ties" are Oppenheimer's wife and brother in law. Card carrying members active in the Communist party of the USA, which back then, the Communist party of the USA was directly connected to the USSR.

I am bad at remembering the details. Things like Communist political parties at the Oppenheimer home, contributions, meeting known Communist agents and always that eliminate of doubt, how did Stalin seem to know about the bomb. Its an incredible transcript to read. Oppenheimer is pretty lucky he did not go to jail.

Some would say Oppenheimer got treated unfairly but that is how the game of war is played and that is where Oppenheimer played.

So many books to read, from the contradictions in Eisenhower's books to Truman's Memoirs, Stimson's books, Hull, so many books, so little time.

 

[JakeStarkey]

mdn1200 is crying because he was called a name, yet he regularly does that to others. So le'ts not do that.

mdn1200, why do all of you far righties not answer, "Why is that you all ignore and fail to respond to the fact that JM was pulled down by his own party?"

 

[Mark LaRochelle]

I have a copy of the transcripts of the AEC trial at home in a book.

It was actually just a hearing, not a trial. There was an administrative hearing by the Personnel Security Board, which ended with a recommendation that Oppenheimer's clearance not be renewed, and an appeal before the AEC itself, which ended with an affirmation of the PSB recommendation.

I like when they state Oppenheimer had, "alleged ties". The "alleged ties" are Oppenheimer's wife and brother in law. Card carrying members active in the Communist party of the USA, which back then, the Communist party of the USA was directly connected to the USSR.

I don't know about his brother-in-law, but Oppenheimer's brother Frank eventually confessed (after years of lying about it) to having been a Communist. Whether Frank (or Robert) was ever issued a party card I don't know. Chevalier and Griffiths said the Berkeley cell was part of the "professional section," therefore a "closed" (secret) unit, meaning that the members were ordered not to join the above-ground CPUSA. On the other hand, Folkoff told Kheifeitz that both Robert and Frank "were associated with" the CP; meanwhile FBI surveillance recorded that CP officers Jack Manley and “Katherine Sanders” (Katrina Sandow) “stated that Oppenheimer was a Communist Party member."

However, further surveillance reported that Nelson (Mesarosh) told Alameda County CP Secretary Bernadette Doyle that the organizer of the county's professional section, Hannah Peters (wife of Oppenheimer's student Bernard Peters, whom Oppenheimer had gotten into the Manhattan Project), instructed him that Oppenheimer, "because of his employment in a special project, could not be active in the party." To this Doyle responded that “the matter should be taken up with the state committee regarding the two OPPIES, inasmuch as they were regularly registered and everyone in the county knew they were Communists." She also told veteran Comintern agent John Murra “that OPPENHEIMER was a party member but that his name should be removed from any mailing lists in John Murra’s possession and he should not mention it in any way.”

The reason for all this sudden secrecy was that, after the Mironov affair, Merkulov ordered all "leaders and activists" of the above-ground CPUSA to "sever contacts" with "scientists and specialists engaged in work on uranium," reporting to Beria that Robert was an "unlisted member" of the "apparatus" (the "illegal" arm of the CPUSA). Ovakimian and Graur in turn reported to Merkulov that the CPUSA "received orders from its center to break off relations" with Robert (whom they identified as a "secret member" of the CPUSA) "to avoid his exposure." Referring to both Robert and Frank, Kheifetz confirmed that "due to their special military work, the connection with them was suspended."

Once the Manhattan Project crew severed ties with the CPUSA, the Soviets took over, switching their handling from the "apparatus" to direct control, via "Zubilin" (Zarubin), "Yakovlev" (Yatskov), Ivanov, etc.

 

[mdn2000]

mdn1200 is crying because he was called a name, yet he regularly does that to others. So le'ts not do that.

mdn1200, why do all of you far righties not answer, "Why is that you all ignore and fail to respond to the fact that JM was pulled down by his own party?"

Jake, can you honestly say I regularly call you names, you cannot. I did infer you were or are a Marxist based on some of your posts in one thread but outside that thread can you state that I consistently call you names, how about in this thread, can you quote me calling you a name. I Challenge you to find one post where I called you a name in my last 500 posts.

By all means I admit I call people names, but only in retaliation for insults and name calling by said person, so when I dish it back as best I can we get you crying about it. You are actually whining like an incoherent senile old man. Show the insults where I am not insulted first. They do not exist. Further if you examine all my posts you will find less than one percent are spam and insults, much I post is based on my experience in life and my knowledge of the subjects I choose to respond to.

Jake, that is not an insult to shorten your name to Jake is it, let me know and I will gladly not shorten your user name.

Anyhow Jake, I already spoke of JM, I did not ignore your question in the least bit, I specifically stated I have not and do not have the education to address JM. Yes, google is right here for me to use, sorry, but my knowledge is not a google result. I stated that, I specifically told you I have not the knowledge to address JM.

So your response is to state all I do is resort to name calling and ignoring.

I did not ignore this, I will quote my quote just to make that clear. I have not called you a name in a long time, and when I did, it was after I had a full blast of your quick wit at the keyboard.

I hope your not defending the pathetic and just saw this as an oppurtunity to attack me, I can respect a man that attacks me with intelligence and wit, what I find offensive is those who when frustrated decide they must make up a complete lie about another.

Yes, I stated I saw Marxism in your post in the past, was I wrong, maybe, at the time I simply stated how I interpetted what you posted along with all the other posts of the thread at that time. Too long ago to address here but I see that since that time you have had a beef with me and see this as you not letting go, which is great, but lets not be shallow and pretend your beef is anything else.

 

[mdn2000]

I have a copy of the transcripts of the AEC trial at home in a book.

It was actually just a hearing, not a trial. There was an administrative hearing by the Personnel Security Board, which ended with a recommendation that Oppenheimer's clearance not be renewed, and an appeal before the AEC itself, which ended with an affirmation of the PSB recommendation.

I like when they state Oppenheimer had, "alleged ties". The "alleged ties" are Oppenheimer's wife and brother in law. Card carrying members active in the Communist party of the USA, which back then, the Communist party of the USA was directly connected to the USSR.

I don't know about his brother-in-law, but Oppenheimer's brother Frank eventually confessed (after years of lying about it) to having been a Communist. Whether Frank (or Robert) was ever issued a party card I don't know. Chevalier and Griffiths said the Berkeley cell was part of the "professional section," therefore a "closed" (secret) unit, meaning that the members were ordered not to join the above-ground CPUSA. On the other hand, Folkoff told Kheifeitz that both Robert and Frank "were associated with" the CP; meanwhile FBI surveillance recorded that CP officers Jack Manley and “Katherine Sanders” (Katrina Sandow) “stated that Oppenheimer was a Communist Party member."

However, further surveillance reported that Nelson (Mesarosh) told Alameda County CP Secretary Bernadette Doyle that Hannah Peters (wife of Oppenheimer's student Bernard Peters, whom Oppenheimer had gotten into the Manhattan Project), organizer of the county professional section, instructed him that Oppenheimer, "because of his employment in a special project, could not be active in the party." To this Doyle responded that “the matter should be taken up with the state committee regarding the two OPPIES, inasmuch as they were regularly registered and everyone in the county knew they were Communists." She also told veteran Comintern agent John Murra “that OPPENHEIMER was a party member but that his name should be removed from any mailing lists in John Murra’s possession and he should not mention it in any way.”

The reason for all this sudden secrecy was that, after the Mironov affair, Merkulov ordered all "leaders and activists" of the above-ground CPUSA to "sever contacts" with "scientists and specialists engaged in work on uranium," reporting to Beria that Robert was an "unlisted member" of the "apparatus" (the "illegal" arm of the CPUSA). Ovakimian and Graur in turn reported to Merkulov that the CPUSA "received orders from its center to break off relations" with Robert "to avoid his exposure." Referring to both Robert and Frank, Kheifetz confirmed that "due to their special military work, the connection with them was suspended."

Once the Manhattan Project crew severed ties with the CPUSA, the Soviets took over, switching their handling from the "apparatus" to direct control, via "Zubilin" (Zarubin), Yakovlev, Ivanov, etc.

Nice post, a hearing, I am not that familiar with the difference between a hearing and a trial, it seems the same to me but I guess technically its not. Anyhow I rely on books and would of referenced my book but I am 6,000 miles away for another month. I could be wrong on the Brother-in-law, my memory suffers from a High School Education that was less than traditional.

 

[Gadawg73]

Name ONE thing that Oppenheimer did as a communist that inhibited the Manhattan Project, the development of the atomic bomb and the delivery of the atomic bomb.

As far as I know, Oppenheimer didn't do anything to inhibit the development of the atomic bomb. Everything I have read shows just the opposite, that he worked like the devil to get the thing up and working as soon as possible.

Gen. Leslie Groves, Oppenheimer's boss in the Manhattan Project, gave him very high marks for his indispensable role in bringing the atomic bomb into existence, although Groves did admit to some suspicion that Oppenheimer might have been involved in the establishment of rules that "tended to break down compartmentalization" of data at Los Alamos, making it exceedingly difficult to control the diffusion of secrets and prevent espionage. Groves blamed this "breakdown" for the fact that David Greenglass and Klaus Fuchs were able to commit atomic espionage while working under Oppenheimer's supervision. (We now know that these were not the only Soviet spies at Los Alamos: Theodore Hall, Boris Podolsky and Russell McNutt were even more successful -- not only in transmitting more damaging information than Fuchs and Greenglass, but in avoiding detection.)

Groves also expressed concern when some of the people Oppenheimer brought into the project became enmeshed in this conspiracy. For example, FBI surveillance caught Joe Weinberg, one of Oppenheimer's Berkeley grad students (who got into the project with Oppenheimer as a reference), covertly transferring information to NKVD agent "Steve Nelson" (Stephan Mesarosh); even after FBI surveillance caught another Oppenheimer protegé, Giovanni Lomanitz, covertly meeting with Mesarosh, Oppenheimer still fought to stop the Army from removing Lomanitz from the project. What concerned Groves most, however, was Oppenheimer's admitted lying and covering up for the secret Communist Haakon Chevalier, who tried (and failed) to recruit Oppenheimer into the conspiracy. Even after Oppenheimer named Chevalier, Groves said he "had the very definite impression that Dr. Oppenheimer wanted to protect his friends of long standing, possibly his brother" Frank, a Communist Party member Oppenheimer had brought into the project.

Groves said he knew that Oppenheimer represented a risk, but it was a calculated risk. Since the Nazi-Soviet pact had broken down, thought Groves, Oppenheimer's secret membership in the Communist Party might even be a positive in the war against the Axis. And who can argue with the results?

Oppenheimer's problems came afterward, during the Cold War. The calculus of risk involved in giving a Communist access to nuclear secrets when the adversary was the Nazis became very different once the adversary became the Soviets. Oppenheimer became obsessed with the idea that to prevent the destruction of the human race the U.S. had to turn its nuclear monopoly over to the UN or other international control. After he tried to persuade President Truman to do this, Truman became furious, telling Acheson, "I don't want to see that son-of-a-bitch in this office ever again."

When the Soviets broke the U.S. nuclear monopoly in 1949, the U.S. embarked on a crash program to develop the hydrogen bomb. Although he had been gung-ho in the development of the A-bomb, Oppenheimer took a different stance on the H-bomb. This development he did try mightily to inhibit. The Atomic Energy Commission asked Oppenheimer, chairman of the AEC's General Advisory Committee (GAC) on Science, what the GAC members thought of the H-bomb. One GAC member, Glen Seaborg, wrote to Oppenheimer, "I have been unable to come to the conclusion that we should not” proceed with this crash program to develop an H-bomb. “I would have to hear some good arguments before I could take on sufficient courage to recommend not going toward such a program."

Just as he had in the Chevalier incident, Oppenheimer lied, telling the AEC he found "a surprising unanimity [among GAC members]—to me very surprising—that the United States ought not to take the initiative... in an all out program for the development of thermonuclear weapons."

But what really persuaded the AEC that Oppenheimer had become an unacceptable risk were his 1953 meetings in Paris with Chevalier, whom Oppenheimer had admitted had tried to recruit him into atomic espionage for the Soviets. As a member of the GAC, Oppenheimer was required by law to report all such encounters; this he failed to do, fomenting suspicion that he was up to something covert.

I wouldn't call it "un-American" but, according to members of the underground Communist cell at Berkeley, during the Nazi-Soviet pact Oppenheimer was the author of a notorious pamphlet denouncing FDR as a "counter-revolutionary war-monger" for giving aid the the British, who were then fighting for their lives under the Nazi blitz.

Nice post.

I wish I was at home, I have a copy of the transcripts of the AEC trial at home in a book. Extremely incredible that this guy was allowed in the door at Los Alamos, but then again, who knows, its hard to grasp a point in history without living in those times and being intimately connected to the event.

I like when they state Oppenheimer had, "alleged ties". The "alleged ties" are Oppenheimer's wife and brother in law. Card carrying members active in the Communist party of the USA, which back then, the Communist party of the USA was directly connected to the USSR.

I am bad at remembering the details. Things like Communist political parties at the Oppenheimer home, contributions, meeting known Communist agents and always that eliminate of doubt, how did Stalin seem to know about the bomb. Its an incredible transcript to read. Oppenheimer is pretty lucky he did not go to jail.

Some would say Oppenheimer got treated unfairly but that is how the game of war is played and that is where Oppenheimer played.

So many books to read, from the contradictions in Eisenhower's books to Truman's Memoirs, Stimson's books, Hull, so many books, so little time.

And the USSR were our allies in the 40s.
We never trusted them and in fact the American communist party didn't trust them much either. Russia was about as far away from true communism as one can get.
Not that I advocate communism.
I would rather have had Oppenheimer than lose hundreds of thousands of America's finest in Japan.
Real easy for you to Monday morning QB Ike and the US military THAT WON THE FUCKING WAR.

 

[mdn2000]

I find Jakes posts to be of more substance than a dumb country boy's.

The far right's evidence has been discounted time and time again, and the far right here won't evaluate the counter evidence, so all they can do now is attack personality

When the far right begins strawman argumentation, they admit they have lost the discussion.

Guys, why won't you answer though I have posted this at least ten times, "Why was it JM's own party members who pulled him down?"

My evidence has yet to be addressed, Oppenhiemer.

I can see how you can read my post as insulting, in hindsight it reads that way, the Dumb Country Boy remark is another user I did not wish to identify personally, the user will recognize this description of himself for its a quote of his own he made in reference of himself.

If you notice I do not randomly join a debate with you, that is because I do not know enough of the many subjects you participate in. I have not studied Mccarthy, I know a bit, I hear a bit, and I trust what I hear because of the people who state it. I have yet to find anything that counters the facts I gather from my sources.

I cannot address your point without a huge internet search, my typical way of addressing subjects that interest me is to buy dozens of books and read them. Dozens of used books that seem relevant, books by people who lived in the times and books by historians.

If the arguement is that Mccarthy was grasping at straws and there was not a threat then that is easily proven as bullshit. I do not need to address Mccarthy at all to show the historical facts. The facts stand on thier own.

If your arguement is that Mccarthy was a drunk, great, big deal.

Oppenhiemer factually consorted with known Communists.

When I use the term Communist and as the term is used historically its not used in reference to an ideology, that is Marxism. Communism is the specific to the USSR, to state people knowingly associated with Communists states said person was associating with a person who affiliated with the Communism, or Communist working with the USSR.

This is not a matter that Mccarthy thought Liberal Ideology was Marxist, Mccarthy did not attack Ideology, Mccarthy went after people known to be working or connected or contacting Communist working directly with Communist as in Communism is specific to Russia.

Is that clear, the fight was not against ideology, it was a fight against Communist connected to or working with the USSR against the USA from within our corporations to our government.

I think the left must make this discussion about Mccarthy because the facts are to ugly, the facts stand on thier own, facts and investigations conducted by Truman and his administration, concerns identified by the Roosevelt administration, facts that are established long before Mccarthy.

Oppenhiemer, so simple, impossible to refute, to discuss Oppenhiemer the truth is painfully clear. Those who attack Mccarthy either knowingly or unwittingly are diverting the attention away from the facts.

Communist were actively spying and stealing and working from within our government.

You may of missed this post jake or maybe you were not addressing me when you state far rightees are ignoring your point. I cannot address something I have no knowledge of and am too busy to add another subject or point to my research. I can google a simple answer but that is not how I learn things.

I rely on books, books I buy, old books and new books, typically old used books.

Sorry, I just do not randomly post my opinion, I post fact that I back up with multiple sources.

Anyhow, good luck Jake, you deserve an answer, if I had the time I would find it for you.

When I get home I will take a look through my books.

 

[Mark LaRochelle]

I am not that familiar with the difference between a hearing and a trial

In the U.S., a trial is always before a judge; a hearing may be before a judge, an administrator or a panel, such as the AEC's Personnel Security Board.

 

[Mark LaRochelle]

And the USSR were our allies in the 40s.

Well, part of the '40s. Stalin spent the first part of the 1940s in the Nazi-Soviet pact, clinking vodka glasses with Von Ribbentrop, carving up Eastern Europe with Hitler, slaughtering Finns, Balts, Poles and Balkans, and handing over Jews to the Gestapo. When the pact collapsed, Stalin rushed into the arms of the European Allies, although he didn't join the Pacific Allies until the day the U.S. dropped the second A-bomb on Japan. Both alliances were over before that week was out, with the Japanese surrender. Stalin spent the remainder of the '40s gobbling up Eastern Europe and denouncing his former allies as reactionary, counter-revolutionary war-mongers, etc.

We never trusted them and in fact the American communist party didn't trust them much either.

I didn't know that the CPUSA didn't trust Moscow. What's your source for that?

Whether the CPUSA trusted the Soviets or not, it slavishly obeyed them. When Stalin said war is a capitalist racket, the CPUSA was pacifist; when he said we must fight the fascists in Spain, the CPUSA became pro-war; when, during the Nazi-Soviet pact, he denounced the Allies for fighting the fascists, the CPUSA again became pacifist; when that pact collapsed, the CPUSA again became pro-war. When Stalin ordered the CPUSA to dump Earl Browder and install William Z. Foster, the CPUSA did; and when he told the CPUSA to dissolve itself and reconstitute itself as the "Communist Political Association," it did that, too.

Russia was about as far away from true communism as one can get.
Not that I advocate communism.

That's the first time I can remember ever seeing anyone who didn't advocate communism make that claim: Emma Goldman wrote something similar, but she advocated communism; after he lost his bid to succeed Lenin as dictator, Trotsky said something similar, but he advocated communism; when I was in school various professors taught something similar, but they were always advocating the "true communism" of China, or Cuba, or Cambodia...

I used to enjoy the fights between Trotskyites, orthodox Communists, syndicalists and anarchists over just what was "true communism"; it was like watching the Thirty Years War over the "one true religion," as reenacted by children playing soldier. But it always struck me as presumptuous for those people to proclaim, from the comfort and safety of capitalism, that they knew what "true communism" was better than those Communists who made heroic sacrifices, and gave their lives in huge numbers, to show the world just exactly what real, existing communism always is, and must always be.

 

[JakeStarkey]

mdn1200 is crying because he was called a name, yet he regularly does that to others. So le'ts not do that.

mdn1200, why do all of you far righties not answer, "Why is that you all ignore and fail to respond to the fact that JM was pulled down by his own party?"

<snip> [ /QUOTE]

Don't cry about what you do. I have generally tried to treat others how they treat me. Don't call me names, I won't do the same to you.

But it is false to call me a marxist, socialist, or a commie, etc. Anyone can do it, but realize that no one ever has presented any categorical evidence that I believe in any of that. I do know the terms. I do know American history and political science. I fully understand governmental systems. I do know that Obama by no stretch of the imagination is any more a socialist than Bush or McCain or the Pauls; he is, however, a Democrat who believes in social democracy. I know that social democracy within the capitalistic system is not socialism. Anyone who argues differently either is malignantly motivated, mentally feeble, or simply uneducated about it.

I do know that folks here on the far right poison the Republican Party with false definitions of terms and incredible revisionism of history. Joe McCarthy, wrapped in the flag and pretending to be a patriot, struck at American democracy with his rantings and chantings. The devil knows that a good seduction incorporates some truth in the lie. Yes, some commies were in our government. This was nothing new. How JM went about his denunciation poisoned the freedoms on which America rests.

And no one yet on the far right has explained, or even admitted for that matter, that JM was pulled down by his own party members.

 

[mdn2000]

mdn1200 is crying because he was called a name, yet he regularly does that to others. So le'ts not do that.

mdn1200, why do all of you far righties not answer, "Why is that you all ignore and fail to respond to the fact that JM was pulled down by his own party?"

<snip> [ /QUOTE]

Don't cry about what you do. I have generally tried to treat others how they treat me. Don't call me names, I won't do the same to you.

But it is false to call me a marxist, socialist, or a commie, etc. Anyone can do it, but realize that no one ever has presented any categorical evidence that I believe in any of that. I do know the terms. I do know American history and political science. I fully understand governmental systems. I do know that Obama by no stretch of the imagination is any more a socialist than Bush or McCain or the Pauls; he is, however, a Democrat who believes in social democracy. I know that social democracy within the capitalistic system is not socialism. Anyone who argues differently either is malignantly motivated, mentally feeble, or simply uneducated about it.

I do know that folks here on the far right poison the Republican Party with false definitions of terms and incredible revisionism of history. Joe McCarthy, wrapped in the flag and pretending to be a patriot, struck at American democracy with his rantings and chantings. The devil knows that a good seduction incorporates some truth in the lie. Yes, some commies were in our government. This was nothing new. How JM went about his denunciation poisoned the freedoms on which America rests.

And no one yet on the far right has explained, or even admitted for that matter, that JM was pulled down by his own party members.

Gee, jake, I am sorry I am so weak in the face of all you present, yes, in the future I will try not to cry, I will call my emotions, as the Liberals demand, I will not name call, when you call me names, I will do nothing to offend you, and yes, I sit here crying, your so cruel to me I cannot take it. Yes all do is call you names, as in every quote of mine, that you respond to we all see the hate filled names I have been calling you. I must dry my tears, maybe a drink or two to call my nerves, i can hardly take you onslaught and yes I have been weak in the face of your stinging commentary, for that is what I call your posts, at best commentary and not fact.

Ah shit, what the fuck is all over my shoe, I must wipe my feet, for after reading Jakes post, I feel as though I have stepped in dog shit.

Damn.

 

[JakeStarkey]

<snip> [ /QUOTE]

Don't cry about what you do. I have generally tried to treat others how they treat me. Don't call me names, I won't do the same to you.

But it is false to call me a marxist, socialist, or a commie, etc. Anyone can do it, but realize that no one ever has presented any categorical evidence that I believe in any of that. I do know the terms. I do know American history and political science. I fully understand governmental systems. I do know that Obama by no stretch of the imagination is any more a socialist than Bush or McCain or the Pauls; he is, however, a Democrat who believes in social democracy. I know that social democracy within the capitalistic system is not socialism. Anyone who argues differently either is malignantly motivated, mentally feeble, or simply uneducated about it.

I do know that folks here on the far right poison the Republican Party with false definitions of terms and incredible revisionism of history. Joe McCarthy, wrapped in the flag and pretending to be a patriot, struck at American democracy with his rantings and chantings. The devil knows that a good seduction incorporates some truth in the lie. Yes, some commies were in our government. This was nothing new. How JM went about his denunciation poisoned the freedoms on which America rests.

And no one yet on the far right has explained, or even admitted for that matter, that JM was pulled down by his own party members.

<snip>

mdn2000 continues to whine. Uses the word 'liberal' as an excuse. Well, I suppose that is better than 'marxist' or 'commie', but even 'liberal' is inaccurate. Can't accept that not calling names is a two street. Simply has trouble accepting that you have been criticized. You can get over it. Tough.

 

[mdn2000]

<snip>

mdn2000 continues to whine. Uses the word 'liberal' as an excuse. Well, I suppose that is better than 'marxist' or 'commie', but even 'liberal' is inaccurate. Can't accept that not calling names is a two street. Simply has trouble accepting that you have been criticized. You can get over it. Tough.

You really do not understand a thing do you Jake, I guess you can characterize this as whining, beats the hell out of addressing the issue, you have any idea what this thead is about or what I posted.

Further proof that when the Liberal-Marxist loses the next tactic is to call the opponent names.

Obama is a Marxist, Hillary Clinton is a Marxist, Clinton's thesis was an argument in favor of Marxism but I can not provide a link as proof, you see when the Liberal-Marxist accuses the Conservatives of being secretive that is "projecting" that which they are guilty of they accuse "Their" enemies of. Remember, we are joined in a Far Right Wing Conspiracy.

Anyhow just saying there are an awful lot of Marxist in the leadership of the Liberal's, while the minions are in complete denial, for political advantage, the average American is against Marxism or Communism hence the need for complete denial.

Of course its possible some do not realize they are Marxist, I think, and I do not speak of the person who I quoted above, but I know that some just do not know because they do not have the education to know the ideals they foolishly follow are Marxist.

Obama's praise, worship, and the honor he gives the Marxist Chinese leader Hu is a perfect example. The Liberal does not see Obama paying respect to Marxism, or if they do they ignore it and characterize the honor given simply as being a good President, and in the same breath they will give an example how the evil Bush destroyed or image in the world.

You have heard the Red Neck jokes, "you may be a Red Neck if there are three cars in your yard but you cannot see them because of the weeds".

Well, you may be a Marxist if you have read or quoted Howard Zinn or Noam Chomsky.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frankie...I've struggled with the point of this thread. It can't really be about McCarthy. It must be about your fear of communism. Didn't you get the memo? Communism fails all on it's own. Our newest and bestest enemy is Islam. McCarthy's warnings were stupid. He way over rated them.

Ignorance looks good on you, wear it in good health.