Joe McCarthy's Ghost

The Brawler is aware dad29 was troubled by names hurled in his direction in a previous post. That's somewhat perplexing, given Dad29's admiration of the dissembling and slandering Ann Coulter and Joe McCarthy.

Yes, that Joe McCarthy. The one, who as the Onion once pointed out, was going to find a list of Communists at the bottom of a bottle.

The Brawler was going to write a lengthy explanation of why Dad29's admiration is misplaced when he says things like this:

Joe McCarthy is a hero. Yeah, he drank. Yeah, he used nasty words to describe Dean Acheson, and Felix Frankfurter, and other jackasses of their ilk.

He's still a hero.

But it's late and, man, where do you start. WIth how he tried to free SS troops who executed American soldiers? See? Where do you start?

I'll defer for now and refer to an admonition from Brad DeLong:

In my view, people should be forbidden to praise or excuse Joe McCarthy on pain of heavy fines until they have submitted a signed and notarized declaration that they have (a) reflected upon the careers of Dean Acheson and George Marshall, (b) acknowledged that the World Communist Conspiracy had no greater or more effective foes in the aftermath of World War II than Dean Acheson, George Marshall, and their boss Harry Truman, and (c) read Joe McCarthy's Senate speech of June 14, 1951:

Here's the start of that speech:

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.

No doubt dad29 will point out how Joe's been misunderstood, that for decades his greatness has been covered up by the liberal media. (Like Barone, for instance). But when he points to "history" produced by the likes of the factually challenged Coulter, I'm not swayed that we've been bamboozled on this point.

And no doubt he will say how FDR and HST abandoned East Europe and China to the Commies. (Though don't know if he would add that Churchill had essentially ceded a chunk of Eastern Europe to Stalin in '44). The great Yalta betrayal. Yadayadayada. To which I would say if he thinks the U.S. public would have tolerated going to war against the Soviet Union after World War II to rescue Eastern Europe -- or force a case that depended on a credible threat of force of arms -- I think he's mistaken. Ditto the notion that the US public would have accepted an invasion of China to support Chiang Kai-Shek.

The US public was up in arms about how slowly soldiers were being demobbed after the War.

I don't think there was any namecalling here, was there? Also, dad, if you're reading: no one's blocking you from making a comment.

Comments

[dad29]

OK, we'll try again.

You defend Truman by stating that he was not able to "retain" China (in effect.) No one said HST was personally able to "retain" China--but it IS the case that HST, taking his advice from a Communist, pulled the plug on Chiang Kai-shek's army--and ensuring thereby the loss of the mainland. For that matter, given the opportunity to strip North Korea from Red hands, HST, the "hero" fired MacArthur instead. Petty jealousy on HST's part; he knew that MacArthur was FAR more popular than HST was, and made a call which is still costing the US (and Japan, and Taiwan, and the Russkis) a lot.

Further, you maintain that the USA was not prepared to go to war to keep Eastern Europe out of the hands of the Reds. Maybe, maybe not. Far more arguable is your contention that Churchill acquiesced willingly. If that were the case, why did Churchill give the "Iron Curtain" speech which explicitly condemned the Empire? Perhaps you have proof that Churchill was all in favor of giving Eastern Europe to Joe Stalin. Please produce it.

While we're there--why did HST stiff Churchill after C. gave the "Iron Curtain" speech? HST was SCHEDULED to meet with C, and conveniently excused himself. Perhaps another Commie adviser?

George C Marshall was a great general, and a foreign policy idiot. His original Marshall Plan included handing a few $zillion to the Commie regime in the Soviet Union, too. Fortunately, Congress, led by Republicans, saw it differently.

Simply calling Marshall "a great man" does not make it so. See: the funeral oration for Caesar as rendered by W. Shakespeare.

Sorry--your arguments are unconvincing and/or begin from the wrong premise. Better luck next time.