Talk:Joseph McCarthy

Rosenbergs
So Truman persecuted and fried the Rosenbergs, not McCarthy or Republicans. That a new, interesting, and non-partisan twist. nobsCorporations are people, too. 05:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh? 05:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally as the narratives go the Rosenbergs were victims of a McCarthtyite right-wing fascist conspiracy. As the article rightly clarifies -- McCarthy had nothing to do with the Rosenbergs. But it goes on to reveal the embarrassing truth the Rosenbergs were investigated, charged, and convicted by the Truman Justice Dept. Now one can argue, on a bi-partisan basis, this is just another example of Truman's incompetence. On the other hand scholars moreless agree, Truman's reputation has been rehabilitated over the years (George Bush's approval ratings were higher than Truman's when he left office). Many misnotions about Soviet Communism and infiltration into U.S. life have been exploded, and the old myths and narratives don't stand up to scrutiny. nobsCorporations are people, too. 05:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, the Rosenbergs were guilty--or at least Julius was, Ethel's guilt is still an open question. The point really is, though, that McCarthy accused the Democrats of being soft on Communism when they were anything but, even getting caught up in the hysteria themselves. Godspeed (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * McCarthy's immediate motivation only two weeks after the Hiss conviction (remember, 1952 Democratic Presidential nominee Adlai Stevenson appeared as a character witness for Hiss) was the Amerasia coverup. Several operatives were caught red handed in possession of stolen classified materials and the worst punishment was a $500 fine, I think. McCarthy's Wheeling speech occurred shortly after the Soviets exploded their first nuke when it became impossible to hide from the public security breaches during the FDR/Truman years. And within 6 months after the Wheeling speech, 58,000 Americans began getting killed in the Korean War under Truman's police action. So public opinion was very attuned to hearing McCarthy at this time, and the sniping ad hominems against McCarthy then -- and now -- really appear to obscure underlying issues and be sympathetic to Stalinism. nobsCorporations are people, too. 12:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * cool, but who cares?-- il' Dictator   Mikal  13:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You should. NebraskaStudies.org basically outlines the issue almost exactly as above -- with one big exception that even contradicts this wiki article. "I have in my hand 57 cases of individuals", not the 205 cited in the article. What? Are people in Nebraska that ignorant of history? Perhaps they think Rommel won the North Africa campaign, too. nobsCorporations are people, too. 16:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * -- il' Dictator   Mikal  18:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Is the "sympathetic to Stalin" jibe some sort of meta-joke about fellow travelers? The Soviet union broke up 20 years ago. As to the substance of your comments, you probably know more about Reds under the beds than I do. Wikipedia seems to have a different take on the Amerasia affair than you do. Apparently, in order to get a conviction, you have to have something called "evidence."
 * The problem McCarthy had is that once you get caught out as a serial liar, you lose all credibility. If he learned nothing else from the Hiss case, he should have learned that. Godspeed (talk)<
 * Amerasia was an illegal breakin, first by the OSS (in today's parlance called "domestic spying"), then by the FBI without probable cause (they got their evidence from OSS). So those who arrested civil rights were violated. A little more than two decades later, these same abuses were called "impeachable offenses". So there is just a whole shitoad of stuff here that's been glossed over. nobsCorporations are people, too. 01:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

McCarthy was right about everything
The first Soviet atomic bomb called RDS-1 was a copy of the American "Fat Man" implosion device. From 1944 to 1947 the Soviet. A man named Klaus Fuchs who worked at Los Alamos gave the Soviets all the info on Fat Man. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 24.189.254.24 / talk / contribs
 * -- il' Dictator   Mikal  00:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

To update mentions
A poorer marksman has rarely existed in human history. He entirely failed to hit even a single mark, even counting his "tailgunning" episode. He hit innocent traffic, missing any valid target of opportunity, due to wearing blinders.Wzrd1 (talk) 06:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The comment about segregationist democrats...
...is off topic trivia. It adds nothing to the article. We don't need to know how each random senator voted when it came to censuring him.-Flandres (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, "it adds nothing to the article"? It's a factual detail, even if a small one. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Rational wiki is not an obsessive encyclopedia. For the purposes of the article, all you need to know is that he was censured. We don't cover every controversial vote of every senator...especially because this is a page about JOESEPH MCCARTHY, not the various senators who did not like him.-Flandres (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding in the fact that segregationists supported the censure isn't "obsessive". UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's minor trivia. We gain nothing in chronicling how each senator voted to censure him. It matters that he was censured. We could also talk about how this is merely you attempting to associate criticism of McCarthy with racist attitudes...-Flandres (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And we can also talk about how you reverting additions of factual details is an attempt to remove information you don't like... UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Eh, I explained why. You are adding trivia that is not relevant to this specific article. If anything, this should go on the pages of whatever segregationist senators voted to censure.-Flandres (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The detail is about segregationists voting to censure McCarthy, which is obviously relevant to the fact that he got censured. Thus, it has its relevance to the article. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Uh...no. All that is relevant is to say "he got censured." The Individual ideological blocs who voted whatever are not relevant. Are you going to list how all the progressive republicans, Taft republicans, and progressive democrats all voted too?-Flandres (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not? Perhaps it's something I can circle back to. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And all of that will still be going too in depth. Again, if you really want to see this in main space for some weird reason, do it on the pages of the various senators who voted to censure. A list of them is not relevant to McCarthy himself.-Flandres (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh well, if you insist that the detail of racist segregationists opposing McCarthy just isn't worthy putting on the article... UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The tidbit is fine, and the topic of how McCarthy interacted with the Dixiecrats is missional and of interest. 22:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you at least do better at portraying the historical context then? Analyzer was using it to push the Dixiecrat fallacy(like most of his main space edits).-Flandres (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll take a look. 22:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As promised. There's not much on the subject, and it ended up being a fairly boring case of LBJ being a strong minority leader who wanted to fuck over a Republican for partisanship. Interestingly, one of McCarthy's earlier GOP opponents,, actually ended up switching parties in 1955. 23:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your new section is quite good, and I have no objection to it. Excellent work as usual, Duce!-Flandres (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Brexit
Will mention this (there may be better links). Anna Livia (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Soviet agent?
Honestly, it reads like he was actually a deep cover agent in charge of the whole witch hunt. Of course he would only finger already compromised real agents. No information on that?--Arisano (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)