Many historians date the ( Second ) Red Scare to 75 years ago this year. On Feb. 9, 1950, Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy made his first anti-communist speech in Wheeling, West Virginia, now often known as the” Enemies From Within” speech. Days earlier, on Jan. 26, Rep. Richard M. Nixon had reported to the House on” The Snarl Situation: A Lesson for the American People”. This” Second Red Scare”, or” McCarthyism”, lasted the decade.  ,
Between then and now, two great discoveries for historians came up, both in the mid-1990s. The Venona Project, which made people contacts intercepted by National intelligence from decades earlier, was the first set to be released by the legislative Commission on Government Secrecy. The next set came from an all too simple beginning of the Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History, or RGASPI, to Western scholars by the pre-Putin Russian Federation.  ,
What we have learned with the benefits of day and these declassified files, at the highest levels, is a lesson in production. One, McCarthy’s investigative and smear techniques were because reactionary as the media had predicted. Two, there actually were Red to concern, as Venona and RGASPI records confirm — far less than the Right asserted, far more than the Left claimed. There were in fact some Communist-sympathizing Americans working as Communist agents inside the U.S. authorities in the middle of the 20th century, but one doesn’t have to be a fan or advocate to recognize this. One just needs to be aware of the historical record that has been documented.
If any spies involved in the Red Scare are performing their duties, historical details about the incident remain unsatisfactory and incomplete ( as should be ). However, fresh information occasionally appears. I look forward to each new book as the granddaughter of Whittaker Chambers, who accused Alger Hiss, a mid-level State Department standard, of being a Russian spy and sparked a stunning series of trials and trials that gripped the nation for years. That is, I await them gladly but trepidatiously. Are that new discoveries shared? Are there any fresh perspectives on sell?  ,
In the preface of the latest such volume, Red Scare, author Clay Risen declares that the ( Second ) Red Scare “didn’t end for everyone”. That’s a enticing rope. What does he think? ” I leave it up to the reader” . ,
Red Scare is very biased. Roosevelt and the New Deal are supported by Risen. He is against the 1948 Progressive Party and its “moon-eyed” political member Henry A. Wallace. He opposes Truman, whose badly executed loyalty plan sets the stage for the Second Red Scare. Eisenhower and Truman are never “distinct and separate,” according to him. That’s the lay of the property. As arrogant and socially polarized historians can be excellent, as long as they provide compelling facts, none of this should offend the reader.  ,
What undermines this text, however, is a desire for social narrative over details. This guide is not about what happened in the past; it is about good guys and bad guys. This preference is made known even in the prose itself, which uses a pervasive” they” of bad guys ( assuming that “we” readers are the good guys ).  ,
Obviously, good guys and bad guys in serious moments make for fun background reading. Additionally, the language in this book is enjoyable to read. However, as story more than entertainment, Risen’s characterizations cusp on the cartoon. Instead of scientific descriptions, scenes frequently appear in scenes from the ancient CBS television program You Are There. The guide rounds up the usual suspects — understandably, usually members of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, or HUAC, and the FBI. Here is how Risen introduces one popular HUAC member:” Nothing besides his family little liked Richard Nixon, not then, never before, not always. He was raised and born with the dislike of the better off in the small town. He carried a microprocessor big enough for everyone”.
Out of 28 pages, three problem the Alger Hiss-Whittaker Chambers Case. The books on this traditional episode is unfortunately divided into two edges: pro-Hiss or pro-Chambers. These sides usually script for pro-Democrat or pro-Republican, an ever-growing pity, since facts in this new record do keep collecting.  ,
Worse than simply regurgitating pro-Hiss writing, Red Scare may be misleading. For example, Risen claims that at the end of Hiss’s next trial, a guilty conviction for Hiss was a “foregone realization” because of the “tide of anti-Communism”. These, Risen seems to have confused the various facilities involved in the Hiss case — what Time magazine called a” three-ring carnival” in 1948. The situation with HUAC began in Washington in August. Hiss sued Chambers for tort in Baltimore in October. Hiss was charged with perjury in New York in December after the Justice Department’s investigation. In Washington, HUAC generally treated testimony as “guilty”, but in New York, two judges tried Hiss for fraud. The second resulted in a placed judge, 8-4 election guilty. The following received a unanimous verdict of guilty. Hiss spent the rest of his life retrying the case “in the court of public opinion” ( also the title of his first book in 1957 ). Pertinently, Risen lists no reserve by Hiss in the journal — a total mistake.
Risen doesn’t subject his primary, secondary, or secondary sources. In truth, he asks no issues. Here is a straightforward query he overlooked. When the Hiss situation started, Chambers did not name Hiss. He named a whole cast of characters in a” Ware Group” detective band, for whom Chambers served as a messenger. At first, Hiss and other users of the Ware Group received as much or more media. Why did Hiss later get included in the ostensible team? Because, after Chambers’s evidence, Hiss pushed his way to the front of the hearing range and got onto HUAC’s have only two days later — a near-Olympic achievement, which Risen fails to issue. Ask no fresh questions, find no new solutions.  ,
Worse than his errors, Risen commits scientific problems, large and small. Here is one great one: Regarding Chambers’s first evidence, Risen states,” Nor did he also once hint at espionage”. The exact opposite is true. On day one, Chambers’s testimony included three important, back-to-back statements about the Ware Group. The group’s original intent at the time was not primarily espionage. The original goal of it was the American government’s infiltration by the Communists. However, espionage was unquestionably one of its final goals. Even the first two sentences are quoted by Risen, but the third is dropped. This is sloppy or intentionally misleading.
At times, Risen sprinkles in misleading speculation. A key part of the conclusion of this historical episode concerned the” Pumpkin Papers” ( forebear of the Pentagon Papers, Panama Papers, etc. prior to Hiss ‘ federal indictment in New York, which were stolen secret documents that Chambers produced to defend himself in Hiss ‘ lawsuit in Baltimore. Later, Hiss ‘ convictions were aided by the Pumpkin Papers ‘ New York trials. Risen asserts that Chambers kept the Pumpkin Papers “in his back pocket” as a “last card” when testifying. Has Risen not read the Hiss case books? When he defected ( 1938 ), Chambers had prepared to leave the Pumpkin Papers ( microfilm and documents ) against the Soviets by keeping them a secret. The Soviets were already liquidating defectors: Soon they would kill Chambers’s friend Walter Krivitsky ( 1940 ) and Leon Trotsky ( 1941 ). A decade later, Chambers had no “back pocket” or “last card” because he had no plan to testify. Without his subpoena, there would likely not have been a Hiss case without his subpoena. Risen is free to refute Chambers ‘ claims regarding his stated motives and how the chain of events was told, but as a historian, he needs to address the facts more clearly.
It’s unfortunate that this book has such negative aspects, which is the case with many other historical fiction books. Political partisanship has polluted the way that people remember the Red Scares for decades. There is no justification for books like this these days, with records from Venona and RGASPI releases to confirm facts that were much more in dispute in the 1950s.  ,
CLICK HERE TO ACCESS MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
His grandfather, Whittaker Chambers, was a key player in the Hiss case ( 1948-1950 ), and David Chambers is an independent historian of Soviet espionage and the Hiss case. He runs WhittakerChambers. org.  ,
