Levin and Collins Trigger Disinformation. Senate Historian Clams Up When Queried On McCarthy

In a key step toward unravelling the secret history of the Cold War, the U. S. Senate last week released 50-year-old executive hearings on subversion and internal security matters conducted by Sen. Joe McCarthy (R.-Wis.).

Running to more than 4,000 pages, these hearings are crammed with backstage data on a host of once-torrid issues—including controversial McCarthy sessions on the Voice of America, United States Information Agency libraries, State Department personnel, and the Army Signal Corps installation at Fort Monmouth, N.J., to name a few. The last is of special interest as it was the prelude to the famous Army-McCarthy fracas in the spring of 1954, the event most people are probably aware of, if only dimly, when they think about McCarthy.

Unfortunately, the send-off they have been given by Senators Carl Levin (D.-Mich.) and Susan Collins (R.-Me.), and Donald Ritchie, the Senate historian who edited the hearings, has stirred up an orgy of media disinformation. All three have made invidious comments about McCarthy, putting a huge negative spin on the story. As most media types don’t read much further than summaries and press releases, these initial statements from the Senate sponsors can only serve to darken counsel.

Levin and Collins got the honor of releasing the hearings, under the 50-year Senate rule relating to such records, because they were chairman and ranking minority member, respectively, of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations in the previous Congress. (This was the panel headed by McCarthy that conducted the executive hearings.) In a preface to the massive five-volume set, Levin and Collins zestfully bash McCarthy, setting the tone for media coverage. However, to judge from further inquiry on the matter, neither of them knows anything about it.

In their preface, Levin-Collins assert that “Sen. McCarthy’s zeal to uncover subversion and espionage led to disturbing excesses. His browbeating tactics destroyed the careers of people who were not involved in the infiltration of our government.” Similar statements have been made by Senate Historian Ritchie in comments to the press, and numerous stories have repeated these charges as uncontested fact. But when asked to back up this sweeping and inflammatory statement, neither Senate office could do so.

Trying to check the matter out, I called the offices of both Levin and Collins and asked if they could provide me with the names of any innocent victims of McCarthy whose careers had been ruined in this manner. Neither office could provide me with a single name.

I also addressed the same question to a reporter for the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call, whose story happened to be the first one I read about the hearings and who made such assertions on his own. I got essentially the same non-answer, except that he mentioned in his story the case of an employee of VOA who had committed suicide—allegedly from fear of McCarthy.

Similar conversations ensued with reporters from the Washington Post and Reuters, both of whom got very testy when I asked them if they could back up anti-McCarthy comments in their stories with information on specific cases. Ken Ringle of the Post said write us a letter, and Joanne Kenen of Reuters was much too busy to discuss the matter with me.

In these press conversations, the people I talked to said the individual with all the answers was Senate historian Ritchie, who contributed his own introduction to the hearings slamming McCarthy, in slightly more subtle terms than those used by Levin-Collins. However, when I finally got Ritchie on the phone, he wasn’t much more helpful, giving me lots of generalities, but little by way of hard specifics. (It’s a big subject, and so forth).

As to McCarthy’s browbeating tactics, said Ritchie, they were apparent throughout the hearings, particularly those pertaining to Fort Monmouth. I told him I had read a fair amount of these (plus the long-available public hearings conducted by McCarthy) and personally I didn’t see it. A matter of interpretation, I suppose, but hardly justification for the venomous slurs that are being thrown around so freely.

I then tried to narrow things down to a specific case I have studied in some detail: Alleged McCarthy victim Annie Lee Moss, who worked in a code room for the Army and was called before his subcommittee.

In the standard treatment of Moss, she was a dazed and helpless woman falsely accused of being a Communist by the heartless and irresponsible McCarthy. This image is reinforced at some length by Ritchie in his editorial comments, citing as authority for his statements three books about McCarthy by academics.

I noted that these were secondary sources and asked him if he had looked at the official, primary documents on the case, and whether he was aware that these conclusively prove Mrs. Moss was, indeed, a member of the Communist Party in the District of Columbia.

At this point historian Ritchie became very irked with me, and declined my offer to capsule these data for him. “I am,” he said, “growing very tired of this conversation.” He said he had been doing many media appearances on the McCarthy hearings, didn’t want to talk about the subject with me anymore, but that if I wanted to send something to him he would look at it. End of discussion.

Questions abound: How does it happen that Senators Levin and Collins make categorical statements in a Senate report that their offices cannot back up with a single specific?

Why was historian Ritchie so unwilling to discuss with me well-documented facts about one of the more publicized McCarthy cases—though he has been prolific with disparaging comments on McCarthy to anyone who will listen?

What ever happened to fact-based reporting? And, who, by the way, is running the Senate?

P.S. On the VOA employee allegedly driven to suicide by McCarthy: As the record shows, this employee was a potentially friendly witness for McCarthy, had views on the question at issue that would have backed McCarthy’s position, and was anxious to testify in the McCarthy hearings. Whatever drove this employee to suicide, if that is what in fact occurred, fear of Joe McCarthy is the least likely of all explanations. The reporter I spoke to on this knew nothing at all about these matters.

Several people at the Voice of America and the State Department were pulling a "Peter Jennings" and changing the news scripts to favor communists. From Volume 1 of the transcripts:

VOICE OF AMERICA
[Editor's note.--Created during World War II as part of the Office of War Information (OWI), the Voice of America (VOA) relied heavily on refugees who could speak the languages of the countries to whom it broadcast. Many had intensely anti-Fascist or anti-Communist leanings that colored their radio commentary and caused internal dissension within the agency. Dissident employees with the VOA formed an ``Anti-Communist Underground,'' collecting files on suspected Communist sympathizers and leaking information to congressional critics, who accused both the OWI and VOA of being Communist infiltrated. Divisions within the VOA persisted during the Cold War era between those who wanted to use its broadcasts primarily to attack international communism and those who wanted to broadcast objective news to give the VOA more credibility than the propaganda-laden broadcasts out of Moscow.
On February 13, 1953, a headline in the Chicago Tribune read: ``Uncover Plot in `Voice' to Sabotage U.S.'' Under a New York dateline, reporter Willard Edwards wrote: ``A senate investigation of Communist influences in the Voice of America headquarters here has uncovered amazing evidence of a conspiracy to subvert American policy in this nation's radio propaganda broadcasts abroad.
``Scores of witnesses, questioned day and night in the last week, have involved high officials in a detailed account, supported by documentary proof, which indicates deliberate sabotage of American objectives in foreign propaganda. . . .
The senate investigations subcommittee, headed by Sen. McCarthy [R., Wis.] had planned open hearings here after an earlier preliminary investigation had indicated communist leanings among employees who direct the policy of foreign broadcasts intended to fight Russia's propaganda.
``But the closed door questioning has developed a picture of such appalling proportions that executive sessions, beginning tomorrow in the United States courthouse, have been ordered. The strictest secrecy concerning testimony was ordered by Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel. . . . Meanwhile, consternation prevailed in the Voice of America headquarters at 57th St. and Broadway, where 1,500 employees provide daily broadcasts in 46 languages and dialects for nations thruout the world. Committee subpoenas were fluttering on desks like pigeons in Union Square and more than 100 witnesses have been lined up for questioning.
``Despite the rigid secrecy ordered by the McCarthy staff, a reporter's inquiries in these offices elicited much information concerning the evidence being gathered. Many of those subpoenaed, it developed, had long waited for the day when they could testify concerning conditions in the agency when they were under congressional protection.
``This near fantastic situation emerged: Some two years ago, a large number of Voice of America workers banded together in an American underground' to oppose the operations of the pro-communist groups. They quietly gathered records and office memoranda which showed Red influence and stored them for the day of investigation which they hoped would come.
``These papers are being turned over to the McCarthy committee, together with oral testimony concerning the activities of policy directing officials.''
TESTIMONY OF VIRGIL H. FULLING
Mr. Fulling. I am employed at the Voice of America in the news section . . .My duties at present: I am the chief of the Latin American news service, and my duties are to process news. I have two or three writers under me. To process news, have it written, and send it on the wire to the Latin American language desk, across the street from us, and they translate it into Spanish and into Portuguese, and transmit it to Latin America.
Mr. Cohn. It is transmitted over the Voice of America facilities to Latin America?
Mr. Fulling. Yes.
Mr. Cohn. Has it been your impression that the function of the Voice of America is to counter propaganda and furnish true information about this country and the free democratic world?
Mr. Fulling. It has.
Mr. Cohn. Have you ever noticed any attempts to interfere with you in your endeavors to carry out those objectives?
Mr. Fulling. I have.
Mr. Cohn. Has that attempt been on the part of your superiors in the news service?
Mr. Fulling. I considered it such, yes.
Mr. Cohn. Would you tell us very briefly, in general terms, just what this has involved?
Mr. Fulling. I have written, or had written, for transmission to Latin America, various news stories of interest to that area. These news stories at times, where I had placed emphasis on certain things which I felt in keeping with our policy of advancing the best interests of the United States of America--I have found that on the central news desk, which has the final judgment on my copy before it goes on the wire, changes have been made which materially affected the emphasis of that copy, the news material.
Mr. Cohn. Has this happened on more than one occasion?
Mr. Fulling. This has happened, yes, on more than one occasion.
Mr. Cohn. Now, I want to call your attention specifically to the date, January 21, 1953 of this year. Do you recall that day?
Mr. Fulling. Yes, I do.
Mr. Cohn. Was that the day after President Eisenhower's inauguration?
Mr. Fulling. Yes. Mr. Cohn. And did one of these incidents to which you have referred occur on that day?
Mr. Fulling. Yes, it did.
Mr. Cohn. Would you tell the chairman and Senator Jackson about that?
Mr. Fulling. The day after General Eisenhower's inauguration, we had various items from different countries in which they showed exultation or gratification that General Eisenhower had been inducted into office.
The Chairman. In other words, you got the wire services from the various countries showing what their reaction was to Eisenhower's inauguration?
Mr. Fulling. That is correct, Senator.
The Chairman. And that is the wire service that was supplied to all the newspapers in this country, and I assume you got the same wire service?
Mr. Fulling. That is true. We don't have as full a wire service as we would like.
The Chairman. What I meant to say was that you have no special wire service of your own. You use INS, AP, UP, and the regular wire services?
Mr. Fulling. That is correct.
The Chairman. So that the story you get on the wire would be the same as the story of one of the major New York papers? Mr. Fulling. That is right. We get the regular INS service,
which goes to the New York papers and also all throughout the country.
On this particular occasion, we had reports from various countries in Latin America, which is my field, which I handle, in which, as I said, they expressed gratification that Mr. Eisenhower had been inaugurated into office. I wanted to use these stories to our Latin American audiences to show their gratification.
In this connection, I wrote a page--I believe it was a page, but possibly two pages--of items from various countries, showing what they were doing and how they had received the news of his inauguration. This news item was designed for Latin American audiences through what we call the central news desk, after it had been written by my news section. They had to go through the central news desk, which reads copy on it. It is like a copy rating system on a newspaper. And they also, there, determine certain policy at the central desk. Previous to this, at a meeting about three o'clock that same day, I had discussed this with the chief of the Latin American services in Spanish and Portuguese to these various countries.
Mr. Cohn. What is his name?
Mr. Fulling. Mr. Stephen Baldanza. We had one particular item in this round-up which concerned Guatemala. At this meeting we had the news services reporting on a demonstration in Guatemala, by anti-Communist organizations.
They were demonstrating in favor of General Eisenhower's inauguration as president. They were demonstrating in front of our embassy there to show that they were solidly with President Eisenhower in the inauguration.
After this discussion, we had agreed that these were anti- Communists, and we should use it that way to show that we had friends even in Guatemala, there, that the anti-Communists were on our side.
Mr. Cohn. Did the INS dispatch specifically use the term ``anti-Communist''?
Mr. Fulling. The INS dispatch did specifically use the term ``anti-Communist.''
After that I wrote the item, and I specifically used the wording from the INS dispatches: ``Anti-Communist organizations.'' This item went to the central news desk. It was changed on the central news desk. The term ``anti- Communist'' was stricken out, and other terms were inserted. One of these, as I recall--I think they said ``the citizens of Guatemala'' and in another, ``democratic organizations,'' as I recall.
Mr. Cohn. What happened to the term ``anti-Communist'' in each instance in which you used it?
Mr. Fulling. In each instance the term ``anti-Communist'' was crossed out, was marked out in pencil, obliterated from the copy.
Mr. Cohn. And in the first instance, was anything substituted for it?
Mr. Fulling. In the first instance the name ``citizens'' was substituted for ``anti-Communist.''
Senator Jackson. Did they leave anything in the story with reference to this being an anti-Communist demonstration?
Mr. Fulling. They did not.
Mr. Cohn. As to the insertion of this word, ``democratic'' what was the meaning of the word ``democratic'' to the Latin American audiences which you service?
Mr. Fulling. The word ``democratic'' to Latin American audiences is meaningless. Because the Communists in Latin America have taken over the usage of the word ``democratic'' and they have political parties which are known as ``Accion Democratica'' or Democratic Action parties. And the Communists in Latin America, we know, customarily parade under the name of ``democratic organizations.''
The Chairman. Who was the man who made the change?
Mr. Fulling. A Mr. Robert Goldmann. I think his initials are signed there. But the man in charge of the central desk was Mr. Taylor.
The Chairman. Did they give you any reason why they struck out the words ``anti-Communist organizations''?
Mr. Fulling. The reason they gave is that they thought it would broaden the meaning by crossing out the words ``anti- Communist.''
Mr. Cohn. I just wanted to ask this one question. Who finally overruled your objection to the deletion of the term ``anti-Communist''? Was that a Mr. Burman?
Mr. Fulling. Mr. Burman. Mr. Taylor overruled it after I had objected to it first. Then I insisted on taking it higher, and Mr. Burman, who is the assistant chief of the entire news section, was called, and Mr. Burman upheld Mr. Taylor's ruling.
TESTIMONY OF EDWIN M. J. KRETZMANN
Mr. Cohn. Are you the top policy adviser to the Voice of America in New York?
Mr. Kretzmann. Yes.
The Chairman. Did you ask them why they (the State Department) felt you should use Communist-produced works? Did you ask for the reason? This must have come, I assume, as rather a shock to you, when you got a memorandum saying, ``Use the works of Howard Fast,'' and you knew he was a Communist writer, and you knew he had been endorsed by the Soviets. Did you say, ``Why? Why do you want us to use a Communist writer's works?''
Mr. Kretzmann. I said we wouldn't do it.
The Chairman. Did you ask him ``Why?''
Mr. Kretzmann. I placed us on record as being opposed to this also, and they said they would pass this on.
The Chairman. Did you ask them at that time why they felt that you should use the works of Communist writers?
Mr. Kretzmann. No, sir, I didn't ask them for their reasons.
TESTIMONY OF HOWARD FAST (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, BENEDICT WOLF)
Mr. Cohn. Mr. Fast, are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist party?
Mr. Fast. I must refuse to answer that question, claiming my rights and protection under the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ In his memoirs, The Naked God: the Writer and the Communist Party (New York: Praeger, 1957), and Being Red (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1990), Fast wrote that he had joined the Communist party in 1943 or 1944 and resigned from the party in 1956. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Cohn. Are you now a member of the Communist party?
Mr. Fast. I refuse to answer that question for the same reasons I stated before.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.