I also resent the cheap shot at McCarthy. He was proved right in the end. Sadly, no mention of that in the media.
| Hi Bat and Albion, I was reading Wikipedia's comments on Joe McCarthy regarding the Verona Papers and here's what is says: Joseph McCarthy remains a very controversial figure. In the view of a few conservative latter-day authors, such as commentators William Norman Grigg and Medford Stanton Evans, McCarthy's place in history should be reevaluated. Many scholars, including some generally regarded as conservative, have opposed these views. Other authors and historians, including Arthur Herman, assert that new evidence—in the form of Venona-decrypted Soviet messages, Soviet espionage data now opened to the West, and newly released transcripts of closed hearings before McCarthy's subcommittee—has partially vindicated McCarthy by showing that many of his identifications of Communists were correct and that the scale of Soviet espionage activity in the United States during the 1940s and 1950s was larger than many scholars suspected. After reviewing evidence from Venona and other sources, historian John Earl Haynes concluded that, of 159 people identified on lists used or referenced by McCarthy, evidence was substantial that nine had aided Soviet espionage efforts. He suggested that a majority of those on the lists could legitimately have been considered security risks... Curious to get the correct historical perspective on Joe McCarthy. |