What did he do wrong?

>he's largely responsible for the fall of China to Mao's communist forces
absolute bullshit, that fault lies squarely on Chiang's corrupt and incompetent shoulders

I love how many of the so called "victims" later revealed that they were indeed communists but still complain that the government would want to investigate people associated with political organizations that side with its greatest enemy. It's not like he rounded up people solely based on ethnicity and put them in camps, that honor went to FDR, a socialist.

>He was a Soviet Agent and he's largely responsible for the fall of China to Mao's communist forces

Sooo Chinese peasants were convinced that the KMT sucked through an American man? Not because the KMT was a Nepotistic Corrupt Government whose leadership refused to acknowledge the Japanese threat in favor of fighting communists that the CCP became a rosy alternative?

Glorious exposition comrade.

Chiang was NOT corrupt NOR incompetent. That entire perception comes from Service's reports where he spread LIES so that USA funds and arms would go to Mao's Communist Forces that refused to actually fight the Japanese, instead resting and saving their strength to wipe out Chiang's nationalist forces once the Japanese were kicked out of Manchuria. The abandonment and borderline betrayal of Chiang by the US State and War Departments is the legacy of John Service and a black stain on US history.

>Jonathan Mirsky, in his review, in the Wall Street Journal, of the 2009 biography of Service by Lynne Joiner states that: “In two phone interviews with me shortly before he died a decade ago, Service admitted that in the 1940s he had given Jaffe a top-secret document revealing the Nationalist Order of Battle, which showed the exact disposition of the forces facing Mao's troops.” Mirsky observed to Service that some people might consider this treason, to which Service replied that he knew that. Service also stated, "I want to get this off my chest" and "I was gullible, and trusting, and foolish." Service also said he had purposely ignored Mao's persecutions and executions of his perceived enemies in the Yan'an period. Why had he done this? "I wanted them to win. I thought they were better than the Nationalists and that if we always opposed them we would have no access to the next Chinese government."[20] Lynne Joiner, the biographer, responded to these allegations in a letter to the editor: "I conducted extensive interviews with Service during the last year of his life and he never mentioned this to me or to others who knew him well." Joiner added, "Service was never able to see the evidence being used against him during his lifetime — and so it continues a decade after his death."[21]

History really has absolved McCarthy of his "crimes" and its becoming more and more clear that he literally did nothing wrong.

You're a damn fool if you think Chinese peasants had any say whatsoever in which faction won the fight between the Mao's communist forces and Chiang's nationalist forces. The fight was decided by Mao's treachery and US support to the communists rather than the nationalists.

Here's a quote from a state department report to president truman evaluating Chiang's position in the spring of 1947

>the basis of the present regime's support has been the urban population: government employees and teachers, intellectuals, and business and industrial circles. At present, no one among these people has any positive feelings toward the Nanjing regime. The [GMD's] tyrannical style is causing deep hatred among liberal elements...the government officials by indulging in corrupt practices and creating every kind of obstruction have caused extreme dissatisfaction in business and industrial circles. The violent rise in prices...and the continuation of civil war is causing sounds of resentment to be heard everywhere...

source: Kai Suzanne Pepper, "The GMD-CCP Conflict 1945-1949" p. 781

inb4 "I know better than the primary documents"

how many communist spies did McCarthy discover?

This is absolutely absurd, the US gave Chiang $400,000,000 in 1947 dollars in military aid that he largely squandered on the Manchuria airlift despite the frantic warnings of US military advisors it was a mistake. And surprise it accomplished less than nothing.

We didn't give Mao a cent.

Stop talking about conflicts you clearly know nothing about.

read the thread.

You're completely wrong about China and Chiang. The nationalists were pathetically corrupt and incompetent.

>That entire perception comes from Service's reports

Really?
I mean, did this magical American forced KMT commander Zhang Xueliang- who was pissed off that Chiang wasn't focusing on the Japanese- to kidnap Chiang Kai-shek and force him to cooperate with a communists to form a second united front?

Was this magical American also responsible for General Stilwel'sl? The American Advisor *in China* who's close to tearing his hair out over Chiang's administration's rampant corruption and procrastination of the KMT forces in fighting the Nips?

I want whatever you're smoking.

ok I read it, how many communist spies did McCarthy discover?

see

stop being passive aggressive because your dindu nuffin argument got called out user.

>mfw a lot of the people who got caught being commie spies ended up being you know whats

that didn't answer my question, how many communist spies did McCarthy discover?

>You're a damn fool if you think Chinese peasants had any say whatsoever in which faction won the fight between the Mao's communist forces and Chiang's nationalist force
You're right. It wasn't just the peasants.

The KMT's procrastination vs. the Japanese threat, and the postwar suppression of free speech in a supposed republic also led to mass defections of China's intellectuals, activists, and political leaders either into the CCP or as neutral fencesitters.

A good example of this was the Fan Meifuri movement in 1948. The protests were held against Americans pardoning known Japanese War Criminals and refusal to try the Japanese Emperor as a war criminal. KMT paranoia labelled these people communists despite the fact that they were nationalist to the core and imprisoned/executed some of them.

Also
>dismissing the Chinese peasantry. Who made up the lion's share of China's population

>What did he do wrong?

Attack Bohm and Oppie.

>muh Marxist media conspiracy
*tips tinfoil*

>tries to dodge to distract from the fact that he was absolutely wrong, instead of admitting to himself he was wrong and challenging what he thought he knew about the GMD-CCP conflict
>to him everything is a contest, so he can't admit he lost
this is not good historical scholarship user

Hey, can anyone post the list of communists that Joe McCarthy said he had so we can go back and see if he was right?

>discover
He was given a list and then a commie woman flipped and named a bunch more people. Strictly speaking he didn't discover anyone, he merely publicized that they were suspected and insisted they be removed from government positions in accordance with the law.

>There was also a concentrated effort to subvert America by taking over hollywood and producing communist propaganda movies.

>dindu nuffin argument.
Im not denying that there communist sympathizers in America. I'm just mocking the shitty argument that some literally who American was responsible for events in China during 1939-1949.

Its absolutely ludicrous if you actually know the story on the ground.

Political views aren't a reason to ruin people's careers.

roughly 90% to be exact, and lets not forget the hyperinflation that resulted from the GMD trying to get funny and just mass printing currency to pay their debts. That rather pissed off the middle class who saw their savings completely wiped out by the 1,000,000+% inflation from 1945-1948

I'm trying to find my e-copy of Blacklisted by History to post excerpts. Standby.

B-but that's communist propaganda! Everything that doesn't support the narrative is communist propaganda! You're a communist!!!!

ah so youre saying the answer is 0 then

out of the 100 people he named as communist spies in the state department, 80 were dismissed.

Also, the person saying John Service wasnt a communist spy. How come Service was arrested for giving classified intel to the communist publication Amerasia?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerasia

Im simplying replying to the claim that John Service was a good boy who dindu nuffin and that he was wrongly accused of being a communist agent. He obviously was one and youre stupid to imply otherwise

Did you see the movie Hail Caesar? I thought it was so funny how they had a cabal of hollywood writers who were working to insert pro-communist messages into hollywood movie scripts. And when you think about it that's basically the most ungainly and ineffectual way to spread a revolution.

>We didn't give Mao a cent
To be fair, the Lend-Lease gave everyone fighting in China weapons.

KMT, CCP, and a shitton of unaffiliated guerillas in occupied China.

just because State has a mass purge because of red scare paranoia does not mean everyone who was dismissed was a spy

the state department is similarly being purged right now, are they all terrorist sympathizers?

You clearly have no idea what happened and have never done any research into this at all. Do you know that the movie On the Waterfront is an allegory for all of that?

And we're telling you he wasn't responsible for what happened in China. The events that led up to the Communist takeover was too big for him. In addition it wasn't a military victory at all as opposed to the political victory of the CCP.

less than 1/20th of 1% of the total lend lease went to China

>just because State has a mass purge because of red scare paranoia does not mean everyone who was dismissed was a spy
yes it does user. McCarthy put these guys name forward, they were investigated, and then those found guilty were sacked.

>the state department is similarly being purged right now, are they all terrorist sympathizers?
retarded false equivalency meant to distract from the fact that your leading question got BTFO

in what way is it a false equivalency

>And we're telling you he wasn't responsible for what happened in China
this is moving the goalpost. Again, Im simply replying to the claim that John Service was in fact a communist agent and that those saying he wasnt are stupid

>lets just ignore all that dumb shit I said in between about how Chiang wasn't corrupt or incompetent
no

There is no state department purge going on right now in the name of various members being potential terrorist. Stop being stupid because your pithy little questioned was answered

I never said that though, that was another person. Are you mentally retarded user? I just clearly said two times in a row that all Im saying is that Service was a communist agent, and you keep stubbornly arguing against something else Im outright saying I never said

then why is the state department being purged?

>that was another person
sure it was

>controlling mass media is an ineffectual way to spread a revolution
what?!

Do we need to put on names so you can keep things straight, or do you think you can find it in yourself, if you strain, to respond to the content of posts on the merit of their arguments rather than assume everyone who disagrees with you is one person?

On The Waterfront is about union violence and corruption. The director was a collaborator with the HUAC IIRC but I can't see how there's evidence of actual communist propaganda in Hollywood at the time.

It was user, and based on your childish and belligerent attitude now, its pretty clear youve lost the plot.

youtube.com/watch?v=D8-yGo4z7pU

He BTFO hollywood commies and other trash
McCarthy did nothing wrong

It was, it was me. I'll even put on a name for your convenience.

just like what is happening to "nazis" today

putting subtle pro-communist messages like making workers look positive is overly subtle and not even close to "controlling mass media" since they're doing it under the radar

have you seen the film? They convince George Clooney's character (which was basically Charleton Heston) how great communism is, and when he starts talking to the studio manager (played by Josh Brolin) about how the workers rather than capitalists should really control the motion picture industry he smacks him around until he agrees to not be a communist anymore.

to whom do you refer

>On The Waterfront is about union violence and corruption.
I know, thats why I said it was an allegory. The struggle Brandos character has is betraying the "dont be a rat!" culture he is born into, but also wanting to expose the corrupt union bosses, and despite exposing them, he is treated like shit by his former friends for doing so, just like Kazan was for exposing the communist elements taking over hollywood.

>I can't see how there's evidence of actual communist propaganda in Hollywood at the time.

see
he also wrote this article all about it
reason.com/archives/2000/06/01/hollywoods-missing-movies

anyone right wing today is gets their life ruined, is a russian spy and loses their job. it's neo McCarthyism.

>anyone right wing today is gets their life ruined
to whom do you refer

Im not talking about the movie, Im talking about what actually happened. Controlling mass media is extremely effective in forming revolution

America didn't go communist because of a few movies lol. Get real.

The following excerpts are from Blacklisted by History authored by Stanton Evans, Chapter 8: Chungking, 1944.

OPINIONS differ as to when the U.S.-Soviet alliance against the Nazis tipped over into the less overt but eventually just as deadly conflict of the Cold War, with its recurring crises overseas and fierce security battles on the home front.
A good case can be made for dating the transition as early as 1943. This was the year of the Nazi retreat from Stalingrad, after which the Soviets knew they were going to withstand the Hitler onslaught and could start planning future onslaughts of their own. Hence the break with the London Poles, acceleration of the anti-Mihailovich jihad, and a newly hostile propaganda blitz against the anti-Communist Chiang Kai-shek in China. All this occurred in 1943, causing students of the matter as diverse as Louis Adamic and Joe McCarthy to conclude that World War III had, in effect, been started.1
For our purposes, 1944 provides a somewhat clearer demarcation. It takes two to tango, or have a war, and it wasn’t until 1944 that people in the West—at least some people—realized such a brand-new war was coming. Also, the line is a bit clearer in 1944 for another reason. This was the year of D-Day, the Allied drive to Paris, and General MacArthur’s steady advance across the Pacific on his way back to Manila. Though months of fighting still remained, it was apparent to most observers that the Germans and the Japanese were going to be defeated.

just look at that "nazi" the new york times did a story about or the people at charlottesville that got doxxed.

Accordingly, strategists East and West (mostly the former) were laying plans, mustering forces, and jockeying for postwar advantage. And while there would be contests of this type in many places, by far the biggest single prize was China. That this should be the case was, to say no more, ironic. For the United States, China had been the casus belli,*40 as our staunch backing for Chiang Kai-shek and refusal to accept Japan’s conquests in China were main ingredients in the standoff that exploded at Pearl Harbor.
Now, however, the object of our Asian policy was on its way to being lost before the war was over. Having fought Tokyo to rescue China, we saw the country engulfed instead by civil war, and thereafter by a Communist state as despotic as the Japanese and as hostile to our interests. The outlines of this conflict were also tolerably clear in ’44, as the Communist forces of Mao Tse-tung and Chou En-lai had an independent power base at their fastness in Yenan, commanded their own armies, and were visibly preparing for a showdown with Chiang once the Japanese were beaten.2
In this unfolding struggle, some of the most important players were people the general public had never heard of. Three particularly worthy of note were functionaries of the U.S. and Nationalist Chinese governments living and working at the makeshift inland capital of Chungking, where Chiang’s Kuomintang (KMT) regime had moved to evade the Japanese.†41 This trio would have crucial roles to play in the events that sealed the fate of China.

no shit, because they got BTFO by McCarthy. Again, why would you think controlling mass media isnt a good move in terms of forming a communist revolution?

The three officials were, in order of their eventual fame, the American diplomat John Stewart Service, U.S. Treasury attaché Solomon Adler, and the U.S.-educated Chinese economist Chi Chao-ting, who worked for the KMT ministry of finance. This threesome shared a number of interests and aversions, and at least one colossal secret. Though supposedly on the scene in China to help the embattled Chiang Kai-shek, each detested his regime and had an inordinate fondness for his Red opponents. All would do what they could, which was a lot, to injure Chiang and promote the rebels.
Emblematic of this common mission was the somewhat remarkable fact that Service, Chi, and Adler all lived together at a house in Chungking—Service and Adler as roommates on the second floor, Chi on the floor above them. And while we of course have no idea of what generally went on in this unusual household, we do have some specifics. For instance, we definitely know what Service and Adler were doing in their official roles, as this is plainly spelled out in the record: sending back a stream of reports to the American government reviling Chiang, and arguing with increasing fervor that we dump him and embrace the Yenan comrades.3
As an employee of the Chungking government, Chi Chao-ting would hardly have set forth such views in an official paper. There is no question, however, that he concurred in private. For something else we know is that Chi was a Soviet agent—a henchman of the Comintern apparatus dispatched to do its work in China. We know the same was true as well of Adler. The documentation that goes to show this is extensive, including the further remarkable fact that both Chi and Adler would abscond to Beijing once the Reds were in control there. Thus, John Stewart Service, one of the most important U.S. officials in China, was living and working at close quarters with two case-hardened Soviet agents—a rare distinction, we can but hope, in diplomatic annals.

Service was the only one of our threesome who would later get much notice. Like several other China hands, including his lifelong friend and fellow diplomat John Davies, he was the son of missionary parents, was born in China, spent much of his life there, and was fluent in the language. A career foreign service officer, he had worked on the U.S. Embassy staff at Chungking with Counselor John Carter Vincent (later head of the China desk and Far East division at State) and would become like Davies a political adviser to Gen. Joseph “Vinegar Joe” Stilwell, wartime commander of U.S. and Chinese forces in the region.
The Stilwell connection was of great significance in the doings of John Service, as “Vinegar Joe” early on conceived a hatred for Chiang Kai-shek, whom he called “the peanut,” and other even more insulting nicknames. Stilwell the admirer of Agnes Smedley also idealized the Chinese Reds, and at a later date would voice his desire to shoulder a rifle in the armies of Chu Teh, the Yenan military leader.4 Stilwell’s attitudes gave members of his staff free rein to be as hostile to Chiang as they might wish, and they would exploit the privilege to the fullest.
By the late summer of 1944, Service had landed a coveted spot as a U.S. “observer” at the Communist GHQ in far-off Yenan, a posting for which he had ardently lobbied. Here, as in Chungking but even more so, he would consort with Chou En-lai, the plausible, wily foreign minister of the Reds, and with the usually less accessible Mao. In this assignment Service would also commingle with journalists who made the pilgrimage to Yenan, including Israel Epstein, Guenther Stein, and a fairly sizable crew of others. All in all, given his many contacts and position uniquely on the spot, John Service was a pivotal figure.

because America was never even remotely close to a communist revolution at any point in its history

Sol Adler never enjoyed the notoriety of Service but was as important. British-born and Oxford-educated, Adler first came to the United States in 1934, made his way to Chicago, and turned up on the faculty of something called the People’s Junior College. The dean of this institution, conveniently, was the oft-identified Soviet agent Harold Glasser. (Also, repeating a pattern common in this circle, Adler and Glasser were Chicago housemates.) From Glasser’s proletarian college, Adler moved on in 1935 to the National Research Project of the WPA headed by David Weintraub and Irving Kaplan—the same trapdoor through which Whittaker Chambers would gain access to the federal payroll.
From the Weintraub-Kaplan Research Project, it was only a hop and a skip to the Treasury roster, where Adler would move in 1936 to join Harry White and V. Frank Coe, and would eventually reunite with Glasser. Sol Adler was thus a classic study in the ease with which someone having the right (or left) connections could move from one official billet to the next. His smooth upward climb was the more impressive in that, like his countryman Michael Greenberg, he was not yet a U.S. citizen (he wouldn’t be naturalized until 1940).5
In due course, Sol Adler would turn up in the chronicles of Venona. Also, as reflected in the notes of Adolf Berle, he was one of the people Chambers named in his initial revelations as a member of the Treasury Red nexus. Thereafter he would be named as well by Elizabeth Bentley, who informed the Senate: “Solomon Adler…was a member of the Silvermaster group. He paid his dues through Mr. Silvermaster to me. Most of the time I was in charge of this group he was in China. But he did send reports to various people, including Harry Dexter White in the Treasury Department, which were relayed to us…. He not only was connected with the Silvermaster organization, he had Communist contacts in China. One of these was Chi.”6

are you literally just copying a wikipedia page?

what is even the point of this board

Skipping two paragraphs about Chi Chao-ting. This is the money shot about the reports John Service wrote:

Quite apart from their common lodgings, our trio—especially Service and Adler—had many interactions. Among the clearest indications of their joint endeavors are the overlapping and interweaving reports Service and Adler sent back to the United States from China (with Chi assisting on occasion as silent partner). While Service was the more prolific, Adler sounded the same political themes, often in the same phraseology, and geared to the same goal of savaging Chiang while talking up the Yenan rebels.
The Service-Adler memos relentlessly hammered a few main themes: The government of Chiang Kai-shek was corrupt, despotic, and ineffective; the Chinese Reds, by contrast, were paragons of virtue, moderate and democratic, beloved of the people; and—most important in the context of the war—only the Communists were carrying on the battle against Japan, while Chiang and his forces at best did nothing and at worst were collaborationists and traitors.
Among the striking features of these memos is how closely they resemble the material being supplied, not long before this, to U.S. and British authorities about the struggle for the Balkans. Point for point, the Service-Adler papers track the comments of Linn Farish, Klugmann-vetted intelligence reports from Cairo, and propaganda broadsides of Adamic—often with the identical images and charges, and sometimes the identical phrasing. It was the same drill throughout, with Chiang the Mihailovich of China, Mao the surrogate for Tito.*42

Service’s anti-Chiang reports were so voluminous only the merest précis can be offered—though it doesn’t take many samples to catch the meaning. In dispatches totaling 1,200 pages, Service couldn’t find a good word to say about the anti-Communist Chiang Kai-shek. What poured forth instead was a steady stream of venom, an exercise in which the major challenge appeared to be finding different ways of making the same damaging charges ad infinitum. Some of the epithets Service used to describe the KMT leader and his government were as follows:
“Corruption, unprecedented in scale and openness,” “the enthronement of reaction,” “growing megalomania,” “dictatorship,” “Gestapo-like organization,” “fascist,” “undemocratic,” “feudal,” “reliance on a gangster secret police,” “threats and blackmail,” “sabotage of the war effort,” “the obvious ineffectiveness of the Chinese army,” “normally traitorous relations with the enemy,” and much more of similar damning nature.8
As there was certainly much to criticize in the ragtag KMT regime, pushed to the limits of financial, physical, and moral endurance by seven years of fighting against Japan and the ravages of wartime inflation, these fierce criticisms might be put down—and often have been—to Service’s status as hard-boiled reporter, just conveying “the facts” as he observed them. The just-the-facts rationale, however, is hard to credit when these abrasive comments are compared with his fervent homage to Yenan.

Here, the hard-nosed reporter turned into a swooning groupie. His descriptions of the Communist forces—again echoing the message from the Balkans—read more like propaganda leaflets for the Red regime than the reports of a detached observer. Now the operative words were “progressive,” “democratic,” “impressive personal qualities,” “realism and practicality,” “objective and scientific orderliness,” “straightforward and frank,” “incorruptibility,” “a real desire for democracy in China,” “aggressive resistance to the Japanese,” “complete support of the local population,” and on and on in endless variations.9
While many aspects of these Service memos might be usefully examined, one in particular is worth a note in passing: the extent to which he presented the Chinese Reds as democratic, nonradical, pro-American, not really Communist, and so on. This point would be important down the line, when there were efforts to exculpate Service and others like him from the charge that they had sugarcoated and helped bring to power the most hideous despotism in global history, measured in terms of total carnage. The charge, as it happens, was entirely true, and well supported by the record.

>some communist screenwriters/other artists mean that Hollywood is trying to turn the US communist

As with everything else he had to say about events in China, Service would make the same point repeatedly, so there was—and is—no way to miss it. “The Communist political program,” he wrote, “is simple democracy. This is much more American than Russian in form and spirit.” “They are carrying out democratic policies, which they expect the United States to approve and sympathetically support.” “This revolution has been peaceful and democratic…. The common people, for the first time, have been given something to fight for.” The Communists were following “a policy of self-limitation,” marked by their “abandonment of any purely Communist program.” “They have a real desire for democracy in China…without the need of violent social upheaval and revolution.”*43 10
The dispatches of Service’s Soviet-agent sidekick Adler were less expansive on these matters, focusing mostly on economic topics—but were similar in tone and content. Frequently, Adler stressed the Mihailovich vs. Tito angle: the alleged ineffectiveness of the KMT in pressing the war against Japan, if not outright collaboration. “The central government,” said Adler, “survives in its present form only because of American support and influence and Japanese collusion.” Chiang’s regime “has lost any interest it ever had in doing anything effective to fight the Japanese,” “the war effort is more inert than ever before,” “China has done less fighting than any other major ally.”11

I'll stop here as I think this much makes it clear. John Service was a soviet agent, as confirmed, and he sent false and biased reports back to America leading America to support Mao over Chiang. The book is excellent and full of references to source material, everyone should read it.

>are you literally just copying a wikipedia page?
You illiterate, I said what I was doing in my first post.

b-b-b-but there were communists so that means we almost became communist! God save McCarthy!!!!!

References for Chapter 8:

Chapter 8: Chungking, 1944
1. Louis Adamic, My Native Land (Harper, 1944), pp. 63 et seq.; McCarthy speeches, p. 227.
2. So noted, e.g., by none other than John Service. Tydings appendix, p. 1974.
3. Service would discuss his rooming arrangements with Adler in materials reproduced in the Tydings appendix, loc. cit., and in more detail during conversations recorded by the FBI. See FBI Amerasia file, note 13 below.
4. Don Lohbeck, Patrick J. Hurley (Regnery, 1956), p. 306.
5. An outline of Adler’s career is provided in hearings of the Senate Internal Security subcommittee, December 3, 1953, pp. 1221 et seq.
6. Hearings on the Institute of Pacific Relations, Senate Internal Security subcommittee, August 14, 1951, p. 434. (Hereafter cited as IPR hearings.)
7. Philip Jaffe, The Amerasia Case, from 1945 to the Present, privately printed, 1979, pp. 1–2.
8. The Amerasia Papers: A Clue to the Catastrophe of China, prepared by the Senate Internal Security subcommittee, January 26, 1970, pp. 577, 592, 1015.
9. Ibid., pp. 406, 410, 577, 579, 589, 1014.
10. Ibid., pp. 943, 939, 1012–13, 724, 728.
11. Morgenthau Diary: China, prepared by the Senate Internal Security subcommittee, February 5, 1965, pp. 1463, 1948, 1134.
12. Ibid., p. 1462.
13. Amerasia Papers, p. 592. FBI Amerasia file, Section 34.
14. Amerasia Papers, p. 94.
15. Morgenthau Diary: China, p. 1052.
16. Amerasia Papers, pp. 113, 112.
17. Morgenthau Diary: China, pp. 1996 et seq.
18. Albert C. Wedemeyer, Wedemeyer Reports (Holt, 1958), p. 285.
19. Maochun Yu, OSS in China, op cit., pp. 236, 221–22.
20. Jung Chang and Jan Halliday, Mao (Knopf, 2005), pp. 204–05.
21. Amerasia Papers, p. 583.
22. Ibid., pp. 1014 et seq.

t. didnt watch the video

its pretty obvious at this point youre leftypol denying reality

>this is moving the goalpost
Please consider what you said over here >He was a Soviet Agent and he's largely responsible for the fall of China to Mao's communist forces.
>largely responsible for the fall of China to Mao's communist forces.

Stop moving the goalpost just because your point got BTFO, just like every other leftypol point in this thread.

hey stupid, what point of "Im just saying Service was a communist" do you not understand user? Are you being retarded on purpose as a way to distract from the fact that youre losing the argument?

Soviet agents who slipped into US government before and during WW2 stole the secrets of atomic fission and provided that highly classified intelligence to the USSR, which then led to the development of massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons in the USA and USSR and necessitated the development of the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction and on several occasions brought both countries to the brink of total nuclear war.

It's a pretty big fucking deal. The Cold War never should have happened, and indeed wouldn't have happened if the US government had had the spine to kick out communist subversives and soviet agents as soon as they were identified. At the very least it was gross negligence on the parts of Hoover, Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower. At worst it was cold blooded treason.

That was my post. In fact, the below linked posts were all me.
Standby.

>"Old China Hands" meymey
Jesus Christ what is this, 1950s butthurt history? That shit has been debunked.

In addition it removes a shitton of agency of what the Chinese *did themselves* and puts it that everything that happened in China was America's doing.

What a pathetic source you have there.

Here are two lists: The Lee list provided to McCarthy, and the Names submitted to Tydings in Writing by McCarthy. This is from Chapter 19 of Blacklisted by History.

Table 1. The Lee List
(alphabetical order, not case numbers)
1. Alexander, Dorothy
2. Arndt, Ernest
3. Barnett, Robert
4. Berman, Harold
5. Blaisdell, Donald
6. Borton, Hugh
7. Brunauer, Esther
8. Burlingame, Robert
9. Cameron, Gertrude
10. Carlisle, Lois
11. Carter, William
12. Demerjian, Alice
13. DeMoretz, Shirley
14. Dubois, Cora
15. Elinson, Marcelle
16. Eminowitz, Halina
17. Ferry, Frances
18. Fierst, Herbert
19. Fine, Sherwood
20. Fishback, Sam
21. Fishburn, John
22. Fornos, Joseph
23. Fournier, Norman
24. Gordon, Estelle
25. Graze, Gerald
26. Graze, Stanley
27. Gross, Aaron
28. Hankin, Robert
29. Harrison, Marcia
30. Horwin, Leonard
31. Hughes, H. S.
32. Hunt, Victor
33. Illyefalvi-Vitez, G.
34. Jackson, Malcolm
35. Jankowski, Joseph
36. Josephson, Joseph
37. Kamarck, Andrew
38. Kaufman, Arthur
39. Lansberg, Hans
40. Lazarus, Theodore
41. Lemon, Edythe
42. Lewis, Preston
43. Lifantieff-Lee, P.
44. Lindsey, John R.
45. Lloyd, David
46. Lorwin, Val
47. Lovell, Leander
48. Lunning, Just
49. McDavid, Raven
50. Magnite, Sylvia
1/2

2/2
51. Magruder, John
52. Mallon, Dwight
53. Mann, Gottfried
54. Margolies, Daniel
55. Margolin, Arnold
56. Martin, Shirley
57. Martingale, Rose
58. Meigs, Peveril
59. Miller, Robert
60. Montague, Ella
61. Moore, Leith
62. Neal, Fred
63. Ness, Norman
64. Neumann, Franz
65. Osnatch, Olga
66. Parker, Glen
67. Parsons, Ruby
68. Perkins, Isham
69. Pesto, Paula
70. Peter, Hollis
71. Polyzoides, T. A.
72. Posner, Margery
73. Post, Richard
74. Raine, Philip
75. Randolph, David
76. Rennie, Leonard
77. Robinson, Jay
78. Rommel, Rowena
79. Rose, Ernest
80. Rosenthal, Albert
81. Ross, Lewis
82. Ross, Robert
83. Rothwell, George
84. Royce, Edith
85. Rudlin, Walter
86. Salmon, Thomas
87. Schimmel, Sylvia
88. Shell, Melvin
89. Shevlin, Lorraine
90. Siegal, Herman
91. Smith, Frederick
92. Smith, Samuel
93. Smothers, Frank
94. Stoianoff, Stoian
95. Stone, William
96. Taylor, Jeanne
97. Thomson, Charles
98. Thursz, Jonathan
99. Toory, Frank
100. Tuchscher, Frances
101. Tuckerman, Gustavus
102. Vincent, John C.
103. Volin, Max
104. Washburne, Carleton
105. Wilcox, Stanley
106. Wilfert, Howard
107. Wood, James
108. Yuhas, Helen

>Reviews[edit]
>Ronald Radosh, a historian and expert on the Cold War spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, states that "rather than a biography, Evans has written a defense counsel’s brief for his client, whom he seeks to defend against all the slanders made about McCarthy by his political enemies." He praises Evans' "extensive research", and his exposure of the political agendas of McCarthy's main opponents and their unwillingness to look more closely into Soviet penetration. He also commends Evans for correcting the view that all of McCarthy's "victims" were innocent. Radosh severely criticises McCarthy's failure to distinguish between communists and anti-communist "liberals" ("Fellow Travellers" are not "anti-Communist" they are, in their actions, pro Communist), and between those expressing communist or pro communist views ("Agents of Influence" such as the "Old China Hands" who handed China to Mao) and those working as Soviet agents, and criticises Evans for glossing over this. Radosh concludes:[3]
>Evans’s book falls far short of what it might have done to correct the record about the era. His own exaggerations and unwarranted leaps parallel those made by McCarthy. It is unlikely that his hope to change history’s verdict will become a reality as a result of the publication of this book.

Table 2. Names Submitted to Tydings in Writing by McCarthy
(alphabetical order, not case numbers)
1. Arndt, Ernest
2. Askwith, E. J.
3. Barnett, P.
4. Barnett, R.
5. Berman, Harold
6. Blaisdell, Donald
7. Brunauer, Esther
8. Cameron, Gertrude
9. Carlisle, Lois
10. Carter, William
11. Chipchin, Nelson
12. Clucas, Lowell
13. Davies, John Paton
14. Delgado, Mucio
15. Demerjian, Alice
16. Dubois, Cora
17. Erdos, Arpad
18. Ferry, Frances
19. Fierst, Herbert
20. Fishback, Sam
21. Fishburn, John
22. Ford (Fornos), Joseph
23. Gordon, Stella
24. Grad, Andrew
25. Grandahl, T. Conrad
26. Graze, Gerald
27. Graze, Stanley
28. Gross, Aaron
29. Harris, Reed
30. Harrison, Martha
31. Henkin, Louis
32. Horwin, Leonard
33. Hulten, Charles
34. Hunt, Victor
35. Illyefalvi-Vitez, G.
36. Ingram, George
37. Jankowski, John
38. Jessup, Philip
39. Josephson, Joseph
40. Kamarck, Andrew
41. Katusich, Ivan
42. Kaufman, Arthur
43. Lansberg, Hans
44. Lemon, Edythe
45. Less, Esther
46. Lewis, Preston
47. Lifantieff-Lee, P.
48. Lindsey, Richard
49. Lloyd, David
50. Lorwin, Val
1/2

2/2

51. Ludden, Raymond
52. Magnite, Sylvia
53. Mann, Gottfried
54. Margolies, Daniel
55. Meeker, Leonard
56. Meigs, Peveril
57. Miller, Robert
58. Montague, Ella
59. Neal, Fred
60. Nelson, Clarence
61. Ness, Norman
62. Neumann, Franz
63. Newbegin, Robert
64. Osnatch, Olga
65. Parsons, Ruby
66. Perkins, Isham
67. Peter, Hollis
68. Polyzoides, T. A.
69. Posner, Margery
70. Posniak, Edward
71. Post, Richard
72. Raine, Philip
73. Ramon, Josephine
74. Randolph, Jay
75. Rapaport, A.
76. Remington, William
77. Robinson, Jay
78. Rommel, Rowena
79. Ross, Lewis
80. Ross, Robert
81. Rothwell, George
82. Rowe, James
83. Sanders, William
84. Schimmel, Sylvia
85. Shell, Melvin
86. Siegal, Herman
87. Smith, Frederick
88. Smith, Samuel
89. Stoianoff, Stoian
90. Stone, William
91. Tate, Jack
92. Taylor, Jeanne
93. Thomson, Charles
94. Tuchscher, Frances
95. Tuckerman, Gustavus
96. Vincent, John C.
97. Volin, Max
98. Washburne, Carleton
99. Wilcox, Stanley
100. Wood, James
101. Yuhas, Helen
102. Zablodowsky, David

Additional Names Brought Forward by McCarthy/Morris During Tydings Hearings

103. Adler, Solomon
104. Barnes, Joseph
105. Bisson, T. A.
106. Brunauer, S.
107. Chew Hong
108. Chi Chao Ting
109. Chi Kung Chuan
110. Clubb, O. Edmund
111. Duran, Gustavo
112. Geiger, Theodore
113. Hanson, Haldore
114. Keeney, Mary Jane
115. Kenyon, Dorothy
116. Lattimore, Owen
117. Lovell, Leander
118. Roth, Andrew
119. Schuman, Frederick
120. Service, John S.
121. Shapley, Harlow
122. Thayer, Charles W.
123. Weintraub, David
124. Wheeler, George