> > Actually the vast majority of the people mentioned in Venona were not government officials and certainly not at a high-level. The only high level names are Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White. Neither was a huge surprise, especially since Hiss went to prison because he denied being a Communist agent under oath. White had long been suspected of being a Communist agent before the Venona decrypts became public. Hiss actually doesn't appear in the decrypts by name. He is presumed to be the agent referred to as Ales. Also the espionage that Venona documents largely took place in the 1930s and early 1940s. The Venona papers contain no evidence to support any of McCarthy's claims of continued employment of communists during the 1950s. In fact, McCarthy did not expose one communist. The House Committee on Un-American Activities went after private citizens in key areas, such as education and entertainment. Most of the people were not accused of espionage but found guilty of hiding communist messages in their work.
> Don't know what you've been reading, but every independent review of Venona I have come across reveals McCarthy was basically vindicated. I have read the papers on the FBI site as well as the CIA site as well as a few books on the subject as well as the news paper articles that covered it at the time. The newspapers were the only medium that supported your point of view. Scholars that wrote beyond sound bites basically called it a vindication, although they personally did not like McCarthys tactics, they were forced to admit he was right.
It really just depends on whether or not the scholars believe in the way that the code was broken or in what the Soviets can verify on their part as to the identities of the people on the Verona Papers. Part of the problem is that we aren't sure how much of the Verona Papers are actual agents or dis-information provided by a Soviet regime that knew it was being watched by the west.
> I think this is getting off topic slightly, the point of the original post was to point out that the movie that was great (minus its anti climactic ending) was stripped of its status by promoting an agenda not based on the facts.
The agenda itself can be seen as based in facts because whether or not McCarthy was right, he was wrong in the way he went about creating a climate of paranoia in order to get power. People would say that he was justified in his action, but I still think that his actions did very little to stop agents of the USSR. It wasn't as if he had access to the Verona Papers. His paper of 207 names were names that the Secretary General didn't want to hire because they didn't fit background checks, which could mean that they had criminal backgrounds or were suspicious enough not to hire for the State Department. There was no proof to his findings. All the Verona Papers prove is that there were spies in the United States, not that McCarthy was ever correct or had evidence of corruption by agents of foreign powers.
But getting back to the New Frontier story, the story as told by the Edward R. Murrow was one of a country that still had huge racial divides that stopped it from becoming united. It didn't mention anything about McCarthy, although it probably alluded to HUAC and/or the disbanding of the JSA due to HUAC, but I don't think it ever did mention McCarthy (like it never mentioned Edward R. Murrow). There was a huge schism of distrust that took a Superman to mend through acting like a superhero "dad" to everyone.
It's agenda was about mending fences and creating a unified America. That's why we end on JFK's New Frontier speech. The beginning of the JLA is the end of the paranoia that came before it in the 50s where there was no trust between others.
I think a reunified America, free of strife and focused on the protection of its citizens, is something we can all get behind.
When I get home, I'm lockin' this off-topic thread, and deleting any posts made after mine.