Talk:Red Scare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Red Scare is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
March 1, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted

Contents

[edit] unsectioned items

I don't know if there should be such specificity at the beginning of the article because it says later there has been more than one red scare in the U.S. And certainly there have been red scares in other countries. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:42 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

I'm revising the article to make it clear that the term red scare contains a POV. One which really ought to be balanced with its opposite POV: namely, that Communists are a bunch of murderous thugs 1,000 times worse than the mafia.

Someone, please help make sure I don't accidentally over-state my case, in my current mood of zeal... --Uncle Ed

Ed, if you think you can't edit an article without inserting your POV, you're probably right, and probably better off just not editing that article.

After China admitted that Mao Tse-Tung had over 20 million civilians executed; and the New York Times admitted its Pulitzer-prize winning correspondent had covered up 6 million murders by Stalin in Ukraine; and the more recent genocide in Cambodia came to light, talk which dismissed communism as a screenwriter's fantasy diminished markedly.

Credit rightly accrued to Ronald Reagan for winning the Cold War and defeating communism in Europe.

Aside from being incredibly POV (rightly accrued--what were you thinking?), these paragraphs make the same mistake you make throughout your edits: counterposing communism with the red scare, as if people opposed to mccarthyism or reagan's policies necessarily support stalin, Mao, etc. As if uncovering horrible things that communist states did necessarily justifies actions which capitalist states took. DanKeshet

I don't understand why it's a "mistake" to counterpose communism with the "Red Scare". I thought the POV of the Red Scare is that people were all bent out of shape over nothing -- that communism was "nothing to be scared of" -- a trumped up fear. I am balancing that POV with evidence that communism is indeed scary: murdering tens of millions of people is well-documented fact and shouldn't be deleted from the article.

I think the last two edits you made have been much better, Ed. Keep it up. :) DanKeshet 19:16, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I hate 2 things: communism, and dishonest anti-communism. --Uncle Ed

Re. "hysteria" I agree with Lance on this one. Google [1] returns more than 2,600 hits for the search "red scare" + hysteria. There is even a book, Red Scare: A Study in National Hysteria, 1919-1920 ISBN: 0070440751 which looks reasonably serious. I think there is a good case for stating it as a "hysteria." -- Viajero 20:54, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. A number of reliable books on the subject have called the Red Scare "hysteria" as well (samples: The Great "Red Menace": United States Prosecution of American Communists, 1947-1952 by Peter L. Steinberg; Nightmare in Red: The McCarthy Era in Perspective by Richard M. Fried; Eisenhower & the Anti-Communist Crusade by Jeff Broadwater; some others). Moral panic might also be an appropriate label. —MIRV (talk) 21:11, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"The term itself is arguably pejorative, belittling anti-communists by implying that their fears were overblown or hysterical."

I'm uncomfortable with this sentence. In both of the instances of "Red Scare" there was negligible communist threat to American society -- at least in proportion to the countless "Red Squads" that were organized with wide powers to suspend constitutional rights in order to investigate & arrest people thought to be helping the Soviet Union -- & who in too many cases were found to be either innocent of the charges, or guilty of nothing more than a lot of talk. -- llywrch 21:59, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a bit of confusion between fears of Communist infiltrators within the U.S. (which was certainly overblown) and fear of Communist Russian imperialism outside the U.S. (which was not -- think of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, Finland, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Afghanistan, and so on). Though the CPUSA probably took its orders straight from the Kremlin, it was never very powerful -- certainly not powerful enough to organize a revolution or coup. —MIRV (talk) 22:14, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I agree. In 1976, over 1/3 of Italians voted Communist (the Christian Democrats got <5% more of the vote over PCI to win the elections). Italy is clearly a country where a "communist takeover" as Ed Poor called it might have been (and still might be) possible. In the USA, CPUSA never even garnered 1% of the votes, making a "communist takeover" much more unlikely. Most of what I remember of the Red Scare is New Deal liberal Democrats like Alger Hiss being accused of being stooges of the USSR. In fact, if over one third of the US population was inclined towards communism as in Italy, it's quite clear something like the Red Scare could have never taken place, as the ruling class probably would have feared it triggering a general strike or something. -- Lancemurdoch 22:25, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
So I guess the article should distinguish between the two aspects of the Red Scare: first, the fear of domestic communism (ridiculous and unfounded); second, the fear of Soviet imperialism and Communist takeovers abroad (well-founded and reasonable). Conflating the two would imply that all anti-communist sentiment was either ridiculous or well-founded, when the truth is in between: some aspects of anti-communism were grounded in realistic perception of the Soviet threat, while other aspects were closer to moral panic than serious geopolitical strategic thought. &mdash MIRV (talk) 10:06, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I find it interesting that Red Scare is not linked to on moral panic. Woudl a link be POV or NPOV?

Addressing myself more to what MIRV wrote: distinguishing between the two -- American fear of a domestic communist overthrow, from the potential military threat of the Soviet Union would improve this article. The phenomenon of "Red Scare" also appears to be related to another American fear, the Yellow peril, which imagined imigrants from Japan, China & other Asian nations overrunning the businesses & properties of "respectable" Americans. (The warnings about Communism that I remember hearing always emphasized loss of property, free speech, religion, and promotion of "free love" -- similar to the threat of the "Yellow Peril.") For being the adopted home of so many nationalities, we Americans sure have our nasty xenophobic side. -- llywrch 19:36, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This article has nothing to do with the red scare, not about Soviet espionage which so far as it affected American communists or was participated in by them is a rather difficult area and needs to be addressed separately from this article which is in essence an article about an aspect of popular culture. Fred Bauder 00:30, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

This article seems a shade POV. There were legitimate concerns during the "Red Scare" that are bieng glossed over here. TDC 01:48, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

172, add this to your action item memo: The Soviets lost the Cold War/. TDC 01:51, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, TDC, how about an nice article on Soviet espionage in the United States? Maybe a better title than that... Fred Bauder 03:05, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps .....................TDC 03:34, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"This article seems a shade POV. There were legitimate concerns during the "Red Scare" that are bieng glossed over here." Yes, like the possibility that floridation of water was a communist plot. AndyL 04:23, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I removed the commentaries and personal essays. This is article on the Red Scares in the '20s and the '50s. The anti-Communism of key figures, such as Palmer, McCarthy, Hoover, etc. is relevant. Anti-Communism in 2004 is irrelevant. 172 05:55, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And I reverted. You can't just delete huge swaths of text, including the NPOV header, on a whim. RickK | Talk 05:59, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Don't try this red herring bullshit with me. If it's relevant to the Red Scares in the United States in the '20s and the '50s, it will stay in the article. If not, then don't waste the time of readers looking for a serious encyclopedic entry. 172 06:03, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)



I removed this:

The term is often used pejoratively, with the intent of belittling anti-communists by implying that their fears were overblown or hysterical.

What is the evidence that this is indeed the intent? I understand that some people might perceive this to be the intent, which is why I did not touch the following sentence (which describes a criticism of people who use the term "red scare"). The second sentence does a fine job of providing an alternate view, but this sentence claims a motivation, a claim that is unsubstantiated. Slrubenstein


See Reaction to McCarthyism and Historical revisionism for explorations of this idea. There is no question, and we have seen it here, that persons sympathetic with Marxism-Leninism are quick to invoke charges of "McCarthyism" in an effort to gain advantage for their point of view. Fred Bauder 15:47, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
Fred, I agree with you about how people bancy about the term "McCarthyism." But this is not the same term as "Red Scare" which is used by historians. Slrubenstein

Fred and VV:

Stop making WP into a laughingstock. Before I removed the irrelevant personal commentaries, this article had mentioned Ann Coulter, but not Archangel, the IWW, Big Bill Haywood, the Espionage Act of 1917, the Sabotage Act of April 20, the Sedition Act of May 16, the Creel Committee on Public Information, etc. Warren Harding, who arguably quenched the first Red Scare, especially given the message sent by his pardon of Eugene Debs, wasn't mentioned either. The WWI-era Creel Committee on Public Information, e.g., is relevant in this article. But the off topic personal essays written by WP users in 2004 are not. I will continue to revert attempts to restore the text in question. I won't let you waste the time of readers seeking a brief, encyclopedic write up on the first Red Scare (1917-1921) and the one in early '50s. 172 18:37, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree with 172. The term Red Scare refers to specific historical periods. Those looking to write about anti-communism today should write at Anti-Communism. --Alex S 20:11, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I tried a compromise. Reactions? —Αλεξ Σ 01:06 14 June 2008
The last three sentences of The causes are pretty dubious. The existence of a vast communist conspiracy in America in the 50's remains difficult to believ, and the Soviet Union's mission to "bring the downfall of the United States" was mostly propaganda - both Soviet and American. The rest - about the number of people killed here and there - is entirely irrelevant. This is the 21st century, we don't have to repeat Reaganite and McCarthyite nonsense.
Diderot 10:14, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It's certainly relevant in a discussion of the fears people had of communism whether and to what extent those fears turned out to be justified. Noting what we now know about communist regimes informs on this. And, "Reaganite nonsense"?? Perhaps you need to review the neutrality policy; fans of Reagan belong on Wikipedia just as much as fans of Clinton. -- VV 11:35, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Diderot, I think you went too far in your editing of the causes of McCarthyism. I have the dubious distinction of having been alive then and I remember the Soviet occupation of eastern Europe, the Communist victory in the civil war in China, the invasion of South Korea, the Chinese intervention in the Korean War, the concern that Soviet spies stole the secrets to the atomic bomb. I also remember that there was general knowledge of the extensive system of concentration camps in the Soviet Union and real fear of Stalin. These were real fears which people had. They form the factual basis for the public opinion of the time which McCarthy exploited. Fred Bauder 11:46, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)
And yet a general knowledge of the massacres taking place in Cambodia never led to the fear that the Khmer Rouge was in control in Washington, nor was there ever any great fear of fascist inflitration in the government, nor do I remember anyone suggesting that Saddam Hussein had spies in the White House. Doing bad things is not evidence of infiltration. Period. Whether or not there were legitimate reasons to fear war with the Soviet Union or to take a dim view of its ideologies is entirely irrelevant to whether or not people were justified in beliving that the US government was already infiltrated with Soviet spies or that American leftists represented a Soviet fifth column. Furthermore, if there is something that fall of communism has relvealed it is that the USSR never had, at any time, an actual plan to take over in the West. It had lots of propaganda and ample willingness and ability to play political games, but the Red Army marching through DC was never actually in the cards. That is Reaganite nonsense, and I have the impression that WP does not endeavor to be an equal time for BS sort of place.

An article about red scares is precisely about fears of "the Red among us", not the communists on the other side of the world. Events in the the Soviet Union are largely irrelevant to that issue. Diderot 11:21, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Your reasoning is based on the notion that people at that time had any reason to believe American Communists were different from or somehow disagreed with Stalin. We now know they were and did, but who knew then. At any rate we are talking about what people believed and above all feared. Not what was actually true. Keep in mind that many Americans of that period (and almost all Americans) of today had never met a Communist. Fred Bauder 19:30, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

No Fred, the question is whether American communists had any meaningful influence or had infiltrated American institutions on a scale that meritted paranoia, not how many people Stalin had killed.

I am not going to get into an edit war with TDC. But I challenge the contention that there was ever "a large number communist spies and sympathisers [...] constantly working to bring the downfall of the United States" anywhere on US soil. This is POV, it is not factual and it is entirely irrelevant to the case. At least this way readers have a warning that they are encountering bull.

Diderot 20:21, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC).

There has been dozens of great books on the subject written over the course of the past 10+ years. Intervies with hundreds of KGB agents and thousands of letters, diaries, intel briefings etc.. are cited in these books. Pick one the fuck up before you revert my entry again. TDC 01:16, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

You are still going back to facts about Communists, not to facts about the political climate in the United States. The fear people felt is what is relevant. Fred Bauder 22:06, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

Fred and TDC,

Go back to the facts about Communists about Communists in the articles on the Communists. Here, go back to facts about the political climate in the United States. THIS IS AN ARTICLE ABOUT THE POLITICAL CLIMATE IN THE UNITED STATES IN THE POST-WWI PERIOD AND THE 1950S! Please, please, please try to stay on topic this time. The sentiment of your edits may be just, but this is an encyclopedia and we do have to properly contextualize the placement of coverage. BTW, Fred says the "fear people felt is what is relevant." But we can't go back inside the heads of dead people and call their thoughts just. For that, go back to primary sources and dig up direct quotes. Wikipedia has the hyperlinks and the search box at the top; from these resources users can find their way to related topics on the Communists. 172 02:57, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The section you removed is part of the 'CAUSES' of the red scare. Not all the people who lived through the Red Scare are now dead. If you want to know what real people though of the Red Scare while they lived through it talk to my Parents and Grandparents, they fled the bourgeoning socialist utopia in Eastern Europe just in time.
Without providing a 'BASIS' for the reasons that people feared communism, it makes it sound like it was a baseless witch hunt. Now I realize that a Stalinist academic like you would love nothing more than projecting this image upon unsuspecting minds, but this will not be allowed to happen.TDC 03:37, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)
TDC, you raise a good point. And it calls attention to the fact that WP doesn't have an article on the origins of anticommunism in the United States offering a broader macro-level look. In this article, though, you have to consider that "anticommunists" are quite a diverse group (perhaps just as diverse as everyone who isn't an active anticommunist. So, for this article it would be best to refer to the plethora of the biographies on any number of major actors involved in the first and second Red Scares and perhaps cite examples that helped shape a single historical figure's outlook. There's also an ample array of direct quotes that you can dig up. For our purposes, though, it's inappropriate for encyclopedia editors to attempt to speak on behalf of a subject posthumously. Nor is it appropriate for encyclopedia editors to rationalize a subject's actions, attitudes, and behavior retrospectively (as opposed to properly putting it in context, which also can have the same intended effect of treating the subject more fairly).
BTW, just to warn you about the implications of your argument, someone could turn around and use your very own reasoning here as an excuse to start spewing anti-capitalist and anti-American rants about why some people were communists, anarchists, and socialists in the U.S. since 1917. 172 06:13, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

TDC, there are a number of perfectly good pages on the history of the Soviet Union, of the Cold War and of internatinal relations at the time. If you're going to claim that among the causes of the Red Scares were things going on in the Soviet Union that had no direct impact on whether on not the hunt for communists in the US really was baseless, you're essentially saying that the cause of the Red Scares was that Americans are utter idiots.

This article is not about why people feared communism. It is all about why they went off on a baseless witchhunt for communists at home. That there was a climate of fear of commmunism is in the text as is. Either accept a disputed label or accept an alternative text, but stop behaving like a five year old. And my family fled Stalin too, so get off your high horse. Diderot 05:18, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mine was killed off by the Germans after the invasion of Poland, but one family member fled to the USSR and disappeared. So my Aunt was probably killed by the Stalinist USSR. 172 06:17, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Seems to be a common theme we share, see Fate of the Kulak

Diderot,

(Re: "baseless witchhunt for communists at home") We have to be inclined to reserve judgments for purposes of writing this article. Calling something a "baseless witchhunt" is no more appropriate in this article than TDC attempting to vindicate anticommunists retrospectively in this article. You probably knew that already, but saying things like that on the talk page is going to provoke people and put them on the defensive, thus causing disputes here to solidify. 172 06:46, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Alright, since the issue at hand is the underlying causes, I will refrain from pointing out how few of the people the HUAC fingered actually had anything to do with the Soviet Union, or how one of the people called to testify decided to move to East Germany as a response to the HUAC's behaviour. I do resent being told what the "fuck" to think by TDC and his claim to have a privileged set of beliefs about communism.
I object to placing questions about whether or not commmunism was evil into a discussion of the causes of the Red Scare of the 50's because it parallels claims that the US interned Japanese-Americans in WWII because Japan was behaving so cruelly in China. The US was at war with Japan and feared that there were Japanese agents among the Japanese population. That is true and reasonably NPOV. Many Americans felt a need for cathartic revenge for Pearl Harbour - a little more POV, but still reasonable. But, did people in the US agree with the internment of Japanese Americans because of events in China? No. At most, they might have felt that Japanese Aermcians colelctively deserved revenge because of events in China. I doubt many Americans felt this way, but it's possible. But then the cause is public sentiment caused by a state of war, not events in China. By itself, Japan's cruelty in China can not be a cause for the American internment of Japanese national.
In the same sense, I am entirely okay with claims that the Red Scare was caused by a fear of communism that has its roots in larger cold war politics. Instead of fighting over the causes of the Cold War, I propose to leave it at that and link to the article on the Cold War. All the secondary sources I've ever seen were quite clear in linking the Red Scare to the question of "Who lost China?" (I suppose it would be considered POV to say that the answer was "Chung Kai-Shek" rather than the State Department.) I can't think of any secondary or primary source on the red scares that particularly fingered the Korean War - a war with very little public support at the time. I'm willing to do without any mention of public officials trying to fan anti-communism for relection purposes.
Since no evidence has ever come forward of Soviet agents having significant control over any part of US policy in the 1940's or 50's, I am ill-inclined to accept claims that there was a network of Soviet spies as related to the causes of the red scare. The question was never whether or not the USSR had spies in the US, the question was whether or not there was a vast communist conspiracy within the government and other quarters of American society. That some people believed in such a thing - yes, that was a cause. That it existed - no, because it isn't true.
Both the Japanese internment and the Red Scares had comparable causes: the sudden discovery of vulnerability. In one case due to Pearl Harbour, in the other because of the victory of Chinese communists and the establishment of Moscow-allied governments in Europe. There was a sense that America should have been able to do something about it, in both cases, and rather than accept a complicated set of causes, Americans found it easier to believe that they had been betrayed. A few politicians discovered that this public willingness to believe in an enemy within was useful at election time.
I fail to see what is so complicated, difficult or controversial about this claim, nor does it strike me as failing to meet standards of NPOV. It is, as far as I know, the mainstream understanding of the Red Scares of the 50's, shared by the left and most of the right alike.
Diderot 11:10, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

172, I notice you added this sentence, "However, public officials' encouragement of this climate of fear was a major contributing factor in red scares of the 1940s and 1950s". As I recall there was a great stir about Communist advances after the war, mostly regarding Eastern Europe and China. Brainwashing (by the Chinese of prisoners of war) was another idea that captured the public's interest. This was all over the newspapers and the radio. Public opinion was profoundly affected. Politicians seem to have just been reflecting public opinion (or exploiting an existing climate of fear). Since you ask us for evidence, how about some evidence that public official's encouragement actually ass had any independent effect. Fred Bauder 11:54, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to recuse myself from the writing role, as opposed to the copyediting role for this article. So, I won't state my objections if you decide to remove the sentence above. I should get around to completing a number of articles that I've right hand man exposedhimself often it was quite discusting unfinished rather than becoming too involved with this article. 172 21:41, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Fred, I think I wrote that sentence. I'll agree to its removal as POV if it will help. There is certainly some genuine cause for debate over whether the political aspects were the cause, the consequence or both. Diderot 08:06, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I've changed the end of that paragraph. Fred, does it address your objections?

Diderot 08:10, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It removes an assertion which I'm not sure of but, this language, "Growing public fear made anti-communism a hot-button issue in American politics and encouraged a variety of responses, including the Red Scare." raises the question of what the "variety of responses" consisted of. Fred Bauder 12:29, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
I would be inclined to see both the Holywood version of the red scare - openly anti-communist films for example - and phenomena like McCarthyism, as well as the widespread (and, IMO uncritical) belief in things like the domino theory all as responses. But, that probably opens a new can of worms. I'm open to alternative wordings. Perhaps this: "Growing public fear made anti-communism a hot-button issue in American politics, which helped intensify red scares in the early years of the Cold War." It seems to me pretty uncontrovertial that the phenomenon fed on itself - people got scared, politicians responded to the fear, people got even more scared, etc. Figuring out which came first is probably impossible but I think it is appropriate that there be some indication that the whole thing was self-reinforcing. Diderot 13:56, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yes, see Social mania Fred Bauder 16:20, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
Okay - after waiting to see if anyone else was interested, I made the change. If someone wants to write more on anthropology of public hysteria as a part of the article, they're welcome to it. Diderot 08:16, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to make a major change in the article and restrict its coverage to only the 1919 and 1920s events. McCarthyism would be only briefly mentioned. I am the one who first started this article after reading a book, Red Scare which in fact covers only McCarthyism. I think I errored in creating an article with this title which in fact refers to the earlier period. Fred Bauder 15:17, May 3, 2004 (UTC)



[edit] Scares in communist countries

4.34.166.104 removed the following text:

It is interesting to note that, with the exception of North Korea, governments of communist states generally did not promote similar fears of possible attacks by the USA or other countries.

with the justfication that "Fidel Castro in Cuba, not just N. Korea, scares his people about the USA potentially invading. So has every communist country at some point." I think this is not correct (although may be the sentence should be rephrased). I grew up in the Soviet Union and the issue of US attack or invasion or anything was hardly ever brought up in school, on TV, in the papers. My father grew up in 1960s and the public was not told that an attack is immenent or anything. Yes, there definitely were some warnings, in a few decades in a country of several hundred million people there must have been some, but it was by no means widespread - it would have been very uncommon occurence. We were told that American economic system is bad (and now that our country is no longer communist, I am an adult and I can watch American films such as The Corporation I realise that we were told the truth all along :) ), but we were never told that we will be fighting America in a war. Just to make myself clear - it's obvious that the Party leaders and the military considered the threat of attack to be quite real, but that's their job and it's not really the subject of the article. I haven't been to Cuba yet, but I've read enough Castro's speeches and nowhere does he appear scaring his compatriots. Yes, the threat of an American invasion is very real (because it happened many times in the past), unlike the threat of a Soviet invasion, but the public is not kept in constant fear by duck and cover exercises. Neither was the public in Iraq for that matter - until the attack was imminent, Iraqis were not constantly brainwashed that the US will attack (judging from what little material I found written by Iraqis in English online). So that's why I am reverting the change for now. Paranoid 23:46, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Fear of "counterrevolution" in Eastern Europe

I've grown up in Eastern Europe (in Hungary) and although I don't know about the propaganda mentioning any imminent attack by the "imperialists", but the fear of "counter-revolution", i.e. an uprising against the soviet-backed governments was real.

In Hungary we had a special militia set up after the uprising in 1956 called the "Munkásőrség" (= Workers' Guard) created exactly for the purpose of suppressing any further insurgencies. There were uprisings in East Germany (1953), Hungary (1956), Prague (1968) all suppressed by Soviet tanks.

In the 50s we had propaganda movies, where the bad guy was usually a saboteur, who tries to undermine the building of communism. In some countries, they were real. (Bay of Pigs Invasion, Operation Mongoose).

I'm not saying, that we were scared with an American invasion at any point in time, but there was a sense of anxiety and preparation for war. The governments had to justify the existence of huge conscripted armies (2 years conscription was not uncommon), the gigantic Soviet bases all over Eastern Europe, the big air-raid shelters I remember playing in as a kid. What would you need those for if the "imperialists" wouldn't want to attack? (Of course, all the communist countries were peaceful and would only act in self defence.)

Maybe that's why a lot of people find that specific sentence misleading. It suggests that Americans scared themselves with the communist threat, meanwhile the population of communist countries lived relaxed and laid back, knowing that the West would never attack us. This is just not entirely true.

Nyenyec 05:50, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've added the Cleanup-verify note to this page. Despite all the discussion, some of the facts need sourcing and possibly even the POV needs attention (again). The comparison to lynchings of German-Americans is especially questionable and requires a source, and I'm not sure it's even appropriate here if true. Frankly, I don't understand the reference to the Mongols and the Hun at all.

Opusaug 04:12, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i have been studing the red scare and i need more information. please add whatever you can. Thanks

DJ, what do Prof. Kornweibel's books and research have to do with the Red Scare? Were most of the blacks who were investigated members of the Communist Party, or so suspected? Opusaug 21:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Racism in the Red Scare

The short answer is yes, the Red Scare specifically targeted African American "radicals". Kornweibel's books review BI's internal communications as their tactics evolve into the full blown Scare. The book on 1919 - 21 is especially relevant. The book on WWI shows the genesis of the mania that would culminate years later.

The longer answer is that the repression worsened in the Red Scare, but wasn't new. The Bureau of Investigation I didn't just launch into the Red Scare without preparation. The BI was set up in 1909 to investigate anti-trust cases. In the run up to WWI, it began investigating people who opposed the war, or were insufficiently patriotic. Targets of the investigation included African American socialists and unionists, but also religious pacifists, people who agitated against lynching or wanted to solve problems in the US before going to war. After the war ended, the charges used to justify the investigations changed. Dissidents were assumed to be influenced by Bolsheviks rather than Germans. Internal memos quoted by Kornweibel show agents brushing off complaints about lynching. Some African Americans did join the incipient Communist party. See the entry on the African Blood Brotherhood for an example. BI documents show they took this as proof of the conspiracies investigators had alleged all along. The WWI book is pretty readable, if you can find it. The Red Scare book is more academic. DJ Silverfish 22:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] minor edit

Did a minor edit to the page to get the educational packet under the publications heading.

Then wondered why I was able to edit this page so freely as a guest. I did some reading and now I realize what exactly wikipedia is. What an awesome thing.

-- Misha

== The Second Red Scare ==

Causes


Added the following sentence to "The Second Red Scare", Causes" :

"The release by the U.S. government in 1995 of secret Soviet-era cables decoded by the Venona Project confirmed that, in fact, there were hundreds of Soviet spies employed in high levels of government during that time." I also provided a link to the "Venona Project" page.

I thought that it was important to point out, as the article on Venona Project states, that there was a re-evaluation of the Red Scare as a result of the discovery of these cables. It seems that it was not largely "hysteria" and that there was factual justification for the investigations.

--Bsod 2 July 2005 17:04 (UTC)


I have changed 'the fall of China' to 'the Communist revolution in China' as I felt the former represent a non-empirical viewpoint. This also provides a link to the 'Communist revolution' article. 134.219.164.85 23:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CPUSA Pipeline to the Kremlin!

I noticed this statement by User:Andyluciano on September 3, 2005 when he was discussing this page. He said:

"...even the mere existence of a US communist does not necessarily imply that they had a direct connection to Moscow."

I have to make a comment regarding this statement. It has been proven that the Communist Party of America was directly taking orders from the Soviet Union! If someone was a "good" CP member then they would be following orders from their cell leader. These people were not just a bunch of innocent people. They were fervently working for an over throw of the capitalist system so that they would be in full communion with Mother Russia! A good example is the so-called radical muslims of today. We know that members of some of these enemy groups are over here, members of secret cells, working as ordinanry people, passing intel back to their leaders for the day that they are called to do their duty.

And just like the Muslims held by the US in Cuba, these Communists all claimed they were innocent and being discriminated against. Dwain 23:33, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

They were innocent, and they were being discriminated against. This country was founded on the premise of religous tolerance-- that also means tolerance to all forms of thought. When you speak here, you say that USA has a duty to mass-arrest those who were associated with Communism. But when you speak about American values with your friends/family/etc, don't you always say that America is a land of the free? Yet when it is to your liking, you advocate this kind of discrimination...--4.152.102.244 21:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

blah, blah, blah doesn't matter if they were discriminated against!! No, it doesn't mean all tolerance of thought regarding pinko's! Another sympathizer! no once can just run to the first amendment when they are obviously a security risk. For decades it was like that. All of the sudden in this day and age we now don't know which was is up! RomanYankee (24.75.194.50 20:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC))

Try as I may, I do find the basis for this allegation, "When you speak here, you say that USA has a duty to mass-arrest those who were associated with Communism", as referenced by the Anon above. Seems hyperbolic, and not a contribution to the discussion. Thank you. nobs 00:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with anon. It seems to be that Dwain really believes that USA had a right to do what it did, therefore he does believe USA had a duty to arrest communists. Perhaps you are just not agreeing with the fact he said "mass-arrest"... they didn't mass arrest, perhaps he used the word mass to represent the amount of terror it inflicted on *all* american communist and anyone thinking positively about communism (ie: communist sypmathizers). So, anyway, I'm now starting to wonder why this discusion is going onto small things like using the word mass incorrectly... So Hungry

[edit] Red Scare from 1919 to 1921

This article should focus on the Red Scare, from 1919 to 1921. McCarthyism is already covered in well... McCarthyism. It would be prudent to put italics at the top pointing out the era known as the Red Scare and pointing to a link to the McCarthyism article. Also, all those who have contributed to the McCarthyism article shouldn't also need to contribute to this one too, there should be one for Red Scare and one for McCarthyism... this current organization is bad.--So Hungry

I'm going to reorganize this article pretty soon to only cover the Red Scare from 1918 to 1921. If anyone objects, say so now. And if you do object, just provide some source (not at all from wikipedia) stating how the word "red scare" even refers to anywhere after 1940... I have this feeling that because some wikipedian said that it did, everyone else believes this.

The McCarthyism article's description of the "second red scare" conflits with the on in this article... showing that some wikipedians have definetly contributed errounous information about the "second red scare"--So Hungry 22:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

ť== subscriptions? ==

in the following paragraph you added that "subscriptions of which contributed revenue directly to the source".


These laws made it illegal to speak out against the U.S. government as well as giving the Postmaster General power to deny mail of citizens suspected of being dissenters (ie: censorship of communist, socialist and anarchist related mail, subscriptions of which contributed revenue directly to the source). However, the United Sates later repealed both of these acts in 1921.

From what source did yout cite this?--So Hungry 21:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scholarly studies

I noticed that the page was being used to promote some secondary sources of undirectly related material. They may be useful on another article or in proper context. My edits are concerned with fixing this. Does anyone have any comments?

[edit] Scholarly studies comment

This whole article is a POV that has an emotional appeal to certain segments of society. The scolarly content is suspect due to vague, narrow secondary sources used. Witness the constant re-editing of different people (including myself) to try to balance the article.

The revisionist writers quoted for the most part have a specific agenda they wish to promote. The article is reduced to a propaganda piece for the left. -- runchummey 04:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need for citations

While people may disagree about the content, it is inaccurate to say that it is not adequately sourced. I'm removing the citation tag. BCorr|Брайен 02:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Venona project?

Should there not be mention of the Venona project, which proves that the "Red Scare" was not as "Over Blown" as previously thought? I guess we don't want to offend far left liberals, I mean, communists.

"....Among this group we now know to have been working for the KGB and its predecessors, and for the GRU - Soviet military intelligence - were prominent Americans who in the war years infiltrated every major agency of the U.S. government, from the State and Treasury Departments to the Manhattan Project.

The Venona project files - thousands of decrypted 1940s cables between the KGB in Moscow and its agents in New York, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., and elsewhere, only released to the public beginning in 1995 - makes the evidence overwhelming. Thanks to Venona, we have definitive proof of the guilt of Alger Hiss and Julius Rosenberg, as well as the most important American atomic spy, Theodore Hall.

But Venona also revealed that the KGB had among its agents such people as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Harry Dexter White; the chief of the State Department's Division of American Republics, Laurence Duggan; the head of the State Department's Latin American Division, Maurice Halperin; and Lauchlin Currie, administrative aide and State Department liaison to Presidents Roosevelt and Truman.

Venona in fact confirmed what anti-Communists had argued at the time, and which their detractors, the anti anti-Communists, had always denied: There was a successful and dangerous Soviet penetration of our government, as well as a network of spies working for the KGB.

It also has been established that many of them were recruited directly out of the ranks of the American Communist Party. Contrary to what the left of the time had maintained - that the Communists were small, insignificant and hardly a danger - there was in fact good reason to view them not simply as members of an unpopular but legal political party, but as potential spies in waiting. The CP-USA was, as scholars Harvey Klehr and John Haynes have written, 'indeed a fifth column working inside and against the United States in the Cold War.'..."

The Red 'Scare' Was Real By Ronald Radosh

The New York Post July 10, 2002

Of all the newspapers in the world, you had to choose the Murdoch Post.

[edit] second red scare

I suspect the 2nd paragraph in the TOP of this article is over broad. Does anyone have any information showing that the 2nd Red Scare included any fears of anarchism? I believe it was all anti-Communism at this time. Thanks Hmains 18:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1920's movies and movie stars and the red scare

i was looking for more detail info on the movie stars and public figures that were affected by the red scare or a movie that was made about certain actors i would also like to find a website that tells about the positive things and improvements for the intertainment business if you know about the 20's era of movies and recommend any inparticular please comment on the wikipedia site.


[edit] Begining of article doesn't have a subject/agent

Right in the beginning of the article it is written that "Both periods were characterized by the suspicion of widespread civil-service infiltration ..." but nowhere in that phrase, or introduction, does it specify who had these suspicions, and if they were generalized in american society, or the majority, or the minority, etc. The fact that in both time periods the labour movement in the US was very much active, and that the Red Scare suspicions where directed at their organizations, at least these would not have reasons to believe in these suspicions, moreover the fact that they were pratically crushed (in the 1920's) using that pretext. I would recommend the book A People's History of the United States, and a rationalization of these events (for example, knowing where those suspicions came from, as they didn't pop-up by themselves).

[edit] Picture POV

Does anyone else think the picture of the anarchist tyring to destroy the statue of liberty is POV, although the Cold War is over and everyone is on the West's side, it does seem portray the belief that communists were evil people.Akupta321 01:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It can be argued that it is PoV, indirectly. I would say that it is much more... incoherent. The article is 99% about communism, not anarchism. The image should be removed based on that... however I guess we all can't deal without the article having a picture haha... A more suitable picture is needed though.--So Hungry 04:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The article is not really about communism or anarchism. It is about the reaction of state and local government to allegedly subversive political activity. The contemporary news reports and government statements aren't too careful abuot makeing a distinction between anarchists and communists. They didn't spend too much time trying to figure out their goals either. So the picutre is an important symbol for the hysteria of the times and should stay. The article needs more images, of course. At some point it should be broken out into two articles: one covering the period after WWI and the other covering the period after WWII. I don't have time to tackle this right now, unfortunately. DJ Silverfish 14:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] should this article be split?

This article is technically about two different time periods and two nearly unrelated parts of American history: one after World War I, and the other after World War II. I don't see why this article shouldn't be split up into the First Red Scare and the Second Red Scare. I realize that some people may argue that both were parts of ongoing American isolationism at the time, but in that case, it could technically be argued that both World Wars should be put together into a single article because one led into the other and because they were both parts of an ongoing hostility between America and the communist powers. It would seem absurd to do that, wouldn't it? Then why should this article be any different? Besides, there's enough information for both to be separate articles.

And if it's not split, then this article should be broadened to a more worldwide scale, because I know that more countries than just the US had scares like this. Yay or nay?--BigShock 20:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

split the article. Thanks Hmains 03:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FBI?

The article states 'A series of bombings in June of 1919 sparked the FBI to more aggressive actions.' I don't think the FBI existed in 1919!

Although the FBI did not acquire its current name until 1935, it was created way back in 1908 under the name "Bureau of Investigation" (BOI) during Teddy Roosevelt's term in office. It did the same job then as it does now. --BigShock 14:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] First Red Scare

I made sure that the 'First Red Scare' article contains all the text that was in this article on the First Red Scare. I went into other WP articles and where appropriate changed the links to the First Red Scare article. I then removed the First Red Scare content from this article and pointed to the First Red Scare article for thayt information. WHY: the first and second Red Scare were really very different events from different periods of US history and involved different sets of people and facts. In other words, they have little in common. Having the First Red Scare as the only article that contains the information on the First will also aid editors who are probably interested in either the First or the Second Red Scare, but not both. Thanks Hmains 21:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is anti-communism in america not a similar event. ANti-communism may have different causes, but it also has similar roots. Mrdthree 03:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


We have an article called 'First Red Scare'. Why should any material at all on the 'First Red Scare' be in this article. Now we have two articles that must be maintained on the same subject, two articles that have to be kept in sync, two places to maintain comments, etc. This makes no sense. Move all the material to the First Red Scare article and leave this just a referral as it was before all this material was added. Hmains 04:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


There's also a McCarthyism article that duplicates much of the material in the Second Red Scare section of this article. Duplication like this is a fact of life in Wikipedia. Sometimes it's appropriate, and that's what the {{mainarticle}} tag is for, as in the World War II article, which has a section on, for example, "German winter offensive", with a {{mainarticle}} tag pointing to Battle of the bulge. In theory, readers come to this article for an overview of both Red Scares, and follow the {{mainarticle}} links if they want more detail. In practice, sub articles are often not in sync with "parent" articles, and there will be different facts and emphasis in each one, and sometimes outright contradictions. That's another fact of life in an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit."
Anyway, I think the parent article/sub article structure is appropriate here. One thing that would be an improvement to this article would be if it had a longer introduction that did a compare-and-contrast examination of the two red scares, as well as looking at the common roots and history of both. KarlBunker 11:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] disambiguation

I am thinking this should just be a disambiguation page pointing to separate article on the First Red Scare and Second Red Scare. I fail to see the point in having duplicated/contradictory material in this article and the existing First Red Scare article. Hmains 04:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Having a separate article for "Second Red Scare" makes no sense, since there's already a "McCarthyism" article, and historians use "second red scare" and "McCarthyism" to refer to the same thing. Having an article on "Red Scare" with sections that cover both the first and second red scare when both are already covered in other articles may or may not make sense, but that's another question. KarlBunker 03:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
having just gone through all the WP links to 'red scare' and changing all appropriate ones to 'first red scare' or 'second red scare', that left about half a dozen links left to 'red scare' (ignoring all the talk pages). These links are about 'red scares' in general or other speciific 'red scares', such as in 1935. To handle these, I think the 'red scare' article should become a disambiguation page. This is why I am making these changes. Hmains 05:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Mains, I wish you had taken into account the issue I have posted about below, in making your edits. See that post, for one of the reasons that your edits were not altogether fitting. This is the danger of making sweeping, semi-automated edits on articles about whose topics you perhaps do not know much, and spending little time to consider each case. I have noticed that you run into this sort of problem fairly often. I don't mean to be officious, but I think that you ought take a more judicious approach to editing. -- Lonewolf BC 08:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Although I'm not sure I agree with Lonewolf BC's specific objection below, I agree that you've been pretty injudicious here, Hmains. To make a change to hundreds of articles when there hasn't been any discussion, much less a consensus, and when you don't have much knowledge of the subject, is seriously careless of you. As I've pointed out to you in our talk page discussion, I don't know of any historian that makes a distiction between "McCarthyism" and "The Second Red Scare." Unless you can show that the majority of historians make some such distinction, then your sweeping edit to multiple pages was an error. KarlBunker 13:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I apologize, Hmains. My comments above were based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the edits you made. I realize my mistake now. Clearly I'm guilty of making some "careless edits" myself, in the above paragraph. KarlBunker 20:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too Americocentric

This article is too much focused on the U.S.A. "Red Menace" redirects here, but the idea of a "Red Menace" was international, and in other countries its history of ebb and flow as a fear (and a reality, to the extent the fear was justified) does not truly follow that in the United States. My impression is somewhat that "Red Scare" is more of an American term, in particular, so perhaps it is not so bad if an article on "Red Scare" concentrates on the U.S. However, either the equivalent phenomenon in other countries needs to be given proper coverage here, or a separate article, perhaps entitled "Red Menace", is needed, in which to cover the topic more globally. -- Lonewolf BC 08:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The Anti-communism article has a more international scope. Because "red menace" is a such an informal term, I think it's hard to pin down what it should redirect to. My personal opinion at the moment is that having it redirect to Anti-communism would make more sense than Red Scare. What do you think? KarlBunker 13:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does this article need to be protected?

I cannot see any mention of vandalism on the talk page nor anything else that would require SP. Can anyone clarify why this is in place? For information regarding the SP policy see WP:SPP--FearedInLasVegas 13:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There's rarely any reason to discuss vandalism in an article's talk page. There's no need to discuss whether there was really a historian named Gofoloffoguss, for example. The article was put under semi-protection because it was being vandalized a lot. You can see this by viewing the article's history. KarlBunker 14:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Individual acts of vandalism, of course, don't require mentioning but if it becomes persistent, then it should be mentioned in the talk page, perhaps mentioning that a request for SP has been made. When an article becomes protected it makes sense to leave a note on the talk page explaining why it has happened, instead of leaving a user unfamiliar with the article to trawl through the mass of revisions to try and piece together an answer. --FearedInLasVegas 14:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The notice box that's put up on protected pages includes a link on the word "disabled" in the sentence "Editing of this article by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled." The info at that link explains why pages are protected or semi-protected. That might not be the most intuitive place to put that information, but it's there. Since vandals generally vandalize because they want to call attention to themselves, mentioning vandalism on a talk page will only serve to encourage them. KarlBunker 15:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] False statement in this article

The communist revolution in Russia and the ensuing Russian Civil War and worldwide revolutionary wave from 1917 to 1923 inspired a widespread campaign of violence in the U.S. by various anarchist groups and aggressive labor unions...

I don't know of a single example of violence by an "aggressive labor union" inspired by the above, let alone a "campaign" of violence. Can someone please justify this sentence to me? Sources and details, PLEASE. Otherwise, it should be removed.

Or better, reversed-- there was a tremendous amount of violence directed at the Industrial Workers of the World. Lynchings, tar & feathers, union halls ransacked, shootings... Richard Myers 01:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that paragraph was inaccurate and unsourced. It was also unnecessary, so I just deleted it. KarlBunker 03:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia section

I added a trivia section and if anybody has anything interesting to contribute, or anything currently in it to edit, please be my guest.

If there is a debate on whether or not the section is worth-while then please post that as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Etni3s (talk • contribs) 09:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC).