1 1945 Das HUAC (House Un-American Activities - UK

DER VERLUST CHINAS UND DER MCCARTHYISM IN DEN USA
Hauptseminar: Geschichte des klaten Krieges
Dozent:
Prof. Dr. M. Frey
Referenten:
Jonathan Schulte, Jörn Fiebiger
29.04.06
Truman gibt bekannt, dass die Sowjetunion ihre erste Atombombe gezündet hat.
1. OKTOBER
Gründung der Volksrepublik China unter Mao Tse-tung.
CHRONIK DES MCCARTHYISM
McCarthy, der Namensgeber des McCarthyism, hatte den bereits früher in die Offensive getretenen
Antikommunismus nicht erfunden, sondern nutze lediglich die allgemeine Hysterie.
Rückblick auf Ereignisse der Zeit:
1945
JANUAR
Das HUAC (House Un-American Activities Committee) wird zum ständigen Untersuchungsausschuss des
Repräsentantenhauses für Angelegenheiten der Inneren Sicherheit bestimmt.
FEBRUAR
Konferenz von Jalta mit den Großen Drei: Stalin, Churchill und Roosevelt.
1950
9. FEBRUAR
Ansprache McCarthys in Wheeling (West-Virginia) Vor einer Frauenvereinigung der republikanischen
Partei behauptet der noch unbekannte Senator des US-Bundesstaats Wisconsin, das Papier in seiner Hand
sei eine Liste von 205 eingeschriebenen Mitgliedern der Kommunistischen Partei, die im
Außenministerium arbeiteten und seine Politik mitgestalteten.
Juni
Tydings Commitee untersucht McCarthys Anschuldigen über Kommunisten in Regierungsebene und
kommt zum Schluss, dass diese ein "hoax and a fraud" seien.
25. NOVEMBER
Harry Truman, seit April 1945 demokratischer Präsident der Vereinigten Staaten, richtet eine
Übergangskommission ein, die Nachforschungen bezüglich der Loyalität von Bundesbeamten
Nachforschungen anstellen soll. Als unloyal gelten Anhänger von Totalitarismus, Faschismus,
Kommunismus sowie all diejenigen, die umstürzlerische Ansichten vertreten.
25. JUNI
Die nordkoreanische Armee überschreitet die Demarkationslinie und greift Südkorea an.
1947
22. MÄRZ
Die Behörden erhalten die Loyalty Order genannte Weisung, Angestellte zu verhören und eventuelle
Security risks zu entlassen, d. h. Personen, deren Anschauungen oder Tätigkeiten eine Bedrohung für die
Sicherheit der Vereinigten Staaten darstellen. Gleichzeitig nimmt das Justizministerium erneut seine
Auflistung subversiver Organisationen auf. Zwischen 1947 und 1951 werden drei Millionen Bundesbeamte
überprüft.
1951
JANUAR
Amerikanische Niederlage in Korea.
OKTOBER-NOVEMBER
Das HUAC beschließt, eine breit angelegte Ermittlung in der Filmbranche durchzuführen.
1948
FEBRUAR
Kommunistischer Umsturz in Prag.
APRIL
Die Hollywood Ten verweigern dem Kongress die Aussage und werden wegen unamerikanischer Umtriebe
verurteilt.
24. JUNI
Beginn der Blockade von Berlin.
AUGUST
Die Alger Hiss-Affäre wühlt die Öffentliche Meinung in Amerika auf. Die Ermittlungen leitete der
zukünftige US-Präsident Richard M. Nixon. 1950 wird Alger Hiss wegen Meineids verurteilt.
NOVEMBER
Wiederwahl Trumans.
JULI- AUGUST
Verhaftung von Ethel Rosenberg und Julius Rosenberg.
MÄRZ-JULI
Die amerikanischen Truppen erobern Südkorea langsam zurück.
28. APRIL
Die Bundesregierung verschärft die Loyalitätskontrollen bei Bundesbeamten. Zweifel reichen zur
Entlassung aus dem Dienst.
14. JUNI
McCarthy attackiert General Marshall. Er wirft ihm aufgrund seiner Rolle im Zweiten Weltkrieg und
seiner Entscheidungen in der Asien-Politik der Vereinigten Staaten eine pro-kommunistische
Gesinnung vor.
1952
NOVEMBER
Der Republikaner General Eisenhower gewinnt die Präsidentschaftswahlen.
1953
5. MÄRZ
Stalins Tod.
27. APRIL
Beamte müssen den Beweis ihrer Loyalität selbst erbringen.
HERBST
McCarthy beginnt Ermittlungen gegen die Armee.
1949
23. SEPTEMBER
1
2
1954
22. APRIL BIS 24. MAI
Army/McCarthy-Hearing: Ein Senats-Ausschuss untersuchte 36 Tage lang die Vorwürfe von Senator
McCarthy gegen die Armee. Es wurde vom amerikanischen Fernsehen live übertragen, mit einer Quote
von 20 Millionen Zuschauern und bedeutete den Anfang vom Ende McCarthys.
2. DEZEMBER
Der Senat sanktioniert McCarthy für seine Haltung mit 69 gegen 23 Stimmen.
1956
Der 20. Kongress der Kommunistischen Partei der Sowjetunion (KPdSU) beschließt die Entstalinisierung.
1957
2. MAI
Tod McCarthys.
Basierend auf: Schrecker E., A McCarthy Chronology (1917-1976), in: The age of McCarthyism - A brief
history with documents, Boston / New York 20022 S.278-283
QUELLEN:
1.AMENDMENT:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
(Der Kongress darf kein Gesetz erlassen, das die Einführung einer Staatsreligion zum Gegenstand hat, die
freie Religionsausübung verbietet, die Rede- oder Pressefreiheit oder das Recht des Volkes einschränkt,
sich friedlich zu versammeln und die Regierung durch Petition um Abstellung von Missständen zu
ersuchen.)
Quelle: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/1._Amendment (23.04.2006)
5.AMENDMENT:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or
indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be
twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property
be taken for public use, without just compensation.
(Niemand darf wegen eines Kapitalverbrechens oder eines sonstigen schimpflichen Verbrechens zur
Verantwortung gezogen werden, es sei denn auf Grund eines Antrages oder einer Anklage durch ein
Großes Geschworenengericht. Hiervon ausgenommen sind Fälle, die sich bei den Land- oder
Seestreitkräften oder bei der Miliz ereignen, wenn diese in Kriegszeit oder bei öffentlichem Notstand im
aktiven Dienst stehen. Niemand darf wegen derselben Straftat zweimal durch ein Verfahren in Gefahr des
Leibes oder des Lebens gebracht werden. Niemand darf in einem Strafverfahren zur Aussage gegen sich
selbst gezwungen noch des Lebens, der Freiheit oder des Eigentums ohne vorheriges ordentliches
Gerichtsverfahren nach Recht und Gesetz beraubt werden. Privateigentum darf nicht ohne angemessene
Entschädigung für öffentliche Zwecke eingezogen werden.)
Quelle: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/5._Amendment (23.04.2006)
3
SENATOR JOSEPH MCCARTHY: SPEECH AT WHEELING, WEST VIRGINIA, FEBRUARY 9, 1950:
(In Auszügen)
Am 9. Februar 1950 hielt der bis dato unbekannte Senator Joseph McCarthy vor dem Women´s
Republican Club of Wheeling eine Rede mit dem Tenor, Kommunisten im State Department bis hinauf in
höchste Regierungskreise verrieten ihr Land und seien u.A. verantwortlich für den "Verlust" Chinas und
die Konzessionen die man in der Jalta Konferenz an die UDSSR gemacht habe. Während er ebenfalls an
anti-elitäre Vorbehalte seiner Zuhörer appelliert ("striped pants diplomats with pony British accents") gilt
sein eigentlicher Angriff jedoch der demokratischen Trueman Administration. Während er in der
eigentlichen Rede behauptet eine Liste von 205 Namen zu haben, sind es in diesem von ihm dem
Congressional Record am 20.2.1950 zur Verfügung gestellten Transkript der Rede nur mehr 75
Namen.
Im Juni desselben Jahres untersuchte das Tydings Commitee McCarthys Anschuldigen und kam zum
Schluss, dass diese ein "hoax and a fraud" seien.
Six years ago, at the time of the first conference to map out the peace--Dumbarton Oaks--there was within
the Soviet orbit 180,000,000 people. Lined up on the antitotalitarian side there were in the world at that
time roughly 1,625,000,000 people. Today, only 6 years later, there are 800,000,000 people under the
absolute domination of Soviet Russia--an increase of over 400 percent. On our side, the figure has shrunk
to around 500,000,000. In other words, in less than 6 years the odds have changed from 9 to 1 in our favor
to 8 to 5 against us. This indicates the swiftness of the tempo of Communist victories and American
defeats in the cold war. As one of our outstanding historical figures once said, "When a great democracy is
destroyed, it will not be because of enemies from without, but rather because of enemies from within."
The truth of this statement is becoming terrifyingly clear as we see this country each day losing on every
front.
At war's end we were physically the strongest nation on earth and, at least potentially, the most powerful
intellectually and morally. Ours could have been the honor of being a beacon on the desert of destruction, a
shining living proof that civilization was not yet ready to destroy itself. Unfortunately, we have failed
miserably and tragically to arise to the opportunity.
The reason why we find ourselves in a position of impotency is not because our only powerful potential
enemy has sent men to invade our shores, but rather because of the traitorous actions of those who have
been treated so well by this Nation. It has not been the less fortunate or members of minority groups who
have been selling this Nation out, but rather those who have had all the benefits that the wealthiest nation
on earth has had to offer - the finest homes, the finest college education, and the finest jobs in Government
we can give.
This is glaringly true in the State Department. There the bright young men who are born with silver spoons
in their mouths are the ones who have been the worst. . . .
Now I know it is very easy for anyone to condemn a particular bureau or department in general terms.
Therefore, I would like to cite one rather unusual case - the case of a man who has done much to shape our
foreign policy.
When Chiang Kai-shek was fighting our war, the State Department had in China a young man named John
S. Service. His task, obviously, was not to work for the communization of China. Strangely, however, he
sent official reports back to the State Department urging that we torpedo our ally Chiang Kai-shek and
stating, in effect, that communism was the best hope of China.
Later, this man--John Service--was picked up by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for turning over to the
Communists secret State Department information. Strangely, however, he was never prosecuted. However,
Joseph Grew, the Under Secretary of State, who insisted on his prosecution, was forced to resign. Two
days after Grew's successor, Dean Acheson, took over as Under Secretary of State, this man--John Service-who had been picked up by the FBI and who had previously urged that communism was the best hope of
China, was not only reinstated in the State Department but promoted. And finally, under Acheson, placed
in charge of all placements and promotions.
Today, ladies and gentlemen, this man Service is on his way to represent the State Department and
4
Acheson in Calcutta--by far and away the most important listening post in the Far East. . .
This, ladies and gentlemen, gives you somewhat of a picture of the type of individuals who have been
helping to shape our foreign policy. In my opinion the State Department, which is one of the most
important government departments, is thoroughly infested with Communists.
I have in my hand fifty-seven cases of individuals who would appear to be either card carrying members or
certainly loyal to the Communist Party, but who nevertheless are still helping to shape our foreign policy. .
..
This brings us down to the case of one Alger Hiss who is more important not as an individual any more,
but rather because he is so representative of a group in the State Department. . . .
If time permitted, it might be well to go into detail about the fact that Hiss was Roosevelt's chief advisor at
Yalta when Roosevelt was admittedly in ill health and tired physically and mentally. . . .
Of the results of this conference, Arthur Bliss Lane of the State Department had to say: "As I glanced over
the document, I could not believe my eyes: To me, almost every line spoke of a surrender to Stalin."
As you hear this story of high treason, I know that you are saying to yourself, "Well, why doesn't the
Congress do something about it?" Actually, ladies and gentlemen, one of the important reasons for the
graft, the corruption, the dishonesty, the disloyalty, the treason in high Government positions--one of the
most important reasons why this continues is a lack of moral uprising on the part of the 140,000,000
American people...
As you know, very recently the Secretary of State proclaimed his loyalty to a man [Hiss] guilty of what has
always been considered as the most abominable of all crime--of being a traitor to the people who gave him
a position of great trust. The Secretary of State in attempting to justify his continued devotion to the man
who sold out the Christian world to the atheistic world, referred to Christ's Sermon on the Mount as a
justification and reason therefor, and the reaction of the American people to this would have made the
heart of Abraham Lincoln happy.
When this pompous diplomat in striped pants, with a phony British accent, proclaimed to the American
people that Christ on the Mount endorsed communism, high treason, and betrayal of a sacred trust, the
blasphemy was so great that it awakened the dormant indignation of the American people.
He has lighted the spark which is resulting in a moral uprising and will end only when the whole sorry
mess of twisted, warped thinkers are swept from the national scene so that we may have a new birth of
national honesty and decency in Government.
Senator Joseph McCarthy: Speech at Wheeling, West Virginia, February 9, 1950 in: The age of
McCarthyism - A brief history with documents (Hg.Schrecker E.), Boston / New York 20022 S.238-241
ROBERT TREUHAFT: TESTIMONY BEFORE HUAC, DECEMBER 3, 1953
Das folgende Protokoll zeigt die Schwierigkeiten, die man hatte wenn man für seine Aussage vor der
HUAC juristischen Beistand suchte und sich nicht von einem bekennenden linken Anwalt vertreten lassen
wollte.
Robert Treuhaft, selber Mitglied einer Anwaltskanzlei beschreibt seine Suche nach einem Rechtsanwalt.
Später berief er sich auf das fünfte Amendment.
Das fünfte Amendment erlaubt den Bürgern ihre Aussage zu verweigern, wenn sie befürchten sich selbst
zu belasten; diese Fifth Amendment Communists mussten zwar keine Gefängnisstrafe, aber den Verlust
ihrer Arbeit befürchten.
"I am obliged to appear before this committee without assistance of counsel, Mr. Tavenner, because of the
fact that the repressive activities of this committee have made it impossible for me to secure the assistance
of attorneys of my choice. This is a serious charge for a lawyer to make. I am compelled, however, to make
it because the state of affairs that I have found to exist in this regard is truly shocking.
5
A month ago I received a subpoena calling for my appearance before this committee. My law partner and I
have been, for many years, and are now, general counsel for the East Bay Division of Warehouse Union
Local 6, ILWU, a labor organization which is one of the principal targets under attack by this committee.
In fact, I am sure this was well known to the committee’s investigators, and I cannot down the suspicion
that my representation of this union had something to do with the fact that my law partner and I are the
only East Bay lawyers subpoenaed before the committee at these hearings so far as I know.
I readily agreed to represent four East Bay members of this union as their attorney, who likewise were
subpoenaed, despite the fact that I, myself, had been subpoenaed as a witness.
Upon receipt of my subpoena I immediately began to make diligent efforts to secure counsel to represent
me. I compiled a list of the 7 leading East Bay lawyers whom I would want to represent me because of
their known ability in their profession and because all of them had, from time to time, shown themselves to
be champions of the right of advocacy. All had a sound understanding of due process of law and of the
other constitutional rights and immunities which are daily trampled upon by this committee. . . .
The first lawyer, whom I will call lawyer No. 1, holds high office in the Alameda County Bar Association.
When I first approached this lawyer, he told me that he could see no reason why he could not represent me.
The next day, however, he informed me that he felt that he could not do so because of the controversial
nature and the publicity attendant upon hearings before this committee and because of his position in the
county bar association.
The second lawyer I consulted out of this list, lawyer No. 2, is a former judge who has an active practice
on both sides of the bay. I discussed with him the position which I intended to take before this committee;
that is, to uphold the Constitution and to rely upon the first and fifth amendments to the Constitution as
they might apply to every question that this committee might put to me.
This attorney, who is highly placed in the bar, agreed fully with me in principle and stated that it was his
opinion that my decision was sound and wise. He told me that he would like to represent me.
After conferring with his associate, however, he called me in again, and he said that he was very sorry that
he could not because representing me with the attendant publicity or representing any witness before this
committee would involve financial hardship. He said that he regretted very much to give me this answer
because we have been on friendly terms. He said to me, although he is a well-established lawyer, and older
than I am, “Why don’t you find some older lawyer, someone who is in a better financial position, to take
this risk?”
The third lawyer I went to see and offered a retainer to represent me before these hearings was an older
lawyer, and he was a better financially established lawyer so far as I know. He formerly held high office in
the American Bar Association, and he, too, has been a champion of the right of advocacy. He told me, “Try
to find a younger lawyer. The activities before this committee would be too strenuous,” he thought, the
publicity would be harmful.
The fourth lawyer I went to is a leading criminal lawyer in the East Bay. We have been on very friendly
terms, and he readily agreed to represent me without any hesitation at all. When I offered him a retainer, he
said that he would not accept a retainer from a fellow lawyer. He took the subpoena, and we proceeded to
discuss the position I was going to take, and he agreed with me fully that anybody who had represented
unpopular causes as a lawyer, as I have, would face grave dangers in answering any questions put by this
committee. Three days ago I—I consulted him 2 weeks ago—3 days ago, the day before—3 days before I
was supposed to come here, he called me, and he told me that his partner had just returned from out of
town and had learned that he had undertaken to represent me. He said that his partner represented a bank,
and that his partner felt that the attendant publicity would be so harmful to them that he insisted that they
could not represent a witness before this committee. ...
Lawyer No. 5 is one of the most distinguished members of the bar of Contra Costa County. He has held
high office in the bar association there, and he is a leading lawyer in every sense of the word. He has also
been a fighter for the right of advocacy. He told me with very great regret that he had discussed with some
of his corporate clients the advisability of his intention to represent a witness before this committee. These
clients told him that they would consider it an unfriendly act if he were to represent a witness before this
committee. He said that although he was well established, he had very high overhead and that he didn’t
want to subject his organization to the financial hardship and risk of losing clients that would be involved
in representing anyone before this committee. I told him that I intended to take this matter up with the bar
6
association and also to make a statement to this committee on my experiences in attempting to obtain
counsel, and that I intended to keep the names of the individuals that I had consulted confidential. He said,
“Bob, a fact is a fact. I feel rotten about telling you what I have to tell you, but a fact is a fact; you state the
facts, and I authorize you to use my name and to give the reasons that I have given you.”
This man had real courage.
Robert Treuhaft: Testimony before HUAC, December 3, 1953 in: The age of McCarthyism - A brief
history with documents (Hg.Schrecker E.), Boston / New York 20022 S.259-261
Ein größerer Ausschnitt der Aussage zum Nachlesen unter: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6898/
(23.04.2006)
HARRY S. TRUMAN, /NEW YORK TIMES/ (17TH NOVEMBER, 1953)
It is now evident that the present Administration has fully embraced, for political advantage, McCarthyism.
I am not referring to the Senator from Wisconsin. He is only important in that his name
has taken on the dictionary meaning of the word. It is the corruption of truth, the abandonment of the due
process law. It is the use of the big lie and the unfounded accusation against any citizen in the name of
Americanism or security. It is the rise to power of the demagogue who lives on untruth; it is the spreading
of fear and the destruction of faith in every level of society.
Quelle: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmccarthyism.htm (23.04.2006)
LITERATUR:
Griffith, Robert, The Politics of Fear. Joseph McCarthy and the Senate, Amherst 19903
Schrecker Ellen, A McCarthy Chronology (1917-1976), in: The age of McCarthyism - A brief history with
documents, Boston / New York 20022
Schrecker, Ellen, Many Are the Crimes. McCarthyism in America, New York
1999.
Miller, Arthur, Die Hexen von Salem
PRO MCCARTHY:
http://wwx2.tripod.com/mccarthy.html
Brief article that calls McCarthy “one of …greatest American politicians…"
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a7f91723a2b.htm
An article from the pro-McCarthy New American magazine.
7