Download file to see previous pages...
In the end, it was the enemy from within acting as the nation’s protector that caused hardships for many Americans and not communism. The most evident example of this exploitation for personal gains comes from Hollywood due to its high profile status.
In 1950, what had been a largely ineffectual and obscure U.S. Senator, who was riddled with bribery scandals, gave a speech in West Virginia that would make him a powerful and famous legislator. Senator Joseph McCarthy told those gathered at the Republican Women’s Club “The State Department is infested with Communists.” (Roberts, 2010). He further claimed to possess 205 names of known, avowed communists who were working for the U.S. State Department. This was untrue but the speech served its purpose, by shifting the accusing public spotlight from him to others. Soon afterward the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) began hearings in an effort to root-out communist sympathizers and subversives.
HUAC began by calling to testify movie stars and moguls who the government knew were staunchly anti-communist such as Louis B Mayer, Jack earner, Robert Taylor, Gary Cooper and Walt Disney, a movie making icon that was certain “Commies” were attempting to ruin his business and his good name. Disney was eager to offer names of suspected communist. He even went as far as to make wild, unsubstantiated assumptions of a person being communist due to this individual having “no religion and had spent considerable time at the Moscow Art Theatre studying art direction, or something.” (Rad, 2009) It was later discovered Disney had been an FBI informant from the time WWII ended until his death in the mid 1960’s. An opposition group called the Committee for the First Amendment protested the congressional investigations. Among the groups members were high profile Hollywood celebrities such as Lucille Ball, Lauren Bacall, Gene Kelly and Humphrey Bogart.
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
Paired with political pressure to root out Soviet spies in the government,the Red Scare erupted and played out in scenes all over the country.The interaction of this public force with the arts community of Hollywood,however,produced the most interesting social dynamic of the whole Red Scare experience.
The Cold War, which lasted from roughly 1946 to 1991, had similarities with the Red Scare which happened after World War I, particularly in limiting freedoms of speech and association. This paper compares and contrasts the nature, laws, and justifications of these limitations for these two eras.
There is a general perception of historians that The United States operated a Red Scare that was significantly worse than any others in the rest of the world. Though clearly not as corrupt or, well, evil as the purges ongoing in the Soviet Union, McCarthyism and the public spectacle of the American Red scare is notorious, with many thinking it was the worst red scare in history.
Following the Russian Revolution is the establishment of the Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA). During World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union agreed to the Russo-American friendship to create a firm and unified facade against the Axis Powers.
Rarely, a film comes along that directly confronts and challenges the prevailing conventional wisdom of its time. Just such a film is Twelve Angry Men (Lumet, 1957). This film seeks to challenge apathy, racism and cultural ignorance in 1950’s America. It is nothing if not controversial, given the time in which it was made.
Of course, the assault on constitutional and civil liberties (that Americans have always cherished) launched by Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1940s and the early 1950s in the name of fighting Communists within the United States was the worst, but by no means either the first or the only, aberration that Americans have had to endure.
The First World War accelerated the collapse of Tsarist Russia and its takeover by a communist-led Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. The governments of the capitalist nations feared that the "infection of Bolshevism" would spread to their own people, so, the government of the United States had its own reaction, some would say rather violent.
The conclusion from this review states that many argue that the theories that we have at our disposal to understand international relations are simply not up to confront. Smith rather seriously declares that if we want answers to the question why is it that major powers and the major international governmental and non-governmental institutions are insisting on the promotion of democracy.