#HUAC

[muddypolitics]

Ronald Reagan, an FBI informant, testifies before the House Un-American Activities Committee against other his fellow actors. 1947

He wasn't JUST the worst president ever (maybe 2nd worst after trump?)...he was also a horrible human being that ruined people's lives when he was still an actor.

[oeuvrinarydurian]

Nobody rocks a sweater vest like this man.

Please note he continues the tradition of drinking in character.

[davidhudson]

Dashiell Hammett, May 27, 1894 – January 10, 1961.

Being sworn in by Senator Joseph McCarthy just before refusing to cooperate with the House Un-American Activities Committee on March 26, 1953. Photo by Hank Walker.

[citizenscreen]

The “Hollywood Ten″ were cited for contempt of Congress #OnThisDay in 1947.

These men had refused to cooperate at hearings dealing with communism in the movie industry held by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). They were sentenced to one year in jail.

[newyorkthegoldenage]

From the shoulders of cheering, singing supporters, Dalton Trumbo and John Howard Lawson make farewell speeches as they prepare to leave Penn Station for Washington, where they were to start serving one-year prison terms for contempt of Congress, June 9, 1950. The "Hollywood 10" had appeared before the House Un-American Affairs Committee in October, 1947, and refused to answer questions regarding their possible affiliations with the Communist Party. After they were released, they were blacklisted by the Hollywood studios.

Photo: Marty Lederhandler for the AP

[todaysdocument]

Minutes of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, August 6, 1964

Record Group 233: Records of the U.S. House of RepresentativesSeries: Committee PapersFile Unit: Minutes of Full Committee and Subcommittee Meetings of the Internal Security Committee During the 80th through 93rd Congresses

COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES

August 6, 1964

The Committee on Un-American Activities met in executive session on August 6, 1964, in Room 225 of the Cannon House Office Building at 3:30 o'clock p.m. The following members of the Committee were present:

Edwin E. Willis, Chairman August E. Johansen

Joe R. Pool Henry C. Schadeberg

Donald C. Bruce

The staff members present included Francis J. McNamara, director; Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., general counsel; Alfred M. Nittle, counsel; Donald T. Appell, chief investigator; and Juliette P. Joray recording clerk.

The meeting was called to order by the chairman at 3:30 o'clock p.m.

The Committee considered the release of the testimony of Dr. James H. Robinson who appeared before the Committee in executive session on May 5, 1964. There being no objection it was so ordered.

Mr. Pool, chairman of the subcommittee holding hearings in the matter of Entry of Aliens in the United States under waiver of ineligibility (specifically, the Yasui case), again reported to the full committee the receipt of a request from Secretary of State Dean Rusk that he be permitted to testify and after a full discussion, a motion was made by Mr. Johansen, seconded by Mr. Bruce, and carried unanimously, that the subcommittee accept the Secretary's invitation to testify.

The meeting adjourned at 3:55 o'clock p.m.

E. E. Willis

Chairman

Juliette P. Joray

Recording Clerk

[sweepinggeneral]

i still cant get over the fact hua cheng bullies his own sword...

[commiepinkofag]

The Red Scare

Newly Declassified National Security Agency Memo Reveals That U.S. Government Knew Ethel Rosenberg Was Not A Spy Long Before Her Trial and Execution

A newly declassified document clarifies the truth. In August 2024, the Rosenberg sons obtained a handwritten memo from August 1950 authored by the NSA’s chief analyst, Meredith Gardner. He wrote that, based on Soviet intelligence, Ethel knew about Julius’ espionage work but “due to illness she did not engage in the work herself.” This document confirms what other sources such as the FBI had already indicated: Ethel was not a spy and “did not engage in the work” of espionage and – most importantly – U.S. government officials knew it. They knew it when FBI agents arrested Ethel on Aug. 11, 1950. They knew it when the jury convicted her nine months later. They knew it when the judge sentenced her to death on April 5, 1951. And they knew it when prison officials executed her on Friday, June 19, 1953. Now, Michael and Robert Meeropol are using the declassified memo to urge Biden “to exonerate (Ethel) Rosenberg by issuing a formal presidential proclamation saying that she was wrongly convicted and executed.

[oldshowbiz]

1957.

US House of Representatives cites playwright Arthur Miller for contempt.

[dick-nixon]

alger hiss huac hearing, 1948

[racefortheironthrone]

How true, or untrue were the communist accusation Walt leveled at his employee's?

Pretty much entirely bullshit.

While there were Communist organizers in the labor movement in the 1940s, they were in CIO unions like the UE (electrical workers), ILWU (longshoremen on the West Coast), Mine Mill, and the like.

The Screen Cartoonist's Guild was affiliated with the AFL, the more politically moderate union federation, and was a thoroughly conventional Hollywood union. If you look at the issues that were at stake in the 1941 strike, they were bread-and-butter stuff rather than anything ideological: they wanted union recognition, they wanted an end to wildly disparate pay rates, they wanted an end to unpaid overtime, they wanted on-screen credits, and they wanted an end to firing workers for union activity.

[tcmparty]

Review: Charlie Chaplin vs. America is both shocking and familiar

Watching TCM recently, I saw a clip of Gloria DeHaven reminiscing about visiting Charlie Chaplin at his home when she was quite young. At first, she couldn’t connect the handsome guy who answered the door with the Little Tramp. She concluded, “I guess I had a crush on two different men.” Certainly, this recognition of the dichotomy between Chaplin and his most famous creation resonated with me.…

[citizenscreen]

The first systematic Hollywood blacklist was instituted on November 25, 1947, the day after ten writers and directors were cited for contempt of Congress for refusing to testify before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). The blacklist denied employment to entertainment professionals due to alleged Communist ties or sympathies.

[newyorkthegoldenage]

A youthful Joseph Papp at the box office of the Broadway play Comes a Day, for which he was production stage manager. The picture was taken on November 12, 1958, the day he learned that an arbitrator had ruled in his favor in his complaint against CBS. The network had fired him after he refused to answer questions of a congressional committee probing "un-American activities," i.e., Communism. The arbitrator ordered CBS to re-hire him and pay him $1,500 in back wages (around $16,000 in today's dollars).

Photo: John Lindsay for the AP

[todaysdocument]

The House Un-American Activities Committee discuss subpoenaing Cyrus Eaton, a businessman who criticized U.S. Cold War policy and called for nuclear disarmament, June 13, 1958. 

Record Group 233: Records of the U.S. House of Representatives

Series: Committee Papers

File Unit: Minutes of Full Committee and Subcommittee Meetings of the Internal Security Committee During the 80th through 93rd Congresses

Transcription: 

GORDON H. SCHERER                                                                         COMMITTEES:

FIRST DISTRICT, OHIO                                                                          UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES

                                                                                                                  PUBLIC WORKS

CINCINNATI OFFICE:

1704 CAREW TOWER                                                                            ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT

DUnbar 1-9312                                                                                         ELIZABETH M. SCHURENT

[[in calligraphy]]  Congress of the United States

House of Representatives

Washington, D.C.

June 13, 1958

[[blue ink]] Honorable Francis E. Walter, Chairman

Committee on Un-American Activities

House Office Building

Washington 25, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman:

On May 7, following the much - discussed television

appearance of Mr. Cyrus Eaton on the Mike Wallace show, I

made a speech at Hunter College in New York City in which I

commented on Mr. Eaton's charges against the security agencies

of this country. Enclosed is a copy of that part of the speech

dealing with the Eaton matter which I inserted in the Congressional

Record on May 12, entitled "Aid and Comfort to the Enemy."

Subsequently on May 15 I wrote you, sending

copies to the other members of the  Committee

on Un-American Activities,

stating that in my opinion the Committee had no alternative except

to call Mr. Eaton and ask him to tell us what information he had

to support his charges against the security agencies of this

country, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

   It has been pointed out that Mr. Eaton had a perfect right

under our Constitution to make whatever attack he saw fit against

these agencies even though because of his prominence such charges

were used by the Communist propaganda apparatus all over the

world to the detriment of the United States. It has been made

clear that, if there is any basis for Mr. Eaton's charges, then

our Committee has the duty under its charter and under the rules

of the House to investigate the operation of any agency in the

executive branch which would be operating in the manner suggested by

Mr. Eaton, and , if his charges were sustained by the evidence, to

recommend to the House the necessary legislation to correct such

practices.

[page 2]

Honorable Francis E. Walter

Page 2 - June 13, 1958

While, as I stated, Mr. Easton has the right to say what he pleases, the Congress and its Committees, also have the right to let the people who have been influenced by his statements know the facts, whatever they might be. Mr. Eaton should also have the opportunity to explain to the American people if there is any relation between the charges he has made against the agencies of this government and his frequent and intimate associations with the very top officials of the Russian government.

The charter of our Committee charges us with investigating propaganda harmful to the United States. The Congress and the people are entitled to know whether or not Mr. Eaton's Communist associates are furnishing him with any information on which he bases his charges against agencies of the government of the United States.

There is no question in my mind that Mr. Easton is a loyal American; however, you and I, as the result of our experience on this Committee, know full well that one of the successful techniques of the Communist apparatus is to use, whenever it can, prominent but often misguided loyal Americans to help promote Russian policy. This, as you know, has happened time and time again, as disclosed by an over-abundance of evidence in the record of our hearings.

Nothing that happened at the meeting in my office on Wednesday, June 11, has caused me to change my mind one iota about the necessity of calling Mr. Eaton, particularly since he saw fit to have dinner at the Russian Embassy the following night. This meeting with the Russian Ambassador was apparently more satisfactory and amiable than the one the preceding day with the representatives of the Congress.

I respectfully recommend that you call a meeting of the Committee at the earliest possible time so that a time and place can be set for Mr. Eaton's appearance.

Sincerely yours,

Gordon H. Scherer

GHS:ems

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

(I am sharing the full text of Amanda Foreman’s searing essay on her father that appeared in the Wall Street Journal. Foreman writes of a new documentary that contrasts the actions of Carl Foreman and Elia Kazan. Thank you, Amanda, for making this available.)

My Father, the Blacklist and ‘High Noon’

For filmmaker Carl Foreman, resisting McCarthyism was a patriotic duty, even if it meant the end of his career in the U.S.

Americans who worry that “cancel culture” is a growing threat to democracy may find it cathartic to watch “High Noon on the Waterfront,” a short documentary by directors David Roberts and Billy Shebar. Released last year, the film explores the meaning of moral courage in the 1950s, when the U.S. was in the grip of McCarthyism. In Hollywood, the hunt for communists and alleged subversives resulted in a blacklist that robbed the industry of some of its brightest talent for almost two decades and destroyed the lives of hundreds of people.

The documentary focuses on the divergent fates of two filmmakers, Carl Foreman and Elia Kazan, who have come to symbolize the stark polarities of the era. Both men were former members of the Communist Party, and known for tackling socially progressive themes in their work. Both were subpoenaed by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) and subsequently made films that were allegories of the blacklist. But the similarities end there.

Foreman admitted he had belonged to the Communist Party in his youth but refused to provide names of other party members. “I realize that there are some people who will never be convinced of my ‘loyalty’ to the United States…unless I name all persons I knew to be members of the Party during my own period of membership. My life would be much easier if I could oblige them. But I cannot, and will not, do so,” he stated. As a result, he was classified as an uncooperative witness and blacklisted in Hollywood.

Kazan, on the other hand, opted for self-preservation. At his HUAC hearing in 1953, he named eight people as former Party members and was allowed to continue making films.

When Foreman received his subpoena he was working on the movie “High Noon.” Knowing what was to come, he intended the script to be his personal testimony against the blacklist. The film’s protagonist is a small-town sheriff named Will Kane who is faced with a difficult moral choice. He must decide whether to follow his conscience and try to stop a gang of outlaws from taking over the town, or listen to the townspeople who say that appeasement is the safer course of action. In the end Kane, played by Gary Cooper, confronts the outlaws alone.

Elia Kazan made a contrasting moral statement in the 1954 film “On the Waterfront,” which he directed from a script by Budd Schulberg, who cooperated with HUAC. It depicts the heroic struggle of a longshoreman, played by Marlon Brando, at the mob-controlled dockyard in Hoboken, N.J., who decides to testify against his corrupt bosses, despite intense pressure and threats.

To the end of their lives, Foreman and Kazan were each adamant that they had made the right decision about whether to name names. “High Noon on the Waterfront” lets the men speak for themselves, juxtaposing excerpts from their personal writings with clips from the two films. The voices of Foreman and Kazan are supplied by Edward Norton and John Turturro, respectively, adding dramatic intensity.

Carl Foreman was my father, and when I saw the documentary I found it unnerving, to say the least, to hear him speaking in Edward Norton’s voice. That is partly because I struggle to recall his real voice. I was 15 years old when he died and more interested in imitating Madonna than making clear memories of him. Just a few more years would have changed all that. But his death in 1984, when he was 69, froze our relationship at its most awkward and superficial stage.

My father’s HUAC testimony took place many years before I was born. All I really knew about it was that his unique stance had made him equally unpopular with the left and the right. He was hardly alone in refusing to name names, but he also denounced Soviet communism and disassociated himself from the American Communist Party. To the committee, not naming names made him a subversive; to his former comrades, rejecting communism made him a turncoat.

Watching “High Noon on the Waterfront” made me confront the fact that I didn’t know what my father really believed or why he had acted as he did. Why refuse to name names in the way that would cause him the most harm and suffering?

I couldn’t find the answer to this conundrum in any books on the period, so I went back to his private papers. Searching through years of correspondence, I finally found it in a letter he wrote to his agent in 1956, four years after being blacklisted. “I can give you no greater proof of my loyalty to America” than refusing to name names, my father wrote. “Everything we say about the freedom of the individual in America becomes meaningless if the individual is forced to conform to other people’s ideas of what constitutes loyalty, and if we continue to insist that everybody thinks and acts alike in our country we will not only lose the Cold War but in the long run we will find ourselves thinking and acting exactly like the Russians while professing to be their exact opposites.”

For Carl Foreman, liberty and civic virtue were democratic values worth sacrificing for. To be a good American he was prepared to be punished as a bad one. This was true moral courage.

The punishment began with “High Noon.” The movie was released in 1952 and became a huge financial and critical success, garnering six Oscar nominations. But by the time of the 1953 Academy Awards ceremony, my father’s name had become radioactive. The biggest fear of the movie’s other producers wasn’t that “High Noon” would lose the Oscar race but that it would win. None of them wanted to represent Carl Foreman on stage in the two categories he stood to win, Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Picture. In the end, they decided the matter by drawing lots.

The fuss turned out to be unwarranted. In the biggest surprise of the night, “High Noon” was shut out of all the big categories except Best Actor, which Cooper won despite his vocal support for my father. A declassified CIA file in the Dwight D. Eisenhower Library shows that at least one of the CIA’s informants in Hollywood met with individual Academy members, letting them know that a vote for “Foreman’s picture” would count as a vote against America.

My father couldn’t have attended the Oscars even if he wanted to. Having moved to England as a political exile after his HUAC appearance, he was now a political refugee. In 1953 the State Department revoked his American passport; each time he applied for it to be returned, he was told he would need to name names first. Eventually he took the State Department to court and won, getting his passport back in 1956.

My father’s defiance cost him his home, his film company, his career and his first marriage. Yet he refused to talk about it, which the English found deeply puzzling. There were a number of blacklisted Hollywood expats in London, but my father avoided joining anything overtly political. Even when job offers from British film companies dematerialized due to American pressure, he rejected all attempts to turn him into a political martyr because, he later said, it would feed anti-American sentiment: “I felt it would embarrass America at a time when it was already being embarrassed.”

His extreme self-control took its toll. The actor Kirk Douglas—who got his big break playing a troubled prizefighter in the Oscar-winning sports movie “Champion,” written by my father—recalled seeing him during a visit to London. My father seemed so forlorn, telling Douglas, “It’s OK if you don’t want to have lunch with me. I understand.” “Jesus, I thought,” Douglas wrote in his book “I Am Spartacus!: Making a Film, Breaking the Blacklist.” “This is what happens to a guy who thinks all his friends have turned on him.”

My father’s story did not end with “High Noon,” HUAC or the Hollywood blacklist, however. He went on to write the screenplays for “Mackenna’s Gold,” “The Guns of Navarone,” “Born Free” and “Young Winston.” He and another blacklisted writer, Michael Wilson, co-wrote the World War II epic “The Bridge on the River Kwai,” which won the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay in 1958. He also found his soulmate in my mother, Eve, while filming the “The Guns of Navarone.” They formed a deliriously happy partnership (in addition to having me and my brother Jonathan, also a writer).

The “Kwai” win remains one of the most notorious in Hollywood history. Still officially blacklisted and living in exile, neither writer was allowed to take credit for his work. The Academy Award was given instead to Pierre Boulle, the French novelist whose book had inspired the film. This fiction was maintained by the Academy even after the blacklist faded away in the 1960s. It finally became untenable when the long-lost original “Kwai” script was discovered in the UCLA archives, proving Foreman and Wilson’s authorship beyond doubt. On June 25, 1984, the board of the Writers Guild of America voted to restore the men’s names and their Oscars. My father died at 10 a.m. the next day; by then Wilson had been dead for six years.

[Follies Of God]