Obama, Reagan, and the power of words
Some in Obama’s camp seem to think that the protests in Iran were precipitated, or at the very least encouraged, by Obama’s words in his Cairo speech.
Not the actual living breathing example of the dawn of freedom and democracy in Iraq, which is right next door to Iran. No— a single speech, and one that actually didn’t much feature a call to rise up against the tyrants themselves. Ace helpfully points out that all Obama said in it about Iran was the following:
This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is in fact a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I’ve made it clear to Iran’s leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question now is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.
I recognize it will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude, and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America’s interests. It’s about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.
I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that’s why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. (Applause.) And any nation — including Iran — should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I’m hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.
Now I don’t know about you, but I’m sure that such inspiring words would motivate me to risk death to demonstrate against the mullahs and Ahmadinejad, to whom Obama shows such respect, and whose right to nuclear power (and even to complain about not having nuclear weapons) Obama so champions.
Does Obama himself actually believe his speech caused the people of Iran to protest the elections and to demonstrate for their freedom? I don’t know. But if he does, it would fit in with something I’ve noticed before, both in Obama and on the Left in general: their elevation of the power of words over acts. After all, it’s worked that way for Obama his whole life so far. (see this for a discussion of why wordsmiths tend to go ga-ga over Obama).
When the Right, in trying to figure Obama out, says “watch what he does, not what he says,” they’re using a principle that seems self-evident. But it’s not that way for liberals and the Left, who are often far more interested in declarations of intent, in eloquence rather than achievement. If a person has the right goals in mind, if a person sounds like a good person, that’s the most important thing. And if liberals and the soft Left (the hard Left is quite different) are moved so mightily by words and speeches, they tend to conclude that everyone in the world shares that tendency.
Aha, you might ask, but what about Reagan? When conservatives credit Reagan’s bold words in a speech for the fall of the Soviets, they’re making the same mistake, aren’t they? But when Reagan said “tear down this wall” the words were not spoken in isolation. There was conviction behind them, but far more importantly, they were not “mere words.” They were embedded in a lengthy policy of many years’ duration towards the USSR (he made the speech in June of 1987), plus knowledge of Russia’s own internal weaknesses and the ascension of Gorbachev the reformer.
It is highly instructive to take a closer look at at this article from Time, which describes Reagan’s fight to retain those now-famous words in his speech [emphasis mine]:
[O]n the morning of June 12, 1987, Reagan arrived in Berlin, on the occasion of the city’s 750th birthday. He was scheduled to speak on the Western side of the Brandenburg Gate, for years the city’s symbolic dividing line. His speechwriters had drafted an address intended as much for Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, with whom Reagan was forging a close relationship, as for the 20,000 people who gathered to hear him speak. In the speech, Reagan would call on Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, but that language was opposed strongly by Reagan’s National Security Council and the State Department, who feared it would be used by hard-liners in the Kremlin to discredit Gorbachev. When the President’s entourage arrived in Berlin, Reagan’s team was still arguing over the final wording. State and NSC submitted yet another draft of the speech. But in the limousine ride to the Wall, Reagan told his deputy chief of staff, Kenneth Duberstein, that he intended to issue the fateful challenge to Gorbachev. “It’s the right thing to do,” he said.
This is of great interest, too:
Earlier in the day Reagan had looked across the wall into East Berlin from a balcony of the Reichstag. He later said that his forceful tone had been influenced by his learning that East German police had forced people away from the wall to prevent them from hearing his speech over the loudspeakers…
At the time, the Soviet news agency TASS called Reagan’s visit to the Wall “openly provocative, war-mongering.” But listen closely to a recording of it today: the speech sounds as much like an invitation as it does a challenge. “There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace,” Reagan says. As he goes on, you hear scattered claps and hollers. “General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate!” Reagan says. The crowd starts to erupt. “Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate!” At this point, 20,000 Berliners are cheering Reagan on.
Now, there are words that move people, spoken with passion and conviction. The addressee was a specific person, one who was likely to be responsive: Gorbachev (imagine the effect of the same words on Stalin. If there had been such a wall in his time, he probably would have laughed and built it higher.) The words were uttered by Reagan in the place in question, Berlin, in front of the gate itself. The crowd understood exactly and precisely what Reagan meant; there was no ambiguity and nothing to intuit.
That speech truly was inspirational. But it would have had no effect at all if the pre-conditions for the Soviet capitulation had not been in place already, partly as a result of Reagan’s efforts over the length of his presidency, and partly because of long-term forces brewing in Russia itself.
[NOTE: Interestingly enough, the Time article (written in 2007, for the 20th anniversary of Reagan’s speech) features an interview with then 86-year-old George Schultz, who had been Reagan’s Secretary of State. He mentions Iran briefly, and comes down in favor of finding ways to “communicate” with the mullahs. But he also makes it clear that any such efforts would only be part of a long-term and comprehensive attempt to change the Islamic world.]
I understand that Obama’s Cairo speech was not broadcast in Iran. If so, the power of his words is stunning.
I miss Ronny….
Obama: “Mr. Ahmadinejad, remodel this wall. Perhaps a nice pastel color, or put in some treatments, or maybe flower boxes, whatever you think, of course. You know best.”
Stirring words indeed. No wonder the Iranians couldn’t restrain themselves from charging to the barricades.
Nice, OB!
Some in Obama’s camp seem to think that the protests in Iran were precipitated, or at the very least encouraged, by Obama’s words in his Cairo speech.
I read the links about that with my jaw hanging. It’s like Obama’s joking with his staff: “We’re just going to keep on telling the truth [about the Middle East] until it stops working…”
Obama may be supremely cynical about some things. Maybe he is, as some here suggest, intentionally trying to destroy the American economy. But my growing impression is that Obama and his inner circle are well-intentioned but flat-out delusional about how the world works and the effects of Obama’s efforts.
These days Obama reminds me of Werner Erhard, the charismatic and megalomanical self-improvement guru who sold a gospel of transformation based on speech acts plus “you-and-me” philosophizing.
If you can’t figure out how Obama inspires people in the U.S. (after 2 years and 6 months of exposure) there is little hope of your understanding how he might do it elsewhere.
Not that he did. But, doesn’t seem implausible by any means.
old education is to Cicero
as new education is to Obama
[working on my being everything in a short space “) ]
Obama and his ilk know the world the way a gold fish knows the open waters
in his case he is a pregnant goldfish…
Government is more sociopathic under such leadership, since they attribute all good to themselves, all bad to their oponents, and unforseen complications as the fault of moriarty. since they are not affected by what they do, they ahve no impetus to learn, in fact, given the way we keep letting them work, how could they think of themselves as anything else than a success. after all the only relevent proof that can mean anything to them is that they won.
Not that he did. But, doesn’t seem implausible by any means.
However, this is a reality question not a “[it] doesn’t seem implausible” thought experiment. Are there any Iranians claiming that Obama’s Cairo speech inspired them? No, so far as I’ve read, no. If there were, I am sure we would have seen pointers to them.
This “thought experiment” approach to the world, that it seems plausible to Logern and a matter of fact to Obama insiders, is much of what bothers me about the Obama administration.
Yes, by all means, let’s live in our imaginations of how the world might be or should be, rather than the world as it is.
>
If you can’t figure out how Obama inspires people in the U.S. (after 2 years and 6 months of exposure) there is little hope of your understanding how he might do it elsewhere.
logern — I doubt that anyone here “can’t figure out how Obama inspires people.” Vague feel-good rhetoric delivered well by a tall handsome man with a sort-of-inspiring life story is a great technique when the press amplifies the messiah message and won’t ask embarassing questions that might puncture the mystique.
Not that he did. But, doesn’t seem implausible by any means.
However, this is a reality question not a “[it] doesn’t seem implausible” thought experiment. Are there any Iranians claiming that Obama’s Cairo speech inspired them? No, so far as I’ve read, no. If there were, I am sure we would have seen pointers to them.
This “thought experiment” approach to the world, that it seems plausible to Logern and a matter of fact to Obama insiders, is much of what bothers me about the Obama administration.
Yes, by all means, let’s live in our imaginations of how the world might be or should be, rather than the world as it is.
The crowd understood exactly and precisely what Reagan meant; there was no ambiguity and nothing to intuit.
Thank you! I am so sick of having to interpret Barack’s meaning(not that it matters, as he is on three sides of every issue). The same happened with Bill Clinton: had to closely parse what he said, to ensure he wasn’t fooling us with rhetorical trickery. And I imagine Carter also pulled some punches and engaged in flowery language.
If the left comes straight out and says what they mean, they risk being laughingstocks. The left must fool the people. The left are so much wiser. Regular people can hardly be expected to understand all which the wise left understands.
It was not Obama’s Cairo speech. The people of Iran have been protesting in the streets for years, now. This will be the second time Ahmadinejad “won” an election. And it didn’t even start there.
http://www.amazon.com/Iranian-Time-Bomb-Zealots-Destruction/dp/0312376553/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195045199&sr=8-1
Not the actual living breathing example of the dawn of freedom and democracy in Iraq
Did neo point to examples of Iranians pointing to this, or did I miss it? She writes stuff without checking with reality first Huxley, but you don’t point it out?
Lee, it would hardly be likely to be Obama’s Cairo speech alone. Set up strawman and knock it down there, don’t you know.
At any rate — right audience, right message (Sarah Palin) the dolts are putty in the hands those who seek to lead.
Wouldn’t you agree?
(of) those.
Logern, you should make the plausibility argument, if there is one.
Give it up, Logern.
Obama couldn’t lead sailors to a whorehouse. The cognitively challenged go in for his vapid feel-good pronouncements that are essentially cribbed from Barney and the TeleTubbies, but they wouldn’t inspire anyone in his right mind to actually put his life on the line, as the demonstrators are doing.
Here’s the nightmare scenario for you and all other liberals: Iran’s theocracy falls, and the jubilant Iranians credit Bush’s liberation of Iraq and the elections there.
And the best part is, every day the demonstrations go on, the more likely this scenario becomes.
In fact, Obama may have been in witness protection for the last week just to avoid inadvertently encouraging the pro-democracy demonstrators. Imagine how bad Obama will look if the scenario above plays out, given that he’s spent two years and six months criticizing every Bush policy.
Logern, you should make the plausibility argument, if there is one.
How about this one: Iranians had hoped that Bush would rescue them, but now realize that they’ll have to do it themselves?
That’s about as plausible as Logern’s pathetic attempt to attribute the uprising to the Nubian Narcissist.
Here’s the nightmare scenario for you and all other liberals: Iran’s theocracy falls, and the jubilant Iranians credit Bush’s liberation of Iraq and the elections there.
Hope it works out for you.
It would be modest enough wish fulfillment if the Iraqis got around to just building a monument to Bush.
No need. The elections are monument enough.
Some Neocons actually wanted Ahmadinejad to win. Daniel Pipes for instance said:
“I’m sometimes asked who I would vote for if I were enfranchised in this election, and I think that, with due hesitance, I would vote for Ahmadinejad,” Pipes said. The reason, Pipes went on, is that he would “prefer to have an enemy who’s forthright and obvious, who wakes people up with his outlandish statements.”
Why would you suggest Obama wants Ahmadinejad? Seriously. I don’t think anyone in the US was Ahmadinejad. I certainly would like to see the whole Iranian Islamic republic challenged – but it will take time.
Hit enter to soon.
Meant to write:
I don’t think anyone in the US was really rooting for Ahmadinejad. [Except maybe Pipes]. I certainly would like to see the whole Iranian Islamic republic challenged – but it will take time.
The demonstrations had nothing to do with Obonga’s speech in Cairo. The young Iranians were long ago alienated from the government. The incendiary event was an election in which the people sensed that something was rotten at the ballot box. Obonga’s speech in Cairo at al Azhar (a Sunni institution by the way) was partly directed at the Iranian regime, not the people of that country. There were no tough words directed at the regime. Nothing was said that was a clarion call to overthrow the Mullahs.
I hate to say it, but people who are pussyfooting around, trying to find an angle for Obonga to exploit, or for his Obamabots to fawn over, are engaging in mental masturbation.
I believe in deeds over words. Sometimes words matter, if they are backed by policy that has power behind it. Reagan matched the Soviet buildup in Eastern Europe. The Russians showed their fangs, he showed them ours. The Russians pulled out a gun, he pulled out ours. It was obvious to the people of Poland, for example, that Reagan’s words were not mere words.
There are overtones of appeasement in Obonga’s speech. You can almost picture him as the dog that gets on its back and shows its belly in submission.
At this point my disgust with the 53% knows no bounds. The harm done by their fecklessness and sloth is incalculable.
The old media is still attempting to package the Iranian unrest as being primarily a partisan conflict.
Achmedinejad is a Twelver Islamist pyschopath.
Mousavi is just a world class terrorist going back to the late seventies, who had a spot in the TO that precipitated the Beirut Marine bombing.
Those people in the street are protesting rule by dictatorship first. They don’t really have a choice in the personalities involved, and they are tired of pretending they do.
Americans will understand their rage a lot better in the election cycles after ACORN delivers the 2010 census to the Democrats.
Matt, your words do you credit, but to be hopelessly partisan I think deep down Obama resents the demonstrators. They’re upstaging him, and wrong-footing him in the process. Here he was preparing the fishes and loaves for the adoring masses, taking up station between the styrofoam columns, and starting to intone “Render unto Caesar…,” and the next thing he knows the Jews kick out the effing Romans, screwing up the whole thing.
Obama now looks ridiculous; he’s been apologizing to, and proposing to parlay with, a government that is obviously and indisputably illegitimate. What’s more, he also just as obviously not driving events, but watching them unfold on CNN, which makes him look weak and irrelevant (which he is). Yesterday’s press conference was a sorry attempt to rush to the front of the parade so as to look like he’s leading it, but everyone — and I mean everyone – knows he not. Meanwhile, the Fourth of July barbecue is the stuff of Monty Python, because he’s unless he gets the balls to pointedly rescind the invitation (the right thing to do) and thereby give offense (and belie his “robust diplomacy” crap), he’s got to snog with people who just had pro-democracy demonstrators shot.
He’s in exactly the position of communists/socialists/liberals in late August 1939: hung out to dry by events.
Apart from that, he’s doing well, and was a good choice of President.
Beard.
Good reference to what is frequently relevant, the reds in 39.
Ron Radosh has some personal experience with the neck-snapping one-eighty required by the party.
Zero’s supporters are going to need chiropractors pretty darn soon.
If not already.
Richard, the Nazi-Soviet pact brought out just how much influence the Communist Party has in the US, since views in many arenas changed overnight. Legitimately-held views, by contrast, would have evolved more slowly, over weeks or months. Anyone who can do a 180 on his views in 24 hours was under communist influence.
Those of us who are refugees of the Hard Left, as I am, are not surprised by the proclivity for spinning events to favor the Party, and for the fellow-travelers and useful idiots to fall into line so adoringly.
For the record, I was not like those people. While I embraced certain currents of Marxist thought, I was on the margins of the movement and never fully accepted into their ranks, mainly because I was a Catholic and because of my academic bent for trying to refute the conservative arguments against socialism, by doing original thinking and research. They thought I was wasting my time. It was but one of many clues that eventually there would be a break with it all in my future.
Oh, apparently Obama’s words did affect the election:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/24/us-contacted-irans-ayatollah-before-election/?feat=home_cube_position1
“An Iranian with knowledge of the overture, however, told The Washington Times that the letter was sent between May 4 and May 10 and laid out the prospect of “cooperation in regional and bilateral relations” and a resolution of the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program. ”
Just not on the side of freedom….
He signaled to the Mullahs that we’d favor “cooperation and bilateral relations” over fair elections and freedom.
That certainly puts his initial statement “It doesn’t matter who wins the election. The important fact is there was a robust debate.” into context.
Honestly, I don’t think he counted on the Iranian voters protesting for Hope and Change. That was just a campaign slogan to win the stupid-ass white liberals….
Beard.
I would use a different word than “influence”. “Influence connotes the possibility of more than one influence, possibly opposing influences, and a mixed-bag result.
In the 39 case, here and in England, it was clear the “influence” meant following orders to the letter no matter the contradictions with what went before (like last week) and pretending it had always been thus.
Radosh relates a frantic search in the record stores for a no-war album by Pete Seeger just released before the German invasion of Russia. Had to get them off the market. No longer relevant, no matter how soul-deeply the reds had pretended to mean it.
Just for the fun of it, I might look up the release date of his “Reuben James”, covered by the Kingston Trio half a century ago.
Holy Toot, as my brother-in-law would say.
I just Binged “Pete Seeger” “Reuben James”.
First hit. Explains how the “Songs of John Doe” (anti war) were now obsolete.
So they–this is the gang talking, apparently–decided that they could get the agitprop going with a rousing chorus.
Presumably, “What were their names, tell me what were their names? Did you have a friend on the good Reuben James?”
Yeah, a cervical-shearing one-eighty, by golly.
At the behest of political events, i.e. the Party due to Hitler’s invasion of the USSR.
Wow. Didn’t think I’d find it so obvious so quickly.
First, I think that this writer, an American from an African tribal background, has a unique perspective that has allowed her to got a pretty good fix on just who and what Obama is, see (http://tinyurl.com/l3mccw).
Second, speaking of words, look here for a rousing message attacking our “unrepresentative representatives in Congress” and about becoming active and taking back America, delivered by an extremely good actor portraying Thomas Paine at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA
Youtube link above not working , try http://www.zimbio.com/Bob+Basso/articles/1/Bob+Basso+YouTube+Thomas+Paine+calls+Second
Going back to the topic of Reagan and his speech at the Berlin Wall, it calls to mind another recent Neo post. The Berlin speech was an occasion where Reagan basically said, “I’m president.” But rightfully so.
The State Department and others wanted him to cut the “tear down this wall” line from the speech. They thought it was too provocative or whatever. In the speech-writing-as-committee process they tried to have it removed. Or even did remove it in various drafts. But in the end, Reagan said, in effect, “I’m the president. I think it’s important. I think it belongs in there and I’m going to say it.” Number one, he was right. And number two, it was totally his prerogative. We elected him president, not the State Department or anyone else. I think the State Department too often feels they have some divine right to run foreign policy and the wishes of the president be damned. I’m glad he stood up to them.
By contrast, many of Obama’s “I won” remarks are directed at those outside his chain of command. John McCain is a United States senator and can say anything he damn well pleases about foreign policy, since that is one of the Senate’s major responsibilities. That doesn’t mean he has the right to pretend he’s co-president, as Nancy Pelosi seemed to think when she took her disastrous sojourn to Syria after the 2006 election. But if Obama expects a member of a co-equal branch of government to shut up just because he won one election, then he has a lot to learn about Washington.
kcom, Whittaker Chambers, in Witness, makes clear just how Communist-infested the State Department was back then. It seems as though you could hardly swing a dead cat there without hitting a Communist.
From the State Department’s sorry record since then it would seem that that hasn’t changed.
“Lee, it would hardly be likely to be Obama’s Cairo speech alone. Set up strawman and knock it down there, don’t you know.”
Not sure what your point is. In the article, it states:
“Some in Obama’s camp seem to think that the protests in Iran were precipitated, or at the very least encouraged, by Obama’s words in his Cairo speech.”
But I guess that’s all you have when all you can come up with is “doesn’t seem implausible by any means.”.
My response was they ( the protests ) were not, since there has been vocal and public demonstrations and violence for years, this being only the most recent example. How is participation in the conversation “setting up a strawman to knock down” as you put it? Isn’t this the subject of the article?
Excellent article Neo. I suspect this topic is close to the heart of your conversion.
Over the past week and a half we’ve watched the President’s rhetoric toward Iran become progressively less idealistic and somewhat (if only temporarily) more focused and realistic. The problem is we saw this same faux genesis unfold immediately after Russia’s invasion of Georgia.
Will he/we never learn? Even the state sponsored murder of a young protestor will fall by the wayside. Obama will undoubtedly continue this delusion that he can “move forward” with this vile regime.
Neo, your Obama/Reagan contrast was poetry.
Richard Aubrey,
why dont you bing pete seeger, martin luthor king, and rosa parks at one time and see what ya get.
art.
I have a general idea.
The question I was checking was not whether Seeger was a commie, a Stalin apologist long after all his buddies had admitted to seeing the light. He was.
My immediate question was the whiplash-inducing, completely un-ironic one-eighty in the particular circumstance of Operation Barbarossa.
For some time, say from about 1920 to 1989, the USSR was considered popularly to be the source of “left”. It was not the source of the left, but a creation of the left.
That the USSR went away does not mean left went away and that is becoming more and more obvious.
I have a general idea.
no you don’t… 🙂
(but the fbi files are online for you to read also)
as for the latter… well let me see what i can get for ya. i went to the listing for the communist party usa on wiki… some of the information below is not correct (since people didnt know about the pacts themselves till later, and thats not clear)
by 1938, many members left the party after the Soviet Union signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Nazi Germany on August 24, 1939.[26] While General Secretary Browder at first attacked Germany for its September 1, 1939 invasion of western Poland, on September 11, the CPUSA received a blunt directive from Moscow denouncing the Polish government.[27] Between September 14-16, CPUSA leaders bickered about the direction to take.[27] On September 17 the Soviet Union invaded eastern Poland and occupied the Polish territory assigned to it by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, followed by co-ordination with German forces in Poland.[28][29] The British, French, and German Communist parties, all originally war supporters, abandoned their antifascist crusades, demanded peace, and denounced Allied governments.[30] The CPUSA turned the focus of its public activities from anti-fascism to advocating peace, not only opposing military preparations but also condemning those opposed to Hitler. The CPUSA attacked British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French leader Edouard Daladier, but did not at first attack President Roosevelt, reasoning that this could devastate American Communism, blaiming instead Roosevelt’s advisors.[30]
In October and November, after the Soviets invaded Finland and forced mutual assistance pats from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, the CPUSA considered Russian security sufficient justification to support the actions.[31] Secret short wave radio broadcasts in October from Comintern leader Georgi Dimitrov ordered Stalinist Browder to change the CPUSA’s support for Roosevelt.[31] On October 23, the CPUSA began attacking Roosevelt.[32] The CPUSA dropped its boycott of Nazi goods, spread the slogans “The Yanks Are Not Coming” and “Hands Off”, set up a “perpetual peace vigil” across the street from the White House and announced that Roosevelt was the head of the “war party of the American bourgeoisie.”[32] By April 1940, the CPUSA Daily Worker’s line seemed not so much antiwar as simply pro-German.[33] A pamphlet stated the Jews had just as much to fear from Britain and France as they did Germany.[33] In August 1940, after NKVD agent Ramon del Rio Mercader killed Leon Trotsky with an icepick, Browder perpetuated Moscow’s fiction that the killer, who had been dating one of Trotsky’s secretaries, was a disillusioned follower.[34]
In allegiance to the Soviet Union, the party changed this policy again after Hitler broke the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact by attacking the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941.
Throughout the rest of World War II, the CPUSA continued a policy of militant, if sometimes bureaucratic, trade unionism while opposing strike actions at all costs. The leadership of the CPUSA was among the most vocal pro-war voices in the United States, advocating unity against fascism, supporting the prosecution of leaders of the Socialist Workers Party under the newly enacted Smith Act,[35] and opposing A. Philip Randolph’s efforts to organize a march on Washington to dramatize black workers’ demands for equal treatment on the job. Prominent CPUSA members and supporters, such as Dalton Trumbo and Pete Seeger, recalled anti-war material they had previously released.
Most notably, there was also a secret protocol to the pact, revealed only after Germany’s defeat in 1945, according to which the states of Northern and Eastern Europe were divided into German and Soviet “spheres of influence”.[70] In the North, Finland, Estonia and Latvia were assigned to the Soviet sphere.[70] Poland was to be partitioned in the event of its “political rearrangement”–the areas east of the Narev, Vistula and San Rivers going to the Soviet Union while Germany would occupy the west.[70] Lithuania, adjacent to East Prussia, would be in the German sphere of influence, although a second secret protocol agreed in September 1939 assigned majority of Lithuania to the USSR.[71] According to the secret protocol, Lithuania would retrieve its historical capital Vilnius, occupied during the inter-war period by Poland. Another clause of the treaty was that Bessarabia, then part of Romania, was to be joined to the Moldovan ASSR, and become the Moldovan SSR under control of Moscow.[70]
Concerns over the possible existence of a secret protocol were first expressed by the intelligence organizations of the Baltic states[citation needed] scant days after the pact was signed. Speculation grew stronger when Soviet negotiators referred to its content during negotiations for military bases in those countries (see occupation of the Baltic States).
art. When I say I have a general Idea, I mean I have a general idea.
I know that stuff.
See Rebecca West “The New Meaning of Treason”.
Among other things, she says that the party kept a number of high profile people on retainer to publicly leave the party when the party got caught screwing the pooch.