711.2/3–454: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Aldrich) to the Department of State1
3805. Pass USIA. Importance of reaction of British press to activities Senator McCarthy has made us feel that recent events justify sending following special cable covering this situation:
With the McCarthy–Stevens controversy in the news since February 19, British concern about what is believed to be the almost unlimited power of the Senator has reached new heights. When the Senator’s controversy with the Army began a number of papers, including the Times, the Express and the News Chronicle, advanced the opinion that the Senator had “overplayed his hand” and stated that “the President has waited for battleground of his own choosing and he may well have chosen wisely.” These and other papers also reported widespread attacks on McCarthy in the American press.
On February 22, BBC–TV carried a program showing the Senator last year questioning a Government employee, Reid Harris. This first appearance of the Senator on British TV deepened public distaste (see USIA OM February 26) for his cross-examination methods and made vivid the reports in the papers of his handling of General Zwicker. Commenting on the broadcast the press said “instructive but not very pretty” …“the full horror of a McCarthy witch-hunt actually in progress” (News Chronicle) …“McCarthy’s methods are about as democratic as those of the Communists themselves” …“it amounts to nothing less than a threat to the fundamental principle of justice as understood in the English-speaking worlds.” (Evening Standard) …“millions of British [Page 1549] televiewers last night saw what a McCarthy witch-hunt really means” (Herald).
Then on February 24 came the reports that Mr. Stevens had agreed to the summoning of military personnel by Senator McCarthy’s committee, and the headlines read “McCarthy wins again” (Daily Mail) …“Army yields to McCarthy” (Daily Herald) …“Surrender to McCarthy” (Times). The Express reported it “is rumoured Eisenhower wanted hearing cancelled, he wishes to avoid any scandal” and the Herald’s Washington reporter said “shocked liberal opinion in America has attributed responsibility for this surrender to Eisenhower and asking when, if ever, he will call halt.” The Mail’s editorial declared: “By stirring up mistrust McCarthy is menace to Anglo-American relations.” The Times on February 27 quoted extensively from American papers as to possible ill-effects on US Army morale, and Alastair Cooke in the Guardian speculated about whether or not McCarthy’s “triumphs put him in line for the Republican Presidential nomination in 1956.” The News Chronicle’s banner headline was “Fuhrer McCarthy.”
Most papers front-paged that day and the following, two speeches by Herbert Morrison, deputy leader of the Labor Party, who asked “I wonder whether the US is aware of what a serious liability Senator McCarthy is to America in the eyes of the rest of the democratic world?”
However, on February 28 the press was also able to greet enthusiastically (“it had to happen” declared the Herald), the news that the Senate Republican Policy Committee was going to study methods used by Senator McCarthy’s investigatory committees.
Mr. Stevens’ statement that he would not permit “abuse of Army personnel under any circumstances including committee hearings” received less attention. The Herald did report it and emphasized that [illegible] the President’s agreement. The News Chronicle nonetheless, in an editorial declared that while it is “inconceivable, the President has not demonstrated that any adequate precautions” have been taken against a demoralization of the Army similar to that which has allegedly taken place in the Foreign Service. “Cold comfort for Mr. Stevens …belated Presidential endorsement” said the Guardian after Stevens’ visit to the President.
Over the last week end, speculation as to the relative political strengths with the Republican Party of the President and the Senator continued unabated.
The Times Washington correspondent stated that the President had accepted advice “not to fight McCarthy until after the November election,” but that McCarthy “well aware of this is engaging in building himself a position that will be impregnable by the time [Page 1550] the elections are over.” The Herald declared: “Prestige of Ike has never been lower—prestige of McCarthy is such that he is hot tip for Republican nomination as President of US.” The Observer declared: “President Eisenhower should be made aware of this; whatever reason of domestic politics may seem to justify his passivity it undermines the foundations of American leadership in the free world.”
The popular columnist Cassandra in the Daily Mirror of March 1 (circulation 4,420,000) said “in Washington another famous general is breaking all records in blundering, cowardly statesmanship. President Eisenhower, if he can no longer be expected to show political sense, would at least have been expected to have the courage to defend his old comrades in the United States Army. But did he?” The columnist then quoted McCarthy on Stevens statement: “He could not have given in more abjectly if he had gone down on his knees,” and then added “if you want a commission in the army, I can fix it for you.” These same quotations from the Senate appeared in several other papers. In its news story of the same day, the Mirror said: “The gravest effects of Stevens surrender are said to be: (1) A big drop in the morale of American forces at home and overseas. (2) Bitter attacks on America in allied countries, bringing danger to America’s friendships and alliances.”
On March 2, the Times headlined its report “McCarthy is summoning Mr. Stevens to testify in closed session.” And “Mr. McCarthy unrepentant.” The Guardian closed its column, “for all the comfort and strength the people can take from him, the President might just as well hang outside the White House a sign saying ‘closed for repairs’”.
Although there was little news to report on March 3, the Senator remained in the news, with the Guardian stating that “few people believe that Senator McCarthy will be restrained for long by the Senate Republican policy committee which is trying to devise a code of honourable conduct for committee chairman” and asking “will President Eisenhower at last assert his leadership of the Republican Party?” The Times, Guardian and News Chronicle all congratulated the Secretary of State on “timely clipping of Mr. McLeod’s wings” (Guardian) and described McLeod as a “close friend of McCarthy’s.” The Times (and the Guardian) however, also reported that McCarthy wants to “question Mr. Dulles closely about the change.”
All national dailies reported in detail the President’s press statement of March 3 and Senator McCarthy’s rejoinder. With the exception of the Daily Telegraph and the Mail, which concentrated on the President’s remarks, approximately equal treatment was given both statements. The editorial in the Times of March 4 said: [Page 1551] “Meanwhile, although Senator Knowland has assured the President that fair rules will be set up for congressional committees, there is no sign whatever yet that Senator McCarthy is likely to be stayed in his course by foe or by friend. His graceless and demagogic comments yesterday on the President’s statement certainly bode no good. It was said a year ago that only the President himself could halt him—by direct action. It still seems so. And, [apparent garble] the corroding effects of politics by smear and purge run through large sections of American life—an offence to liberal minded men, who hate Communists, everywhere.”
A report in the Express declared: “It was as Washington correspondents called it a lamentably weak’ reproof.” …“he tossed the control of McCarthy to the Republican Senators” …2 “McCarthy came back with 308 pithy words saying in effect that he was no respector of persons. Would carry on in his own way.”
In a Tory headlined “bully McCarthy scorns Ike rebuke” the Herald said “the issue now becomes even more clearly who is President Eisenhower or McCarthy.” The Guardian’s headline was “rebuked but not silenced;” the Chronicle’s “Ike gives McCarthy a slap—but only daintily on the wrist.” The Mirror concluded its account “down came the curtain and the awe in which Americans held McCarthy seems all the more sinister and unlovely now that the President in critical yet respectful comments does not even whisper the grand inquisitor’s name.”
The Telegraph, Guardian, Chronicle and Mail pointed out that in asserting the right of department heads to administer their agencies, the President was rebuking McCarthy for challenging Secretary Dulles’ decision to separate the State Department’s security and personnel administration.3
- Transmitted in two sections.↩
- Ellipses in the source text.↩
- Telegram 3806 from London, dated Mar. 4, 1953, eyes only for the Acting Secretary, reads as follows: “I cannot help wondering whether it might be wise to call directly to personal attention of President facts set forth in Embtel 3805, March 4 which covers British press reaction to recent events involving Senator McCarthy.” (711.21/3–45)↩