A relative of mine (long dead, now) was accused on multiple occasions of being a spy for Communist China, where he lived and worked during and after WW2 (and he would eventually move back to live out his life there). We certainly don't believe he was a spy and he left the US (never to return) before anything came of it (and I think he lost his American passport) but he lost a lot and suffered a lot as a result of the accusations. There were reasons why he fell under suspicion, I suppose, he was left leaning, he loved China deeply, he wasn't a natural born US citizen and the department he worked in had close contact with a Chinese spy agency or something like that, but I've also always been told that a motivating reason for him being accused of espionage was antisemitism.

I never studied much American history at school so I don't know much about the 'communist spy hunting' apart from family stories, so I was wondering, was antisemitism ever a factor in accusations of espionage etc during the 1940s?

To add more information: he left the us in 1949 after an investigation, but resigned before anything came of it. He was denaturalised when his passport expired a few years later I believe. And then 11yrs after he left the US, he moved to China.

Was there really a coup plotted by fascist sympathizers in the 1930s?

We're early unionists and union sympathizers accusedbof beig disloyal citizens because of their work? Did the Ludlow massacre have an effect on this?

Do you find Tocqueville's theories regarding American opposition to radical ideas (as in Book I Chapter XV) to be relevant or fruitful to the topic of your work?

What led to the end of McCarthyism in the 50's, even though anti-communist sentiment existed for much later than that?

Just a note that Dr. Goodall has put his thread up early and will be answering questions tomorrow morning, so please go ahead and post your questions!

Were the KKK ever as well organized as they were portrayed as being(nation wide and systemic), or were they mostly local affairs with local targets?

Hope I'm not too late!

I get the feeling that charged topics like this can often fall into bias and politically concentrated camps of opposing viewpoints, criticisms, etc. Have you ever found your own political beliefs and opinions an influence on how, or what, you study and the conclusions you come to in your work? How do you deal with that? How do you account for the biases of your sources?

What were the Palmer raids?

I know that HUAC was initially formed to root out Nazi/fascist-sympathizers in the US.

• Was the scope of it in the late 30s/early 40s at all comparable to how it was later in the decade and the 50s?

• What industries and institutions did it target?

• Was it seen as successful?

• Was anyone persecuted by HUAC in this period ever rehabilitated?

• Was HUAC going after communists and fascists at the same time at any point?

Thanks for doing this AMA!

In your opinion, to what degree did those in charge of HUAC and similar organizations actually believe the US was in imminent danger of being overrun by communists, as opposed to simply using it as a politically expedient way to gain popular support?

Was there political repression during WW1 even while the US was neutral?

How did people contain themselves from laughing when there was a committee name including un-American activities? It sounds like parody.

How much support did the countersubversion movement have during the Second Red Scare? Was it a matter for the radical right, or did it have mainstream support as well?

In its level of support, did it differ from the First Red Scare?

How widespread was opposition to African American Civol Rights in Countersubversion? I know it as an element in the Red Summer and Second KKK and then in Cointelpro much later, but what about on the 30's and 40's? How widespread was it between different countersubserive groups (the American Legion VS the Klan)?

Thank you for doing this AMA, this is an aspect of American history I've heard about, but am unfamiliar with, I've added your book to my reading list.

Just a few questions, I'm curious mostly about the period between WWI and WWII. Was radicalism viewed as more acceptable or understandable among people from certain cultural backgrounds than others? For instance I've read that it was those who were members of the well educated elite, often university students who were intrigued by communism, or thought fascism had assisted European nations in becoming modern and efficient. On the other hand I've also read that it was often working class immigrants, who feeling disenfranchised, were drawn to new fascist or communist societies forming in some major cities. Despite coming from the sort of tight knit, religious communities that would presumably be resistant to radicalism.

Would the average American (pre-McCarthy) not directly involved with any such organizations have paid much notice to them, or considered them a serious threat? I know there were a few films, like Black Legion (1937), starring Humphrey Bogart with negative portrayals of these groups, but overall most pop culture from the era seems silent on the matter. How serious and knowledgeable about fascism, communism or other radical movements were most Americans who joined these groups?

And a final query, how involved were women in such movements? Obviously most official leaders would be male, but surely women must have been involved, especially in the more social, unofficial aspects?

In "How Nonviolence Protects the State" I read about how the FBI targeted radical groups like the Panthers while treating peaceful civil rights demonstrations and peaceful activists very differently. I know this book has a radical bent so I am interested to hear more about this from an acedemic pov

I have relatives who were Communist labor union organizers, in the 1970s and 80s US. They told me a story about some older friends of theirs, who had been persecuted during the Red Scare and had managed to (illegally) adopt false names. At the time my relatives met them, they were still living under those false names. My question for you: At what point would it have been likely safe for them to resume living under their real names? Relevant details: As far as I know, they were never charged with a crime. They were both CPUSA members and shop stewards in an affiliated union, but not senior leadership in either the Party or union.

Thanks for joining us! I especially love hearing from experts on American history who are not themselves American, or are based in non-American institutions. The outside perspective is great!

-Just as a matter of terminology, does the term "radicalism" always inherently carry to meaning of "liberal" or "leftist" as well? If so, what is the equivalent for the conservatives/right? My instinct is to say "extremism," but that may be simply because that tends to be how the terms are used here in the media. How did the terms, whatever they may be, come to be specifically associated with their respective sides, if indeed that is the case?

-Would organizations that fall under the "ultrapatriotic" heading inherently be "extremist" (or the appropriate term, per above) themselves, or were there some that would be considered mainstream? If so, did the mainstream ones fight equally against both sides?

-The KKK obviously is about as extreme as they get - how did a group of committed murderers and arsonists manage to avoid being viewed as a bigger threat than the people they were attacking? Did any of the anti-radical organizations publicly come out against other anti-radical organizations whose methods or message were repugnant to them?

-Looking at the Centralia Massacre, how did a group like the American Legion move from engaging in terrorism and murder to becoming a recognized non-criminal (albeit very right-wing) civil organization with political influence and clout? They don't seem to have changed their positions on things very much, but somewhere they moved from lynching to lobbying, and the public kind of went along with it?

-You mention that there was an awareness amongst at least some anti-radicals of the hypocritical nature of their argument - trying to limit free speech and free assembly in the name of a document which promises free speech and free assembly. Are there any notable cases of anti-radicals "switching sides" so to speak, especially after noting this situation? Did any of these groups ever manage to put out a cohesive statement that explained how they justified restricting the very thing they claimed to promote?

Thanks again for your time and willingness to share! Sorry to have stacked so many questions together, but as they generally link to or follow-on one another, it didn't seem practical to separate them all out.

Thanks for doing this AMA! I think my question might be outside of your scope, but if you can point me towards any books or papers dealing with my question, I would be very grateful. It's also possible that I have an understanding of the subject that's completely off base, so, at the very least, you might be able to correct some of my misconceptions.

How, if at all, was the countersubversive movement instrumental in shaping sexuality and gender, in particular masculinity, one that was defined by its heterosexuality? I'm thinking of the way that gay liberation organizers were often accused of having ties to communists. That's in more of a post-war/post-McCarthyism context, but gays were just as visible and a preoccupation in the time period you've mentioned. I'm also thinking of how John Wayne, for example, was both a symbol of patriotism and a "real" man.

Some further questions I'm interested in are: How was sexuality utilized against subversives? I asked about how the countersubversive movement shaped gender and sexuality, but how did gender and sexuality shape the countersubversive movement, particularly the preoccupation with homosexuality? How did the two influence and play off each other?

I realize I'm asking quite a lot, but these are questions that have been whirling around in my head for a long time, so when I saw this AMA, I just sort of started writing a wish list of things I'd like to know the answer to. I'll be extremely grateful for any answer or sources that addresses any part of what I'm asking!

What did different strata of American society know about communism/communist movements before and through the Russian Revolution?

How was the Russian Revolution/Soviet Union through WWII reported in America?

What distinctions did Americans draw between socialism, communism, etc.?

When was communism strongest in America?

How did communism and anticommunism intersect with Civil Rights and discrimination, respectively?

Thanks!

What was the role of ethnicity and religion in the debates over political radicalism in the mid-20th century USA?

There seems to have been an undercurrent of ethnic and religious tension in many of the discussions of power and political ideology at that time. I'm especially thinking of the backlash against Quakers and Mennonites during the war years, and also the prominent antisemitism of much of the right-wing discourse in the 1920s and 1930s.

When did the anti-radicalism start? Reading these answers, one forgets that America was founded by radicals. Is that a misnomer? Were the founders of America not as radical as we imagine? What far-left ideas did we suppress in order to achieve a union?

Do you think the radicalism of the progressive era and people wanting to reform the government can be compared to today? Might we be entering a new progressive era with people wanting to reform the political process? Not to mention the growing popularity of a progressive in the presidential race, Bernie Sanders.

You mentioned a little bit about the Legion, but were there any large scale Fascist/National Socialist organizations in America during this time period (1920's-1940's) other then the simply reactionary KKK? And if so, which ones were they, what were their tactics, and how were they significant? Thank you =)

Oops, despite looking forward to this AMA, I seem to have missed it. Really I hope I'm not too late. Either way, I've very much enjoyed reading through the other answers provided.

To look at the flip side of 'counter-subversion', how did the concept of 'subversion' develop? I'd assumed - following Marc Mulholland's Bourgeois Liberty, IIRC - that this was primarily post-war anti-communism in the context of the encroaching Cold War. Yet you've obviously defined this in a broader sense.

So was 'subversion' just a catch all term to refer to a variety of anti-establishment or radical currents? And how did the Cold War sharpen this?

And a bonus question, I've often seen Huey Long referred to as a fascist and a threat to American democracy. This isn't a conclusion that I agree with but did his name crop up in your research/book?