Chaplin Story from 1952

The article quotes Chaplin saying:

"I am not a political man and I have no political convictions. I am
an individual and a believer in liberty. That is all the politics I
have."

Now I'm all confused. I've heard so much about Chaplin being an
"anti-anti-communist," and a philo-Soviet, and possibly a secret
member of the Communist Party. (Of course, most of this comes from one
particular person, but still...) How could all of that have been so
wrong??


--Shush--
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin Story from 1952 

On Apr 9, 8:28 am, G-HE... RemoveThis @webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> shushfilmseznos... RemoveThis @yahoo.com (Shush) wrote:
> > The article quotes Chaplin saying:
> > "I am not a political man and I have
> >no political convictions.
>
> Laughable.
>
> > I am an individual and a believer in
> >liberty.
>
> He didn't believe in liberty for Czechs
> after WW2.
>
> > That is all the politics I have."
>
>
> Is that why he was a fan of far-left Presidential candidate Henry
> Wallace--whose Progressive Party
> was Communist-controlled?
>
> > Now I'm all confused.
>
> An understatement!
>
> > I've heard so
> >much about Chaplin being an "anti-anti-communist," and a philo-Soviet,
> >and possibly a secret member of the
> >Communist Party. (Of course, most of
> >this comes from one particular person,
> >but still...) How could all of that have
> >been so wrong??
>
> It's a standard ploy of the far left to
> hide behind the rhetoric of "peace"
> and "liberty" and "justice."
>
> North Korea, atter all, calls itself
> a "democratic republic."
>
> (and it was a former editor of the Daily
> Worker, the Communist Party organ,
> Louis Budenz, who said that Chaplin
> was a secret Party member)

What's with the selective perceptions of credibility? When communists
talk about ""peace" and "liberty" and "justice"" you claim it is a
"standard ploy." Yet when one of them claims Chaplin as a "secret
Party member" you use the statement as if it must be gospel.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin Story from 1952 

On Apr 7, 1:19 am, "David Totheroh" <dtothe... DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
> On Apr 6, 9:56 pm, bachu... DeleteThis @rogers.com wrote:
> > //century.guardian.co.uk./1950-1959/Story/0,,105162,00.html
> > Sorry, don't know how to post links.
> This might work:
> http://century.guardian.co.uk./1950-1959/Story/0,,105162,00.html

Thanks, David.

What I find most informative here is Chaplin's statement about
McGranery 'not knowing the facts'. Chaplin was saying that he believed
the re-entry permit given him by the immigration dept'. was given him
in good faith, that the US gov't. wouldn't go back on his word, and
that
he would fight for his right to return.

This accords with his account in his Autobio, where he says he had
decided immediately not to return to to the US, but pretended he would
for
the press, so as not to jeopardize his financial holdings in the US.

Since he'd already
spent one year trying to get the re-entry permit without success
only to have them give it to him one day before his departure, then
have
the Attorney General yank it back after one day aboard ship, he
rightly
had no faith in the integrity of the 'examinaton' he would be
subjected to - after such an
overtly contemptuous and hostile action.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin Story from 1952 

On Apr 9, 10:28 am, G-HE... DeleteThis @webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> (and it was a former editor of the Daily
> Worker, the Communist Party organ,
> Louis Budenz, who said that Chaplin
> was a secret Party member)

The Shelpsian stitching together of unsubstantiated smears
and innuendo begins. His continuing hope that
a thousands pounds of hearsay equals one ounce of fact.

Why be surprised at such McCarthyite techniques?

Unlike the mainstream view of McCarthy as a disgrace, Shelps
considers him a hero.

Not the only point on which his ultra-right wing views diverge from
accepted mainstream thought.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin Story from 1952 

On Apr 9, 9:10 am, bachu... RemoveThis @rogers.com wrote:

> Since he'd already
> spent one year trying to get the re-entry permit without success
> only to have them give it to him one day before his departure, then
> have
> the Attorney General yank it back after one day aboard ship, he
> rightly
> had no faith in the integrity of the 'examinaton' he would be
> subjected to - after such an
> overtly contemptuous and hostile action.


Yes, and I think this is why Chaplin didn't launch a full legal
assault to try having that rescission overturned. He'd already been
jerked around for a year by a government that clearly didn't want him
to come back, and his chances of passing its "examination" were less
than slim. Chaplin knew it, and reconciled himself to spending the
rest of his life in Europe.

To construe that recognition as giving America "the finger," as has
been charged here in the past, is remarkable.



--Shush--


--Shush--
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin Story from 1952 

shushfilmseznospam.DeleteThis@yahoo.com (Shush) wrote:


>      The article quotes Chaplin saying:
>      "I am not a political man and I have
>no political convictions.

Laughable.


> I am an individual and a believer in
>liberty.

He didn't believe in liberty for Czechs
after WW2.

> That is all the politics I have."
 
Is that why he was a fan of far-left Presidential candidate Henry
Wallace--whose Progressive Party
was Communist-controlled?


>     Now I'm all confused.

An understatement!


> I've heard so
>much about Chaplin being an "anti-anti-communist," and a philo-Soviet,
>and possibly a secret member of the
>Communist Party. (Of course, most of
>this comes from one particular person,
>but still...) How could all of that have
>been so wrong??

It's a standard ploy of the far left to
hide behind the rhetoric of "peace"
and "liberty" and "justice."

North Korea, atter all, calls itself
a "democratic republic."

(and it was a former editor of the Daily
Worker, the Communist Party organ,
Louis Budenz, who said that Chaplin
was a secret Party member)
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin Story from 1952 

On Apr 9, 11:59 am, G-HE....DeleteThis@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> bachu....DeleteThis@rogers.com
> wrote:
>
> >>(and it was a former editor of the Daily
> >>Worker, the Communist Party organ,
> >>Louis Budenz, who said that Chaplin
> >>was a secret Party member)
> >The Shelpsian stitching together of
> >his unsubstantiated smears and innuendo
> >begins. His continuing hope that a
> >thousands pounds of hearsay equals one
> >ounce of fact.
>
> I quote an authority from the American
> Comunist Party.
>
> >Why be surprised at such McCarthyite
> >techniques?
> >Unlike the mainstream view of McCarthy
> >as a disgrace, Shelps considers him a
> >hero.
>
> There was a network of communist agents
> in the US during that period, as revealed
> by the Venona Intercepts from the
> KGB. McCarthy was essentially
> correct.
>
> >Not the only point on which his ultra-right
> >wing views diverge from accepted
> >mainstream thought.
>
> Doesn't alter Budenz's statement.

Which, of course, could NEVER be taken as one of those "standard
ploy[s]" used in an attempt to gain credibility by claiming
association with a well known and respected personality, could it?
Those commies ALWAYS told the truth (except when they didn't, huh,
George). Interesting to see which ones you pick to present as truth
and which ones you dismiss.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin Story from 1952 

On Apr 9, 12:05 pm, G-HE... DeleteThis @webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> shushfilmseznos... DeleteThis @yahoo.com (Shush) wrote:
> > bachu... DeleteThis @rogers.com wrote:
> >>Since he'd already
> >>spent one year trying to get the re-entry
> >>permit without success only to have
> >>them give it to him one day before his
> >>departure, then have
> >>the Attorney General yank it back after
> >>one day aboard ship, he rightly
> >>had no faith in the integrity of the
> >>examinaton' he would be subjected to -
> >>after such an
> >>overtly contemptuous and hostile action.
>
> The "examination" would have been a legal one, involving due process.
> McGranery made a political decision,
> but that doesn't mean Chaplin could not
> have prevailed before the INS.
>
> In reality, Chaplin had no affinity or
> strong affection for the US, and didn't
> care enough to fight.
>

It's not often stated, but one of CC's concerns about returning to
the U.S. was the effect on his childred of the poisonous political
climate here--a climate that wouldn't fully disappear in his lifetime
(as I pointed out).
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin Story from 1952 

David Totheroh wrote:

>Yet when one of them claims Chaplin as
>a "secret Party member" you use the
>statement as if it must be gospel.

False. I simply quote a very significant
American Communist. I do not know
if Iit is true, but I wouldn't dismiss it,
because Lillian Hellman issued similar
denials and when she died, it was
revealed that she was a secret CP
member,
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin Story from 1952 

bachusio.RemoveThis@rogers.com
wrote:

>>(and it was a former editor of the Daily
>>Worker, the Communist Party organ,
>>Louis Budenz, who said that Chaplin
>>was a secret Party member)

>The Shelpsian stitching together of
>his unsubstantiated smears and innuendo
>begins. His continuing hope that a
>thousands pounds of hearsay equals one
>ounce of fact.

I quote an authority from the American
Comunist Party.


>Why be surprised at such McCarthyite
>techniques?
>Unlike the mainstream view of McCarthy
>as a disgrace, Shelps considers him a
>hero.

There was a network of communist agents
in the US during that period, as revealed
by the Venona Intercepts from the
KGB. McCarthy was essentially
correct.


>Not the only point on which his ultra-right
>wing views diverge from accepted
>mainstream thought.

Doesn't alter Budenz's statement.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin Story from 1952 

shushfilmseznospam.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com (Shush) wrote:

> bachu....TakeThisOut@rogers.com wrote:

>>Since he'd already
>>spent one year trying to get the re-entry
>>permit without success only to have
>>them give it to him one day before his
>>departure, then have
>>the Attorney General yank it back after
>>one day aboard ship, he rightly
>>had no faith in the integrity of the
>>examinaton' he would be subjected to -
>>after such an
>>overtly contemptuous and hostile action.

The "examination" would have been a legal one, involving due process.
McGranery made a political decision,
but that doesn't mean Chaplin could not
have prevailed before the INS.

In reality, Chaplin had no affinity or
strong affection for the US, and didn't
care enough to fight.

>      Yes, and I think this is why Chaplin
>didn't launch a full legal assault to try
>having that rescission overturned. He'd
>already been jerked around for a year by
>a government that clearly didn't want him
>to come back, and his chances of
>passing its "examination" were less than
>slim.

Actually, the INS knew it had a weak
case for excluding him. Chaplin could
have won with a sharp lawyer, which
he could have afforded.


>Chaplin knew it, and reconciled himself
>to spending the rest of his life in Europe.
>    To construe that recognition as giving
>America "the finger," as has been
>charged here in the past, is remarkable.

Glad you appreciate it.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin Story from 1952 

On Apr 9, 5:34 pm, G-HE... DeleteThis @webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> David Totheroh wrote:
> >>Doesn't alter Budenz's statement.
> >Which, of course, could NEVER be taken >as one of those "standard
> ploy[s]" used
> >in an attempt to gain credibility by
> >claiming association with a well known
> >and respected personality, could it?
> >Those commies ALWAYS told the truth
> >(except when they didn't, huh, George).
>
> Yawn.
>
> > Interesting to see which ones you pick
> >to present as truth and which ones you
> >dismiss.
>
> I don't vouch for Budenz, but I don't
> think he can so easily be dismissed
> either in light of the revelations about
> Lillian Hellman's secret Party membership.

I don't vouch for its accuracy, but here's what wikipedia says about
Budenz:

"By his own estimate, Budenz spent some 3,000 hours explaining the
Communist party's "inner workings" to the FBI, as well as testifying
on 33 occasions to various committees. By 1957 he estimated he had
earned approximately $70,000 for his expert testimony. [...] Budenz
was called to testify regarding Owen Lattimore, a scholar on Central
Asian affairs and one of the China Hands. Budenz testified that
Lattimore was a member of a Communist cell within the Institute of
Pacific Relations, but not an Soviet agent. The reliability of this
testimony was questioned, as on two previous occasions Budenz had
specifically stated that he had no knowledge that Lattimore was a
Communist. In 1951, Budenz again testified against Lattimore, this
time before the hearings of the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee
headed by Senator Pat McCarran. During his second testimony against
Lattimore, Budenz claimed Lattimore was both an Soviet agent and a
secret Communist."

Oh and by the way, in case you don't know (and George will never tell
you), Budenz was once a CP member himself before making a very nice
living by deciding to become a professional anti-comunist witness.

Kinda reminds me of Ahmad Chalabi. There's another George who still
"do[es]n't think *he* can so easily be dismissed either." (emphasis
mine) In all fairness, the two Georges are not alone. There's Barney
too (at least that's what the other George claims).
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin Story from 1952 

"Shush" (shushfilmseznospam@yahoo.com) writes:
> On Apr 9, 9:10 am, bachu....TakeThisOut@rogers.com wrote:
>
>> Since he'd already
>> spent one year trying to get the re-entry permit without success
>> only to have them give it to him one day before his departure,

I think the reentry permit was issued in July. Chaplin left for
England in September.


then
>> have
>> the Attorney General yank it back after one day aboard ship,

A trivial point, but that was two days.


he
>> rightly
>> had no faith in the integrity of the 'examinaton' he would be
>> subjected to - after such an
>> overtly contemptuous and hostile action.
>
>
> Yes, and I think this is why Chaplin didn't launch a full legal
> assault to try having that rescission overturned. He'd already been
> jerked around for a year by a government that clearly didn't want him
> to come back, and his chances of passing its "examination" were less
> than slim. Chaplin knew it, and reconciled himself to spending the
> rest of his life in Europe.
>
> To construe that recognition as giving America "the finger," as has
> been charged here in the past, is remarkable.
>
>
> --Shush--

This did tend to look like a monolythic conspiracy, but one of the virtues
of Kenneth Lynn's account is that he emphasizes McGranery's exercise of
individual initiative in rescinding Chaplin's reentry permit, based largely
on his moral convictions (though it is clear that he didn't like Chaplin's
politics either). The general sentiment in the INS was that it didn't have
sufficient evidence to deny Chaplin's reentry, and as Robinson points out,
a number of government officials were disturbed by the negative public
reaction to McGranery's decision.

As for Chaplin's chances of gaining reentry, it is impossible to say how
that would have turned out, precisely because there was no one official
position. It was a question of whether gaining reentry would be worth the
risk and the expense, both financial and emotional. Chaplin obviously
decided that it wasn't worth it. He had occasionally considered moving to
Europe (or elsewhere) since the late 1920s, and contrary to Lynn's
speculation that he had not taken into accoung how Oona might feel about
expatriation, the two of them had discussed the possibility of relocating
outside the US in the 1940s.

Chaplin had emotional ties to England and definite appreciation for the United
States, but he was not committed to any one country. There was no reason
for him to risk immolating himself to gain acceptance by a specific nation.

What amuses me is that the activities of the right against Chaplin, such
as costing him money by trying to prevent the showing of _Verdoux_ and
_Limelight_ and eventually driving him out of the country, had the
unrecognized side effect of costing the US government a pretty penny in
tax revenues. Excluding Chaplin was an expensive indulgence in political
and moral bigotry, something I don't think anyone has ever pointed out,
though Chaplin hinted at it when he stated that while he was not a US
citizen, he was a well-heeled "paying guest."

Connie K.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin Story from 1952