What Did He Really Believe?

At the time he said it, how widespread were the facts about what was happening in the USSR? It was a closed country, after all. Even the Russian people were ignorant of the full extent of Stalin's abuses, until after his death.

For Chaplin to dismiss the purges in the '30s or early '40s, when they were largely a matter of rumor and speculation, isn't a shocker. But if he had done it in the '60s or '70s, after the true facts had come out... that would've been something else, and you'd really be onto something. But to my mind, his shrugging off the purges back in the '40s was evidence of naivete more than anything else.

Chaplin and Nixon did precisely and literally the same thing. But Chaplin did make a point of saying he wasn't a Communist while he was toasting. I wonder if Nixon did! And the occasion was a peace conference. Chaplin made the toast after Chou confided that the peace negotiations had just been settled. What's more, his toast was for the welfare of the Chinese people... not for Chou, or for war, or communism, or anything else.

But if he was really all for Uncle Joe and communist dictatorship, there'd still be *something* to show it. A diary entry, personal correspondence, the recollections of friends he talked to... something that would clearly betray that attitude, if he really had it. Where is it?

He was definitely warm to socialism, I'll grant you that. And you may remember that it was I who turned up a 1921 interview in which he praised the leadership qualities of Lenin. I think he really hoped that socialism would work, and he may have felt that way his whole life. That isn't the same thing as being pro-communist.

He had a naive, idealized view that socialism might prove to be a good thing if it was only given a chance to prove itself. Witness his conversation with H.G. Wells in 1935, about the Soviet government: 'Is it not too early to judge? They have had a difficult task, opposition and conspiracy from within and from without. Surely in time good results should follow?'

To me, he sounds hopeful and idealistic. To you, it may sound like a ringing endorsement of communist totalitarianism. I'm sure Chaplin had heard about awful things happening in Russia (Wells himself had told him so), but Chaplin was reluctant to believe it. Later in life, he may have accepted the truth... by which time, according to the intro to 'My Life in Pictures,' he was no longer interested in such things one way or the other.

Wallace was the most liberal candidate in that election, so naturally Chaplin was on board. And let's make it clear, Wallace was no communist. He was a former Vice-President and a former Secretary of Commerce, and it'll take a lot more than innuendo about 'communist influence' to overturn the years of faithful service he gave to his country.

As for Chaplin's philosophical favorites, he explicitly says in his autobiography that it was Douglas' 'Social Credit' theory that he was really excited about.

I don't agree. The context was different. The Chinese Communists were killing American soldiers (actually, UN soldiers) and Chaplin wasn't a professional politician.

Oh, he always put that ritualistic disclaimer in.

I don't think so. The peace negotiations were not being held in Geneva, but in Korea...and a peace treaty was never signed

   I'll look it up, but I believe it was revealed later that the Progressive Party was infiltrated by the CP.

From My Autobiography:

'Before we left for Geneva the Prime Minister's secretary telephoned to say that His Excellency might be detained as important business had suddenly arisen at the conference (an understatement), and that we were not to wait for him; he would join us later. 'When we arrived, to our surprise, Chou En-lai was waiting on the steps of his residence to greet us. Like the rest of the world I was anxious to know what had happened at the conference, so I asked him. He tapped me confidentially on the shoulder. 'It has all been amicably settled,' he said, 'five minutes ago.'

Sorry George, I'd have to score that one for Shush. Chou was obviously directly involved in the conference negotiations and I think Chaplin's recounting makes it pretty clear that the context of his toast was in the immediate euphoria of an 'amicable settle[ment]' from the peace conference. Your spin simply doesn't hold water.

Chaplin certainly didn't add that qualifier, only you did. Chaplin said exactly what he said, according to MA 'I toasted to the future of China and said that although I was not a communist I wholeheartedly joined in their hope and desire for a better life for the Chinese people, and for all people.'

Unless you have more direct information about what was actually said, ie. recollections from someone else in attendance, your admitted revisionism seems to be leading you out of reality. Do you think Chaplin was toasting 'for a better life... for all people' under communism, too?

If you need to try to rewrite history in order to 'prove' your point, perhaps it would be better to reevaluate the validity of your point instead.

That's just plain untrue. Several people have been given full access to that 'oral history.' The fact that the family has deemed a few people with proven tendencies to ignore reality and axes to grind, unworthy of sharing what are in reality recorded extended family dinnertable conversations, is frankly looking more and more justified given the kind of completely unfounded speculation that you are willing to irresponsibly put out.

Why haven't YOU released transcripts of YOUR family's Christmas holiday conversations? I'm sure they would be invaluable in uncovering the sources of the bias that compels you to so misrepresent both the content and context of Chaplin's statements (as evidenced by your treatment of the Geneva toast).

George

He toasted to 'their' (i.e the Communist Party's) desire for a better life for the Chinese people and for all people.

That was analogous to toasting Adolf Hitler's desire for a better life for the German people and for all people.

Oh, blow it out yer ass.

You protest too much. What do you have to hide?

OK, just tell Connie, David, and Richard to stop introducing political topics to this ng.

They do it, I just respond. I'll stop if they will.

What a crock. Let me refresh your memory. Someone, not me, David, or Richard, posted a link to a Bush cartoon. I responded with a brief and quite incidental comment that the same thought had occurred to me. You came charging in with a show of outrage over a humorous parallel of Bush to Chaplin's Hynkel, transforming it into a direct comparison of Bush to Hitler.

I'll stop

You have never allowed anyone to even vaguely intimate a political opinion different from your own without trying to initiate a protracted brawl. Your intolerance of Chaplin's leftism seems rather neurotic. Why can't you just accept the fact that not everyone shares your political views, and move on?

Connie K.

Despite your disingenuous use of the passive 'the thought occurred to me,' instead of 'I think,', the 'thought' was inflammatory.

That's just a lie.

Carnahan interminably posts articles and squibs about the immediate post-Cold War era from the leftist perspective.

And your endorsement of Hynkel/Bush and then recounting your husband's parallel of Bush/Tojo were hardly 'vague.'

Your incessant defensivenes about Chaplin ~is~ neurotic.

Why don't you do the same?

Everything that I have >occasionally< posted regarding the Cold War has been a straight news story, usually from the LA TIMES. Is the stodgy old TIMES too leftist for you?

Richard Carnahan

No, but the articles recap the same tired old anti-anti-communist view on that era...and you post these articles whether they mention Chaplin or not