Accuracy in Media

Special Report

From the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism

Cliff Kincaid, director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism, interviewed Allan H. Ryskind, author of the book, Hollywood Traitors, and long-time editor of the newspaper Human Events, about the life and beliefs of Dalton Trumbo, a major Hollywood screenwriter and the subject of the film “Trumbo.” Trumbo supported Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and North Korea’s Kim Il-Sung. He condemned Martin Luther King, Jr., for not being a true revolutionary. Yet, he is depicted in the film as just a family-friendly socialist and defender of the First Amendment in the film.

Ryskind’s father, the famous Hollywood screenwriter Morrie Ryskind, worked with Ronald Reagan, John Wayne, Walt Disney and others against communist domination of Hollywood. Reagan considered Human Events as his favorite newspaper when he was president.

In addition to being honored by Hollywood, Trumbo’s star, Bryan Cranston, and director Jay Roach, were given an “exclusive private tour” of the Newseum, the privately-funded museum in Washington, D.C. dedicated to the First Amendment.

Q: Much of Hollywood has given a major send-off to the movie, “Trumbo,” which celebrates the famous Communist screenwriter Dalton Trumbo.  Bryan Cranston, who plays Trumbo in the movie, has just been nominated “best actor in a leading role” by the Screen Actors Guild. SAG had even pushed for the entire cast to get an Oscar.  Many Hollywood organizations, like the Broadcast Film Critics Association and the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, have wholeheartedly embraced the movie’s message of Dalton as a First Amendment hero and Cranston as a best actor nominee. And this is only part of the story. The Hollywood Reporter, the industry’s well-known trade publication, and the SAG’s influential magazine, Written By, have devoted loads of publicity to the supposed importance of the film and the wonders of Dalton himself. You’ve seen the film, so what do you make of it as an accurate picture of the times?

A: Look, if you didn’t know anything about the effort by serious Communists—and Dalton was a very serious Communist—to capture the movie industry for the purpose of serving our deadly enemy, the Soviet Union, you’d think this was a pleasant movie and that Dalton was an avuncular idealist whose guiding political philosophy was not communism but helping the underdog and preserving the First Amendment. He is portrayed as something of a saintly socialist who not only defied the Hollywood blacklist, but defeated it and struck a major blow for freedom and patriotic progressives. To the extent it is conceded that he had some theoretical beliefs that could be considered Marxist, he is depicted as more Pope Francis than Vladimir Lenin.

Q: In what way does the movie hide or gloss over Trumbo’s Red record?

A: All of his heavy-duty propaganda and activities on behalf of the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin and the Communist Party are omitted. So is his vigorous support of Lenin, Adolph Hitler (during the Hitler-Stalin pact) and North Korea’s Kim Il-sung after his aggressive attack against South Korea in 1950. Even his membership in the American CP, which he eventually bragged about, is ignored. Dalton was on Stalin’s side virtually all of his adult life—in important ways—but those unfamiliar with the titanic battle between the Sovieteers and the anti-Communists in Hollywood wouldn’t have a clue as to what that fight in the movie colony was all about and Trumbo’s deep involvement on the Soviet side.

The villains in the movie, incidentally, are not the party members who worked covertly—and relentlessly—to turn Hollywood over to Moscow but the anti-Communist community who fought the Red conspiracy in the film industry—and won, at least for a time. Columnist Hedda Hopper, John Wayne, labor leader Roy Brewer, the House Un-American Activities Committee, the Motion Picture Alliance and other opponents of the Communists come in for a severe beating. And while the picture blasts the blacklist, which banned Communist Party members from the industry, the average viewer would have virtually no idea as to what it meant to be a party member and why the blacklist was imposed.

Q: How did this movie come about?

A: The film’s screenwriter, John McNamara, who has done a number of TV shows, was inspired by Bruce Cook’s 1977 friendly biography of Trumbo. McNamara, who worked on the script for years, is plainly a big admirer of the screenwriter who wrote a number of excellent movies, including “Spartacus” and “Roman Holiday.” Director Jay Roach, who directed the “Austin Powers” movies, is another Trumbo fan. The star who plays Dalton, Bryan Cranston, the meth dealer in the hit TV show, “Breaking Bad,” has been touring the nation singing the praises of Dalton as a fighter for freedom.

Q: You say he was a “Stalinist” and a member of the Communist Party, facts that you argue are fundamentally ignored by the movie. But how do we know he was a party member?

A: There is no question about his CP membership. In those famous 1947 hearings, the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) submitted material proving beyond a doubt that he was a party member, though Trumbo and nine other screenwriters and directors refused to respond to questions about party membership, accusing HUAC of violating their First Amendment rights. Trumbo and the other nine, soon to be dubbed The Hollywood Ten, served time in prison for contempt of Congress and were blacklisted because the Hollywood studios laid down the rule that no one could work in Hollywood if he or she belonged to the Soviet-controlled Communist Party or refused to tell Congress they were party members. (Each of the Ten, by the way, was a party member and their Communist cards were produced at the ’47 hearings.)

Years later, however, Trumbo finally admitted to his biographer, Bruce Cook, that he joined the party in 1943, and that “I might as well have been a Communist ten years earlier. But I’ve never regretted it. As a matter of fact, it’s possible to say I would have regretted not having done it.”  (Bruce Cook’s Dalton Trumbo, pp. 146-148) No regrets about being a tool of a party controlled by the Caligula in the Kremlin? Apparently not.

In an unpublished memo among his papers at the Wisconsin Historical Society in Madison (a copy of which is in my possession), Trumbo writes, after his prison term and a lengthy sojourn to Mexico, that he “re-affiliated with the party in 1954” and that “in the spring of 1956, I left the party for good.” His papers in Madison also revealed he remained a Stalin apologist until Trumbo’s death in 1976, insisting that whatever his defects, the Kremlin dictator’s most important historical contribution was to have advanced the cause of socialism worldwide.

Q: But is it really fair to call him a Stalinistrather than a man who frequently followed the party line?

A: Though he says he joined the party in 1943, Trumbo never publicly deviated from the Stalinist line since the late 1930s and never publicly displayed a bit of remorse for that evil man’s malevolent rule. In a sympathetic portrayal of the Hollywood Communists in their classic [book], The Inquisition in Hollywood, authors Larry Ceplair and Steven Englund ask: “Were the Hollywood Communists ‘Stalinist?’ The initial answer must be ‘yes.’ Communist screenwriters defended the Stalinist regime, accepted the Comintern’s policies and about-faces, and criticized enemies and allies alike with an infuriating self-righteousness, superiority and selective memory, which eventually alienated all but the staunchest fellow travelers.” (p. 239)

“As defenders of the Soviet regime,” they added, “the screen artists Reds became known apologists for crimes of monstrous dimensions, though they claimed to have known nothing about such crimes, and, indeed, shouted down, or ignored those who did.” Ceplair and Englund also stress that they “defended that regime unflinchingly, uncritically, inflexibly—and therefore left themselves open to the justifiable suspicion that they not only approved of everything they were defending, but would themselves act in the same way if they were in the same position.”  (emphasis added) (p. 241)

Trumbo fits that description to a tee.

Q: Both the liberals and the Left continue to say that there never was a genuine Red “threat” in Hollywood to begin with. Yes, there were some folks who might have mouthed the Soviet line once in a while or “flirted with Communist ideas,” as industry representative Jack Valenti put it, but they weren’t really subversive and had no real influence over the movie colony to begin with. So why did HUAC feel compelled to hold those 1947 hearings on the Communist influence in the movie industry?

A: By 1944, a number of important Hollywood writers, directors, labor union officials and studio executives, alarmed by the Red infiltration of the industry, formed the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals (the MPA). Among the founders and members were Morrie Ryskind (my dad), Walt Disney, Russian émigré Ayn Rand, labor union officials and executives from various studios. Actors Robert Taylor and John Wayne were leaders in the group, (which, incidentally, is walloped by the Trumbo movie). They were of various political persuasions, but they all despised the Communists, whom they viewed as enemies of America.

The group was formed because in 1944 it looked as if committed Stalinists had taken control of Hollywood. Hard-core party members had major influence in the powerful guilds and unions, with the very influential Screen Writers Guild picking party members Dalton Trumbo and Gordon Kahn in June 1945 to run the guild’s flagship publication, The Screen Writer. Under Trumbo and Kahn, the publication became a tool of the CP, celebrating important screenwriter Reds and advertising lectures on history, economics and foreign policy from a Marxist and Soviet point of view. Trumbo also used it as a platform to attack the Hollywood anti-Communist community. Communist screenwriters, moreover, had major influence on Hollywood scripts and were turning out films hailing the Soviet economic and political system and even the murderous Joseph Stalin himself.

By 1947, you also have to remember, the Cold War, which Stalin had initiated by seizing Eastern Europe and a portion of Central Europe through force and threats of force, was already under way. And the overwhelming majority of Americans had come to realize that Stalin was a deadly enemy. Even the cream of the liberal community, such as FDR’s widow, Eleanor Roosevelt, liberal lawyer Joseph Rauh and union leaders Walter Reuther and David Dubinsky had deliberately split with the Communists, forming in January of 1947 the Americans for Democratic Action which banned, or should I say blacklisted, anyone who was a Communist. But Hollywood Communists, through party fronts, books, essays, movies, political activities and pots full of money, deliberately allied themselves with Moscow against America and the rest of the Free World.

Q:  You say that Trumbo sided with Hitler at one point, but didn’t the Communists in Hollywood lead the fight against fascism and Naziism?

A: Early on, they opposed Hitler, whom they rightly viewed as a major threat to the Soviet Union, the country they had embraced as their own. They formed the Hollywood Anti-Nazi League, called on the country to boycott German goods and urged the U.S. to aid the “anti-fascist forces” in Spain during the Spanish Civil War. John Howard Lawson, who became the chief enforcer of the Stalinist line in Hollywood, even wrote a movie, “Blockade, to help persuade FDR to assist the Soviet side.

What is customarily omitted in so much of the “history” is that the Soviet Union and the Communist parties around the globe switched sides on August 23, 1939, when Hitler and Stalin formed the Hitler-Stalin pact. The Hollywood Reds now supported Hitler when he invaded Poland on Sept. 1, 1939—the immediate cause of World War II—and backed him the next year when he conquered Norway, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg and then put down the Nazi flag in France. Stalin’s key aide, V. Molotov, even sent Hitler a congratulatory note when France fell to German forces. And the Red screenwriters, Trumbo especially, backed Hitler when he began raining death and destruction on London.

Trumbo, in fact, led the fight to ease Hitler’s burden of conquest. He did this by demonizing all of Hitler’s enemies and accusing Great Britain of being deceptive, dishonorable and unworthy of American assistance. England, he noted, was a monarchy, not a democracy, and had declared war against Hitler, not the other way around. He also accused FDR, previously a Communist Party favorite, of being guilty of “treason” and “black treason” for giving weapons to the British in their hour of peril. Trumbo enthusiastically presented his views in speeches and in writing and laid out the case most explicitly in his 1941 novel, The Remarkable Andrew.

The Hollywood Communists, including Trumbo, quickly turned against Hitler after the Fuehrer double-crossed Stalin and launched a massive invasion of the Soviet Union in June of 1941. Then, and only then, did the radical screenwriters switch sides again, now demanding America give major military and economic assistance to Moscow to help it survive the Nazi onslaught. Only after Hitler invaded the USSR did the Red screenwriters become “patriotic,” since they believed U.S. assistance was crucial to the Soviet Union’s survival. Their patriotic feelings were for Stalin’s Russia, not their country of birth.

Q: But was Trumbo a faithful follower of the party line after World War II?

A: Trumbo, as even Larry Ceplair and Dalton’s late son, Christopher, note in their new book on the screenwriter, also called, Dalton Trumbo, accepts that Dalton embraced the Stalinist line for many years after World War II. A number of Soviet experts maintain that Stalin initiated the Cold War in April 1945 when Jacque Duclos, a prominent French Communist, assailed the American party boss, Earl Browder, for saying there could be a peaceful transition to socialism in America and that the United States and the Soviet Union could work together peacefully in the post-World War II period. The American CP, thinking this was a signal from Stalin himself to renew the class warfare rhetoric and paint America as an enemy that needed to be defeated, then booted Browder out of his job and then out of the party. Trumbo was on board, saying: “It comes down to this, if Lenin was right, then Browder was wrong—and vice versa. I prefer to believe Lenin was right.” (Bruce Cook, Dalton Trumbo, p. 163.)

Trumbo then lined up with Stalin against America on all important foreign policy issues: supporting the Soviet seizure of Eastern Europe, backing Stalin’s effort to conquer Western Europe, declaring America “the main enemy,” embracing serious Communist efforts in the United States to penetrate crucial elements in American society, including Hollywood, the unions, the military, the State Department, our atomic energy installations and the White House.

Nothing so underscores his love for Leninism, Stalinism and communism in general than his post-WWII unpublished manuscript discovered in his papers at the Wisconsin Historical Society. “This is not by me,” Trumbo lightheartedly scribbles onto a piece of paper covering the 145-page screen treatment dealing with the Korean War. Then he boyishly confesses: “Ah yes it is! For $2,000 I dramatized a local child-custody case for a group composed of Paul Jarrico, Adrian Scott, Herbert Biberman, et al. [Scott and Biberman were two of the Hollywood Ten. Jarrico headed the CP in the 1950s.]  It was naturally never made [into a movie]. Dalton Trumbo.”

Trumbo titled his script An American Story and the heroine, Catherine Bonham, is said by her ex-husband to be an unfit mother because she favors Communist North Korea’s swift and brutal invasion of South Korea in June 1950. She insists the invasion was completely justifiable, for this is “Korea’s fight for independence, just as we had to fight for our own independence in 1776.” She is hopeful, nay predicts, that “people all over the world” will rise up and create other North Koreas. “Many will suffer and die fighting for this goal,” she tells her children, “but we will win. Never doubt it.”

Q: The Trumbo film also suggests that he was a champion of blacks and the civil rights movement. Is that true?

A: In their new Trumbo biography, Larry Ceplair and the late Christopher Trumbo, Dalton’s son, write that Dalton did not care much for the non-violent civil rights forces. They noted that Dalton was a champion of the Black Panthers and “had come to believe that non-violent resistance had its limitations. When David L. Wolper contacted Trumbo about adapting William Styron’s novel, The Confessions of Nat Turner, (about the leader of a bloody slave revolt in Virginia in 1831), Trumbo expressed interest and described Turner as ‘a far more contemporary figure than Martin Luther King…In his resort to violence, Nat Turner is truly a man of the Twentieth Century, which Martin Luther King, unhappily, is not.’” (page 473. Wolper had contacted Trumbo in 1968 after King’s non-violent tactics had proved key to the passage of the sweeping 1964 and 1965 civil rights laws.)

Q: Is Trumbo the first Stalinist screenwriter who has been celebrated by Hollywood since Dalton broke the blacklist in 1960?

A: No. Trumbo is just the latest. Hollywood screenwriters, authors and essayists have been hailing devoted Hollywood Reds for years, especially The Hollywood Ten. In 1997, the 50thanniversary of the blacklist, I attended a gathering of celebrities at the Samuel Goldwyn Theater in Beverly Hills, where Hollywood was honoring several long-time Stalinists, including Hollywood Ten member Ring Lardner, Jr., and the former head of the Communist Party in Hollywood, Paul Jarrico. The Writers Guild of America, West, a successor organization to the powerful Screen Writers Guild, bestowed on them First Amendment awards, no less, for refusing to tell HUAC whether they were party members who were conspiring with the Kremlin leader to impose a Soviet style government in America. Each of the Ten was a committed Red and only one, Edward Dmytryk, broke with the party. Whatever one might think of the blacklist, why in the world would Hollywood award a First Amendment award to anyone who was a Communist, since Communists the world over have never believed in free speech?

The film “The Majestic,” starring Jim Carrey, runs regularly on TV and the authors name a wonderful patriotic town, filled with Middle-American virtues, after John Howard Lawson, an excellent screenwriter, but Hollywood’s veteran CP boss, who died yearning for a Stalinist America. Lawson was the chief enforcer of the party line in the movie colony. Trumbo himself has been honored before in a 2008 documentary by his late son, Christopher, which received a ton of praise from Hollywood actors and reviewers. And the new movie, Trumbo, pays tribute to the Hollywood Ten. The truth is the rewriting of history never quits in Tinseltown.

Note: Director of the AIM Center for investigative Journalism Cliff Kincaid sent a February 6, 2015 letter to Bryan Cranston, informing him that “playing the role of Stalinist Communist and Hitler apologist Dalton Trumbo” in the film, “Trumbo,” then in production, could be damaging to his career. Kincaid said, “Since the facts about Trumbo’s service to the Soviet Union and Hitler’s Germany are not widely known, this information may be new to you…We hope you issue a statement clearing up the controversy surrounding your involvement in the ‘Trumbo’ film and your knowledge, or lack thereof, regarding Trumbo’s service to Stalin and Hitler.”

Cranston never responded to the letter.

This is a Special Report from the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism

Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.


  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    Thank you, Cliff.

  • Nucingen

    Trumbo was a complex man, not a saint (nor in a soviet way! 🙂 ). In the Bruce Cook book (and better in the recent Larry Ceplair’s) he is depicted also with his flaws, like a normal human being. 10 months in prison and 10 years of work troubles were not enough without any evidence of clear and present danger for the country? He wrote “Roman holiday”, for god’s sake… the classic hollywood romantic comedy, and the war propaganda movie “Thirty seconds over Tokyo”. Not a dangerous man for sure. His goal was, from a position of power (he did make money to the conservative producers in RKO, MGM, etc), not allow injustices for the movie workers (screenwriters or simply workers in the industry). A complex man, then. Said this, the movie is average and not a good one; wonderful is the Cranston interpretation. Greetings. Nuc

  • Bob Rohrer

    Back in August of 2015 I had read Allan H. Ryskind’s excellent book, Hollywood Traitors, so I was already familiar with this information and whole lot more. My congratulations to AIM for producing this excellent condensation of the more formidable 500 + page Ryskind book. This makes this valuable history more accessible to a greater number of people. I am also no longer a fan of anything Bryan Cranston does especially this latest effort to advance his own socialist leanings. I have no interest in watching blatant propaganda!

  • RMThoughts

    Nothing surprising so many Hollywood Jews of the era paid service to the Soviet Union and chose to be silent about Hitler’s Germany.

  • John Adams

    If any reader really wants to get a true picture of this era, I would recommend reading “Only Victims” by Dr. Robert Vaughn. Vaughn’s book is an accurate and well balanced presentation of what really happened duriing this modern witch hunt. Ryskind’s book is nothing more than a right wing hatchet-job. None of the people he attempted to attack did anything to disturb or destroy The United States. None of Ryskind’s theses would stand up to rigorous investigation by legitimate academic authorities.

  • Major914

    The left-liberal Jews’ turn toward secularist-internationalism (as a reactionary search for a solution to the anti-Semitism they mistakenly perceived as inherent in nationalism, the nation-state) was the gravest of errors,… and it is plagueing us today in ever-worsening ways nationwide and worldwide…

    There will be another world war, and it will be a larger and more Hobbesian conflagration than the prior two…

  • Michael Doane

    The persistent presumption that anyone who was a communist in the thirties and forties was, by definition, a Soviet sympathizer, is idiotic and paranoid.

  • Fritz

    Well the Warner Brothers surely did not, in fact they were at the forefront of warning Americans about the dangerous nature of the German-American Bund and the American Nazi party through movies such as “Confessions of a Nazi Spy” among others.

  • Fritz

    Except for the fact that the American Communist party received it’s orders directly from, was financed by, and pledged it’s allegiance to Moscow and Uncle Joe. So lets excuse communist sympathies during the 1930s, just for the sake of argument, what about a Communist from lets say 1946 and onward? Or 1949 and onward? Would they not be by definition Soviet sympathizers?

  • Fritz

    So how well did this greatly acclaimed movie do at the box office? I only saw it promoted for all of about a week and an half before the mania of the latest Star Wars movie bombarded the TV and the ads were pulled. I’m guessing that it did probably about as well as the last hatchet job targeting Richard Nixon. Those are two subjects that the Hollywood left obsesses about in which the movie going public could care less, the anti Communist hearings and Watergate, even that movie about the quiz show scandals of the 1950s garnered more interest.

  • Fritz

    Politics follows popular culture, it’s really that simple, if you can take control over popular culture the rest will shortly follow. They may no have openly attempted to disturb or destroy the U.S but they believed that they had the right to appropriate the property of their studio employers to project their ideals.
    I can’t believe that you just cited a thesis written by another Hollywood actor, Robert Vaughn, AKA Napoleon Solo. He may have some valid points but do you seriously expect us to believe that a man, who made his career in Hollywood, would have penned anything else but an indictment against anti communists during the Vietnam era?

  • Steven Barrett

    How heartwarming that John Wayne was so anti-communist given how little he did for the real war effort against the Axis during WWII. Unlike Jimmy Stewart, who saw actual combat flying missions over the Reich, risking death on every mission, Wayne acted his way through the war and not a few watering holes along the way. Ronald Reagan, whose eyesight prevented him from seeing combat, at least raised his arm and wore a uniform even though he never had to leave Hollywood.

  • USMC 64-68

    I see you’ve recommended a book that is nothing but a left wing hatchet job – propaganda to cover the reality of the Hollywood and democrat party’s involvement with anti-American Marxism.

  • USMC 64-68

    Yeah, those committed to communism couldn’t be called Soviet sympathizers. That line of thinking is idiotic and neurotic.

  • USMC 64-68

    Do you discredit John Wayne because he opposed communism?

    I’m thankful for his willingness to do that – too many wouldn’t have raised their voice to expose the anti-American Marxists – like today.

  • Steven Barrett

    Wayne’s willingness to stand up against Communism, especially Stalinism during the immediate post WWII beginnings of the Cold War isn’t what I find most objectionable, not in the least. I’ve had my own dealings with some pretty hard-core lefties during the 80s in a very chic and oh-so-PC collegetown in western New England. Thicker than cement. I was a Wayne fan for years and I still admire his acting ability. “In Harm’s Way” was his best work of all concerning WWII; as were his calvary films with John Ford.
    What got me was his draft dodging. Where did he get the idea that his acting ability (no matter how many dollars he was able to raise for the war effort) gave him the idea he was above Jimmy Stewart, Clark Gable, the two biggest names to join up, (the latter at the tender young age of 43.)Speaking of “In Harm’s Way,” both co-stars Kirk Douglas and George Kennedy also served in uniform during the war, and Kennedy gave 16 years of service in the Army, putting his acting aspirations aside . . . and he came from a family of actors in NYC.
    Unquestionably, Trumbo was his own worst enemy, and he even admitted his conviction and imprisonment for Contempt of Congress was justified in “Hollywood On Trial.” That, however, doesn’t exonerate Trumbo. Just mitigates things a (tiny) bit. Some “achievement.”
    I have a big thing about serial draft dodgers who talk the loudest and give back the least amount of time to their country, the United States of America, which given more blood per human being per capita on the face of the earth throughout all of mankind’s history, to defend one’s right to express his or her opinions in speech, printed word, and the arts, especially including the cinematic arts. That was the primary intention of my remarks. If my rhetoric got the best of me, you certainly deserve my sincerest apologies, USMC 64-68, and thank you for your service to our nation, especially during what I’m “guesstimating” your literary nomme de guerre to symbolize the years 1964-68.

  • Steven Barrett

    RMThoughts. Take a look at Michael Beschloss’ excellent book “The Conquerers,” esp. the part dealing with the relationship between FDR and his Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau. Amazon carries an interesting review that should give you a greater appreciation of just what a difficult and frustrating situation FDR’s administration was facing. No easy answers.

  • USMC 64-68

    As you can imagine, like you, I don’t countenance draft dodgers.

    I try to keep a balance in my feelings toward these people. e.g. from my era it was Ted Nugent (among many) who would be in the same camp. I don’t like what they did, but will still give an “amen” when they speak the truth.

    I have a lot of respect for the old Hollywood patriots who put on the uniform and defended America in harm’s way, e.g. Lee Marvin wounded in the Pacific, or Eddie Albert, rescuing Marines in the hell that was Tarawa.

    I appreciate your note of thanks – Vietnam 1/67-2/68

  • Steven Barrett

    Wish you got a lot more thanks and appreciation from my very babied and under-appreciating generation. No small coincidence that we morphed right into becoming the most ME centered generation in our nation’s history.

  • Steven Barrett

    But you have no problem with Wayne’s and the rest of the conservative side of Hollywood’s propaganda? Best film Wayne made about WWII was “In Harm’s Way,” where he played it fair w/o all the rah rah stuff that he sank to using in that awful VN war flick “Green Berets.”

  • PajamaBoi

    funny how they denounce blacklisting of Commies during the Cold War but they gladly blacklist anyone with a pro-America or “right wing” view today

  • IronChefSandwiches

    Funny how you can’t produce even ONE example of someone with a pro-American (sic) or “right wing” (sic) view being blacklisted today. Ha Ha.

  • Steve Burstein

    BUT ALLEN RYSKIND IS JEWISH. Bad enough liberals today think that the Blacklist specifically targeted Jews(thanks in part to movies like TRUMBO), without people throwing Anti-Semitism into the issue. And Hollywood did make some anti-communist films(albeit comedies)in the 30s.

  • George Asher

    What’s wrong with being left wing surely that’s a good thing?

  • George Asher

    There isn’t anything wrong with Communism itself.

  • USMC 64-68

    Other than the fact that is is against God, a total repudiation of His Word and His will, and a denial of the reality of human nature. Then too it is diametrically opposed to America’s founding values and principles.

    Yeah, other than that starting list, these isn’t anything wrong with the Satanic ideology of Marx.

  • USMC 64-68

    Progressivism, (which is today’s left wing in America) is a totally bankrupt ideology. It is a total repudiation of America’s founding.

    Here’s a starter: Woodrow Wilson, the pioneer of progressivism for the commiecrats threw out the Declaration and the Constitution. When you attack the foundation of a sovereign nation that should be construed as “treason.”

  • George Asher

    Your an odd man. No Left wing politics supports egalitarianism social equality and in my opinion there is something wrong with anyone that doesn’t believe people should be equal.

  • George Asher

    It’s not against god. Not opposed to but a change from. there is nothing wrong with making changes to the initial values, if it is for the better of people. The highest value of all should be looking out for people. How is a ideology which is designed to improve peoples lives satanic.

  • USMC 64-68

    If you say it is not against God, then you don’t know what Marxism is, and there’s not any point in discussing this anti-God, anti-human ideology that has ALWAYS worked out to the harm of people.

    Communism has put tens of millions of people in the grave and tens of millions in slavery, prison, and concentration camps.

    Read some history!

  • USMC 64-68

    You’re not an odd youngster – like many today, completely snookered by the lies of left wing propagandists.

    The “egalitarianism” you speak of is nothing more than a false promise – never, ever experienced in reality.

    The equality you speak of isn’t the equality we learn of in the Bible, or that formed the bedrock principles of America’s foundation. That equality is denied by the leftists you cheer.

    The equality of the left is an equality of poverty, broken human spirits and the sameness of life as part of the herd known as the “collective.” There is something wrong with people who don’t want to be free and achieve success on their own work and merits, but would rather have The State provide for them – men like that are to be pitied!

  • George Asher

    I’m not talking about Marxism I’m talking about Communism. You’re the one that brought up god not me. Communism hasn’t brought people to the grave and people to slavery, corrupt dictators have claiming to believe in it but not truly understanding it.

  • USMC 64-68

    Communism as well as socialism is the fruit of Marx.

    Like I said previously, you don’t know what you’re talking about, so I’ll suggest you not take any time to respond because I’m moving on. There’s no point in discussing this when you are ignorant about the subject.

  • George Asher

    I’m odd because I think people should be treated equally? egalitarianism is not a false promise, it is simply the belief that all people are equal and I think that most people think that. I don’t care about the bible, I care about what makes the world a better place for people to live in. I do want to be free to achieve success on my own work and merits and I don’t want the state to provide for me. I do believe the state should provide for people who are not able to work and don’t have the ability to earn their own money and should help out people who are born into poor families through no fault of their own, so the have a fair shot at life and don’t have to struggle.

  • George Asher

    Communism is the fruit of richard Marx,
    i’m not disputing that but as an ideology itself there’s nothing wrong with it. That doesn’t mean I agree with all of Marxism. I don’t claim to know everything about all Ideologies but I do know what i’m talking about. I’m not ignorant about the subject, I just don’t agree with what you are saying about it. People are free to have different opinions.

  • USMC 64-68

    You’re clueless, confused and indoctrinated and don’t know the truth. That’s my last word.

  • George Asher

    Well if that’s your last word it makes it much easier for me to win the argument. I’m not clueless, not confused, or brainwashed. I just don’t think there’s anything wrong with communism itself as an ideology, I’m not even a communist!

  • Mike S.

    Even (anti-)Pope Francis has gotten in on the act, too. How pathetic.

    “Francis Goes to Hollywood: Honors Clooney, Gere and Hayek”

  • Jacques Shellac
  • IronChefSandwiches

    No. My sense of humor is even better today. Thanks for the nonsense article. A bunch of has-been’s can’t get work and they blame liberals. No evidence. If Republicans didn’t have such a huge victim complex, it’d be easier to take them seriously.

  • Booyah

    Yeah, your sense of humor is morbid and sick. We already know.

  • jmk

    You can block (l)users (sic) like him, you know.

  • Jacques Shellac

    Apology accepted. Ha ha.

    PS: Telling that, by your own reasoning, only a Republican can be “pro-American.” I don’t agree, but thanks for letting us all know where you’re coming from. Cheers.

  • Trey Von Dinkis

    Dalton Trumbo.
    The man who lived his entire life as a capitalist, fully working the capitalist system for all of his functioning needs – but thought it would be ‘cool’ and ‘hip’ to sit around and eschew Marx with his elitist friends. The movie would like you to believe he was a REAL communist (who bucked the system and won), but that’s simply and undeniably false. He never bucked the system. He talked, but never for one moment practiced communism.

    Later in life, when the true time came for him to stand on principle, make a real statement, and give the finger back to the Hollywood that had screwed him – he proved his cowardice by running back to them (though he truly had never left), and to the excess capitalist windfall that provided. — He was a fraud, and the movie is a sham.

  • The_Northwesterner

    Well if that’s your last word it makes it much easier for me to win the argument.

    No, you didn’t, USMC did, by calling you out on your misguided beliefs about Communism and for what you showed yourself as. Claiming that you “won” because he walked away from the argument doesn’t mean that you did, not by any stretch of the imagination – only kindergarten-age (or younger) children and liberals (who are basically children who never grew up or matured) think that way, otherwise known as wishful thinking.

    I’m not clueless, not confused, or brainwashed.

    Does this ring a bell:

    Communism is the fruit of richard Marx,

    Based on that, it shows that USMC had you pegged.

    I just don’t think there’s anything wrong with communism itself as an ideology,

    Try telling that to the families and descendants of the nearly 150 million people (and still rising) who died because of Communism, as well as the survivors who escaped from the so-called “workers’ paradise” that every Communist dictatorship that has ever existed was/is.

  • George Asher

    Oh fuck sake not another one. I don’t think there’s a problem with Communism but that doesn’t mean I agree with everything that Karl Marx believes was the point I was trying to make. Those people didn’t die because of communism they died because of a corrupt leader. If implemented correctly communism could be a good thing.

  • The_Northwesterner

    I don’t think there’s a problem with Communism but that doesn’t mean I agree with everything that Richard Marx believes was the point I was trying to make.

    That’s Karl Marx, not Richard Marx, and all that does is prove USMC right about what he said about you (and which essentially shoots down your credibility regarding how you view Communism).

    Those people didn’t die because of communism they died because of a corrupt leader.

    Who happened to choose Communism, so yes, they did die because of Communism. Saying they didn’t just because you want it to be so (again, wishful thinking) doesn’t make it so.

    If implemented correctly communism could be a good thing.

    Everyone who’s ever said that never had to live under Communism themselves. Truth be told, Communism has never been a “good thing” and never will be no matter who implements it or how, because it always turns out the same way in the end.

  • George Asher

    Getting a name wrong says nothing about my views on communism. They died because their leader was an evil bastard not because he believed in communism. It’s like blaming all muslims for the work of a few terrorists. Communism has only ever been implemented by a few corrupt people, if done by the right person it could be a good thing.

  • The_Northwesterner

    Getting a name wrong says nothing about my views on communism.

    Denying that your views on Communism are out of whack because you got its founder’s name wrong doesn’t make your views about it any less wrong.

    They died because their leader was an evil bastard not because he believed in communism.

    And yet he still believed in Communism and used it as his excuse to slaughter millions under his dictatorship.

    It’s like blaming all muslims for the work of a few terrorists.

    Which is easy because those terrorists are acting exactly according to the teachings of Islam (an ideology akin to Communism and Nazism, and not a “religion” like its adherents claim it to be) while the so-called “moderate” Islamics say nothing against it, similar to how the Left as a whole operates.

    Communism has only ever been implemented by a few corrupt people, if done by the right person it could be a good thing.

    That “right person” doesn’t exist and never will, just like Communism has never worked in practice and never will. Every person who ever implemented Communist rule on a country only took it on the road to death and destruction without variation. Making excuses for Communism (and denying what it has done through history and into today) only makes you look like a sympathizer.

    The quote below (and the site it comes from) serves to prove what you’ve been saying about Communism wrong:

    Critics of Communism often cite the atrocities of such monsters as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Castro as evidence of Communism’s evil nature. But in response, Communism’s defenders are quick to suggest that these figures were merely perverters of a most noble ideology; that by no means must genuine Communism necessarily lead to the horrors which those men engineered; and that there is nothing inherent in Communism that causes such tyrants to rise to power.

    But in fact, there is. In order for a Communist government to enforce the economic equality and ideological conformity that it demands, it must compel people to give up their private property and to surrender their private interests to the state. To achieve these objectives, the government must possess boundless authority over all aspects of national life, including the economy. The administration of such authority requires a vast bureaucracy. Consider, for instance, that by the late 1980s the Soviet KGB was staffed by at least 480,000 people, of whom approximately 250,000 – assisted by tens of millions of informants – engaged in domestic counterintelligence and surveillance.

  • F. Walter White

    Why does Bryan Cranston have such a hard on for trying to portray scumbags as good people?

  • Illustrator

    What a load of shit this article is.

    “The most egregious misstatement of the anti-Communists is their oft-repeated charge that Trumbo was a “Hitler apologist” or “Hitler-enabler” or one of Hitler’s allies. My dictionary defines an apologist as one who argues in defense or justification of another person or cause and an ally as one who is formally connected to another. Not once did Trumbo apologize for Hitler; not once did he defend or justify Hitler or the Nazis or German activity. Nothing he said or did enabled (made feasible or possible) Hitler’s actions. Trumbo criticized the United States, Great Britain, and France for not supporting the democracies being destroyed by Germany, Italy, and Japan. That is, he criticized the validity of their anti-fascism. Had those countries been more actively opposed to Germany and Italy when it mattered, between1935 and 1939, he noted, there might not have been a war.”

  • Illustrator

    Why do you have such a hard on for confusing good people with scumbags? That’s the question.

  • Jon E Link

    I think the movie did reveal his shallowness and self absorption.

  • Jon E Link

    agree…and the movie did show a bit of the flawed and self centered man…

  • The damned Jewish bolsheviks are a genocidal curse to mankind…

  • World Watcher

    You mean the 12 of them that are left. Duh it’s the head choppers. idiot

  • Al

    Funny how a group of people who often carry constitutions in their pocket, and cite it like the word of God, are always wanting to shut other people up when they disagree with them. You completely miss the point of the film and his struggle (which was real). Despicable people have the same constitutional rights as everyone else (though I don’t think Trumbo was a horrible person).