Diana West Invents a New Conspiracy

David Horowitz was one of the founders of the New Left in the 1960s and an editor of its largest magazine, Ramparts. He is the author, with Peter Collier, of three best selling dynastic biographies: The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty (1976); The Kennedys: An American Dream (1984); and The Fords: An American Epic (1987). Looking back in anger at their days in the New Left, he and Collier wrote Destructive Generation (1989), a chronicle of their second thoughts about the 60s that has been compared to Whittaker Chambers’ Witness and other classic works documenting a break from totalitarianism. Horowitz examined this subject more closely in Radical Son (1996), a memoir tracing his odyssey from “red-diaper baby” to conservative activist that George Gilder described as “the first great autobiography of his generation.” His latest book is Take No Prisoners: The Battle Plan for Defeating the Left (Regnery Publishing).

Twitter: @horowitz39
Facebook: David Horowitz


rebuttal for blogDiana West is still on the attack over my decision to remove a review from Frontpage that could be looked at as endorsement of her embarrassingly kooky book which has pulled the wool over a number of conservative eyes. Her attack which is published today on Breitbart.com accuses Ronald Radosh and me of trying to “suppress” her views because we are closet liberals and pro-communists.

It is a political truism that cover-ups often turn out worse for the guilty parties than the faults they seek to hide. So it is with Diana West’s campaign of slander against Ronald Radosh and myself because she is incapable of answering our criticisms of her poorly conceived, ill-informed, conspiracy mongering book.

She is incapable of responding to the specifics of our critique – her misrepresentation of the pro-Soviet Harry Hopkins as an actual Soviet spy, her preposterous claim that Lend-lease and D-Day were Soviet plots or that the decision shared by Winston Churchill to suppress the facts of the Katyn massacre was a Kremlin design. So she accuses us of a conspiracy to suppress her work because it challenges the “liberal consensus.”  This is a consensus that denies the sorry history of Communist subversion, infiltration and malevolent anti-Americanism. According to West we decided to conduct “a scorched earth policy to preserve and protect the conventional narrative as promulgated by mainstream academia.”

If you are not already laughing, you should be. Radosh and I have collectively spent 50 years writing several million words and nearly twenty books attacking the liberal consensus, and exposing the anti-American agendas of radicals and Communists, specifically those who infiltrated and finally took over academia.

West has a revealing answer to such objections:

“‘But FrontPage is a conservative site,’ I can hear people say. This stopped me, too, at first. Then I realized that the books Radosh cites in his ‘take-down’–not to debate my ideas, but to impugn them–are written by academics from Yale, Harvard, and Stanford. That’s liberal academia.”

That’s her answer! Here we have West’s methodology – and the methodology of her book — on full display. Instead of actually dealing with the objection, she finds a liberal link she can use to link us to her conspiracy. As everybody knows a conservative academic’s lot in universities like Yale, Harvard and Stanford – not to mention Emory where Harvey Klehr is a professor – is embattled. But West does not even bother to characterize the actual views of the academics Radosh cites. For her, their mere association with institutions on which she can pin a label is sufficient to impugn their views and damn them as part of a liberal conspiracy against her. And that is the problem with her book. To believe it you’d have to believe that Churchill, Eisenhower, and the American General Staff were all Soviet agents or dupes, along with every conservative historian critical of West’s conclusions.

I did say that “Diana West should not have written this book,” but that was not because I wanted to suppress her views (I’ve actually given them more publicity than anyone) but because her book is an embarrassment to her and to every conservative misled by it. That was also the reason I removed Frontpage’s endorsement of her book (I did not suppress the Frontpage review as she falsely claims, but allowed it to appear elsewhere). She has now published an eBook called The Rebuttal with that quote on the cover and all her personal attacks on Radosh and me inside. The subtitle is this: “Defending American Betrayal From The Book Burners.” Book burners. And she still has the gall to call us calumniators.

In closing let me clarify something that seems generally misunderstood. There are a lot of facts in West’s book with which neither Radosh nor I have any quarrel. These pertain to the large numbers of Soviet sympathizers, and significant numbers of Soviet agents in Washington and Hollywood that West writes about. Our quarrel is with the unwarranted conclusion she draws from this, which is that American policy in World War II was run by the Kremlin. As Samuel Johnson once said of another writer’s work, what is true in Diana West’s American Betrayal is not original and what is original is not true.

Postscript: And BTW, West’s “rebuttals” are not rebuttals. Despite a Yale education, she doesn’t seem to know the meaning of the word. Here is one typical self-refuting example from her new book:

Radosh:

She argues that during the New Deal the United States was an occupied power, its government controlled by Kremlin agents who had infiltrated the Roosevelt administration and subverted it. (Emphasis added.)

3) FALSE: The phrase “the United States was an occupied power” does not appear in American Betrayal. This connotes a state of military occupation that is not under consideration.

FACT: I argue at length that the strategic placement of hundreds of agents of Stalin’s influence inside the US government and other institutions amounted to a “de facto occupation” (p. 114). Later (p. 193), I write: “The vast and deep extent of Communist penetration, heretofore denied, had in fact reached a tipping point to become a de facto Communist occupation of the American center of power.”

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • tic…tic…BOOM

    The best defense is an offense.

  • Kate

    If this rebuttal by Diana West is published today (9 Sept) at Breitbart, it’s invisible to me.

    I have been fascinated by this whole controversy. Radosh and Horowitz make very specific criticisms of West’s book, which, if true, demolish her thesis. Both men readily point to the fact that there were Soviet sympathizers and agents galore in FDR’s circle, but that the claim that his policies were “controlled by Soviet agents” is not supported by facts. They cite facts. In particular, if Hopkins wasn’t, in fact, a Soviet agent (it was somebody else, at State) then his leadership of Lend-Lease wasn’t “controlled” by a Soviet agent. Neither West’s responses nor most of the comments I see here and elsewhere deal with the facts at all. It’s just name-calling.

    Come on, people. Conservative thought is supposed to be about facts!

    • Laddie_Blah_Blah

      From the Mitrokhin papers, page 111, here are some facts regarding Harry Hopkins:

      “Stalin must have welcomed the fact that Roosevelt was bringing to Tehran his closest wartime advisor, Harry Hopkins… Hopkins had established a remarkable reputation in Moscow for taking the Russians into his confidence. Earlier in the year he had privately warned the Soviet embassy in Washington that the FBI had bugged a secret meeting at which Zarubin (apparently identified by Hopkins only as a member of the embassy) had passed money to Steve Nelson, a leading member of the US Communist underground. Information sent to Moscow by the New York residency on the talks between Roosevelt and Churchill in May 1943 had also probably come from Harry Hopkins. There is plausible but controversial evidence that, in addition to passing confidences to the Soviet ambassador, Hopkins sometimes used Akhmerov as a back channel to Moscow… Hopkins so impressed the Centre that, years later, some KGB officers boasted that he had been a Soviet agent.”

      Even some in the KGB reportedly believed Hopkins was an operative. Regardless, his liaisons with the Soviets would be considered treasonous, today, whether he was on their payroll, or not.

      “In the course of the Tehran Conference, Hopkins sought out Churchill privately at the British embassy, and told him that Stalin and Roosevelt were adamant that Operation OVERLORD… must take place the following spring, and that British opposition must cease. Churchill duly gave way. The most important political concession to Stalin was British-American agreement to give the post-war Soviet Union its 1941 frontier, thus allowing Stalin to recover his territorial gains ill-gotten under the Nazi-Soviet Pact: eastern Poland, the Baltic states and Moldova…

      ‘…Roosevelt’s willingness to go so far to meet Stalin’s wishes at Tehran had derived chiefly from his deep sense of the West’s military debt to the Soviet Union… But there is equally no doubt that Stalin’s negotiating success was greatly assisted by his knowledge of the cards in Roosevelt’s hands.”

      Stalin did have his way regarding both Operation OVERLORD and the post-war frontiers in eastern Europe, according to the KGB’s own archives.

      On another occasion, Hopkins reportedly revealed to the Soviet ambassador that the FBI had bugged the home of one of its operatives in California (Steve Nelson) – see page 122:

      “The Soviet ambassador was told confidentially by none other than Roosevelt’s advisor, Harry Hopkins, that a member of his embassy had been detected passing money to a Communist in California.”

      That is not according to Diana West, but according to the KGB archives smuggled out of the Soviet Union by its long-time archivist, Vassily Mitrokhin. If Hopkins was not an actual Soviet operative, he may as well have been.

    • RCraigen

      Your confusion about West’s rebuttal stems from the fact that Mr. Horowitz is not linking to it, leaving it to your imagination or for you to infer from his description.

      As you know, in civil internet discourse, when debating with someone publishing responses at a different site it is standard to LINK to the other person’s words so that readers can compare both, side-by-side, and decide for themselves who is right. As you can see over at Diana’s blog, she has been doing this steadily since this debate has begun with Radosh’s original calumnious piece, but Mr Horowitz has not been reciprocating.

      To any person familiar with internet debating, this ought to be a clear sign of who is behaving with good faith. Mr Horowitz is acting as a gatekeeper to correct opinion, and he apparently does not think it worth your time to have access to her responses.

      Well, I do.

      You can find them by scanning through the first few weeks of her blog entries, but I’ll list her OFFICIAL responses, so far, here. They are comprehensive. They are well-documented. They are sharply worded. But she does not engage in fabrication or misrepresentation of her opponents’ words as Horowitz and Radosh do, nor does she reciprocate their attempts at character assassination.

      Part 1:
      http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/05/The-Rebuttal-Part-One

      Part 2:
      http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/07/The-Rebuttal-Part-Two

      Part 3 (will probably appear at Breitbart.com within a day)

      A briefer summary over at Gates of Vienna:
      http://gatesofvienna.net/2013/09/rebuttal-the-summary/

      A recent talk she gave at Rabbi Hausman’s synagogue as part of the Hausman Memorial Speakers Series, a two-hour event in which she outlines in some detail the major elements of her thesis, how it is documented, and the controversy it has sparked:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l5nq2ujLL0

      This reply by Horowitz first appeared at Breitbart.com after the first part of West’s reply came out. I see that he has added an introductory paragraph with yet more inventions concerning things she has not said. Kate, read her words yourself.

      Probably the main point of contention in the whole affair is the role of FDR’s most trusted man, Hopkins, during WWII. Here is the late eminent scholar of this subject, Herbert Romerstein, who addresses that very point, emphatically taking exactly the same position as Ms. West.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwL6K8Kt2Fw

  • bobguzzardi

    What was the impact of Henry Wallace on the policies of the Roosevelt Administration? There is not doubt that Henry Wallace was enamored with the ideas and policies of Stalinist Soviet Communism, so what were the consequences and how did Henry Wallace come so close to being president given the declining health of FDR?

  • cecil91

    C’mon you guys, we have enough problems without beating up on each other. Amazon has a near five star book reviewers’ rating, and her take on Harry Hopkins and other points have earned credit where thinkers dwell:

    http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2013/08/14/an-unambiguous-example-of-harry-hopkinss-pro-soviet-perfidy-revealed/

    So debate the points, but don’t shut each other down, and in particular don’t go on personal attacks within your own camp, because no one benefits except the political enemy.

  • Bill Tracy

    “So it is with Diana West’s campaign of slander against Ronald Radosh and myself because she is incapable of answering our criticisms…”
    22,000 words is not answering?

    • David Horowitz

      Not those 22,000 words.

    • ziggy zoggy

      22,000 words of pettifoggery, misdirection and accusations. Her main gripe seems to be that Radosh didn’t address every single sentence in her book.

    • David Horowitz

      Not those 22,000 words. Read her rebuttal (posted at the end of my article) to Radosh’s claim that her book argues that Washington was occupied by the Kremlin. Her rebuttal confirms Radosh’s claim, but she says it’s false. Why would you need to read another word she’s written to conclude it’s not worth the effort?

      • RCraigen

        David, I am a de facto “columnist” here at FPM because of the number of words I have written in comment sections trying to inject some sense into this discussion. But not de jure because you have not given me this title, and my words don’t appear as “posts”.

        “De facto” amounts to saying “for all intents and purposes”, though perhaps not “officially” or “by title” or “according to the usual rules”.

        West speaks of de facto control via a comprehensive influence operation. This is NOT the same as “confirming” Radosh’s claim that she SAID Washington WAS occupied for the Kremlin. You guys seem to have a tin ear for perfectly ordinary English rhetoric in this matter. The only question that remains in my mind: wilful, or unwitting?

        • ziggy zoggy

          Control is control, numb nuts. Infiltrators influence while occupiers control. De facto control is control.

          West’s rebuttal is ridiculous and you are a de facto moron.

  • RCraigen

    Mr. Horowitz, you’re just digging yourself deeper. At least provide links to her words, as I have just done here so readers can judge for themselves who has the better case.

    • David Horowitz

      I posted her words above. I think her statement that Washington was defacto an occupied center of power by Soviet agents while calling Radosh a liar for saying she said that is sufficient in itself that this woman doesn’t even know what she herself is saying.

      • RCraigen

        (a) You have just added a link to the main page of the Breitbart sites where here three-part response is now fully posted. But this is dishonest too. You know very well that it is a news aggregator site — articles are buried in the archives there often within 24 hours of posting. The piece to which you refer is already several days old. I defy anyone to find it quickly starting only with the link you provide. You are still (I must infer deliberately) setting up an energy barrier against people cross-checking your statements about her words, or placing yours and hers alongside each other to compare their relative merits.

        (b) If by “I posted her words above” you mean you have quoted a few bits of clipped text from her long rebuttal, then all you are doing is cherry-picking phrases you wish to take apart. This is not what I mean by showing good faith, and it does not rise to the level of transparency or facilitation of open discourse that West has been doing all along. Why should someone have to ASK you to encourage readers to read her words in their full context as she does with yours?

        Further, how are your readers to know what is in her mouth and what is not? I defy you to justify your claim that she said your actions are “… because we are closet liberals and pro-communists.”

        Finally, it is dishonest to use phrases like “… Instead of responding to the specifics of our critique…” and “… she is incapable of answering our criticisms…” that make a clear implication that her response is not thorough, and accompany it only with teensy, cropped and cherrypicked phrases from that response. Unless the reader tracks down and crosschecks the response itself, how are they to know the degree to which you are bluffing here?

        For the interested reader, West now has a page linking to all three parts of her extensive rebuttal.

        • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

          using the handy “site:” filter on both Google and Bing, you can find it reeeeel fast.

          • RCraigen

            Is there a part of “starting only with the link you provide” you have difficulty understanding, K? Providing only a link to the mainpage at Breitbart is no better than saying, “It’s somewhere on the Breitbart site — look it up yourself!”. It shows contempt for any reader that might want to crosscheck or hear out both sides. It’s a measure of goodwill. Or lack thereof.

          • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

            Sure. Try to make a big deal out of something ridiculously simple. That helps the situation loads.
            I thought only the media were afraid of search engines.

          • RCraigen

            Save your advice about making big deals out of minor details for Radosh. I’m talking about courtesy and convention.

          • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

            Save your whining.

            You’re joining those who’d rather blow this thing out of proportion than let it go. The whole thing is stupid, and everyone pushing it on both sides knows it’s stupid. But rather than just disagree, they want to act like children.

            And by the way, you are aware that if you just type breitbart.com in most rich text editors it shows up as a link, right? Sure you are.

            I’m guessing if someone meant to provide an actual link they would have pasted one in. Either way, learn how to find stuff on your own if you don’t want to seem like you’d rather perpetuate a grievance than arrive at the truth.

  • MHoskinson

    David, I respect your work immensely but you and Ron Radosh are acting suspiciously here. The amount of vitriol directed at West personally, the ad hominem attacks, suggest to the reader that there is more to your disagreement than just an argument over data. The simple fact that we know there were Soviet agents in the US government but in today’s world the only meme that survives is “McCarthyism” shows us that a concerted propaganda campaign poisoned the public’s view of this time period…..the history should reflect the Communist infection first and foremost, not McCarthy. We need to examine West’s book and further data to make the history clear, please don’t get in the way of that process.

    • David Horowitz

      We examined West’s book. It discredits anti-Communism. What personal vitriol are you talking about? West has called us communists, book burners and liars. You think we should not respond. All this is over a bad review of West’s book, which she took personally, and obviously can’t handle. When you spend twenty years trying to expose the Communist influence in the left and in government and another conservative comes along and says the whole American government was de facto controlled by Stalin, that threatens to undermine the entire anti-Communist case. That’s why I regarded West’s book as a problem. Since she called me a totalitarian and a liar before I said a public word about her book, I think you need to look to her for why this controversy has become so vitriolic.

      • MHoskinson

        Mr. Horowitz, thank you for your reply. My point is, vitriol can take many forms, in this matter I believe both yours and Ronald Radosh’s tone and language have shown a bias towards discrediting Ms. West personally instead of debating her facts. See the following examples, all have the effect of demeaning Ms. West and selling her as the agent of misinformation:

        “her embarrassingly kooky book which has pulled the wool over a number of conservative eyes.”

        “Even the most minimally informed reader will recognize the most obvious chink in West’s conspiracy theories”

        “I don’t have a lot of hope that this will change because West has already shown herself to be a very angry, very self-centered and very reckless partisan, with a paranoid streak and a disposition to think in extreme terms that have only a tenuous and deceptive relation to the truth.”

        “Conspiratorial theories of history are easy to create once you are prepared to ignore the realities on the ground, or regard those who do take them into account as part of the conspiracy too. This is the path that Diana West has taken in her misconceived and misleading book”

        “It is even more depressing that her book perpetuates the dangerous one dimensional thinking of the Wisconsin Senator and his allies in the John Birch Society which have allowed anti anti-communism to have a field day in our intellectual culture.”

        Mr. Horowitz, what is wrong with anti-Communism ?? it should have a field day in every part of our culture !! America has been utterly transformed by many factions of Leftists, from Communists to the Frankfurt School we have been dismantled from the inside out and any light we can shine on the allegations, and of course the truth, will help us destroy the lies told by the Left.

        We all acknowledge that there was some level of Soviet infiltration in the American government, no? Why then is “McCarthyism” the only meme that survives in our modern world? This fact alone proves there was massive propaganda that changed the historical narrative; I believe a re-reading of history and intense examination are therefore warranted.

        I personally believe that there would be no Barack Obama if not for some high level of Soviet/Communist infestation of America. This certainly did not happen overnight. “In each and every instance,” West writes, “it was the anti-Communists, the ex-Communists, and the Cassandras who were punished and castigated by the Washington Establishment, and then ostracized for their ‘crimes’ of exposing treason.”….is this not true Mr. Horowitz ?? My sole reason for reading her book and others is to understand the events that allowed a Barack Obama to exist. I believe we should examine all sides of this issue so we can understand who the true enemies are and destroy them; ugly infighting between those on the right side of the issue can only obfuscate the message and destroy our ability to do battle.

        “My goal was the same in approaching the impending controversy over West’s book. I wanted the intellectual issues to be the focus of the debate; I wanted a clarity to emerge about the roles the historical actors had played. Radosh’s critique of American Betrayal sets a high standard in this regard. Neither West nor her supporters have begun to meet that standard or attempted to answer even one factual claim that Radosh has made about her book.” I appreciate that you made this point sir. Ms. West has penned a 3-part rebuttal, perhaps it’s an opportunity to take both sides now and focus on a debate about each side’s assertions ?? Perhaps some sort of live debate between the two sides to air out the facts would be an advisable compromise?

        Sir, I respect you and the great work you have done. I humbly suggest that some sort of reproach be made between the two parties as we are hopefully, working towards the same goal.

  • sonoftompaine

    For all of his scholarly ways, why tha hell does David continue to call socialists and communists by the good name of “liberal” (which any classic free market person KNOWS, means freedom). Give it up David ! Did David ever call Hitler or Stalin “liberal”?

  • visitor

    The reason that FDR (a liberal Democrat) and Churchill (a Conservative Tory) allied themselves with Stalin (a Communist) is that they thought that the main task was to defeat Hitler (a Nazi). Does anyone think that we were on the wrong side in World War II? There were some then who wanted to ally with Hitler against Stalin. Was there a third option? As to whether there were spies, sure, it has been proven that there were lots of them; mostly small fry, a couple very high up. Were they in total control of the US and UK governments? No reputable historian thinks so. Conspiracy theorists, whether they be of the far left (e.g., 911 truthers) or the far right (e.g., BHO birthers), reflect what the historian Richard Hofsteader termed “the paranoid tendency in American politics” and discredit the cause they claim to be upholding, however rabidly their small circle of loyal fans protest. But go ahead and savage Horowitz, Radosh, Klehr, and Haynes for putting historical accuracy ahead of partisan gamesmanship. I don’t have a dog in this fight though I admire the historians for their scrupulous devotion to their professional standards of evidence.

  • Texas Patriot

    Horowitz is a raging furnace of lies and paranoia whose lifelong litany of Neo-Communist, Neo-Leftist, and now Neo-Conservative ideologies have left the Republican Party as a burned-out hulk of its once glorious past, and his baseless attacks on Diana West’s book have clearly revealed him for what he truly is.

  • joesph

    communism and socialism is a matter of the will of the people…Dictators and despots, such as Hitler and Stalin and so forth, are to be opposed by any means necessary …and Jihad, by muslims, is a war to dictate by theology …it too must be opposed and it is getting near the point where Americans will choose any means necessary to put down world domination by Islam…Islam is no different than Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

    M. Stanton Evans’, who himself has been the subject of an error-laden hit job by Radosh in the past, is now weighing in on the matter of the Hopkins “19″ issue that for David is supposedly the centerpiece of why West is not to be taken seriously at all. It’s well worth a read (http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/2654/The-Evans-Haynes-Memos.aspx) and further reveals how things are not what they seemed as David and Radosh would have us believe. The real tragedy is that this all comes back to a matter where reasonable people could have had a discussion that would have been illuminating for those of us who need to read more about the nature of Soviet subversion in America during the FDR era. Alas, Radosh decided to precipitate this entire nasty business with his hatchet job on West, and after reading the Evans piece, I am now beginning to get the distinct impression that Radosh’s entire vendetta against West stems from the fact that since he got burned before trying to go after Evans, that this time he thinks it’s “safer” to go after someone whose work Evans has praised.

    • David Horowitz

      I know it’s futile of me to try to correct the willfully blind, but it was Evans not I who said I regarded the agent 19 issue important. It was only important to show how West disregards evidence she doesn’t like, in this case the evidence that Duggan was agent 19. For me the important issue is West’s preposterous conspiracy theories that make Churchill and Eisenhower and others Soviet pawns. And then that make Radosh and me Communist dupes, symps, whatever, because we criticized her whoppers. And then that make us book burners because she got bad review and I removed an endorsement. See a pattern?

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

        David, that explanation leaves me even more baffled. Your site *made* the Hopkins issue the centerpiece of your take-down of West. So much so that you then had Haynes and Klehr write an entire article devoted solely to the issue of Hopkins and “19″. You could have had an essay on the things that you now say is what makes West really terrible in your mind regarding scholarship but you instead decided on this point. Now when the evidence is becoming clear that West did not commit some egregious sin against historical scholarship on this matter regarding Hopkins, and that there is evidence to suggest duplicity on the part of your friend Ron Radosh (in which he once again said something dishonest in regards to M. Stanton Evans), you’re suddenly backing away and saying the Hopkins issue isn’t relevant. This comes off as trying to have it both ways.

        • Texas Patriot

          With Horowitz, it’s not “How do I love thee, let me count the ways”. Rather it’s “How do I hate thee, and if one way doesn’t work, I’ll find another.”

          • ziggy zoggy

            Really? A bad review is an act of hatred? And who started this? West is the one who went into full on shrieking harpy mode because she didn’t like the review or the removal of the first one.

            Why don’t you Westrolls spam The CPUSA site if you’re such dedicated cold warriors.

          • Martel

            Lol, thats clearly not how it happened. Its not even debatable, unless we all have a warped concept of time. Unless you have discovered and proven a new concept in quantum physics, I will keep believing watches worldwide are running correctly(and we know when they dont)

          • ziggy zoggy

            Myrtle, a lie told often enough does NOT become the truth. Worst and Lenin. Some role models you have there, fuckwit.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

            Silly ziggy. F-word insults are for kids who never grew up. :)

        • ziggy zoggy

          EricPack@$$,

          Hopkins was not the central thesis (“centerpiece”) of Radosh’s review (“take-down.”) Her unproved theories presented as facts to bolster her preconceived conclusion was.

          I’ve yet to see even one of you Westrolls admit that, much less admit that he is right. All I see is a constant stream of attacks along with hypocritical bleats of victimhood. You people are extremely obnoxious.

      • Texas Patriot

        DH: “I know it’s futile of me to try to correct the willfully blind…”

        Many of us are coming to that same conclusion about you.

      • Dobermite

        Actually David, unless I missed it or you are referring to something other than Evans correspondence with Haynes on this matter, Evans did not say the question of agent 19 was of great importance to YOU, but that Radosh has done everything to suggest its of great importance to him, having devoted much of his review to the matter and continuing to belabor the point since.

  • Alvaro

    The only ones who can be satisfied with this petty squabbling is the Left.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

    I note with amusement that David has been peppering this thread with various replies here and there that like his original post is amusingly devoid of substance, and consists only of ad homenim soundbites that would have done Keith Olbermann proud. And what is again amusing is how he out of the one side of his mouth talks about his superiority to West based on West supposedly being a conspiracy monger (when the rebuttals that he took no time to address make it clear that this is a gross distortion of her work), but then decides to prasie as “sane” the people who support him (what few there are in this thread) putting forth idiotic conspiracy theories that the angry reaction from so many of us is the result of West giving us marching orders to flood this place (Ziggy) or that we’re a bunch of Soros-Obama people (as Herb alleges at one point; this after he had said he’d never heard of the principle figures involved before this happened and who is just letting his blind hero worship of David be his guide).

    Diana has now produced more evidence that calls into question Radosh’s credibility on the Eduard Mark retraction story that David decided was the whole centerpiece to why West’s book had to be branded as evil. This would not be the first time that Radosh’s credibility is found to be lacking, as M. Stanton Evans can attest to.

    • ziggy zoggy

      Why don’t you just send that West guy a weiner photo and get it over with, you weird stalker?

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

        Yeah, David there’s an example of what I guess you’d call your “sane” and non-”kook” army, right? First the guy is too lazy to look up where Diana called you “pro-communist” and said he didn’t give a s**** where it is, and now, having nothing in the way of substance to offer, decides to use pornographic metaphors. Real classy group you’ve got behind you.

        • Dobermite

          LOL no kidding, this definitely falls into the category; “with friends like ZZ who needs enemies.”

          If I’m David I’m thinking, uh, can you please try not to help me this much.

          • ziggy zoggy

            You Westrolls are driving hundreds of people away from everything he writes with your obnoxious trolling. It didn’t work for the Paulbots and it doesn’t work for you.

            Nobody likes a fanatic.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

            Yeah, David, there’s your classy guy at it again referring to Diana as “he”. Remember, he’s *your* #1 fan and you’ve praised him here, and you have to account for him.

          • Nick

            Horowitz has deleted two of z-z’s comments which were overtly pornographic, so Horowitz has drawn a line – so now everyone who reads this thread can see what Horowitz believes is acceptable on his website. Kind of makes a mockery of his holier-than-thou act re. Diana West, mind you …

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

            If the one where he made an Anthony Weiner analogy is allowed to stand, I’m glad I don’t remember what the “overtly pornographic” ones were. But that he let the Weiner one stand is a testament to how David no longer has any business defining what constitutes the “sane” and what constitutes a “kook army”.

          • Buck

            Self hatred, oh dear you really aren’t well, are you?

          • ziggy zoggy

            Suck, you sure are a glutton for punishment. Add masochism to your list of mental illnesses.

        • Jed West

          Right on the money Eric. This guy isn’t worth responding to. He is about as low as it gets but is pretty representative of the level of people who support Horowitz’s sputtering vitriol and mendacity. The more he talks, the more he undermines his idol Horowitz as you note.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Jed Worst, you Westrolls viciously spam a site because you can’t handle criticism of a crappy book that presented theories and possibilities as facts to support a preconceived and asinine conclusion – and then go full on psychotic if your calumny is countered with facts. If anybody deserves to be insulted, it’s you Westards. All I’ve seen from you ret@rds is one ad hominem attack after another. You project your own character flaws on others and hypocritically claim victimhood every time you hurl your insults. You are as low as it gets and not worth responding to but apparently representative of anybody who likes the conspiracy theories and clinical paranoia of your brother’s book. Not one of you has come out and admitted that his conclusion was ridiculous. If you think the Soviets controlled U.S. policy in WWII through a “de facto occupation” of Washington, you are deranged.

            Being deranged could be why you accuse Horowitz and Co of lying and conducting a pogrom against you nut bars but I doubt it. You’re just unprincipled, nasty little turds who prefer ideology to facts. You remind me of leftists and islamopithecines. Same contemptible tactics and hatred for anybody who disagrees with you, except you practice different but equally destructive religions.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

            Gee, for someone who thinks we’re not worth responding to, you sure do a lot of “responding”. :) And as for getting low, we at least do not engage in pornographic metaphors, toilet metaphors, or other juvenile stuff out of the Pee Wee Herman school like making sneering comments questioning someone’s gender.
            The only thing we’ve ever called for, and which simple fairness called for, was for Diana West’s work to be treated with respect, and for disagreements with any of her points (which even I have with a couple items) to be dealt with in a respectful fashion. Her book is about a deeper issue of making us ask how extensive was the damage caused by the levels of Soviet espionage in America in this era and did it have the effect of fostering a climate of total indifference to the nature of the Soviet regime that had been more destructive than Hitler’s on a human rights level, and did it cause our leaders to inappropriately serve the interests of Soviet goals ahead of those of the United States (which if our regard for the Atlantic Charter was to have true meaning would NOT have meant bending backwards to accomodate Stalin in any way beyond the minimum of having him as an ally of convenience to defeat Hitler, but without receiving dishonorable plunder in the process).
            David Horowitz alas, let himself be led astray by an ego-centric author named Ron Radosh, who is not content to have gentlemanly disagreements with anyone who believes that there should be a revisionist view of the anti-Communist investigators who are stillt treated as demons in the liberal-centric view of this era that he prefers, in which the facts of espionage are acknowledged but certain liberal tenets of the era remain intact. Radosh demonstrated his willingness to lie to smear the reputations of those who argued this thesis before with M. Stanton Evans and now he’s doing it again, even to the point of lying about what Evans supposedly said at this 2009 conference where Eduard Mark was alleged to retract his viewpoints on Hopkins and the “19″ issue that Radosh and then David thought was the lynchpin to why Diana’s work needed to be smeared.
            When Diana talks about ‘de facto’ occupation, she is referring to the fact that when you have *500* spies and fellow travelers in positions of importance in the government bureaucracy there is going to be a net impact of that group collectively serving the interests of Soviet policy and carrying with it some dangerous long-term effects on the American psyche that were able to manifest themselves even when our leaders awoke to the external danger of the Soviet threat and began to take action. That is a viewpoint no self-respecting conservative should have any quarrel with, even if we might differ on details. For instance I think Diana errs on her assessment of Lend-Lease being organized to help Soviet interests or that Soviet interests desired it, because we have to remember this was during the days of the Hitler-Stalin Pact when the CPUSA was marching lock-step and now lining up with the America First Committee. In disagreeing with her on this point, I do so in the civil way that Ron Radosh cowardly refused to do so, and that is what the crux of this controversy really comes down to.
            I’ll look forward to your next Pee Wee Herman-Keith Olbermann style response. :)

          • Texas Patriot

            Eric Paddon: “Her book is about a deeper issue of making us ask how extensive was the damage caused by the levels of Soviet espionage in America…”

            “When Diana talks about ‘de facto’ occupation, she is referring to the fact that when you have *500* spies and fellow travelers in positions of importance in the government bureaucracy there is going to be a net impact of that group collectively serving the interests of Soviet policy and carrying with it some dangerous long-term effects on the American psyche that were able to manifest themselves even when our leaders awoke to the external danger of the Soviet threat and began to take action. That is a viewpoint no self-respecting conservative should have any quarrel with, even if we might differ on details.”

            Excellent points.

            The truth is that It is not about the military threat that the Soviets represented. Reagan destroyed that aspect of the Soviet menace in the 1980s. Rather, it is the subtle corrupting influence of totalitarian Communist and totalitarian Islamist ideologies that remain as the biggest threat to Western Civilization today.

            Unfortunately, the fact that Horowitz and Radosh seem to have NO IDEA how to carry on a reasonable and constructive political and philosophical discussion and debate of these issues and instead almost immediately resort to a campaign of lies, distortions, personal attacks, and character assassination against anyone who disagrees with them is almost proof positive that ANY association with Leftist and Communist political organizations for ANY length of time can have dangerous and long-lasting adverse effects that are only dimly perceived and understood by the persons involved.

          • Nick

            “Unfortunately, the fact that Horowitz and Radosh seem to have NO IDEA how to carry on a reasonable and constructive political and philosophical discussion and debate of these issues and instead almost immediately resort to a campaign of lies, distortions, personal attacks, and character assassination against anyone who disagrees with them is almost proof positive that ANY association with Leftist and Communist political organizations for ANY length of time can have dangerous and long-lasting adverse effects that are only dimly perceived and understood by the persons involved.”

            Amen brother.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Eric Pack@$$, you Worstrolls areaincapable o addressing the fallacies and unhinged conclusion of het bargain bin book. All ypu losers cate about is spamming a site you hate. You are evety bit as detan dishonest as the lefties.snd commies you claim tp hate.o hate. You ate beneath contempt. Go give Wotst a chili dog and STFU.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

            Gee, took you more than a day to just recycle another one of your tiresome bursts of Pee Wee Herman meets Keith Olbermann style crudity? :) I told you to hire some new writers! :D

            To David Horowtiz–This is *your* #1 supporter in this thread. What does that say about your army of the “sane’, I wonder?

          • Nick

            What’s your point?

          • ziggy zoggy

            Nickless, the point is that you Worstrolls are only here to spam somebody you hate. Fuck you, loser.

          • Nick

            And this is who David Horowitz thanks for defending him on Frontpage.

            With every comment like that he allows on his website, Horowitz’ reputation sinks even lower.

        • ziggy zoggy

          EricPack@$$, Horowitz already listed on multiple occasions where West claimed he was trying to preserve the “liberal narrative” and that he and Radosh couldn’t leave their communist past behind hi Every commentary she made about him did so, including her current rebuttal. You read her boring and narcissistic blog so you already know this. That makes you a mealy mouthed liar.

          If you Westrolls are going to cry about being insulted, don’t spam sites that you don’t like.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

        Yeah, David there’s an example of what I guess you’d call your “sane” and non-”kook” army, right? First the guy is too lazy to look up where Diana called you “pro-communist” and said he didn’t give a s**** where it is, and now, having nothing in the way of substance to offer, decides to use pornographic metaphors. Real classy group you’ve got behind you.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

    I note with amusement that David has been peppering this thread with various replies here and there that like his original post is amusingly devoid of substance, and consists only of ad homenim soundbites that would have done Keith Olbermann proud. And what is again amusing is how he out of the one side of his mouth talks about his superiority to West based on West supposedly being a conspiracy monger (when the rebuttals that he took no time to address make it clear that this is a gross distortion of her work), but then decides to prasie as “sane” the people who support him (what few there are in this thread) putting forth idiotic conspiracy theories that the angry reaction from so many of us is the result of West giving us marching orders to flood this place (Ziggy) or that we’re a bunch of Soros-Obama people (as Herb alleges at one point; this after he had said he’d never heard of the principle figures involved before this happened and who is just letting his blind hero worship of David be his guide).

    Diana has now produced more evidence that calls into question Radosh’s credibility on the Eduard Mark retraction story that David decided was the whole centerpiece to why West’s book had to be branded as evil. This would not be the first time that Radosh’s credibility is found to be lacking, as M. Stanton Evans can attest to.

  • emptorpreempted

    Liberal also means generous.

  • solinkaa

    “the decision shared by Winston Churchill to suppress the facts of the Katyn massacre was a Kremlin design.” It wasn’t? Now that’s news. Churchill knew, and Roosevelt knew, yet they sat on the truth for political expediency. I thought everyone knew that.

    • emptorpreempted

      The point is to mock the idea that Roosevelt (and by extension, Churchill) suppressed the truth about Katyn because Soviet spies made him do it.

  • truebearing

    “throttle the baby in the crib?” You’re getting more hysterical by the minute. What a singular style — hyperbole, grandiloquence, and self-righteousness — makes for an amusing read.
    It seems to me that you are one of the snarling dogs, but by no means the worst, mind you. :)

    • TienBing

      Next time you skim a thesaurus have someone explain the big words to you.

  • truebearing

    You posted this nonsense again? Why?

    • Nick

      If this Radosh fellow wanted to be taken seriously as a skilled & experienced academic then he should not have written an article loaded with emotive language and ad hominem attacks. He let the side down there.

      There was no need for him to do that if the facts were on his side. All he had to do was present his case in a reasonable, logical manner. But no.

      Don’t you agree with this?

      Yes or no.

  • Nick

    And that’s the point of all this, right there.

  • ziggy zoggy

    Great writing. Maybe you can prove Harry Hopkins was a Soviet agent, since your hero didn’t. Maybe you can prove the Soviets controlled U.S. policy in WWII, because he didn’t do that, either.

    Did you eat shrooms before you made that comment or are just channeling Kafka? Or maybe Don Jaun Peyote?

  • Dobermite

    Attention:

    This, I believe, requires everyones attention who is interested in this conversation, as it directly addresses a central issue in this debate and what can fairly be called a primary point of contention with West’s book according to Ronald Radosh.

    Radosh, in his initial review of Diana West’s book and afterwards, has gone to great lengths to dispute West’s claim that Harry Hopkins was a Soviet agent, or more specifically Agent 19, and in so doing Radosh, with an assist from Mark Kramer, tells of an off the cuff remark from Eduard Mark on a panel discussion, where E.D. just prior to his death recanted his prior contention that Harry Hopkins was indeed a Soviet agent and likely to be Agent 19, but in so doing he has drawn Cold War historian Stan Evans into the fray by suggesting E.D’s. remark was actually in response to something Evans, who was also on the panel, had said.

    In the following link Mr. Evans completely dismisses Radosh’s claim as a “fantasy”, repeatedly making the point that no such conversation or exchange took place, which calls into question Radosh’s veracity on this entire matter.

    http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/Entryid/2654/The-Evans-Haynes-Memos.aspx

    Now if I may add my own conclusions having carefully read the entire correspondence between Mr. Evans and John Earl Haynes, it is inconceivable to me and frankly it strains credulity to suggest that a Cold War historian as meticulous and painstakingly detailed in his work as Eduard Mark would have a change of heart on a matter this large, whether or not the chief confidante and advisor to FDR was a Soviet spy, and never bother to document it or go public in such a way so as to make his change of heart crystal clear to one and all, after-all Hopkins is a man Mr. Mark had publicly and unambiguously labeled a traitor, again no small matter when you consider the stature of Harry Hopkins and the level of influence he had over FDR.

    Again, E.D. was so meticulous in his work that John Haynes says the following:

    “When Vassiliev’s notebooks came into our hands, our regard for Ed’s (Eduard Mark’s) historical skills was such that he was one of the ‘specialists’ we gave copies to a year before the notebooks were made public …”

    “Ed was an excellent archivally oriented historian and after he examined them he regarded AV’s notebooks as totally reliable and was enthusiastic that they would allow him to put an end to the (Alger) Hiss matter.”

    “Ed was, well, a peculiar personality, a loner, and rubbed lots of people the wrong way. I, however, admired his dogged research skills …”

    Does that sound like a man who would reverse his prior findings on a man as high up in government as Harry Hopkins (after having publicly labeled Hopkins a traitor and a Soviet agent), someone so close to FDR himself, and never bother to tell anyone about it expect as an off the cuff remark and in private conversation?

    I say it does not, therefore Radosh’s version of events which puts Stan Evans dead center with E.D. responding to Evans, and indeed Kramer’s corroboration as well, simply does not pass the smell test, particularly in light of Stan Evans very public and unambiguous denial that this exchange even took place.

    Lastly, if this matter is of such importance to Radosh, so as to incite a civil war on the anti communist right, why would he also have not bothered to document or go public with this matter, Ed Mark’s recanting that Hopkins was a Soviet agent prior to his death, until now when he conveniently uses it to condemn West’s book?

    Prior to now, has Radosh ever documented or mentioned in any public setting that the prominent Cold War historian, Ed Mark, recanted that Hopkins was a traitor?

    If not, and I don’t believe he did, this too does not pass the smell test.

    • Nick

      So according to Radosh, Diana West should have been aware of this alleged private conversation, the details of which had never been published by anyone, ever.

      How on earth could anyone on earth have been aware of this alleged conversation?

      Of course Ms. West was not aware of this alleged conversation, because no one could possibly have been aware of it.

      But because Ms. West was not aware of one remark made in the course of this alleged conversation, Radosh goes on the attack.

      That is very strange, and unhealthy, conduct on the part of Mr. Radosh.

      Surely an email to Ms. West saying, “You may not be aware of this, but during a private conversation off-camera, the following occurred …” would have been more appropriate.

      • Dobermite

        Indeed, but its worse than that, much worse, according to Radosh this alleged comment from Ed Mark was in response to something Stan Evans had said during the course of the conversation, and Stan Evans, in his email correspondence with John Haynes, completely dismisses this alleged exchange a “fantasy.”

  • Dobermite

    And for a little comic relief, here is Ann Coulter skewering Ron Radosh for his equally hostile review of Stan Evans brilliant bestseller; ‘Blacklisted by History’

    Apparently Radosh gets his panties in a bunch anytime anyone strays from the lefts narrative that McCarthy was the devil incarnate, so he foolishly went after Evans, and Ann Coulter, as only Ann can, let him have it right between the eyes!

    LOL funny (but true):

    http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2007-12-05.html

    • Nick

      Read it.

      She tore Radosh a new one, no question about it.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

        I’m even more convinced that Radosh’s desire to do payback against Evans is the crux of why he became so hell-obsessed with wanting to take out West. He knows that his credibility is shot to hell when it comes to Evans, so instead he picks a fight with West to make her look evil and hopefully by extension make us think Evans is a crazy fool too. This entire controversy is not about neo-con plots, it’s about Radosh’s preening ego and the fact that Horowitz chose to sacrifice the credibility of FPM by stroking it.

  • Texas Patriot

    No one knows more about the totalitarian within than David Horowitz.

  • Buck

    Check out the article currently running on this very website about a “de facto” amnesty

  • Buck
  • Nick

    http://frontpagemag.com/2013/volpe/charged-with-raping-your-legal-citizen-child-u-s-will-not-deport/

    Mr. Horowitz,
    Do explain this writer’s use of the term “de facto” which appears in the headline of this article from your website.

  • CS

    It was just announced today that Diana West is the 2013 recipient of the Center for Security Policy’s “Mightier Pen Award.” Previous recipients include: Mark Helprin, Charles Krauthammer, Roger Ailes, William F. Buckley, Jr., A.M. Rosenthal, Andrew C. McCarthy, Norman Podhoretz, Claudia Rosett, and Monica Crowley.

    In announcing this recognition, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President and CEO of the Center for Security Policy, observed:

    “Diana West is among America’s most thoughtful and intellectually invigorating writers of our time. Her efforts to illuminate the contemporary threats to our society and culture – and to map out their historical antecedents and the appropriate responses to them – in order to preserve our freedoms, Constitution and nation are exemplary. We take great pride in bestowing this recognition on a cherished friend and admired colleague.”

  • ziggy zoggy

    You are a conspiracy nut and a drooling moron. Churchill and WHAT generals wanted to go across the Alps? There is a reason the men in charge rejected that idiotic option, AS DID CHURCHILL after proper reflection, you fucking ret@rd.

    D-day enraged Stalin, you twit. Stalin’s heII never conquered the world, dolt. Hitler would have if America hasn’t been drawn into the war.

    You are a lunatic. Somebody needs to tighten your straitjacket so you can’t reach a keyboard.

    • Nick

      This is the level of discourse at David Horowitz’s website, apparently. He who talks about maintaining rigorous academic standards and the need to always employ proper methodology, etc, etc.

  • Nick

    Horowitz tries to defend his position by saying that although Ms. West argued that the strategic placement of hundreds of agents of Stalin’s influence inside the US government and other institutions amounted to a “de facto occupation” Radosh was correct to attack West’s work by claiming: “She argues that during the New Deal the United States was an occupied power, its government controlled by Kremlin agents who had infiltrated the Roosevelt administration and subverted it. ”

    When Ms. West responded to this by pointing out that she had not said that the United States was an occupied power at all (and Radosh was attacking a straw man), Horowitz dismissed her response altogether, as if Radosh was quite right to misrepresent the actual words employed by Ms. West in his so-called “takedown” which Horowitz published on his website.

    There are many problems with this. If you want to criticize someone’s work then you are obliged to fairly represent their work and deal with precisely what they said. Not something close to it, and not something that you would like them to have said because it is easier for you to criticize.

    Radosh and Horowitz make a big deal of their academic experience and backgrounds, but a first year philosophy student could tell them that creating and attacking a straw man is intellectually dishonest.

    Funnily enough, there are several articles on Horowitz’ own website employing the “de facto” concept – do a search for the term, & see what you get.

    Here’s one I liked: Yes, American University Is Practicing De Facto Censorship (Guardino, J. Frontpage, April 6th 2010)

    • Nick

      Over to you, Mr. Horowitz.

    • Texas Patriot

      Since when does intellectual honesty have anything to do with the Bolshevist and Stalinist tactics of lies, personal attacks, and character assassination?

      • Nick

        Btw isn’t a McCarthy on steroids type of character pretty much what it’s going to take to stand up to and then reverse what has happened under the Obama administration?

        • Texas Patriot

          Having a McCarthy on steroids might be a nice thing for starters. Someone has to wake people up and catalyze the impetus for change. Basically someone needs to turn on the light and illuminate the hidden skeletons in the dark room. Ultimately, however, it’s going to take a NATION of highly motivated and highly energized Authentic American Patriots to reverse the profound cultural, moral, and societal damage caused by the mismanagement of our national government by corrupt buffoons from both political parties over the last fifty years.

          One man or one woman can’t do it. No one can do it alone. We’re all going to have to want it, and we’re all going to have to work together to make it happen, if we want to have any hope of restoring a government of the AMERICAN people, by the AMERICAN people, and for the AMERICAN people, as envisioned by Abraham Lincoln.

          Whenever it happens and however it happens, it’s going to be a lot of fun for those of us who still think that the AMERICAN DREAM is the greatest idea in the history of the world.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

      If Horowitz and his pal Radosh want to be consistent they should also be equally venemous toward M. Stanton Evans and the late Herb Romerstein, because all West does is basically restate in her style, the same general thesis of the Evans/Romerstein book “Stalin’s Secret Agents.” That they have not done so reveals that this whole farce they instigated was precipitated by a desire to bully Diana West specifically and falsely suggest her book’s POV has never been argued by other so-called “serious” historians. In fact, West in addition to echoing the thesis of Evans/Romerstein also falls in the tradition of other respected authors like Thomas Fleming-”The New Dealers War” (this is the Thomas Fleming who is a respected historian; NOT the more controversial paleocon writer) and Robert Nisbet, “Roosevelt and Stalin-The Failed Courtship.” And those who call themselves “conservative” have no business consigning these kinds of perspectives to the Birchite realm as Radosh and Horowitz in their smear campaign have done.

    • David Horowitz

      Diana West doesn’t understand the words she uses, or does understands them and tries to back away from them to avoid their implications. If are able to read her book, or merely her response to Radosh you will realize that she means exactly what she says he means. West’s knee jerk response to criticism of what she said is to put distance between herself and what she said, but this won’t wash. I don’t have an academic background but I do understand what evasion, sophistry, disingenuousness and outright lying is. She has lied about me, calling me a book burner and an anti-anti-communist, so it seems reasonable conclude that she would lie about what she wrote and what she meant when confronted with her preposterous claims.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

        And when you decided to write boldly at the top of the Radosh “review” about Diana’s “refusal” to rebutt the Radosh piece without informing the readers what you already knew that she had declared to you her intention to write her own rebuttal in the place of her choosing and not in a place that had chosen to treat her shabbily by taking down a positive review rather than letting it run alongside a negative one (and in the process revealing that there must be uniformity of thought on West’s book from anyone who wants to write for FPM; like it or not this is the impression you conveyed that did smack of every leftist academic trick in the book that FPM has been standing up against for years), you were telling a half-truth. Full accruacy would have required giving us the full context of what West said to you rather than the false impression you evidently chose to create that West couldn’t possibly have had anything to say in response to the rebuttal and was refusing to *ever* respond to it.
        As for those “preposterous” claims, what is she asserting that is any different from what (1) Evans and Romerstein have written about the impact on the *influence* of policy by this large network of Soviet spies in America in this period and fellow-travelers (2) what Thomas Fleming has written about in criticizing the “unconditional surrender” policy (3) what Robert Nisbet once wrote about the Second Front debate, in which West merely echoes the point how Churchill saw Italy as something to do in conjunction with Normandy and (4) what others have argued about Hopkins in the past? This is where Radosh’s dishonesty enters the picture and where the crossing of the line took place. You can make an academic argument against some of West’s points in a reasonable fashion, but to cast her as a Birchite, or as the mirror image of Oliver Stone (as Radosh did in one of his other pieces) is the real outrage.

      • Nick

        If are able to read her book, or merely her response to Radosh you will realize that she means exactly what she says he means. – DH

        That doesn’t make a lot of sense. Care to clarify?

        • Nick

          Because if you meant to say that despite the fact that Ms. West did not actually write what Radosh claims she wrote, when she typed those words at her laptop, what she really meant was what Radosh would like her to have meant …

          then all you’re doing is admitting that Radosh created a straw man. And we are indeed seeing evasion, sophistry and disingenuousness being employed – by you – in an attempt to defend a completely untenable position.

      • Buck

        “I don’t have an academic background but I do understand what evasion, sophistry, disingenuousness and outright lying is.”

        Yes, we can all see that.

      • Buck

        Was John Guardino “not playing with a full deck” when he wrote that article then? And were you “not playing with a full deck” when you published it on your website?

        Here is the link.

        I put it to you that the conservative world is seeing an example of evasion, sophistry and disingenuousness from you now.

      • Nick

        Diana West is still on the attack overmy decision to remove a review from Frontpage that could be looked at as endorsement of her embarrassingly kooky book – DH

        That’s not true. Diana West is responding – defensively – to the subsequent “review” aka. the “takedown” which you published on Frontpage.

        It seems reasonable to conclude that if you would lie about that, then no one should trust anything you say now.

        Hoisted by your own petard.

      • Nick

        M. Stanton Evans lays out a proper argument explaining why you and your comrade Radosh don’t have a leg to stand on.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

        Look here, David. http://pjmedia.com/blog/revisiting-the-diana-west-controversy/ David Solway at PJ Media rips you and Radosh for your behavior in causing this controversy to erupt. And here’s another reminder of how we have another outlet (PJ) that ALLOWS both sides to be heard, which is what you did NOT do when you took down the Tapson review to then run a personalized hit job on West that had nothing to do with scholarly disagreement, and why she told you to then take a flying leap. Face facts, David, you and Radosh brought on this mess when you decided to betray everything you’ve stood for on academic freedom.

  • Nick

    A question for Mr. Horowitz:

    Do you agree with Claire Lopez’s sacking?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

      David earlier when asked that professed ignorance on who Clare Lopez is and said he wasn’t familiar with Gatestone even though he is listed as one of their “authors” (though the only item is a reprint from a FPM piece in 2011; nonetheless he has to be familiar with them in order to grant this permission).

    • david horowitz

      I don’t know the rationale behind her firing; I never heard of Claire Lopez until her firing was brought to my attention; since I offered to post Diana’s rebuttal of Radosh (she refused my offer), I think it should be clear that I would never support the firing of someone simply because they disagree with me.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

    M. Stanton Evans, he who Radosh was too cowardly to take on directly in this whole controversy, weighs in. http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/m-stanton-evans/defense-diana-west#

    • Texas Patriot

      EP: “M. Stanton Evans, he who Radosh was too cowardly to take on directly in this whole controversy, weighs in. http://www.cnsnews.com/comment…”

      Thanks for the link, EP. So much for the theory that Radosh and Horowitz are taking the position of “serious scholars” on this issue:

      “Ms. West in particular stresses the infiltration of the government of that era by Communists and Soviet agents, linking the presence of these forces to U.S. policies that appeased the Russians or served the interests of the Kremlin.For making this critique, Ms. West has been bitterly attacked by writers Ronald Radosh and David Horowitz, Roosevelt biographer Conrad Black, and a considerable crew of others. The burden of their complaint is that she is a “conspiracy theorist” and right wing nut whose views are far outside the mainstream of historical writing, and that she should not have presumed to write such a book about these important matters.

      “Though the professed stance of her opponents is that of scholarly condescension, the language being used against Ms. West doesn’t read like scholarly discourse. She is, we’re told, “McCarthy on steroids,” “unhinged,” a “right-wing loopy,” not properly “house trained,” “incompetent,” purveying “a farrago of lies,” and a good deal else of similar nature. All of which looks more like the politics of personal destruction than debate about serious academic issues.”

      “Especially galling to West’s critics is her contention that Washington in the war years was so riddled with Communists and Soviet agents as to be in effect an “occupied” city — an image that seems to have sparked the greatest anger and most denunciation of her thesis. By using the “occupied” image, Ms. West is of course not saying Soviet tanks were patrolling the streets of Washington, or that Red martial law was imposed on its cowering citizens. What she is arguing instead is that Soviet agents, Communists and fellow travelers held official posts, or served at chokepoints of intelligence data, and from these positions were able to exert pro-Soviet leverage on U.S. and other allied policy. Though ignored in many conventional histories, the evidence to support this view is overwhelming.”

      “It is for instance abundantly plain, from multiple sources of Cold War intel, that Communist/pro-Soviet penetration of the government under FDR was massive, numbering in the many hundreds. These pro-Red incursions started in the New Deal era of the 1930s, then accelerated in the war years when the Soviets were our allies and safeguards against Communist infiltration were all but nonexistent. The scope of the problem was expressed as follows in an FBI report to Director J. Edgar Hoover: “It has become increasingly clear… that there are a tremendous number of persons employed in the United States government who are Communists and who strive daily to advance the cause of Communism and destroy the foundations of this government. Today nearly every department or agency is infiltrated with them in varying degree.. To aggravate the situation, they appear to have concentrated most heavily in departments which make policy, or carry it into effect…””

      “Diana West’s important book is a valiant effort to break through this wall of secrecy and selective silence. Her work in some respects touches on matters beyond my ken-such as Soviet treatment of American POWs– where I am not competent to judge . But on issues where our researches coincide-and these are many-I find her knowledgeable and on target, far more so than the conventional histories compared to which she is said to be found wanting . As the above suggests, her notion of wartime Washington as an “occupied” city, and the data that back it up, are especially cogent.”

      • Texas Patriot

        The irony of it all is that in their mad rush to portray Diana West as somehow misguided or off base in the research and writing of her book, “American Betrayal,” it would seem that all Messrs. Radosh and Horowitz have been able to accomplish is to call their own competence for historical accuracy into question.

  • v

    David, you should change your looks a little, from the photo, you look a little like Leon Trotsky

  • elkoz

    Dear David,
    When this started I said that I would like to see what other historians had to say about this. Perhaps I should have said I would like to have seen what people who knew what the truth was.

    Apparently Vladimir Bukovsky and Pavel Stroilov, who seem more than qualified
    to take an informed stand on this issue, have come down in favor of Diana West
    and have found Rodash’s comments wanting, which doesn’t surprise me as I found his rationale and style fraudulent and unpleasant. But past
    comments by him had already colored my perception as to the worth of his views.

    Their comments appear here:

    http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/2669/BUKOVSKY-STROILOV-ON-AMERICAN-BETRAYAL.aspx

    It is also apparent that Frontpage has failed to make any real attempt to find
    out what the truth really is on this issue, which I found difficult to
    understand, until I concluded….perhaps wrongly…..the real reason for that is this. If you accept what Diana West has presented you have to conclude that Roosevelt was a traitor. You also have to accept that his treason and the treason in his administration was deliberately hidden by Truman. And old lefties, especially old academic lefties, just can’t bring themselves to make that leap. I think they still view FDR with a degree of admiration believing him to have been wrong by righteous. And treason doesn’t fit that paradigm.

    You do good work in many areas and I will continue to read your articles and
    post links to them on my blog, but I must state that I am seriously disappointed in you and Frontpage. I now have reason not to trust your integrity in the future.

    Rich Kozlovich

  • Le Fox

    …D-Day was a Soviet conspiracy?

    …How? That’s not even in their own documents, and you can’t fool the Russians!

    It also makes me question this because why would any American, intelligent or otherwise, let a Commie in the government?

    Even the Katyn massacre was ruled a fake; the deaths were more or less due to the Soviet/Polish conflict.

    I had a sneaking feeling about Ms. West. She says she gleamed from primary resources, but I think actually paying a visit to the Kremlin would’ve helped.

    Had the focus been on Trotsky, there would be no questions there; both the US and Soviet governments knew what he was doing.