Editorial: Our Controversy With Diana West

diana-west-american-betrayalRather than responding to Ronald Radosh’s Frontpage review of American Betrayal, as a reasonable author might, Diana West has launched a series of personal attacks not only on Radosh but on the editors of Frontpage, calling us “hypocrites,” “totalitarians,” “ossified totalitarians,” commissars” and liars (“If Frontpage Will Lie about This, What Won’t They Lie About?”) and claiming we “suppressed” — also “purged” – a favorable review of her book because its opinions were “incorrect,” clearly implying that they were politically incorrect. She also seems to have inspired a small army to conduct a war on her behalf in our pages, whose attacks use the same talking points and seek to defame and discredit us, representing us as renegades who have persecuted her because of her views. In other words, instead of answering the factual criticisms that Radosh has made of her book, she prefers to treat his review as part of a political conspiracy against her work by people who only pretend to have the views they do. Readers of American Betrayal will find this kind of paranoid fantasy all too familiar.

I am solely responsible for the decision to remove the positive review of her book that originally appeared on Frontpage on which she builds her anti-Frontpage case. Here is what happened. When the Frontpage review of American Betrayal appeared I received an email from Ron Radosh whom I have known for more than sixty years, and whose work as a historian is respected not only by me but by every conservative academic historian with whom I am familiar. Radosh is a pioneer in documenting the guilt of the Rosenbergs, in analyzing the Amerasia spy case, in dissecting the Communist infiltration of Hollywood, and in being one of a small group of conservative historians who have resisted the minimizing of the Communist threat by progressives and the whitewashing of traitors like Alger Hiss.

In his email, Radosh said that he was greatly disturbed by Frontpage’s endorsement of West’s book, and then explained:

“It amounts to a Birch Society type conspiracy history theory of Communism and the Cold War, with half truths built to unwarranted conclusions, a failure to comprehend history in context, as well as great errors of fact that undermine her thesis.

“For one thing Harry Hopkins was NOT Agent 19 [as West claims]. That was Larry Duggan. It makes a big difference.

“She misuses Klehr and Haynes throughout the book, and when they actually draw opposite conclusions than she does, based on evidence, she simply says they are wrong without bothering to prove her point. This is not a difference of opinion; it is a failure to use evidence correctly in order to spin her conspiracy theories….

This is as important an issue. Do we really want conservatives to rewrite history based on an ideological view, while ignoring context, evidence and reality? That is what she does.” (emphasis added)

Once I saw that Radosh’s concern was methodological – the dishonesty in West’s use of conservative sources, her alleged abuse of evidence, and her construction of conspiracy theories not based on facts, I felt I had to examine the blanket endorsement our review had given her. When I spoke to the author of the review he readily conceded he was not familiar with the sources and could not properly assess such crucial matters as her claim that Soviet agents had gotten the United States to ship fissionable uranium to Stalin via Lend-Lease. Since West’s book was getting enthusiastic responses from other conservatives and since the conservative movement had suffered from conspiracy-minded demagogues in the past, I regarded our publication of an uninformed review irresponsible and told Frontpage’s editor Jamie Glazov to remove it. I also told him to communicate to Diana that while we were publishing a critical review we would give her as much space as she needed to defend her book.

Let me pause here to consider how she now presents herself as the persecuted victim of a Frontpage “suppression.” What persecution and what suppression? We posted an irresponsible review that promoted her book. We intended to publish a second review that would draw more attention to her book. We were going to give her as much space as she needed to defend her book, which would mean even more attention for her book. What author would not be grateful for all this attention? As for “suppression,” since the favorable review had already appeared and since no one can really erase something from the Internet, there was no suppression, merely the removal of our endorsement. Apparently, this was enough to set her on the warpath.

Instead of taking us up on our offer to open our pages to a controversy over her book, West launched a public attack on us calling us – for starters — hypocrites and totalitarians. At least she didn’t call us Soviet agents.

My position on these matters should be perfectly clear. Some years ago I wrote a lengthy review of Ann Coulter’s book Treason (in which, by the way, she trashed my friend Radosh). I adore Ann Coulter’s writings on liberalism, and most of the sharp wit she displayed in Treason amused me to no end. But in the course of her book Ann went too far and drew a picture in which the demagogic Joe McCarthy became not just right in that the targets he went after were Communists, but also an American hero; anti-Communists like Harry Truman and JFK, on the other hand, were painted with the same broad brush as Communist fellow travelers like Henry Wallace and Soviet agents like Alger Hiss. I felt that Ann was hurting herself and the conservative cause through these errors in judgment. But I did not go to war with Ann or call her names, or demonize her the way Diana West has demonized Jamie and me. I still adored her courage in exposing progressive hypocrisies and facing down progressive bullies, and respected her as a conservative thinker, and always will. In my critical review of Treason, I praised Ann for the marks she hit and explained my differences with her over the marks I thought she didn’t. It was the way I believed conservatives should conduct their differences.

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 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.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • Dado7

    Thank you Diana for writing an excellent book…I think Horowitz’ liberalism is not completely gone.

  • Shari Goodman

    About two years ago, our ACT! For America chapter distributed an online petition that sought the removal of the Muslim Student Association from the UCLA campus after they recited their Muslim Brotherhood pledge to “die for Allah” at their national conference held there. Our petition cited sedition as grounds for their removal. Meanwhile Jamie Glazov conducted an interview with me and the campaign to ban the MSA. Within hours of the published interview, Horowitz gave the signal to remove the interview. Additionally, he held a press conference to denounce our petition. By that time we had already gathered over 1000 signatures within a few days and would have gathered many more had we not been asked by our national leadership to stop our petition. Later, the Chancellor of UCLA held his own press conference in support of protected speech and he cited that EVEN Horowitz was in agreement.

    The irony is that Horowitz in his effort to protect freedom of speech for those who seek the destruction of our Constitution actively engaged in suppressing ours. No one wanted to wrestle with the mighty David Horowitz and judging by the treatment of Diana West, it is understandable why one would seek to avoid his wrath.

  • Texas Patriot

    This is a moment in American history when we should all be waking up to the twin-threats of foreign economic competition and foreign ideological competition. Instead, it seems obvious that we are falling ever faster and deeper asleep. Based on the hysterical and largely incomprehensible reaction to her latest book, it seems as if Diana West has illuminated a “forbidden elephant” in the middle of the room that no one is permitted to notice, much less talk about, and since no one knows how to respond to her specific points, everyone seems to be jibber-jabbering at extremely high volumes and with extremely high levels of anxiety because she had the temerity to point it out at all. This is not a time for hysteria. Rather it is a time for sober reflection.

    West’s basic points that we really didn’t “win” the Cold War against Communism and we really aren’t “winning” the Philosophical War against Totalitarian Islam are, it seems to me, virtually beyond rational dispute, and the evidence is overwhelming. During the last fifty years, roughly corresponding to the period after John Kennedy’s assassination up to and including the present, the United States has gone from the largest creditor nation in the world to the largest debtor nation in the world. We have lost millions of jobs and indeed entire industries to foreign competition. Our educational system has fallen from No. 1 in the world in science and math to Nos. 21 and 23, respectively. And our levels of health and physical fitness have fallen precipitously to the point that whereas health care was roughly 5.2 percent of our GDP in 1960, it has risen to more than 17% today.

    The truth of the matter is that the foregoing record of decay, stagnation, and decline is not “winning” in any sense of the word. Instead, it is a record of “losing” virtually everything that made America the greatest economic powerhouse in the history of the world. Unfortunately, without economic dominance, we will surely lose our military dominance, and without military dominance, there will be no possibility to maintain our philosophical and ideological freedom and independence. Whether we like what she is saying or not, and whether we want to hear it or not, Diana West is a voice crying in the wilderness that the American Dream is in danger, and hers is a voice we should probably pay more attention to.

    • Benjamin Kerstein

      Nothing you say addresses the points Radosh made about the factual inaccuracy of West’s book and the deranged conspiracy theory she derives from it.

      • Texas Patriot

        Diana West’s book is an important and long overdue attack on the failure of Western conservatives to refute and defeat the aggressive and totalitarian ideologies of Communism and Islam. Personally, I do not find it surprising that Ron Radosh would seek to obscure his own very large ideological failures by pointing out the relatively minor and largely unimportant historical inaccuracies in Diana West’s book, nor do I find that they detract substantially from the overall points Diana West is trying to make. If there are historical inaccuracies in the book, fine. They need to be pointed out and corrected. But what also needs to be pointed out is that conservatives such as Mr. Radosh bear a very large responsibility for the failure of the West to effectively contradict and defeat the fallacious and utterly counterproductive assumptions and ideas underlying totalitarian Communism and totalitarian Islam. And the fact that he would want to escape such responsibility by attacking the messenger of his failures does not surprise me in the least.

        • Benjamin Kerstein

          You don’t actually seem to know much about Radosh’s work. It’s been essential in proving such things as the guilt of the Rosenbergs and has debunked a great deal of the Leftist narrative about the effects of World War II and post-war era communism and unseful idiocy.

          As for West’s book – what Radosh points out are not minor inaccuracies. They are major failures of scholarship and a conspiracy theory based upon them.

          • Texas Patriot

            You’re right. I don’t know anything about his work, But based on his comments about Ms. West’s book, Mr. Radosh seems like a shallow academic who is focused totally on the minutiae of history and can’t see the forest for the trees.

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            As I already said, these are not issues of minutiae. They are major errors of fact. As for the rest, I think your projecting your own personal hatreds and resentments on to Mr. Radosh.

          • Texas Patriot

            You’re mistaken about that. I don’t hate Mr. Radosh, and I don’t hate Mr. Horowitz. Mr. Radosh may be a very nice guy, and Mr. Horowitz may be a very nice guy. But their venomous and vitriolic attacks against Diana West were, and are, completely misplaced and inappropriate, and in this instance they are doing much more harm than good in the overall war of Constitutional Democracy vs. Totalitarian Submission. Under these circumstances, I think Mr. Radosh and Mr. Horowitz should apologize to Ms. West, and offer her the hand of friendship and support in her future endeavors. If they are truly warriors in the ideological battle against totalitarian Communism and totalitarian Islam, it’s the least they should do.

            What I do hate is losing. I hate how we failed to refute and defeat the ideology of totalitarian Communism. And I hate how we are failing to refute and defeat the ideology of totalitarian Islam, and I welcome all those who are willing and able to make a contribution in the ideological battle for Constitutional Democracy and Individual Freedom.

            If Mr. Radosh and Mr. Horowitz are capable of making a contribution in that fight, I welcome their efforts as well. But they need to apologize to Ms. West, and I hope they are both men enough to do that sooner rather than later.

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            I did not mean that you hate them personally, rather than you are identifying them – in this controversy – with political forces you despise, but to which they do not belong.

          • Texas Patriot

            As I stated above what I hate the most is losing the ongoing ideological war between the forces of Freedom and Constitutional Democracy and the forces of Slavery and Totalitarian Submission. And of course I am willing to entertain the idea that Messrs. Radosh and Horowitz can still make important contributions in that fight. But there is no question that their long careers in fighting this battle have come to naught, and it is time for new ideas. Ms. West represents a conservative voice that is willing to reexamine the past with an eye toward discovering the mistakes and coming up with a new vision for victory.

            Is it possible that the work of Messrs. Radosh and Horowitz will have to be reevaluated in that process? Yes. Are they willing now to pass the baton and assist new leadership with new ideas? That remains to be seen. If they’re not, there is no question that they should now be regarded as part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

            On the other hand, if Messrs. Radosh and Horowitz actually care about the ultimate victory of Authentic American Conservatism, their vast knowledge and experience can play an if not indispensable role to new conservative visionaries and new conservative leaders. And if they are willing to play that vital role, the first step in the process is to apologize to Ms. West and invite her and her ideas into the fold and support her, even if her conclusions are not always flattering to the leadership of the last sixty years.

            That is the challenge they face. And how they respond to that challenge will speak volumes as to where they stand in the grand scheme of the ongoing war I referred to above. The ball is in their court.

          • BS61

            Hi Benjamin – I never heard of Ron before. I’ve looked up to Diana due to her disappointment both on the lefft and the right and her courage to stand up to the Saudi’s and the supposed birthers!

          • BS61

            Thanks Texas Patriot – I don’t know who Ron is either!

    • Mittymo

      You are correct.

      Khrushchev’s warning that the Soviets would bury us was misinterpreted.

      Most believed it meant the Soviets would crush us militarily.

      What he really meant is that subversives within the U.S. would get us to adopt many of the socialists’ policies & ideas.

      Instead of corrupting our borders, the Soviets corrupted our thinking.

  • semus

    McCarthy was and still is misrepresented and unfairly treated. The FDR Administration was rife with communist spies and Truman was part of the it. It turns out he wasn’t as anti-communist as I originally thought. My respect for him has waned.

  • KonaGabe

    Dana’s current column (breitbart) is a good read.

  • semus

    Where’s my comment? I had nothing offensive in it. I just wanted to add something to it concerning the repeated now known to be lies about McCarthy. What a successful coup that was.

  • DogmaelJones1

    Mr. Horowitz: Irrespective of the virtues or flaws in Diana West’s book, I am more than chagrined by FrontPage’s removal of Mark Tapson’s review and now by the concerted attacks on her that have ensued since she refused to
    dignify Radosh’s “review” by making a career of defending herself and her work on your terms. You have not answered the question of why you chose to play the equivalent of a three-card Monte game with readers’ heads by removing the Tapson review. Its removal is indicative of dishonesty and in fact amounts to a show of no-confidence in Radosh’s review. If you thought so little of Tapson’s
    review, why did you run it?

    This is aside from the three-card Monte game Mr. Radosh is playing himself in defense of his review.

    Now I see there is a major push to smear and discredit West and her book. You complain that she’s called you and your colleagues names. I have not noticed you or your colleagues refraining from name-calling, so you cannot really blame her for being outraged that she would be treated like a high school newspaper writer or a graduate of the Columbia School of Journalism. You
    insulted her and Mr. Tapson in an email, as well, alleging that Mr. Tapson was
    incompetent to review the book, and West incompetent to write it. I am the author of twenty books myself, and am a good judge of competency in fiction and nonfiction. If I were Mr. Tapson, I’d call you out for a knock-down-drag-out. Why are you objecting to West doing the same? Did you really expect her to just sit back and allow her character and intelligence to be publically given juvenile raspberries?

  • DogmaelJones1

    Mr. Horowitz: Irrespective of the virtues or flaws in Diana West’s book, I am more than chagrined by FrontPage’s removal of Mark Tapson’s review and now by the concerted attacks on her that have ensued since she refused to
    dignify Radosh’s “review” by making a career of defending herself and her work on your terms. You have not answered the question of why you chose to play the equivalent of a three-card Monte game with readers’ heads by removing the Tapson review. Its removal is indicative of dishonesty and in fact amounts to a show of no-confidence in Radosh’s review. If you thought so little of Tapson’s
    review, why did you run it?

    This is aside from the three-card Monte game Mr. Radosh is playing himself in defense of his review.

    Now I see there is a major push to smear and discredit West and her book. You complain that she’s called you and your colleagues names. I have not noticed you or your colleagues refraining from name-calling, so you cannot really blame her for being outraged that she would be treated like a high school newspaper writer or a graduate of the Columbia School of Journalism. You
    insulted her and Mr. Tapson in an email, as well, alleging that Mr. Tapson was
    incompetent to review the book, and West incompetent to write it. I am the author of twenty books myself, and am a good judge of competency in fiction and nonfiction. If I were Mr. Tapson, I’d call you out for a knock-down-drag-out. Why are you objecting to West doing the same? Did you really expect her to just sit back and allow her character and intelligence to be publicly given juvenile raspberries?

  • Shari Goodman

    Just noticed that you pulled my earlier posting of our ACT chapter’s experience with David Horowitz and the Freedom Center. Shame on you for censorshp and not adhering to David Horowitz’s virtuous belief in “the market place of ideas”.

  • Old enough to know better

    So David, you have known an respected Ron for more than 60 years – pre 1953! Assuming you were not children, that puts you both in your 80s. Perhaps you’re just having a senior moment! I read American Betrayal months ago when it was published. In fairness, I tried to read Radosh’s book review – more like the gospel according to Ron Radosh – but soon gave up. Whatever the merits of the book, Diana West has been very alone in pointing out the dangers of Muslim activities, especially in relation to our own government. She is also pro Isreal, so I would have expected you to be more considerate of her. Up until now, I was favorably disposed to David Horowitz. I no longer am, and will not be visiting your site in the future!

    • Mittymo

      Agreed. She is like Paul Revere warning us that what happened during the FDR administration could happen again.

      Unfortunately, she’s getting the Joe McCarthy treatment, as forces galvanize to shoot the messenger.

      But we all need to keep our eye on the warning.

  • VLParker

    Radosh said he can’t countenance conspiracy theories, period. That is what I was addressing and only what I was addressing. Obviously, there are crackpots, like Jesse Ventura, who claim that Bush was behind 9-11. Other crackpots claim Obama was behind the Boston Marathon bombings. West may be a crackpot, too. I’ve never read anything by her. In fact, I never heard of her until 2 days ago, nor Radosh either, for that matter.

    If the Muslim Brotherhood succeeds in their conspiracy to take down the US by infiltrating the bureaucratic infrastructure and political seats is that just a broad policy trend?

  • DogmaelJones1

    I guess I’m being “censored” by the commissariat because my queries to Mr. Horowitz are not here. But, I was warned “hostile” comments would be screened.

  • dubrovnov

    David.
    I believe that Diana West’s “Betrayal…” has been attacked too harshly by you and Ron Radosh. That she made many factual errors is beyond dispute and she was especially weak in her military knowledge and analysis. Those errors should be pointed out. However, Ms West is not a professional historian and I do not consider her book to be an academic historical treatise. Rather I see it as a passionate display of moral revulsion and sorrow about an important chapter in history that has relevant lessons for our present and future. I would compare it to Zola’s “J’accuse”.
    I consider myself a knowledgable well read student of history (as an aside, I have read just about everything you and Ron Radosh have ever written) and I found her book riveting, although admittedly hyperbolic (Radosh’s labeling the book as “McCarthy on steroids” was also hyperbolic and would probably have no meaning to most young people). I had known nothing of Harry Hopkins and I do not consider it important whether or not he was “agent 19″. If Harry Hopkins did what Diana West said he did, and that to my knowledge has not been challenged by you or Mr Radosh, it is shocking. These revelations, as well as “Operation Keelhaul”, Lend Lease to Russia, Stalin’s influnence on Japan’s Northern vs Southern military strategy, et. al., are certainly unknown by most people.
    I would love to see this book widely read, especially by young people. I also hope that it will stimulate a reevaluation by serious historians of FDR, Hopkins, McCarthy, and most of the subjects in Ms West’s book. And hopefully, it will help in educating our younger generations in coping with our enemies in the present and future.
    0

  • John Nampion

    Don’t know if West is right or wrong and don’t care…removing Tapson’s review was cowardly…an action one of those Commisars (that you supposedly revile) might have taken back in the day. Party hacks, apparatchiks, cleansers of History…and now Front Page Mag….Pretty shameful, boys….

    • Mittymo

      Exactly. Leave both reviews up & let the people decide.

      That is the way it used to be when society encouraged a free exchange of ideas & free & open debate.

  • Feisty Hayseed

    I read Diane West’s rebuttal (“If Frontpage Will Lie about This…” linked above) and noted WITH HORROR that in Mr. Horowitz’s first communication with Ms. West regarding this matter HE INSULTED HER!

    On Aug 7, 2013, at 1:08 AM, david horowitz wrote:

    Dear Diana,

    Our decision to remove the review of American Betrayal was not because
    it offered an incorrect opinion that we wanted to suppress. The review
    was removed because the reviewer was as incompetent to provide an
    informed assessment of your book as you were to write it.

    David [Horowitz]

    Gee Mr. Horowitz, when you begin the discussion with Ms. West by insulting her, calling her “incompetent”, what did you think was going to happen? And please don’t give me that lame, immature excuse that she name-called me (or Jamie Glazov first!!!!!). Admit it, you were looking for a fight with Ms. West, and Mr. Radosh gave you an excuse and You Went Off On Her!

  • EscapeVelocity

    Hey David, maybe you should think about taking down that Bircher screed under the FrontPageMag logo. “Inside Every Liberal is a Totalitarian Screaming to Get Out.”

    I think what a lot of this boils down to is Neo-Cons defending Social Democrats whereas indigenous Conservatives rightly seeing Social Democrats as Marxists who agree with Communists on the ends, if not the means. The Social Democrats might be nicer, but you still end up a serf in service of your government Marxist overlords…in the end. Liberal Fascism in words of Jonah Goldberg.

    Just a couple of nuggets to chew on.

  • devilof76
  • Richard Ong

    There’s a certain smell to FPM’s treatment of Ms. West. Mr. Radosh can’t
    just say she erred, he has to say she doesn’t know how to use sources. The
    general tenor of his criticisms of Ms. West edge into personal attacks on her
    when it would have been sufficient to focus on her errors as in any other
    scholarly debate.

    I find this personalization of the dispute to be odd, as is
    Mr. Horowitz’s grossly excessive statement that “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.” Oh, really?! That’s a stretch and you owe her an apology, Mr. Horowitz. Anyone who saw Brian Lamb’s interview of Ms. West could not fail to be enchanted by this gracious, kind, and intelligent woman.

    FPM has done truly outstanding work in exposing leftists and the mortal threat of Islam. On this matter involving Diana West, however, FPM’s reaction to her book makes me think that she struck a nerve somewhere and needed, therefore, to be dealt with severely. Why the Medal of Honor fire in this particular case?

  • Mittymo

    I was happy to learn that Harry “the Hop” Hopkins wasn’t Agent 19 and that someone had finally pinned the tail on the donkey.

    But although that revelation turns ol’ Harry the Hop into an honest bureaucrat, it also turns him into one of the dumbest, easiest to manipulate bureaucrats, to have ever served in government.

    Radosh would have better served people’s memory of Hopkins by leaving him to history as the exceedingly clever & crafty “Agent 19,” instead of the excessively unintelligent, bumbling, & obtuse bureaucrat that he apparently was.

  • Mittymo

    And for anyone that think the communists in America didn’t indelibly stamp the
    concept of “collectivism” in the minds of many Americans, they must be
    sleepwalking through modern America.

    The think that Radosh pointed out in “Red Star Over Hollywood,” was how pervasive & quick spreading communism was. Hollywood was but one of many targets, but it helped influence others as many (like today) like to march in lockstep with the pretty people.

    Stalin inserted secret agents into American government & fabric not only to influence its wartime policies, but also to convert it into a communist regime. That was the communist revolutionary principle that sprang out of the Bolshevic Revolution.

  • Jeff Ludwig

    The published comments on this article represent a tremendous conversation going far beyond the mere question of the accuracy of either Radosh or West. I have learned a lot from all the comments about how cogency and rationality is tested by readership, and believe that I and others are better off because of the exchanges of views, or even invective.
    Mr. Horowitz in my opinion has a healthy conscience with a quality known as Integrity, likewise Dr. Glazov. They are trying hard to do the right thing, and that means sometimes retracting opinions or adding qualifications which additions or retractions will offend people. To me they are seeking a point of “just communications” which is rare in journalism today. Typically in major outlets we will only see retractions of factual errors, but more substantive retractions or qualifications are not common. Mr. Horowitz urged caution on the Martin-Zimmerman case by offering a few constructive caveats. Both he and Dr. Glazov do not have to be “right” but are striving to be sensitive to Truth at a higher level I believe. Does that mean that they are always more “sensitive”? Possibly not. They may, as it turns out be “less sensitive.” But I shall give them the benefit of the doubt as trying to avoid pouring salt into wounds old or new.
    I’ve been caught in that in-between place on more than a few occasions where my otherwise dogmatic and well-researched ideas come into question or those of others I respect come into question. Then I must be honest and take the heat that that occasions, which is a different kind of heat than simply disagreeing with a certain party or parties.
    Also, many interesting sources are mentioned during this extended conversation, to which list I would add John Stormer’s None Dare Call It Treason, which offers startling insight and knowledge of the Eisenhower years as well as other post-WWII governments.

  • Mittymo

    Whoops! When Radosh identified Laurence Duggan as Agent 19, he opened the door to a multitude of other problems.

    As it turns out, the infamous Agent 19 was a good friend, information source, & confidant of Edward R. Murrow.

    Duggan was one of the chief architects of American foreign policy. When he wasn’t operating as Agent 19, the spy, he was busy shaping American foreign policy in Stalin’s mold.

    Plus, Edward R. Murrow had an ax to grind against Joe McCarthy. After Duggan had been questioned about his communist ties, he either jumped or was pushed out of a 14th floor apartment before he could say anything.

    Murrow blamed McCarthy for creating an atmosphere of fear that made people to do crazy things.

    Although Duggan may have committed suicide, the KGB had ways of dealing with problems/embarrassments, as well.

    Duggan’s shocking death at the age of 43 preserved the Soviets’ secrets.

    According to the account of Allen Weinstein and Alexander Vassiliev, The Haunted Wood (1999), when in 1937 a man named Ignatz Reiss broke from Stalin’s secret service, a pair of KGB assassins hunted the defector down in Switzerland and killed him in order to stop him from blowing the cover of Duggan and Noel Field another American official who secretly assisted the KGB.

    And here’s another shocking example of how the KGB dealt with its problems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvinenko

    Plus, Stalin had assembled a gang of killers, probably unequaled in the annals of murder, arousing many people’s suspicions that they were involved. They were agents of the Soviet secret police – then called the N.K.V.D., operating in a special unit dedicated to terror & assassination. They were highly proficient & left little (if any) evidence of their handiwork. (See Chekisty: A History of the KGB by John J. Dziak.)

    Sumner Welles (Duggan’s boss at the State Department) expressed doubts that Duggan had killed himself. Writing to a friend, Welles said:

    “I think there’s unmistakable proof that he had no such idea in his mind. And knowing him as you and I do, he is the last man on earth that would have taken his own life.” (Welles to Guachalla, January 13, 1949, box 138, Welles papers, FDRL.)

    Duggan may have been Agent 19, but he was also “Frank” and “Prince.” His handler was Norman Borodin, whose boss was KGB station chief Izhak Akhmerov. (Duggan was also a close friend of Alger Hiss at Harvard and helped get Hiss a job at the State Department. Hiss was also a confirmed Soviet secret agent of influence. (I use the word “agent” rather than “spy,” because they did far more than give the Soviets classified information.)

    It’s clear Murrow let his personal friendship with a clandestine Soviet spy cloud his judgment about the reality of Soviet espionage in the U.S. (At least that’s the best spin you can put on it.)

    Letting his personal bias creep into his professional work constituted rank amateurism (that should be an embarrassment to his profession & hardly worthy of professional honor or acclaim).

    Murrow should have refused the opportunity or allowed an unbiased journalist to work on the McCarthy matters. Instead, Murrow used his power & position to do a journalistic hit job on McCarthy (an unjustified act of vengeance).

  • Jed West

    The obsessive smear campaign FrontPage Magazine is waging
    against my sister Diana West, and her book American Betrayal, reveals much more about the publisher David Horowitz and his reviewer Ron Rodash than it does about the subject of their over-the-top campaign to “take down” Diana West.

    It is hard for a rational person to understand the depth of Horowitz’s malevolence towards the book and its author. He has devoted his magazine to a “takedown” of my sister.

    Five of the twenty-five articles featured on Friday’s FrontPage homepage are vicious, error and omission-filled hit pieces dedicated to attacking my sister and her book. And Frontpage promises more to come. Five isn’t enough? More Diana West hit pieces commissioned by Frontpage? This against a political
    landscape which FrontPage claims to cover that is littered with monumental civilization-changing stories; Iran’s nukes, Obamacare, IRS, NSA, Amnesty, etc. But for Horowitz, the most important thing in the world is dishonestly attacking Diana West. Think of that. Twenty-five percent of his site is devoted to hitting this book and its author.

    What is this meltdown really about? Who knows? But it is certainly dishonest,
    hypocritical and shows Horowitz and Radosh to be totalitarians who shade the
    truth to cover their tracks.

    It is dishonest because of the actions Horowitz took and the statements he made and didn’t make regarding the removal of the initial rave review by FrontPage staffer Mark Tapso.

    Tapson’s review disappeared less than 24 hours afterHorowitz published it. There was no comment or acknowledgement from the publishers that they had done so. The Tapson review cannot even be found on their site archives. What supposed proponent of free speech does this?

    Frontpage neglected to mention the first positive review in the initial Radosh hit piece. It has been mentioned subsequently (but it is not available on the site) when called out on this omission by Diana West.

    This is totalitarian behavior. Normal publishers who feel so strongly that their original review got it wrong simply publish a subsequent review that they endorse. They don’t disappear the first review and publish a second lengthy hit piece without even acknowledging their own initial review. It’s astonishingly
    stupid and smacks of Soviet-style censorship.

    After several attempts at getting an explanation for why Tapson’s review had disappeared, Horowitz finally responded in the author’s email with the following “reasonable” explanation:

    “Dear Diana,
    Our decision to remove the review of American Betrayal was not because it
    offered an incorrect opinion that we wanted to suppress. The review was removed because the reviewer was as incompetent to provide an informed assessment of your book as you were to write it.

    David [Horowitz]”

    (It’s interesting that Horowitz blames his employee Tapson for being “incompetent” as if Tapson just placed the review on the site without
    editorial input and approval. I guess Horowitz didn’t know the review was “incompetent” either until Radosh told him. But that’s a story we’ll never know.)

    This insulting email is worth noting because it illustrates more Horowitz dishonesty. In one of the five hit pieces run so far, Horowitz chides my sister in a most avuncular fashion. He starts out his Editorial “Our Controversy With Diana West” with this beauty,

    “Rather than responding to Ronald Radosh’s Frontpage review of American Betrayal, as a reasonable author might.”

    Huh? This from a guy who in previous personal email said she was “incompetent” to write her book. More duplicity. He presents himself as so civilized, so calm. But he’s actually being dishonest in not acknowledging that he had already insulted the author. That he had removed her initial positive review. No one with any self-respect is going to respond “as a reasonable author might” on the site of someone who has personally called her “incompetent.” But Horowitz doesn’t mention that backstory. Just that she is not reasonable for not playing in his sandbox.

    He then goes on to scold her about her calling Radosh and him names, “hypocrites,” “totalitarians,” “ossified totalitarians,” commissars” and liars (“If Frontpage Will Lie about This, What Won’t They Lie About?”) and claiming we “suppressed” — also “purged”

    All the names are accurate and yes, the first review was “purged.” It was deleted without mention and it is not available in his site archives. What else do you call that?

    It is also dishonest because Radosh’s reviews are full of inaccuracies, shading of fact, manufacturing of facts and errors (Diana is writing a point-by-point take down of the Radosh garbage so I won’t attempt it. I will mention that her book contains 970+ end notes supporting her facts and has been favorably reviewed by historians with much greater stature than Radosh including Amity Shlaes and M. Stanton Evans).

    Why, a rationale person might ask, is Frontpage having a meltdown about Diana West and her book? Who knows? Although one possible answer is that Diana West called the FrontPage people out for dishonesty when they initially buried their first review and exposed them for what they are.

    So blinded with rage at his being exposed, Horowitz devotes his site to a hysterical and prolonged attack on an author of a history he disagrees with. In the not-so-long run, Horowitz’s reputation will be sullied.

    • Texas Patriot

      I think the Radosh/Horowitz rage goes much deeper and is probably rooted in their own Leftist past and their own failures to completely leave behind the heavy-handed and Leftist and Bolshevik style of dealing with anything perceived as political opposition. Unfortunately, their vehement and vitriolic opposition to Diana West is totally inappropriate and totally misplaced.

      Let’s face it the West did “lose” the ideological war against totalitarian Communism, and we are “losing” the war against totalitarian Islam, and it is highly likely that the ideological failures of Messrs. Radosh and Horowitz played a large part in those disasters. What is disappointing is that rather than acknowledge their own failures and shortcomings and lending a hand to new warriors with new ideas and new strategies for bringing down the Big Lie Machines of Totalitarian Communism and Islam, Messrs. Radosh and Horowitz seem to be lapsing into their own totalitarian past and engaging in a deliberate campaign of lies and character assassination. They should be ashamed of themselves.

      But it’s not too late. They can wake up and realize that they have made a big mistake. All is not lost. They can still contribute their vast knowledge and experience to help young champions of Authentic American Conservatism, and help us all achieve the victory we so desperately need. Everything depends on Messrs. Radosh and Horowitz being the true American Patriots they say they are and not the Leftist Totalitarians they say they aren’t.

      Gentlemen, pick up the phone. Give Ms. West a call. Ask for her forgiveness. Invite her into the fold.

      You won’t be sorry.

  • Jed West

    The obsessive smear campaign FrontPage Magazine is waging against my sister Diana West, and her book American Betrayal, reveals much more about the publisher David Horowitz and his reviewer Ron Rodash than it does about the subject of their over-the-top campaign to “take down” Diana West.

    It is hard for a rational person to understand the depth of Horowitz’s malevolence towards the book and its author. He has devoted his magazine to a “takedown” of my sister.

    Five of the twenty-five articles featured on Friday’s FrontPage homepage are vicious, error and omission-filled hit pieces dedicated to attacking my sister and her book. And Frontpage promises more to come. Five isn’t enough? More Diana West hit pieces commissioned by Frontpage? This against a political
    landscape which FrontPage claims to cover that is littered with monumental civilization-changing stories; Iran’s nukes, Obamacare, IRS, NSA, Amnesty, etc. But for Horowitz, the most important thing in the world is dishonestly attacking Diana West. Think of that. Twenty percent of his site is devoted to hitting this book and its author.

    What is this meltdown really about? Who knows? But it is certainly dishonest,
    hypocritical and shows Horowitz and Radosh to be totalitarians who shade the
    truth to cover their tracks.

    It is dishonest because of the actions Horowitz took and the statements he made and didn’t make regarding the removal of the initial rave review by FrontPage staffer Mark Tapso.

    Tapson’s review disappeared less than 24 hours after Horowitz published it. There was no comment or acknowledgement from the publishers that they had done so. The Tapson review cannot even be found on their site archives. What supposed proponent of free speech does this?

    Frontpage neglected to mention the first positive review in the initial Radosh hit piece. It has been mentioned subsequently (but it is not available on the site) when called out on this omission by Diana West.

    This is totalitarian behavior. Normal publishers who feel so strongly that
    their original review got it wrong simply publish a subsequent review that they
    endorse. They don’t disappear the first review and publish a second lengthy hit piece without even acknowledging their own initial review. It’s astonishingly
    stupid and smacks of Soviet-style censorship.

    After several attempts at getting an explanation for why
    Tapson’s review had disappeared, Horowitz finally responded in the author’s email with the following “reasonable” explanation:

    “Dear Diana,

    Our decision to remove the review of American Betrayal was not because it
    offered an incorrect opinion that we wanted to suppress. The review was removed because the reviewer was as incompetent to provide an informed assessment of your book as you were to write it.

    David [Horowitz]”

    (It’s interesting that Horowitz blames his employee Tapson for
    being “incompetent” as if Tapson just placed the review on the site without
    editorial input and approval. I guess Horowitz didn’t know the review was “incompetent” either until Radosh told him. But that’s a story we’ll never
    know.)

    This insulting email is worth noting because it illustrates more Horowitz dishonesty. In one of the five hit pieces run so far, Horowitz chides my sister in a most avuncular fashion. He starts out his Editorial “Our Controversy With Diana West” with this beauty. Horowitz writes,

    “Rather than responding to Ronald Radosh’s Frontpage review of American Betrayal, as a reasonable author
    might,.”

    Huh? This from a guy who in previous personal email said she was “incompetent” to even write her book. More duplicity. He presents himself
    as so civilized, so calm. But he’s actually being dishonest in not
    acknowledging that he had already insulted the author. That he had removed her initial positive review from his own site. No one with any self-respect is
    going to respond “as a reasonable author might” on the site of someone who has personally called her “incompetent.” But Horowitz doesn’t mention that backstory. Just that she is not reasonable for not playing in his slimy sandbox.

    He then goes on to scold her about her calling Radosh and
    him names,

    “hypocrites,”“totalitarians,” “ossified totalitarians,” commissars” and liars (“If Frontpage Will Lie about This, What Won’t
    They Lie About?”) and claiming we “suppressed” — also “purged”

    All the names are accurate and yes, the first review was “purged.” It was deleted without mention and it is not available in his site archives.
    What else do you call that?

    It is also dishonest because Radosh’s reviews are full of inaccuracies, shading of fact, manufacturing of facts and errors (Diana is writing a point-by-point take down of the Radosh garbage so I won’t attempt it. However, please note that she has been favorably reviewed by historians of far greater stature than Radosh including Amity Shlaes and M. Stanton Evans).

    Why, a rationale person might ask, is Frontpage having a meltdown about Diana West and her book? Who knows? Although one possible answer is
    that Diana West called the FrontPage people out for dishonesty when they
    initially buried their first review and exposed them for what they are.

    So blinded with rage at his being exposed, Horowitz devotes
    his site to a hysterical and prolonged attack on an author of a history he
    disagrees with. In the not-so-long run, Horowitz’s reputation will be sullied.

    • Texas Patriot

      I think the Radosh/Horowitz rage goes much deeper than any concern about factual discrepancies in Diana West’s book, and is probably rooted in the legacy of their own Leftist past, their own failure to fight ideological totalitarianism, and their own failure to leave completely behind the Leftist philosophy of attacking anyone and anything that is remotely perceived as political opposition. Politics as bloodsport belongs in the annals of Soviet Bolshevism and Stalinism and not in the ranks of Authentic American Conservatism. Unfortunately, Messrs. Radosh’s and Horowitz’s vehement and vitriolic responses to the creative conservative insights and ideas of Diana West are totally inappropriate, totally misplaced, and totally counterproductive in the ongoing global ideological struggle against Totalitarian Suppression and Totalitarian Submission. Attacking for the sake of attacking is for attack dogs. This is a time for sober reflection and reassessment of the past and formulation of new ideas and new strategies for the future. Sticking with the same failed ideas and failed strategies is a sure formula for disaster.

      Let’s face it the West did “lose” the ideological war against totalitarian Communism, and we are now “losing” the ideological war against totalitarian Islam, and it is highly likely that the ideological failures of Messrs. Radosh and Horowitz played a large part in both of those disasters. Why pretend? We’ve been out-thought and out-maneuvered with the result that the deindividualizing and dehumanizing philosophies of totalitarian ideology have now become a part of mainstream American thought, and our own hubris and overconfidence has probably been a big part of that.

      What is disappointing is that rather than acknowledging their own failures and lending a helping hand to new conservative warriors with new ideas and new strategies for defeating the Big Lie Machines of Totalitarian Communism and Totalitarian Islam, Messrs. Radosh and Horowitz now seem to be lapsing into their own totalitarian past and engaging in a deliberate smear campaign of lies and character assassination reminiscent of the worst sort of ideological abuses of Bolshevism and Stalinism. They should know better, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

      But it’s not too late. All is not lost. Messrs. Radosh and Horowitz can still redeem themselves by waking up and realizing that they have made a huge mistake by reacting so harshly and negatively to such a rising and promising star of Authentic American Conservatism. It’s time for Messrs. Radosh and Horowitz to admit their mistakes, put their own ideological baggage behind them, and get on board with winning the essential and ongoing battles against the forces of Intellectual Slavery and Totalitarian Submission, and the first step in that process is to apologize to Ms. West.

      No one wants to put Messrs. Radosh and Horowitz out to pasture. No one wants to crucify them for their past mistakes and past failures. No one wants to blame them for the pitiful state of the American Conservative Movement today. There is still hope for the future, and they may still have a positive role to play in achieving the ideological victories that America desperately needs. It’s not going to be a problem if they want to play ball. Even if they are no longer qualified to lead the ideological vanguard of American Conservatism, they can still contribute their vast knowledge and experience to help young ideological warriors and champions like Diana West, and they can still help us all in achieving the victory in the ongoing ideological war that threatens to wipe the forces of Freedom and Democracy from the face of the earth. Everything depends on Messrs. Radosh and Horowitz being the true American Patriots they say they are and not the Leftist Totalitarians they say they aren’t.

      Gentlemen, pick up the phone. Give Diana West a call. Ask for her forgiveness, offer to help her in any way you can, and invite her into the fold with your blessing.

      You won’t be sorry.

      • Merican

        Washed up Bolsheviks will never become gentlemen. These nasty characters, Horowitz and Radosh are even marginal as creepy NeoCons go!

        • Texas Patriot

          You mean they STILL haven’t apologized?

  • BS61

    Dearest David – Why do you consider her partisan? Thanks – I’ve read Diana call out both left and right, that;s why I follow her.

  • Mittymo

    Many neocons believe that the left somehow lost their way, unwilling to
    admit that the left has always been lost in an intellectual wilderness or
    vacuum.

    While they can freely admit Obama’s a prime example of the “Peter Principle,”
    having made several vaults beyond his level of competence, many of them still cling to the idea that FDR was one of the greatest American Presidents.

    Unfortunately, many on the left have not woken up to the fact that they also bought into the unproven fantasies & musings of a drunk (Karl Marx).

    From each according to their earnings (i.e., taxes), to each according to their needs (i.e., welfare).

    And although the left (and those still loyal to the ideals of the old left) have sought to establish utopia on earth (social justice) from time to time, those attempts have always ended in disaster.

    But instead of heeding Einstein’s admonition that it’s crazy to keep doing things
    tried & proven to fail, self-absorbed , arrogant elites on the left continue
    to think they’re smarter than everyone else. And they’re cocksure things will turn out better next time because now they’re at the helm.

    That doesn’t mean that the right refuses to rescue those that couldn’t survive under Darwin’s principles. The charitable right believes in a safety net (although it would prefer churches & other charities provide it) for those at the margins, even though it dumbs down the American herd & makes it less adaptive.

    But the time to bury the Franklin D. Roosevelt myth is long overdue.

  • Feisty Hayseed

    I see that Ronald Radosh and his buddy of 60 years, Mr. Horowitz have decided to take the Lowest of Low Roads. Into the sewer, eh Boys? Not only is Frontpage and the Gang going into full blown smear, slander, smirk, denigrate, impugn and character assassination mode – they will do so in a multi-part and multi-prong series of attack articles! Ah well! Have fun, children. I am going to go elsewhere to obtain information and knowledge (BTW: I am thoroughly enjoying currently re-reading Diana West’s brilliant Tour De Force, American Betrayal). Later, boys. Maybe I’ll check back in a year or two to determine if any of you Old Farts have decided to act like Grown Ups, decided to act your age instead of your emotional maturity.

  • George Ford

    Horowitz’s description of the respectful and conciliatory way he handled his dispute with Coulter is interesting. But what does that have to do with his de-posting of Tapson’s review without explanation to the public, and calling West “incompetent?” In the case of Coulter, David contacts the author directly and states that while her work is good she erred in judgment on McCarthy himself.

    In the case of West, it was Radosh, not Horowitz, who sends an email to the author saying, “You have to acknowledge that you and Stan are dead wrong about Hopkins.” And, “You base a great deal on Hopkins being an agent. He was not. So I’d like a response from you on this question.” Is this how Horowitz treated Coulter? It doesn’t sound like it.

    Here’s Horowitz’s summary of how he approached the substance of his disagreement with Coulter:

    ” … in the course of her book Ann went too far and drew a picture in which the demagogic Joe McCarthy became not just right in that the targets he went after were Communists, but also an American hero; anti-Communists like Harry Truman and JFK, on the other hand, were painted with the same broad brush as Communist fellow travelers like Henry Wallace and Soviet agents like Alger Hiss. I felt that Ann was hurting herself and the conservative cause through these errors in judgment.”

    The tone of Horowitz’s description does not sound anything like what Radosh wrote in his email correspondence with West, or in his FP review. Horowitz called West “incompetent” as he did Tapson.

    My question for Horowitz is this: Since it was his own editor who posted the Tapson review he later called “incompetent,” and his decision to de-post it in a way that was sure to inflame readers who liked West’s book, and his decision to post a new review by Radosh based on Radosh’s assertion that West’s “methodology” was incorrect, doesn’t he now have a responsibility to explain how it is that he was correct in questioning West’s “methodology,” now that he has Radosh’s review and can use the review to judge whether West’s “methodology” is indeed flawed?

    After all, West has now responded to Radosh. We have two sides. Radosh doesn’t make a very convincing case that West’s “methodology” is lacking. And he does draw our attention inadvertently to his own “methodology” by mangling West’s text.

    Horowitz might consider providing a further explanation of his actions and opinions. As things stand now on 8/12, he has characterized West harshly. In this blog he says, “… and the dishonesty in West’s use of conservative sources, her alleged abuse of evidence, and her construction of conspiracy theories not based on facts …”

    “Dishonesty,” “abuse of evidence,” and “conspiracy theories.”Do these words still describe how Horowitz feels about West and her book?

  • Ron Livaudais

    Correlation is not Causation and just because there were some Communist sympathizers who worked in the government and even spies working for the
    Communist party does not mean that the whole government was taken over by
    And run by the Communist Government. One of the greatest sympathizers as an
    Entity was the media, who covered up or chose to be quiet about the Communist
    Atrocities and even portrayed the Communist Government in a favorable light as if The system had achieved utopia when in fact it was a living hell for millions as millions were murdered in the dystopia that the system created in its thirst for control and domination!

  • jeannebodine

    David, I have been a frequent contributor to the Freedom Center. No more. I don’t have a horse in the West/Radosh, etc. fight. However, I will never, NEVER donate to an organization or site that censors material it previously published.

    Squelching materials that don’t fit the accepted narrative for whatever the reason is a totalitarian tactic, one of the very tactics that you purport to fight against.

    I am an adult. Allow me to sift through opinions, ideas, papers, chronicles and come to my own conclusions. To do otherwise proves you are just as bad as the people you say you are fighting. Too bad.

  • aquataine

    Actually, the USA/FDR was happy to see our two least favorite dictators, Hitler and Stalin, beating each other’s brains out while we prepared for war and started arming the UK and ignored the numerous threats from Tokyo that had occurred prior to Pearl. We knew, and had know that Japanese Military Academy Final Exams revolved around how to attack Pearl for 15+ years prior to the attack.

  • http://titanicsailsatdawn.blogspot.com/ Bruce S

    You respect Ann Coulter – who has twice proposed that Timothy McVeigh should have bombed the New York Times – as a “conservative thinker?” Wow. The moral and intellectual degeneracy of this thing called “conservatism” in 2013 is breathtaking. I guess it’s enough for some like Dave that one can apparently make a good living hustling amidst this sewage. West’s innate dishonesty, deliberate incompetence and paranoid pathologies are a perfect reflection of what Horowitz has been promoting for years – on the right and back in the day on the left, for that matter. If Radosh, who is a credentialed historian, hadn’t pricked his conscience as an old friend, there wouldn’t be a controversy. This is a nut house. But apparently a lucrative one.

  • Texas Patriot

    Diana West is a voice of positive change and a return to Authentic American Conservatism. Obviously Messrs. Radosh and Horowitz do not wish to go in that direction. So be it.

  • Jerry Kelly

    Jesus…When David is the voice of reason on the right you wonder what the hell is happening…Glen Beck may have infected your side with tainted survival food for the old bunker..

  • Mittymo

    Stalin’s marionettes.

    Russia was invited to join in the pact (instigated by Wm. Bullitt), wherein England & France pledged to protect Poland, but Stalin feared that if the Soviets joined the coalition, it would probably discourage Hitler him from reclaiming the German territory ceded to Poland under the Treaty of Versailles.

    A German-Soviet non-aggression pact, however, would give Hitler a free hand to reclaim those lands from Poland. Moreover, Stalin felt certain that England, as Poland’s ally, would declare war on Germany, drag a reluctant France into the conflagration, and Italy would rush to Hitler’s side.

    “Nonintervention represents the endeavor… to allow all the warmongers to sink deeply into the mire of warfare, to quietly urge them on. The result will be that they weaken and exhaust one another. Then… (we will) appear on the scene with fresh forces and step in, naturally in the interest of peace,” to dictate terms to the weakened belligerents.”2 Josef Stalin, March 10, 1939, speech in Moscow:

    Nikita Khrushchev said that Stalin considered war with Germany inevitable. But first, he wanted to see Germany debilitated by war with the West.

    It must be our objective that Germany wage war long enough to exhaust England and France so much that they cannot defeat Germany alone…. Should Germany win, it will itself be so weakened that it won’t be able to wage war against us for 10 years…. It’s paramount for us that this war continues as long as possible, until both sides are worn out.5 Josef Stalin, text of a speech Stalin delivered on August 19 to a closed session of the Political Bureau in Moscow, as published in the Swiss periodical Revue de droit international on August 25, 1939.

  • InformedCritic

    The only person who was “censored” was Mark Tapson, who wrote the original uninformed and uncritical book review, but he’s not the one complaining; Diana West is.
    And Tapson’s review didn’t go against the grain in this community; Radosh’s review did. It took courage for Frontpage Mag to stand for intellectual honesty even when they knew they’d be attacked for it.
    To someone who doesn’t know the facts, any conspiracy theory can seem eye-opening, including conspiracy theories about 9/11 and the moon landing.

  • Robexaminer

    No dog in this fight, but especially as you posted the superseding review, I agree with her that you didn’t need to remove the original.

  • Dobermite

    Why was my comment censored?

    I write a comment critical of Radosh and in support of Miss West and its awaiting moderation, really?

  • BS61

    Dear Mr Horowitz, what is medthodical about Ron’s attaks of comparisons to Birchers? I’m Done with the unfair treatment of Diana West, untill you provide facts

  • John

    Hurray for Diana West for her courageous book.

  • Mo86

    I can’t speak to the facts here. I haven’t read Diana West’s book nor am I knowledgeable on this topic.

    What I do know is that this whole thing has been so ugly to witness.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dennis.sinclair.16 Dennis Sinclair

    If anyone is interested, at this date, 9/28/2013, here is a link to a reasonable view of tyhe whole kerfuffle: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/26/Its-worse-than-a-conspiracy-it%20-s-consensus
    I tend to side with Mssrs. Bukovsky and Stoilov.

  • red allover

    Gosh you conservatives are smart. Please help a lowly proletarian understand:
    Now if Diane West’s book is undermining the sacred cause of anti-Communism,
    and undermining conservatives is what Communists do,
    must it not logically follow that Ms. West is, in fact, herself a Communist?