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.  

  • AlexanderGofen

    Notwithstanding the language and tenor of Radosh’s critique (no different from the talking points of Sovetskih), all “its high standard” consisted of pointing out at a few possible inaccuracies, which were used to trash the entire book – to no avail! Because, as I and several other readers commented after the previous Radosh’s article, the veracity of the American Betrayal is supported by the multiple true facts of the modern American history that I listed, and by the hard reality of our demise evolving before our eyes. Horowitz and Radosh did not address any items in my or similar comments.

    Summarizing it, in words of Horowitz himself,

    I don’t have a lot of hope that this will change the attitude of Front Page to their journalistic duty, as they have already shown themselves to be a very shameless partisans, with a disposition to maintain a party line no matter what, the truth be damned. I ought to split with Horowith gang already in 2008 because of their refusal to expose any aspect of Obama’s ineligibility and criminality. In 2008 Horowitz even had a chutzpah to say that the Constitution after all is no more so important (or something to this effect).

    And no, I am not in contact with Ms. West. Definitely I was not mobilized to jump defending her. In fact I criticized her for stopping short not reaching the grotesquely ugly contemporary mess: http://www.amazon.com/review/R3J8XJD1HG31OO Independently, I came to the similar conclusion as Ms. West in my earlier comparison analysis: http://www.resonoelusono.com/2008vs1917.htm

    • wildjew

      Senator McCarthy and Joseph Kennedy were close friends. McCarthy was a close friend of the Kennedy family.

      • cantpleaseall


        • wildjew

          A man’s long-term, adult associations are not relevant to conservatives? That would include Barack Obama’s long-term adult associations? Do you know anything about Joseph Kennedy, Neville Chamberlain, Kennedy’s disposition toward the Jews, Germany, etc.?

          • cantpleaseall

            So, you are saying that McCarthy was anti-Jewish, anti-Israel? What? I can’t read my wife’s mind, my kids’ minds, nor yours. What are you inferring and where are your facts?

          • wildjew

            I don’t know. I am looking for a good, fairly objective, impartial biography on Joe McCarthy. Can you recommend one. His long-term friendship with Joseph Kennedy is troubling. Kennedy was a dedicated anti-Semite. He was also obsessively anti-Communist (Communism is an evil ideology, true) but so much so, he tilted toward Germany and appeasing Germany. To me, that demonstrates a lack of character and judgment. As bad as Stalin was, I believe Hitler was much worse. Stalin mostly murdered his political opponents. That is evil. Hitler murdered “subhumans.” Hitler murdered for reasons of race and racial supremacy. What do you call Hitler other than a unimaginable monster. Why didn’t McCarthy’s friend Joe Kennedy see that?

            PS: In that anti-Semites like to link Jews to Bolshevism to the point that every Jew is a Communist, I find it difficult to believe McCarthy did not also make that connection. We’ll see.

          • cantpleaseall

            Since Horowitz and Radosh pass themselves off as impartial, maybe they’d be best to recommend an impartial book on McCarthy. ;)

            As for who you hang with, Obama and his long-term adult associates all believed and acted the same. Did McCarthy?

          • wildjew

            Again, I don’t know if McCarthy acted similarly or the same. I hope to know in a few weeks and months. Just now, I am reading McCullough’s biography on Truman. He touches on McCarthy. I’ve got a few more books I am looking at that deal with the cold war. As a conservative I tend to believe (though Communism is evil; we are seeing some of the damaging effects of Marxism / socialism from this president), I do think there was some hysteria on the right (some on the left or simply the fear of being labeled a “spy” or a subversive) that led to some imprudent foreign policy and a needless loss of life.

            As to Radosh, I do not know Radosh other than seeing his name and reading a couple or so articles written by him on PJ Media. I have expressed ‘some’ disagreement with D. Horowitz in the past, in particular over some of G. W. Bush’s policies in the Middle East, Islam, etc. (I voted for Bush in 2000.) I cannot make a quick determination. We’ll see. I think Horowitz and FPM has made a positive contribution over all. What do you think?

          • cantpleaseall

            Here’s a rebuttal to a review that Radosh gave to M. Stanton Evans’ book, “The Enemy Within.” http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2008-01-01.html By the way, it’s about McCarthy.

            FPM used to be a source I went to daily but that has declined to a monthly visit lately. Yes, positive overall but flat-lining lately.

          • wildjew

            I will take a look at Evan’s rebuttal. Evan’s book is one on my list available at Audible.com. But Evan’s – reading some of the reviews – looks to be an apologist for McCarthy. I do not like reading apologists. There are plenty out there on Islam for example. Nevertheless, I will read his rebuttal.

            You mention FPM used to be a source you went to daily. There are divisions in the conservative movement; divisions between staunch conservatives (Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, etc.) and moderates (John McCain, Paul Ryan, etc.), between “Establishment” Republicans (N. Gingrich calls “elites”) and independent conservatives; between conservatives and Ron (Rand?) Paul libertarians, between strong national security conservatives and those who reach out to the Muslim (and M. Brotherhood) community (e.g., Chris Christie), etc. Lots of divisions in the conservative movement. I am not sure where this split over McCarthy fits in.

          • cantpleaseall

            If you consider McCain to be moderate…

          • wildjew

            Fair enough. My guess is, many conservatives consider McCain a moderate. To me, McCain, Graham, Marco Rubio (who else?) are sell-outs to one degree or another because they’ve all supported Obama’s dangerous policies in the Middle East and North Africa to “one degree or another.” McCain and Rubio (less so than McCain), condemned Michele Bachmann because she called for an investigation on Muslim Brotherhood penetration into the government (incidentally mentioned Huma Abedin’s familial associations with Muslim Brotherhood), as did John Boehner condemn her and her Republican colleagues which included Rep. Louie Gohmert. That was / is unconscionable.

          • cantpleaseall


            Have you looked for your Congressman’s August recess schedule? You’ll probably find it’s not posted. Mine isn’t and neither are about a dozen others I checked, Paul Ryan included. Why not? Maybe because they don’t represent us anymore? Give yours a call. Ask some questions.

            By-the-way, what’s a neocon? AFAIC, you’re either conservative or not.

          • wildjew

            I have been calling his office. I tell his aids, I support Cruz and Lee’s call to defund Obamacare. I had no problem with the partial government shutdown in 1995 / 1996. Why did Republicans blink? If Obama decided to partially shut down the government over the implementation of Obamacare, I would not have the slightest problem with that. But I am not like most Americans; apparently.

          • cantpleaseall

            Yeah, you call and voice an opinion. Keep the pressure on. Remember, everything else is just entertainment. Politics is for life.

          • oldironsides

            Look up Neocon in Wkipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocon “Neoconservatism is an intellectual movement born in the 1960s inside the monthly review Commentary. Commentary is the journal of the American Jewish Committee” Personally, I think of them as the origin of RINOs.

          • BS61

            How so olironsides?

          • cantpleaseall

            You won’t like anyone who is an “apologist” for McCarthy. Facts are facts. McCarthy was on the right track and guys like McCain and Graham and Boehner and McConnell and the like have lost the battle for us.

            Someone asked recently, and I’m paraphrasing, “What would the communists have done differently? How would the US look different if they were trying to slowly take the US over?”

            I’d say, just about the same as it is now.

          • wildjew

            Stanton Evans’ “Blacklisted by History,” is highly rated at Amazon. Maybe apologist is an unfair characterization until I read the book. Here is one reviewer (3 stars):

            “This is a well-documented analysis of the history of this matter. The writer, shows his political leanings too frequently, whereas a more objective analysis would make this book a 5-star read. He acknowledges most of McCarthy’s flaws – but only in dismissive 1 or 2 sentences, but takes great pains to expand into chapters flaws in others. The author chose not to explore or explain why the Republicans of this time (Eisnehower, Taft, Nixon, etc) also rallied AGAINST Joe. The author spends only a few paragraphs on the topic leaving the reading wanting much more analysis on this important aspect.

            “Neo-cons will love this book, liberals will hate it – but everyone interested in the history of the period ought to read it.

          • Arty Cohn

            Mccarthy was late in the game,(and he made a game out of it). Most all the real Commie spies and infiltrators had already been identified before McCarthy started his movement. He ended

          • cantpleaseall

            Who id’d them? Why aren’t they associated with the witch hunt?

          • Arty Cohn

            Whittaker Chambers, Richard Nixon, and the HUAC counsel were responsible for Hiss. The Rosenbergs were found and prosecuted by the FBI and lawyers of the Justice Department under Harry Truman.

          • oldironsides

            I was a long time member of The John Birch Society from the early 1960s to the mid 1970s and am familiar with much of the publications that came out under American Opinion and Western Islands. In particular, founder Robert Welch made an excellent point of noting that Sen. Joe McCarthy did not get attacked by the left until he moved the spotlight away from his anti-Communist investigations of the State Dept. to the secret power groups like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderbergs. In particular, there was a very lengthy 1300-page book by Carroll Quigley called Tragedy and Hope that really opened my eyes. Anyone who has a genuine interest in Diana West’s writings ought to look into this. I am in complete agreement with wildjew’s assessment of the divisions within conservative circles and am greatly concerned about the bickering and nit picking. I follow World Net Daily every day along with FPM and Human Events and Atlas Shrugs. I happen to firmly believe that the Republican majority in the House missed their greatest opportunity in not investigating Obama’s phony birth certificate, fraudulent Social Security Number and Draft Card. I also suspect the elitist establishment Republicans are responsible for squashing the conservative efforts. We are never going to win this battle until we start working together.

            BTW, my name is Nelson Abdullah and my Google blog handle is Oldironsides. http://oldironsides-thesilentmajority.blogspot.com/

          • wildjew

            Thanks for posting these thoughts. Is Abdullah your real name or is it a nickname or a pen name? I’d like to say something about World Net Daily. I used to be a regular reader. I rarely visit the site now. This might seem harsh. WND CEO Joseph Farah used to be syndicated here in my area for a time on the radio. He took over Oliver North’s show. I was a regular caller on the Middle East, National Security, Israel, etc. Farah is a devout Christian. He is Lebanese born so he knows the region well. I was a regular reader of Farah’s columns. He is a very talented and persuasive writer. I voted for George W. Bush in 2000. Farah told his readers he could not vote for Bush because Bush did not honor the Constitution. Fine. I respected him for that but when 2004 came up he began defending Bush on the radio (he defended Bush’s faithless policies with respect to Israel) and he ultimately came out and endorsed Bush’s re-election. I lost faith in Farah. I e-mailed him a time or two telling him how I felt he betrayed his principles and convictions. I don’t read Farah and I rarely visit WND.

          • oldironsides

            Abdullah was my father’s name and I inherited it. Never had a problem until 9-11. I am a Catholic and never was a Muslim nor Arab. Was born in NYC. Read my bio on my blog. http://oldironsides-thesilentmajority.blogspot.com/

          • wildjew

            OK, will do. You look entirely European / American. Like Raymond Ibrahim (author of the Al-Qaeda Reader) are your family’s origins in the Middle East or Central Asia? Or was your father a convert?

          • oldironsides

            Father’s family was born in Austria, emigrated to Morocco and converted to Islam 1900s. Father came to America as a boy but stayed Muslim. Went back to Morocco after he retired and died there. His brothers and sisters had positions of power in Tangiers and Rabat. My first introduction into Sharia Law was after my father died in mid 1960s and my brother and I were told we could not inherit his wealth in Morocco unless we converted to Islam. Luckily he had a lot of it in America and his Jewish lawyer in NYC told them to take a walk. It was a long story.

          • wildjew

            Interesting. I don’t want to offend or frighten you. In Islam’s eyes – according to strict Islamic law – aren’t you apostate since you are now a Catholic. I go through this time and time again with Obama-supporting lefties. According to Islamic law, Obama’s father was Muslim – Obama has boasted that he comes from a line of Muslims on his father’s side – that means he is Muslim or he is apostate (murtad). Here in the West, we choose our religion. Not so in Islam.

          • oldironsides

            Well aware. Being a Baptized Catholic from birth is not the same as being a convert. I have always considered myself a Christian. Obama, on the other hand, was registered in school in Indonesia as a Muslim and was taught the Qur’an and speaks Arabic, and Rev. Jeremiah Wright has said he was never convinced Obama ever accepted Christianity.

          • wildjew

            You are right. Still, Muslims consider you a fellow Muslim.

          • oldironsides

            BTW, there is another blog I read often, written by a woman in Israel named Adina Kutnicki. Check it out, you may like it. adinakutnicki.com/

          • wildjew

            I’ve seen Adina posting all over the place, J. Post, here, PJ Media, etc. I believe she is a fairly recent immigrant?

          • oldironsides

            I get her stuff via email and reblog some of it. She says on her web site she was born in NYC and moved to Israel in 2008.

          • Jerry Kelly

            Grandpa Abdullah must have escaped from the attic.Do you know how crazy you sound?

          • oldironsides

            Make that great-grandpa and crazy as a fox. Maybe you should have learned to listen to your elders, benefit from their wisdom and show some respect. The course of American history in the last century hasn’t deviated one single inch. Every progressive socialist liberal Democrat has contributed their individual effort to turn this great nation into what it has become today; a hotbed of wannabe tyrants. They started out by adding innocent sounding amendments to the Constitution: 16th Amendment – so everyone who paid taxes could vote, instead of just the landowners. 17th Amendment – directly electing our U.S. Senators who were previously elected by the states legislatures and who were previously answerable only to the states and not the people, thus eliminating states rights, etc., etc., etc. Creating the United Nations to deplete our sovereignty. Now we have Obama bypassing Congress and ignoring the Constitution and writing laws by Executive Order like any petty dictator would. Yeah, I do sound crazy, don’t I? I learned my history 50 years ago.

          • Jerry Kelly

            Yep we are so bad…40 hour work week,women’s rights,farm coops,the best writers,ended the Vietnam war,kept you fools out of Syria….that a progressive my man!

          • Ron Radosh

            David Oshinsky’s biography of McCarthy is first rate, and actually had in it some of the material that Stan Evans argued he came up with first in his book, as I pointed out in my NR review of his book.

          • bfancher

            Stalin murdered as many or more people as Hitler. These included not just “political opponents”, whatever the hell that even means, but millions of peasants who resisted the collectivization of their farms. Murdering millions of people because of their “race” or because of their “class” is a distinction without a difference. Choosing between whether Hitler was more evil than Stalin or vice-versa is like choosing between being locked in a room with a tiger or a lion. Whatever differences there are between the two are more than overshadowed by the similarity of the end result.

          • hrwolfe

            Ann Coulter used Arthur Herman’s Joseph McCarthy as one of her references in her book Treason as well as information forwarded by M. Stanton Evans from his upcoming book “Blacklisted by History.” My father was a domestic Cold Warrior, I am told that Mr. Horowitz called the house a few times. Growing up I would get teased that my Pop was a Bircher. One day I asked him, he said no he felt he was smarter than they and then explained it but it fell on young deaf ears. At one time I asked him about the Senator and he gave nothing more than “well he was a bit gruff and he would just bust in there” and that was about it. When I read Treason I got more curious as I had always concluded that Joe was not good for anti-communism, Coulter made me curious. I got and read Herman’s book. In it he tells of Joe Kennedy’s like of him. It did not go back years, McCarthy did not get on the anti-Communism band wagon until around 1947 and Joe K was indeed a Capitalist. It says that he was invited to the Kennedy Compound often and that Bobby energetically went to work with him but found Roy Cohn hard to get along with so he quit though quietly attended McCarthy’s funeral in 57. I have seen nothing that makes him an anti-Semite other than the accusation. FYI Stalin out murdered Hitler before Hitler even got going and yes a lot of Jews supported Communism but many did not, only a fool would declare all were communists.

          • wildjew

            To me Communism, even socialism, are antithetical to freedom and personal responsibility. Communism is an evil ideology. I can see what Obama is doing to this country. He / it is evil. That having been said, Sen. Joe McCarthy’s obsessive anti-Communism paranoia did not help our cause. Neither does Ann Coutler and Diana West’s defense of the man help our cause.

          • david hrowoitz

            I think calling General George Marshall a traitor should suffice.

          • Merican

            I’d like a second and third opinion on George Marshall. I now know that Eisenhower exterminated close to a million German POW’s, sent Russian and German POWs to die in Stalins Gulags and likely had General Patton murdered. So I’d prefer several sources for the Rat Level of Marshall!

          • wildjew

            From what little I have read about General (Secretary of State / Defense) George Marshall, I am not a big fan – largely because of the pervasive anti-Semitism in the army officer core — I’ve not seen any indication he is was a traitor to the United States. He looks to been a loyal soldier and loyal to the presidents he served.

    • Benjamin Kerstein

      That Agent 19 was not who West said he was is not a “possible inaccuracy,” it’s an absolutely massive error that discredits a large part of her thesis. Should one refrain from pointing this out for the sake of ideological purity?

      • AlexanderGofen

        I see. One error is a massive error. I got it. However as I explained, the veracity of the book does not depend on who was #19, or whether Hopkins was enlisted in KGB at all. He did it as though he was, and that is enough.

        As I wrote several times, our entire hard reality 100% supports the concept of the book.

        • Benjamin Kerstein

          So, the book is wrong, but also right. Sounds like Dan Rather’s “fake but accurate” line.

          Whether Hopkins was a major Soviet agent is not “one error.” It badly undermines West’s claims and shows her to be, at best, a sloppy and biased historian. Needless to say, Radosh also points out numerous other major errors, none of which you seem interested in addressing.

          “He did it as though he was, and that is enough.” You can’t possibly be serious. Someone who is a spy is guilty of espionage and treason. Someone who advocates bad or mistaken policies is not. Should we criminalize stupidity, naivite, and error?

          • AlexanderGofen

            Do not put the words in my mouse your provocateur. The book is right (even if contains a few inaccuracies). And the concept of the book is 100% right.

            Yes, for the sake of the nation it DOES NOT matter whether Hopkins’ treasonous activity was paid by KGB, dictated by KGB, or dictated by his own perverted “conscience”. The effects and damage of the treason remain the same.

            Moreover, the greatest deal of damage to our nation was incurred not by direct agents of KGB (even if they numbered in thousands), but by the corrupted fellow travelers who volunteered for undermining this nation. They numbered in millions and have reproduced themselves through schools and universities, and now took them completely.

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            I would never put words in your mouse, given that it is (I hope) physically impossible to insert orthographic symbols into a rodent.

            However, nothing whatsoever that you say disproves Radosh’s claims in any way shape or form. You can be as angry as you like about this issue, and as paranoid as you like about the current state of American culture and government, but that is not evidence, and does nothing to help West’s claims..

          • ziggy zoggy

            The concept of the book is wrong and paranoid. Stalin did not control U.S. war policy.

          • AlexanderGofen

            Stalin DID control the pre-war, the war, and after-war policy of the US. You can put aside the book of D. West, but look at the line of true events. Already the immoral diplomatic recognition of the monster USSR in 1933 meant that the entire US government was under heavy Bolshevik influence, all the opposition paralyzed. That was the beginning of the slippery slop.

          • ziggy zoggy

            So Stalin directed America and its allies to use The Soveit Union as cannon fodder to divide Nazi forces and wear them down so Allied casualties would be lighter when they invaded Europe? Who could be stupid enough to believe that? Are you claiming that Stalin was too stupid to order the reverse – even though he supposedly controlled U.S. policy?
            You are a blind fanatic. Dou you have a crush on West, or something? Do you spank it to her book?

          • Ace

            If Hopkins was not Agent 19, that doesn’t proved he wasn’t a major Soviet agent, just that he wasn’t Agent 19.

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            It proves West’s claim completely wrong. Should she seek to prove he was another Soviet agent, let her attempt to do so.

          • http://www.catwyp.com/ ColdHeartedPatriot

            You’re right, Hopkins was Agent 18, what a huge f”cking mistake!

          • ziggy zoggy

            That DOES prove West’s book is flawed by poor scholarship and false conclusions- conclusions that were obviosly reached before any serious research was done.

          • Julius O’Malley

            This is a very important point. Perhaps Mr Radosh has irrefutable proof, via Messrs Klehr and Haynes (whose integrity and ouevre I admire profoundly), that Laurence Duggan was Agent 19. (My recollection is that his Soviet spy name was a name like “Junior” or some such, not a number, but I’m comfortable if I’m incorrect in that.) Which means that Harry Hopkins was not Agent 19.

            The overarching point is that the conduct of Harry Hopkins was so extraordinarily, consistently, brutally, pro-Soviet ( and so staggeringly inimical to US interests) it is exceptionally difficult to accept that he was not either a formal Soviet agent or an informal one.

      • bobguzzardi

        The key point was the FDR’s closest adviser, who actually lived in the White House from May 1940 and lived there for 3 and a half years, was very, very sympathetic to, even enchanted by Stalin’s Soviet Communism and the Soviet Union. And that his policy initiatives were very pro Stalin.

        Whether Henry Hopkins was Agent 19 or not, It seems highly likely that his pro Soviet admiring mindset affected his policy initiatives.

        I did not know this until Diana West informed me.

        • Benjamin Kerstein

          I don’t think there is much dispute as to Hopkins’ astoundingly wrong-headed attitude toward the Soviets. That is very different from what West is saying. She is making a very specific accusation of criminality (in fact, treason) that is untrue.

          • bobguzzardi

            One person’s wrongheadedness could be another person’s treason. Your view is that Harry Hopkins was a “dupe” or a “useful idiot.”

            It seems that you agree, though, that Harry Hopkins was sympathetic, enamored almost, of Stalin’s Soviet Union.

            However, there were quite a few Soviet agents in the Roosevelt Administration. It may be “wrongheadedness” but it was almost willful blindness, it seems to me.

            And how did someone of Hopkins’ view get so high in the FDR Administration and so close as to live in the White House? This may be worse than you are willing to think.

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            I think being a “useful idiot” is quite shameful enough. And willful blindness? Yes, that also, I think. It is grounds for historical condemnation, but it is not legally criminal, whereas espionage and treason are, and that is what West is claiming.

            In other words, “one person’s wrongheadedness could be another person’s treason” is simply not true. Treason is a specific and sharply defined crime that requires evidence to back it up. Evidence West attempts but fails to provide.

            As for your final insinuation, well, it is possible, but you would have to prove it. West tried to do so using false and mistaken claims, which is what Radosh is trying to point out.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Stalin did not control U.S. policy or war plans.

        • ziggy zoggy

          Stalin did not control U.S.policy.

          • bobguzzardi

            Stalin influenced US policy at the highest levels and, more broadly, Stalin’s sympathizers acted in concert, not conspiratorially, to influence US policy long before the US entered the war against the NAZIs.

            Columbia’s Rexford Tugwell imposed a centralized, government control of prices, costs and production and was influenced by Columbia’s John Dewey who was, himself, influenced by Soviet Communism although more sympathetic to Trotsky than Stalin. Lenin’s war against his own people 1921 (see Richard Pipes, A Concise History of the Russian Revolution) and the Ukrainian Famine 32/33 (Holodomor) which deliberately killed 3 to 3.5 million people by starvation, had to have been known but, apparently, the communists and Statists thought they could accomplish the same result without violence against their own people,

            It seems many on this site in support of Ron Radosh and David Horowitz are willing to avoid mentioning what a horrors of Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky and their Marxist regime. An alliance with Stalin to win the war against the NAZIs seems necessary but did we have to be so accommodating? Many millions suffered because of this accommodation.

            The confluence of Stalin’s Soviet Communist agents and Stalin’s Soviet Communist sympathizers and ideologues in the Roosevelt Administration acting in concert had consequences. I think it is clear they acted in concert which is different than a traitorous, criminal conspiracy, although the end result may be nearly identical. What difference does it make whether the concerted action was a criminal conspiracy or not?

          • ziggy zoggy

            West did’t claim that Stalin’s Soviet “Union” influenced U.S. war policy. She claimed they controlled it.

          • bobguzzardi

            Are you saying that Soviet agents AND American Communist sympathizers had NO influence.

            What influence, if any, did the Soviet agents and their sympathizers, acting in concert, have on American policy. One does not have to go as far as West to be concerned and to think raising the issue is a bad thing. Demonizing West doesn’t make the questions go away.

            Are Henry Wallace, John Dewey, Harry Dexter White, Owen Lattimore, John Stewart Service ciphers?

          • ziggy zoggy

            “Influence” is not a synonym for ” control.” West’s preformed conclusion is ridiculous on the face of it an the factual errors and ommissions in her work that Radosh pointed out provide the details.

          • bobguzzardi

            Roosevelt and Harry Hopkins were advised by a cadre, if that is not too strong a word, of Stalinist Soviet agents and Stalinist Soviet sympathizers and Roosevelt and Hopkins did control US foreign and war policy. The Soviets advisers picked Roosevelt and Hopkins for a reason. “Control”, “Conspiracy”, or “influenced” are words.

            The dynamic of the personnel flocking to and infiltrating the the Roosevelt Administration resulted in, admittedly, policies and war strategies, very, very favorable to Stalinist Soviet Communist post WW II plans. Alternative policies and strategies unfavorable to Stalin’s post-WW II objectives were discarded. Stalin’s Soviet Communist apparatus spent a lot of money and resources on developing a US network and infiltrating the US government. There has to be a reason for all of this.

            Were Harry Hopkins and FDR so clueless and naive not to be scared of the Reds? and “Uncle Joe”? “Red Scare” is used in a derogatory fashion. In fact, the more we find out about the Reds, the more reason it makes sense to be scared of the Reds and to question the motives and the judgement of those who chose Revolutionary Stalinist Soviet Communists as their most trusted advisers at the highest level.

            And Harry Truman… why did he take such a different track. Was he ungrateful in breaking the Berlin blockade or opposing an Soviet and Chinese financed takeover of SE Asia?

            Sorry Diana West has raised a lot of questions which have not been answered. Might I add that Ron Radosh and his associates and David Horowitz and his associates, including their parents, have done a lot more damage to this country than Diana West and the Joseph McCarthy or the Dies House Committee on Un-American Activities which provided a venue for Whitaker Chambers.

          • Hesperado

            On what page(s) of Diana West’s book does Diana West claim that Stalin’s Soviet Union controlled U.S. war policy?

      • AlexanderGofen

        The thesis of this book is to demonstrate the immense Bolshevik pressure and influence over the entire US policy since 1920s – something quite obvious for many for a long time. Therefore a possible inaccuracy in one fact (one but “massive”) changes nothing.

        You can put aside the book of D. West, but look at the line of true events. Already the immoral diplomatic recognition of the monster USSR in 1933 meant that the entire US government was under heavy Bolshevik influence, all the opposition paralyzed. That was the beginning of the slippery slop.

        • MTfromCC

          So how many demonstrable errors does it take before you acknowledge that an author’s work is biased, sloppy and/or paranoid? Radosh identified and provides support for the assertion that there are numerous major errors in West’s factual assertions (and her more radical conspiratorial conclusions). So far, the only response from those who are predisposed to West’s conclusions (because they support their overt hatred and dismissal of President Obama and the American left as being treasonous, when the truth is so much more complex than that) has been to ignore all but one of the demonstrated errors, and then assert that the demonstrated error does not, by itself, disprove the theory or render the book inaccurate in its core conclusions (and then calling the critics names). Really thin skinned for people who are so committed to the belief that you are right about everything, and that anybody who takes issue with you and your precious right wing orthodoxy is evil.
          Don’t you understand that it hurts the conservative movement to embrace paranoid, biased garbage simply because the conclusion is consistent with what you want to hear? Or that one of many reasons why conservative thinking is held in such disregard these days in intellectual circles is because instead of arguing on the merits, you shoose instead to demonize conservatives (and anybody else) who dares to insist on rigorous scholarship and sound inferences, and who are critical of authors who dispense with both. A good historian never allows hoped-for conclusions to drive the factual research. It is bad history, bad academics, and it ultimately discredits whatever appropriate theories may be buried in all of the garbage.

    • ziggy zoggy

      Possible inaccuracies? They are proved inaccuracies and they are anything but minor. The notion that Stalin controlled U.S. And British war policy is absurd.

  • poptoy1949

    Mr. Horowitz I would stand with you regarding any and all criticism of the left. However I must say that indeed stand with the conclusions reached by Ms. West and her synopsis as given in her moist recent book. Best wishes to all the defenders of Right.

    • wildjew

      Diana West has done commendable work exposing terrible US. policy vis-a-vis this war post 9/11.

      Do you agree with the following?

      “The conspirators’ general idea was to surrender German forces to Anglo-American armies on the single condition that German forces then be permitted, with undetermined Allied support, to redeploy to fend off a Soviet invasion of Europe and Germany in the east.” (American Betrayal, page 279)

      • Benjamin Kerstein

        “A post-Hitler government in Germany that was both anti-Nazi and anti-Communist” is precisely what the Allies eventually set up in West Germany. That they did not do so until the Nazis and the German army were wholly destroyed is commendable.

  • John E Coleman

    After 72 years & counting , I have found it impossible to speak my opinion
    when someone is in Denial !!

    They will always go on the Offense as a Defense ! Always !!

  • Ben

    Mr Horowitz, Mr Radosh attacked the same way books by Stan Evans and Herb Romerstein. From this latter expert Mr Radosh willingly got material after him and his wife returned from Moscow archives. When asked that he would share his own material he would turn his back (story told by Herb Romerstein). Endorsing self-centered, interested in promoting himself, Mr Radosh, who tried to destroy clearly brilliant, needed book by Mr Evans about Senator Mcarthy Frontpage turns back from the path of conservatives. Mr Radosh vicious attack on Mrs Diana West seems like wet job being done by Communist Party via their KGB.

    • Ben

      Conservatism means ability to cooperate and to dominate. It is hard to see any of these values in Mr Radosh essay. Its title shows his intention.

      • Ben

        Sorry. Conservatism means ability to cooperate and not to dominate…

        • Benjamin Kerstein

          This is not an issue of conservatism, it is an issue of historical truth. One does not “cooperate” on historical truth. One attempts to determine it as best one can. When people lie about it, you have an obligation to point that out, not “cooperate” with their falsehoods.

    • Ron Radosh

      I do not have the time or desire to answer all of Diana West’s deluded followers. But this is pure slander and completely false.
      I never asked Herb Romerstein to share any material whatsoever, except for asking him for a video of “Mission to Moscow,” a film he had little to do with, except that he had a videotape of it.’
      I wrote a scathing review in The New Republic of a leftist historian’s book on the Abraham Lincoln Battalion, and quoted from a pamphlet published and written by Herb, which I cited by name, giving him full credit. Since it was a published work, in print, it was not anything Herb gave personally to me that was available to everyone.
      When Mary Habeck and I returned from Moscow, where we researched the Red Army military archives for our book “Spain Betrayed: The Soviet Union in the Spanish Civil War,” it took over one year for all the material to be translated. Moreover, even if I wanted to – and Herb NEVER asked me for any of these files- I would not have been able to give them to him. They were in the copyright ownership of Yale University Press, and we were forbidden by contract to share them with anyone.
      That Diana West’s supporters are now resorting to unfounded slander is par for course.

      • Dustin

        You seem needlessly angry and personal, Ron. I am wondering if your attitude is why the original review was memory holed. After all, your opinion is so strong that it raises an eyebrow that it neatly replaced a completely opposite opinion.

        I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the details in the book required correction. This is a murky bit of history. I also think you have relied heavily on appeals to authority in an irrational manner, where facts shown are completely ignored if the person who first found them ultimately held a politically correct opinion in a corrupt environment.

        Anyway, it’s one thing for internet commenters to insult… it’s another for you to behave worse than most of them.

        • Benjamin Kerstein

          I think Mr. Radosh is entitled to give as good he gets, don’t you?

          • Dustin

            Yeah, he’s as entitled to deal in ad homs. We’re entitled to give him the credibility that earns.

            I’m amused that you are saying this scathing and needlessly ugly review is ‘giving as good as he gets’. I am pretty sure it’s the other way around, and I’m also pretty sure that this is not a scholarly argument.

            If that’s your answer to my point that his appeals to authority do not contradict facts, then I think I have the better argument at this time.

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            It was my answer to your criticism of the style of his article, which I found quite restrained, considering the charges made in West’s book and her deranged behavior thus far. As to the rest, I cannot agree. Mr. Radosh’s article strikes me as quite plentiful in supporting evidence, very little of it on the basis of an appeal to authority. It is also worth pointing out that authority is at least somewhat relevant here, given that certain people, such as Mr. Radosh, are experts on this subject, whereas you and I are not.

          • Dustin

            In the article Radosh conceded that West was relying on facts research has uncovered, but she does not agree with the conclusion of the expert who uncovered them. Of course the person who uncovered the fact who agrees with Radosh is then the expert and competent and those who are relying on these facts to support a different theory are incompetent.

            This argument is pretty unsatisfying in my opinion.

            Mr Radosh is the expert and you and I are not… so you say. But I am an expert at telling when someone has not actually proven their point, having read a lot of bluster similar to what I’ve seen here.

            Furthermore, every educated person has seen the experts wind up completely wrong. How do they sound just before we learn they were wrong? In my experience they sound puffy and arrogant and very concerned with who is the real expert.

            If the original review is wrong, let it see the light of day and let the reader read both points of view and see which is supported. I also suggest Radosh write his argument in a more compelling way, without the bluster or personal commentary on who is and isn’t an expert.

            Was Ms West’s emails to frontpage deranged? I think it wasn’t. They removed a favorable review in a pretty crummy way and when West didn’t help by responding to this hostile one (not just critical but outright hostile) they were misleading in their discussion of that. West is upset, sure, but deranged? I don’t see that.

            This is a really interesting subject. It would really serve both West and Radosh to have a conversation instead of what we’re seeing here.

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            Well, West’s rhetoric on the subject is certainly deranged. I don’t think that can be argued.

            Again, I do not see Radosh’s claims as an appeal to authority. He bases his claims on his own research and the research of others. He also goes into some detail on why he rejects the claims of certain writers on the subject. This is no mere appeal to authority. It is a cogent explanation of why he considers some sources reliable and others not.

          • Dustin

            I have yet to read her book, though I intend to as I find this subject really interesting.

            I have only read her interaction with Frontpage, and she’s the calmer.

            Frankly, I try to ignore who is saying it and focus on what they are saying.

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            I can’t agree. Radosh calls West a bad and possibly willfully mendacious pseudo-historian. West calls him a totalitarian commissar, amongst other things. Radosh comes out the more restrained, I would say.

          • bobster1985

            I’m not familiar with the details of many of the points in dispute, but I have studied the issue of uranium and the development of the atomic bomb, and I can attest that 10 kilos of U238 would be utterly useless to anyone trying to build a fission bomb. If West’s other arguments are as nonsensical as this one, her book should be dismissed entirely.

      • Feisty Hayseed

        Mr. Radosh? Really? As an alleged esteemed and respected Historian and buddy of David Horowitz for 60 years, all you have to bring to the table is name calling? That’s pathetic. Not only do you slander Ms. West, you think it fun to slander all of Ms. West’s admirers by calling them “deluded”. What is wrong with you? I think that it is time (long overdue) for you (and David) to do some serious introspection, asking yourself why you are incapable of engaging in an adult disagreement without resorting to slandering individuals and groups. Thankfully I have been fortunate to have NOT read anything you have written and intend to keep it that way.

      • John

        I am reading Diana West’s fascinating book. I just finished chapter 5 and I can’t wait to get to the end.

      • ahuva2001

        Dear Mr. Radosh:

        I’m not that familiar with this dispute and have no “dog in the fight” but I’m confused by your reference to copyrights as preventing you from sharing info. From your post, the archived materials themselves that you viewed seemed factual in nature. Unless they were an authored compilation (or original works authored by others) no copyright violation could occur as facts are not copyrightable. Feel free to clarify as I am aware that I may not have the entire story. Thanks.

      • David Yost

        You have all the earmarks of someone who has been locked up in the ivory tower for decades and can no longer interact positively in the real world. No one other than God knows truth absolutely. It is something that can be approached asymptotically, but only with persistent, diligent objective work and dialogue. The tone of your writings on this American Betrayal issue disqualifies you as a legitimate pursuer of truth here.

  • bobguzzardi

    What was, and is, the impact of the treachery of Soviet Communist agents and Soviet Communist sympathizers in the US government on US foreign and domestic policy, if any?

    Diana West has her view. What is yours?

  • Brian Schiff

    I haven’t read the book-and I made it about half-way through Radosh’s world-record longwinded review of it;I read ‘Blacklisted By History’ by M. Stanton Evans-which I thought cleared Mccarthy.So far,I think Frontpage blew it on this one-but I’ll continue to read it.

    • verifikatio

      Don’t worry Brian, Frontpage Mag got your back!

      Protecting you from all the evil whities like George Zimmerman, with a right to ‘stand their ground’.
      Protecting you from all these ‘traitors’ and ‘chinese double-agents’ like Edward Snowden, who dares to assert the great NSA, might be violating our constitutional rights.
      And last but not least, they will ruthlessly protect you from anybody who, like Diana West, review historical evidence from WWII. We all know where that leads right?

      I guess the next ‘great threat’ Frontpage Mag unselfishly will be protecting you from is that god awful Rand Paul guy! – now, don’t you go google it.
      Stay in the fold.

      • Brian Schiff

        Hey schmuck…verifikatio(?)-I use my name-not some cartoon character meshugenah name that you came up with-which shows you’re hidin’ from sumthin’.

  • monostor

    “Silencing the opposition” is that what FPM does. That’s the most loved strategy of those against whom the DW book was written. She dared to unearth the inconvenient truth. You are what she says you are: “hypocrites” and “totalitarians”. Take it from someone who spent half-a-lifetime under the wise dictatorship of one of Moscow’s epigones. Because of this type of attitude it is still impossible to allot communism its right place in history: the most destructive, the most inhumane political regime known to humanity. It is not enough for someone to declare “i moved to the other side”, it is imperiously necessary to look deep into one’s soul and admit that the move was not only the “fashion of the day” but one motivated by the knowledge that he/she supported something that goes against human nature, against the quest for the right to life and liberty. You see, a reformed smoker is the most ardent supporter of anti-smoking laws. The same thing cannot be said about the so-called american “anti-communism”. The american anti-communism is only lip service, for the anti-anti-communist trend is still strong. And that is DW’s message: one cannot close a chapter in history by allowing half-measures/cosmetic reparations. Gorbachev tried that and failed. Europe as a continent tried that and failed. US still allows only partial critiques of it. All in all it is sad to see that happening. DW is right in her assessment that appeasement of one form of totalitarianism makes room for further submissive policies. Mr. Radosh disapproves historical parallels. He is wrong. By doing that he closes avenues of objective analysis and possible criticism. “The rest is history” as the saying goes, does not help the need to correct today the wrongs of the past. On the contrary.

  • cantpleaseall

    Kinda figured–Birch Society lit the fuse and McCarthy blew them up. Horowitz and his buddy Radosh exploded like two hysterical teenagers. How dare you think McCarthy was good. Oh, dear!

  • mmichlin

    I think FrontPage was wrong in one thing: once you publish something, don’t remove it – this smells bad and gives the opponent a powerful weapon. Of course it is not “suppression”, but publishing a critical review without removing a favorable one is the way to go.

    • wildjew

      I am inclined to agree. However, Mr. Horowitz wrote they did not want to leave the impression FPM is endorsing the book.

      • David Horowitz

        Equally important, it was irresponsible to publish a review whose author did not have the background to provide readers with an informed opinion.

    • http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/ Evi L. Bloggerlady

      That is exactly correct. Leave the original review and then have Radosh’s.

  • Vince

    Adjectives and nouns are both wonderful things but they play different roles in communicating ideas. Mr. Rodosh begins at the highpoint of calling Ms. West ‘McCarthy on Steroids’ and descends from there. If I were Ms West I might take a negative attitude on Front Page as well. They
    represent a cold war mentality which was fresh air in its day but requires significant updating. Take a breath Mr. Horowitz and stop the name calling.

    • david horowitz

      Since West regards McCarthy as an American hero and right about everything, calling her McCarthy on steroids is a compliment from her point of view. And that’s the problem.

    • Crazycatkid

      Agree. I’ve had reason to differ with Mr. Horowitz before but I appreciate many of the writers here (Glazov and the incredible Greenfield) However, I think that Mr. H is losing his objectivity. It is great to have friendships of 60 yrs but as a reader I am little impressed by which name brand conservative historian likes which other. I am just a citizen who seeks information. I am fully able to sift through the varying world views of authors to create my own opinions. The book review written by Rodosh was unprofessional and over the top in insulting West. Maybe a nice serotonin uptake inhibitor would help him? I haven’t read West’s book but recall reading that she recently supposedly did some name calling too (was it Spencer & friends on Islam- not sure).
      Lets stop this silliness and try to behave like adults. It is a scary world out there and children cannot hope to meet the current challenges.

      • Dustin


        I think one problem for Radosh and Horowitz is that if West is onto something it would tend to show that older ‘brand name’ conservative historians failed to be effective at their work.

        Radosh relies heavily on logically fallacious arguments and shows a great need to resort to criticizing his target personally. If he did that because that’s the best argument he can muster, I would prefer if they brought back the original review. And if he didn’t need to rely on that then I hope he has learned what childish reviews do to his credibility.

        • markolinux

          “I think one problem for Radosh and Horowitz is that if West is onto
          something it would tend to show that older ‘brand name’ conservative
          historians failed to be effective at their work.”

          That hit the nail on the head. Historical research is not automatically “conspiracy theory” just because it calls into question previously-accepted “wisdom”, even if that accepted view seems to be heavily supported by facts. Facts can be misinterpreted. We tend to see what we want to see. That’s human nature.

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            Radosh’s work is hardly “accepted wisdom.” In fact, I’d call him a revisionist in the best sense. His work has been essential to discrediting the Left-wing history of the period, according to which the communist penetration of the government was simply a fantasy of deranged Right-wingers. To point out that SOME Right-wingers are deranged about these things does not vitiate his previous work.

  • Kenneth Sikorski

    I know Diana to be an honorable person of great integrity, that is how I view her work and how she should be treated, not in the unprofessional manner that the FP editorial staff and management have done. Shame on them all.

    Ronald Radosh has spoken, all must prostrate themselves regardless of the vitriol and spittle spewed and act like nothing has happened? Really?

    • Dylan Felts

      Fire that up your brain cells. Sometimes I forget that ‘critical thinking’ thingy and lose out when I do.

      • Dustin

        Dylan, Kenneth provided an argument and reasoning. You provided an elitist insult.

        Why is it that most of the nasty insults are coming from those who are claiming they are the ‘competent’ and enlightened side?

        Usually, if that’s really the case, there’s no need to resort to insults… yet you and Radosh and Horowitz are relying heavily on them.

        • bobster1985

          What reasoning? Kenneth offers no counter-arguments at all, simply calling FP unprofessional. Radosh demolished each and every one of West’s key contentions upon which her book is based; she declined to respond to FP’s offer of a rebuttal. I saw no vitriol in his review. Do you wonder why liberals argue that conservatives are ideologues who care nothing about the facts?

          • Dustin

            ooooh, he demolished her arguments! he even demolished points she didn’t make, actually. I don’t think he read the book in the first place, which is why his arguments are so vague and rely on appeals to authority. Every time I bring this up I get another appeal to authority or a hand waving, and I’m wondering if you guys understand how reasoning is supposed to work.

            Anyway, there’s a reason Radosh and his supporters sound like WWF cheerleaders. It’s insecurity.

          • BS61

            Bobster1985 Do you see no vitriol in calling someone a conspiracy theorist? Perhaps you could provide examples, because i sure saw NO specifics in Radeshes article.

  • http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/ Evi L. Bloggerlady

    http://theothermccain.com/2013/08/08/diana-west-dissed-by-david-horowitz/ Robert Stacy McCain disagrees with you on this.

    I guess it boils down to was Hopkins a Soviet agent or not?

    But to purge your first favorable review, have Radosh do an extremely critical one, and then not note that Ms. West said she would respond else where seems questionable.

  • joe

    Sadly, it appears that both Radosh and Horowitz have trapped themselves in defensive mode. They instigated the attack against Wes

    • David Horowitz

      It is West who instigated the attack. That’s an indisputable fact.I removed a review because its author was unfamiliar with the history she was talking about, not because it was positive. I offered her as much space as she needed to answer any criticisms that might appear in the second review. She responded by rejecting the offer and launching a personal attack calling us hypocrites and totalitarians. This was before Radosh’s review.

      • Feisty Hayseed

        @2c7d376f4e4e8001b697dd222acdb541:disqus 1) I read Mr. Radosh’s feverish missive to you about Ms. West’s work – it was all hysterical accusation AND NO FACTS. 2) You responded in what I guess you think is an adult mature manner to Mr. Radosh’s overwrought AND FACT FREE accusations – as you describe the actions you took. Fine. However 3) And I cannot believe that a man of your age has NOT learned this Life Lesson – Someone calling you a pejorative name DOES NOT REQUIRE that you behave in the same manner, does it? No it does not. Regardless of which party “started it” – You do NOT have to respond in kind. You sound like a kid in grade school caught in a fight with a sibling by a Parent – “But Dad, Diana STARTED IT!” Geez!

  • Nancy Murdoch

    Maybe I’m missing something but I lost interest when the John Birch Society was attacked. JBS was disparaged for speaking the truth, and some would like to make them a fringe group. If so, then I’m on the fringe. They espouse principles of liberty and freedom that most in traditional America believe.

  • glennd1

    It’s interesting that Horowitz is so reasoned and measured in this dispute over history, but is absolutely hysterical when it comes to a clear presentation of the Zionist campaign of invasion, occupation, colonization and ethnic cleansing in Palestine. Were he to be so clear headed in his view of the campaign that Albert Einstein and other prominent American Jews compared to Nazism in ’48 – their words, not mine, see the open letter to the New York Times which contains this comparison – I would have much more respect for Horowitz. But nope, when it comes to Israel, the truth is simply not evident.

    Even most Zionist historians in Israel now admit that the Zionist’s actions were thus. Ben Schlomo Ami (former foreign minister) and Benny Morris when confronted with this kind of characterization now just shrug and claim “all nations are born in blood.” Why is Horowitz so out of line with what the vast majority of historians now believe in the issue of Zionism but so committed to integrity on this issue? Hmmm…

    • http://historyscoper.com T.L. Winslow

      What moose hockey. There are no such thing as “Palestinians”, they’re all Muslim Arabs who are part of the gigantic Muslim Arab Ummah, and could easily be relocated by their fellow Arabs to leave poor outnumbered surrounded Israel alone and drop their jihad. Instead they are forced on Israel to keep it going, then painted as innocent victims in agitprop to clueless non-Muslims, which you fell for. There will be peace in the Middle East only when the Muslims chuck Islam, Allah, Muhammad and his jihad, dissolve the Muslim World, and ask for Jewish help in rejoining the human race, with new nations and boundaries, since Israel’s destiny is to encompass all territory from the Nile to the Euphrates and be a shining beacon to the world, and the future belongs to them.


  • Debra Burlingame

    Yesterday, Frontpage editor Jamie Glaznov posted Mr. Radosh’s review of Diana’s book on his Facebook page. A number of comments questioning the review and defending Diana’s proven professional integrity, ensued. Mr. Glaznov reprimanded one commenter (who was exceedingly polite), to essentially shut up. I posted the earlier favorable review Frontpage had removed so commenters could see and compare. That got me promptly “unfriended” by Mr. Glaznov. I find it ironic that Glaznov, who has been a stalwart critic of Islam’s suppression of free speech, would circle the Frontpage wagons on behalf of Mr. Radosh’s clubby sense of entitlement to historic examination of this subject. Sunlight, gentlemen.

    • glennd1

      But of course, Glazov is a blithering moron, so why would you ever expect something sensible from him? Horowitz diminshes himself significantly by having such a dimwitted troglodyte editing this site.

  • David Bloch

    What about the fact, brought out by Ms. West in her book, that General MacArthur was promised military aid in defending against the Japanese but never received it? Seven months went by and nothing – yet the flow of material continued to Stalin. At that time we had no American soldiers in harms way in Europe. Radoush and Horowitz never address this issue. 150,000 American soldiers were left for dead in the Philippines. The communist infected FDR administration’s first priority was to comrade Stalin, American soldiers in harms way be damned.

  • http://www.clarespark.com/ Clare Spark

    Congratulations to both David Horowitz and Ronald Radosh for their courage in confronting the problems in the Diana West book. This will hit many fans very hard, and it is difficult to give up an admired author. It is a loss for them, but a gain for scholarly integrity.

    • Dustin

      Dr Spark, is this the first comment you’ve ever left that didn’t include a spammy link to your website? If so, you really meant it when you said you “rever” Radosh.

      I’ve noticed your comments before and marveled at how you admire careers instead of ideas. You barely even mention ideas, choosing consistently to fawn over personalities… like a fan of a sports team or a comic book hero.

      For example, here laud the “courage” of very well established folks squashing a more upstart author while deceptively memory holing a contrary opinion. It isn’t clear what’s courageous about that. Whatever concept you had in mind did not go explained.

      I am so tired of this. The academe is crumbling into dust because of this.

  • Ben

    “In the early 1960s Oleg Gordievsky, a KGB officer, attended a lecture by the veteran Chekist Ishak Akhmerov, who, (…), had been the “illegal” Rezident in the United States during the war. Akhmerov mentioned his contact with Alger Hiss, but the man he described as “the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in the United States” was Harry Hopkins. Gordievsky became one of the most knowledgable defectors from the KGB. Even more to the point, Gordievsky had been an agent in place for British intelligence (MI6) until he was exposed by CIA traitor Aldrich Ames” (Venona Secrets, Herbert Romerstein and Eric Breindel, Washington 2000, page 212)

    Mr Radosh did not participate in any symposium on the Komintern organized in Russia (in 1990s) or in any of the Eastern European countries. Unlike the best expert on communism and propaganda Mr Herbert Romerstein who lectured at those places.

    Mr Radosh never interviewed Mr Gordievsky unlike Mr Romerstein whose friends interviewed Mr Gordievsky on his kind request.

    Mr Radosh was not involved in talks to Communists in an effort to counteract their propaganda.

    Mr Radosh was not a long-time House Unamerican Acitivities Committee, Mr Herbert Romerstein was.

    Mrs Diana West based her reflections on Mr Herbert Romerstein expertise.

    I encourage everyone here to take the book by Mr Romerstein to flush out the poison Mr Radosh and Frontpage served.

  • Joe Childers

    I read the book. Some of her conclusions may have outrun the facts but I assumed any reader would have gathered she was engaging in so degree of speculation. I also read Mr. Radosh’s critique and believe he went a little far and made his criticism personal. Of course, fighting over events 70 years old doesn’t help conservatives defeat the real threats posed by Obama and the Islamists.

  • Ben

    It is worthy to know that scholars of Mr Radosh class advised American CiA to drop one of the most important Cold War defectors, who armed with a piles of the precious KGB documents knocked at the door of US Embassy somewhere o the globe. He was turned down. Fortunately for world population the British Embassy opened its doors and some of the great Mitrokhin archives were eventually published clearing disinformation cultivated and transmitted by supposedly brilliant American historians. Such is a state of scholarly integrity of major part of American academia.

  • Clare Lopez

    When I first began reading Diana’s book, I told friends that the vehemence of the anti-anti-communist movement was new to me, as I’d spent 20 yrs. inside the Intelligence Community focused on the Soviet/Russian threat. Never occurred to us that there was any doubt about the infiltration, the penetration, the GRU/KGB networks. That was simply our job description. Now I see exactly what Diana means about the denial and the personal attacks that await anyone courageous enough, like her, to tell the truth in the open source world — even with meticulous research and hundreds of citations. But chiseled in marble in the main lobby of the CIA building are these words, a biblical verse never more true than now:

    “And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.”

    • Benjamin Kerstein

      Radosh does not deny “the infiltration, the penetration, the GRU/KGB networks.” In fact, he’s been fairly relentless in exposing them. What he does in his review is point out huge errors and factual inaccuracies, as well as point out that those networks, damaging as they were, did not run the U.S. government, and to claim otherwise is madness.

      • JJ

        Sounds like Diana West simply needs to do another fact-scan of her book. Why is that such a big deal? Well I see why, but in the interests of accuracy..

    • markolinux

      This reminds me a lot of the furor over James Jesus Angleton and his
      insistence that Golitsyn was genuine. To this day, most think Angelton
      did more harm than good, even if he was right (and I think he was).

      If he *was* right, and Golitsyn had good intel regarding Soviet long-term
      plans (even if his personal mannerisms were a bit put-offish), regardless of the supposed “damage” done to the CIA then, what does that
      imply NOW?

  • jburack

    I appreciate David Horowitz’s account of this affair. I would only suggest this specific clash could be useful to conservatism if it forthrightly announces an awareness of a very deep divide, one that cannot be evaded and must be confronted fully. The divide is not one between libertarians and neo-cons, not between moderates and principled ideologues, not between social and economic conservatives, not between populists and insiders, none of that at all. It is one between those open to political differences and dialogue and those with minds closed in a clinched fist of self-righteousness. People like Horowitz and Radosh know that second type all too well. They took brave stands against them in the Sixties. Well, they are standing against them now. And it’s the same “them,” no matter that the ideological clothing is different. Exactly the same.

  • Christine Brim

    If you have not yet read “American Betrayal” you owe it to yourself – and to this vigorous debate – to pick up a copy, now discounted 24% at amazon.com (just $20.52). http://www.amazon.com/American-Betrayal-Assault-Nations-Character/dp/0312630786/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375973868&sr=8-1&keywords=American+Betrayal

    The book continues to be a TOP SELLER at amazon – in the TOP 10 books across amazon.com in two categories today!
    #8 in Commentary and Opinion
    #9 in History & Theory.

    Maybe there’s a reason for that success. Give it a try.

  • http://cogitarus.wordpress.com/ ★✩★ David ★✩★

    As a bystander watching this parade go by, I would only comment by saying that those who go ballistic and go on the offensive attacking others rather than offering a reasonable and calm and methodical defense of themselves and the facts, are almost always the party who is without the facts and is attempting to build the golden calf of self importance and a prideful heart.

  • gfmucci

    “…I received an email from Ron Radosh whom I have known for more than sixty years…”

    David, you may be confusing your liberal, Commy protester years during your great appreciation of Rodish with you more recently-found conservatism.

    • Benjamin Kerstein

      Radosh simply pointed out that a) the book is massively inaccurate, and b) it’s a deplorable and potentially self-destructive piece of conspiracy theory. I think that’s rather the opposite of something a communist would do with, say, a Marxist history of communist espionage in the U.S.

  • Bill Tracy

    I intend to read the book, look at the source notes and make up my mind then. But I have to admit I don’t see the reasoning behind removing the positive review. Let readers read both and decide for themselves.

    • crosspatch

      What I took Mr. Horowitz to say is that if one has a conservative world-view but is not well-versed in the actual facts, they might tend to have a favorable view of the book in that it validates what they might be “spring loaded” to want to believe. However, once one becomes aware of the actual facts surrounding the issue, the book loses some of its shine. Just because one likes the conclusions reached doesn’t make them accurate and at some point we must strive for truth rather than further an agenda.

  • Pastorius

    Her outrage, sense of betrayal, and lack of humor sure certainly do sound familiar to me.

  • Darrell

    The attacks on Diana West are too personal to be taken seriously. Bad reviews are a normal part of a writer’s life, but only those that are factual, rational, and void of hysteria should be taken seriously. I am puzzled by the vitriol spewed Ms. West’s way. If you don’t like the book, state so calmly and factually, but leave personal attacks out of it.

    • Benjamin Kerstein

      How on earth was Radosh’s review not factual and rational?

      • Darrell

        Personal attacks and name-calling never are.

        • Benjamin Kerstein

          First, sometimes they are. If someone is a liar and a distortionist, saying so is both a personal attack and entirely accurate.

          Second, let’s say your claims about Radosh’s review is accurate (I don’t think they are), I see no reason why a review cannot include personal attacks and name-calling and also be factual and rational. The former in no way negates the latter.

          • emptorpreempted

            I guess it depends on what you mean by “factual” and “rational.”

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            Are you confused on the subject?

          • emptorpreempted

            Let’s say I am.

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            I think the definitions of “fact” and “rational” are fairly straightforward. But letting that go for the moment, I do not see why facts and rational argument cannot go hand in hand with invective. Read Maimonides, for example. His work is of extraordinary intellectual rigor, but his remarks about some of his rival thinkers are bracing, to say the least. I don’t think this diminishes his ideas in the least bit.

            Now, I would agree that mistaking invective for fact or rationality is indeed a problem, one of the reasons I strongly dislike Ayn Rand. But I do not see Radosh indulging in that.

          • emptorpreempted

            Since personal attacks have the effect of forestalling intellectual discussion, a writer, in so far as he resorts to them, shows himself to be aiming at something other than knowledge of the truth. That’s why invective doesn’t go hand in hand with rational argument.

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            I did not say that they went hand in hand, I said that one does not vitiate the other. That someone engages in personal attacks does not mean the facts he cites and criticisms he makes are untrue. The one is irrelevant to the other.

            I have never heard of such a ruling by Maimonides.

            In relation to Radosh’s article, I do not think the distinction – should it exist – is particularly related to the issue at hand. He cites the fact, for example, that Agent 19 was not who West says he is. He then draws rational conclusions from it – i.e., that West got it wrong.

  • Seek

    Good for Ronald Radosh. His review was a sound critique of an irresponsible book. Diana West long has exhibited a bizarre, overheated tone in her writings. Check out her editorials and her previous book, “The Death of the Grown-Up.” To be nice about it, she’s no scholar. Indeed, I find her to be an embarrassement to conservatism.

  • http://whenfallsthecoliseum.com/author/kwatson/ megapotamus

    You won’t find a bigger anti-Commie than myself and I have long ago read both Venona and The Sword and the Shield. Not too familiar with West’s book, I found the excerpts I saw did rely on some debunked foundations and, speaking of totalitarian, declared a Manichean philosophy I had indulged but discarded in my teens. I take a bit of umbrage though at David’s casual dismissal of the Birchers. Like McCarthy, they weren’t too photogenic but were more right than their antagonists. What is Communism if not a vast global conspiracy? Harry Hopkins may not be the infamous Agent 19 but his public actions more than make him out as an enthusiastic Stalinite. Shall we make fine distinctions between socialism and The New Deal? If it seeks the goals of Communism and achieve the policy planks of Communism, what is it? No, a Progressive is a socialist is a Communist is a fascist is a Stalinist is a Trotskyite is a Bukharanist. It is past time to award points for ‘intentions’ especially when those intentions are openly malign. So, no cheers for West, including of course, her unwarranted repostes but no cheers on the merits, either.

  • okokok

    Conservatives are such cowards and fear mongerers: now they are afraid of Hillary…lol; they are afraid of gay people getting married or serving in the military; they are afraid of bringing terrorists to super max prisons in the US from which no one has ever escaped; they are afraid of the boy scouts letting gay kids in; they are afraid of everyone voting and are constantly suppressing the vote under some bogus voter fraud theory; they are afraid of letting students vote at their universities; they are afraid of women having the right to choose; they even are afraid of women getting contraception [the real issue actually is a women’s agency and control over their bodies];; they are afraid of mandating gun purchasers to undergo background checks for crazy people and terrorists; they are afraid of people smoking pot; they are afraid of climate change being real and contradicting their beloved Bible; they are afraid of legitimate campaign reform; they are afraid of Muslims; they are afraid of blacks; they are afraid of atheists; they are afraid of hippies; they are afraid of socialists; they are afraid of immigration reform leading to citizenship because they are afraid of– name whatever reason; they are probably still afraid of monsters under their beds; they are just rank cowards and keep making things up to be afraid of…

    • Benjamin Kerstein

      First, liberals are equally terrified of conservatives, who they seem to consider little more than closet Nazis.

      Second, conservatives have some fairly good reasons for fear. Historically, conservatism has always tried to cultivate skepticism toward change and a belief in the necessity of preserving existing institutions. The reasons are: 1) Change is not inherently a good thing, and can often be a bad thing. 2) Even if change is a good thing, it can often be destabilizing and potentially dangerous to social cohesion and the general welfare. 3) As a result of #2, change – if advisable – should come slowly and through existing institutions rooted in the culture and history of a specific community.

      Many of the examples you cite (I do not say all) involve potentially destabilizing changes to society. Given that we depend on social stability for a very great deal – including, sometimes, our lives – conservative skepticism about any or all of them is quite understandable. And if they seem to be coming too thick and fast, fear is by no means an unreasonable reaction, so long as that fear does not devolve into irrationality.

      Irrationality, however, is universal, and neither Left nor Right has a patent on it.

  • stone7

    I haven’t read West’s book, but I did read Radical Son at least twice.

    My question is, is the criticism about West’s book about factual errors, or about conspiracism?

    Reading about people who live as amateur secret agents, moving into neighborhoods not to live and let others live, but with a hidden agenda. Settling in to subvert at every chance, to tear down and replace, not live and let live. Misrepresenting virtually everything about their lives. Is this not fraud?

    And is fraud not force? And together is this not an actual conspiracy?

    What is appropriate action when you discover that your neighbor is secretly, patiently, waiting to kill you, or gain power to lock you away in a gulag?

    I’m confused. I’m sure it’s me not you.

  • David Thomson

    I have to seriously reevaluate Diana West’s new book. Ron Radosh and David Horowitz are serious men who cannot be lightly dismissed. I may have jumped on the author’s bandwagon a bit too soon. The ball is now in her court. Does West have a response. It’s all up to her.

    • Guest

      go to her website and read it:


    • Christine Brim

      Actually David, even better – buy the book and make your own judgment. I don’t know about any bandwagon but the “American Betrayal” is #5 in History & Theory and #8 in Commentary & Opinion at amazon.com . Just because a book is selling well and being reviewed well often is seen as a good thing (perhaps not by other authors of course…). Usually success is taken to mean that readers are interested in the subject matter and the author is presenting that information compellingly. The reviews are 4.5 out of 5. Why not give it a try? Make up your own mind on this.

      Also, why not follow Diana West’s series of responses to the Radosh critique – the Part 2 just went up this afternoon: see http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/2610/If-Frontpage-Lies-about-This-Theyll-Lie-about-Anything-Pt-2.aspx

      A highly informative post on Hopkins and the variety and range of
      evidence establishing his role as an agent of influence in the White
      House. I think there will be a lot more coming, day after day. Something to look forward to.

  • Donald J DaCosta

    I defended Ms. West and was critical of Radosh whose review, in my humble opinion, was 22 pages of a book he said he normally would not review. This comment reflected both contempt for Ms. West and her ilk for presuming to think she could encroach on his lofty historians playing field and a petty desire to put this upstart in her place by severely denigrating her work. Mr. Radosh may very well deserve his reputation as a historian but his review reveals he’s also an intellectual bully.

    He spent the entire 22 pages ripping her work to shreds. This is a constructive, impartial critique? There is absolutely no redeemable value to be found in the pages of her book? Absolutely nothing positive he could say about Ms. West? No defense or acknowledgement for the work, an ‘A’ for effort?

    Another problem with Mr. Radosh’s critique; he titled it, “McCarthy on steroids.” Here Mr. Radosh uses the almost universal opinion of Joe McCarthy as deserving of the derogatory term successfully entered into the lexicon by his liberal, progressive and likely some who were communist, critics: McCarthyism.

    Did Mr. Radosh read the book by M. Stanton Evans? Was or is, “Blacklisted by History,” worthy of his historian’s interest? Does this book not, at least to some extent, redeem Joe McCarthy or is he stuck in the historians open, inquiring
    mind as a rabid, radical obsessed with a communist threat of his own invention? Mr. Radosh and Mr. Horowitz apparently think the latter.

    Now Front Page has joined Radosh by withdrawing their formerly positive portrayal of West’s book based, on his inflammatory review, and expresses indignation when Ms. West acts like a tiger protecting her cubs. Being avid observers of human nature, what did they expect.

    The historical significance or insignificance of American Betrayal is getting lost in all this petty squabbling far more worthy of liberal progressives than mature conservatives. Whether or not it has any impact on the sale of the book remains to be seen but if American Betrayal, factually accurate or not, by
    exposing the disturbing similarities between the communist penetration in government during the McCarthy era, the surreptitious Muslim penetration into government and American society today, amidst the fervent denial of same, it will have served a higher purpose. It’s historical inaccuracies can be corrected later by Mr. Radosh, if he deems it worthy of his efforts.

  • Christine Brim

    Good news! “American Betrayal” at amazon.com continues to sell in the top ten books in 2 major categories for all books sold in the United States at amazon – moved up to #5 across all of amazon in History & Theory category, and to #8 in Commentary & Opinion. If you haven’t read this ground-breaking book, you owe it to yourself – and to this increasingly insightful debate – to judge for yourself. Try it today!

  • visiting critic

    so why do you keep deleting posts that tell that u238 gets turned into plutonium from being hit by a neutron. Radosh is either evil or ignorant. he tries to make the case that since Hopkins sent U238 to Russia via lend lease and their first bomb was made from plutonium that Hopkins gets a clean bill of health. Wise up and learn some nuclear physics.

  • Kevin

    David Horowitz wrote: “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.”

    Does this include M. Stanton Evans???????

  • Christine Brim

    If you haven’t read Diana West’s Part 2 in her series of responses to the Radosh critique, definitely go read it at http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/2610/If-Frontpage-Lies-about-This-Theyll-Lie-about-Anything-Pt-2.aspx

    This will be an ongoing series, day after day, and will help further educate the public on the evidence and the analysis – beyond just the Radosh critique, it’s yet another way to bring the work of so many researchers who are the foundation of Diana’s own research for the book, to a broader readership.

    And consider picking up the book itself – “American Betrayal,” available of course at amazon.com – best way to make up your own mind on this debate.

  • pamelageller

    This is all really badly done. What grist for the enemy. DHFC gave her the opportunity to respond. She went the vicious route instead. But I am not
    surprised: I have seen Diana West attack people on our own side. I know:
    I’ve been a victim. I’ve seen the emails Diana West sent to Bat Ye’or
    about me, full of vicious lies designed to destroy our friendship and
    association. And here again, she acts true to form. Whatever the
    intellectual disagreement, Diana West’s behavior is not the way
    grown-ups should behave.

    • Dennis Milligan

      Just the situation to take up a personal beef. Unbelievable!

    • MemoryMan

      How many people could say the exact same things about you? Quite a few.

      Your hypocrisy would be shocking, to anyone who didn’t know you.

    • BS61

      Hi Pamela – Please share these so I can be informed. Thanks!

  • ratonis

    This sounds like a skirmish initiated by someone who wants to “own” the conservative voice on cold war matters. Intellectual vested interests and all that. Familiar story. I read West’s blog post today and I think she makes some very interesting observations about Radosh’s selective citation of her alleged flaws regarding Harry Hopkins. Referring to something that is not even in her book, by the way, is not good reviewing.

  • Merican

    This discussion is starting to resemble the one between the Bolsheviks and the Trotskyites!

  • VLParker

    I don’t have enough knowledge about McCarthy or Hopkins to take a side in this debate. I do, however, wonder why Mr. Radosh can’t countenance conspiracy theories. Is he saying that conspiracies never happen? Didn’t Benedict Arnold conspire with the British to turn over West Point? Hasn’t the left successfully conspired to take over our public education system? Haven’t governments since the beginning of time tried to infiltrate other governments with agents? Isn’t that what Islam is doing now in our country? Didn’t the FBI find documents from the Muslim Brotherhood conspiring to ‘sabotage America’s miserable house from within’? Conspiracies happen all the time and to say you cannot countenance conspiracy theories is absurd.

    • Sue Sponte

      Sure there are all kinds of conspiracies constantly going on, from the drug gangs down the street; where it goes over into paranoia is when people assert that some broad historical event or process turned on that. It trivializes history and reflects a superficial knowledge of that subject matter. Arnold conspired with the British Army, but the American Revolution did not turn around that. And no, “the left” didn’t “conspire” to take over anything, these are broad policy trends that have played out in public, unless you think Congress and our state legislatures are conspiracies. One can disagree with those policies and trends, conspiracies they aren’t however.

      Yes, great powers run espionage rings particularly during times of war. What do you expect? Were there dozens, even hundreds of Soviet (and Nazi) agents in the US? most probably, how many American ones were in Russia (or Germany) is obviously still a US state secret. The issue here is the contention that the course World War 2 turned on this and did not have broad world-historical causes. The idea that the American political and military leaders were so stupid, such “dupes”, with no cunning appraisal of their own nation’s interests as the world biggest super power, no ability themselves to manipulate their opponents cum allies into their own “useful idiots”, no mastery of the dark arts of war and intrigue, that they were in essence such pathetic chumps, that the entire US government and military was hijacked (West’s word) by the Soviet Union to the point that America was under virtual soviet occupation (her word again) is a ridiculous and infantile assertion that merits the ridicule critics have heaped on it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Marks/1266358046 Paul Marks

    Ronald Radosh’s attack on West starts off with a backhanded attack on the late Senator Joe McCarthy – this article also contains an attack on Senator McCarthy (although in more measured tone).
    If someone wants to attack McCarthy they have to (if the attack is in good faith) deal with the arguments and evidence presented in defence of J.M. by M. Stanton Evans in “Blacklisted by History” – Radosh does NOT do this (and neither does this article).
    As for Harry Hopkins (and Dexter White and ……) surely what matters is that these people were Soviet agents-of-influence (which they were – that has been known for years, indeed decades) not what their exact code name (or number) was.
    No one is suggesting that ALL the New Dealers were pro Soviet – but many of them were pro Soviet, and worked for the Soviet Union against the “capitalist” United States.

  • Sue Sponte

    I think West’s screed is not so much a function of dishonesty, although her work is certainly reckless with the facts, as it is the hysterical borderline personality that animates too many fringe ideologues, something discussed in Richard Hofstatder’s classic, The Paranoid Style in American Politics, something we see with conspiracy theorists on both the left and the right.

  • Feisty Hayseed

    This explanation makes me physically ill. No wonder the Progressives have been “eating our lunch” for decades – we destroy ourselves – we tear each other apart. I have never heard of your buddy of 60 years, this alleged historian Radosh. Nor do I wish to know any more about him or read another word that he has to say. I read Diana West’s book American Betrayal – and found it to be a Tour De Force, a very powerful, compelling and eye-opening read. And one which was a fully documented, cross-referenced, annotated, foot-noted, and etc. as anything that you or your buddy Radosh has ever written. What really sickens me, what I find truly disheartening is how rapidly (and eagerly I might surmise) you descend into the gutter to engage in name-calling. Good Lord! You are all allegedly Grown Men, educated men, in fact you are Our Elders and you engage in this kind of sophomoric and juvenile name calling – “Oh yea, well you are the paranoid conspiracy theorist not me”. Geez David, GROW UP. How old a man are you? Why don’t you try to act your age.

    • BS61

      Well sadly I have to agree here – I don’t come here to hear conservatives attacking conservatives. Plus I’ve never heard of Ron!

  • Gamal

    I have always been an admirer of Diana West but am shocked by her response to Radosh’s review. So it’s critical big deal, why did she make personal attacks on the people at Frontpage? That’s irrational behavior for a normally very inciteful and rational woman. Diana, you and Frontpage Magazine are on the same team and you both do good work don’t attack them whether you agree with the reviews they post or not.

  • Elpi Nipni

    Dear Front page Magazin
    All Iknow is that history repeats itself. All that was done to McCarthy was done just recently to Michelle Bachmann and by “conservativs” too, i might add.
    The evidence that proves West’s claim is in the Acadmia. Isn’t it infested by Marxsists professors? how has this came about? Is the history that Oliver stone present (now’ un colleges) is the Real history?
    This is just the new and modern version of the McCarthy era.
    Do you (or the esteemed Mr. Radosh) deny the penetration of the Muslim Brothrhood to the United States government? And to all walks of life?
    Like I said before, history has a way to repeat itself. Mr. Radosh might be a respected historian but he is as conservative as the leader of the House.
    When the time will come to confront the take over of America by the Muslims, Front Page Magazin would not be proud to have publishe thay attack [attack on some unimportant details but that meant only to bash the whole work and not to prove it is wrong] on West and have negated all the great work tha tthis site has been doing.
    It is shameful to have publish Mr. Radosh criticism on this book in the first place, for you did not bash her on her book ‘the death of the grownups’. why, these two books are connected, and i did not hear Mr. Rasosh criticing it, or maybe ut dud not shake his world view as it should have? maybe you [FPM] did not publish it?
    I read a lot of articles on FPM’ everyday and I also read Ms. west analysis of all thing Muslims. It is a wonder to me that you never published anything by the great (conservative) historian, Ronald Radosh except the piece on West’s work, and that too based on your personal acquaintance.
    Murder of character has been done through both by Leftists and by Conservatives (Bachmann) and now it is Diana West’s turn/
    I am just hurt that FPM’ a site that is my main source of TRUTHhas come down to this/

  • spikess

    Radosh’s critique was not factual and your decision to print it was stupid. Are you happy now Mr. Horowitz that you have set your mind ” strait ” in that vast space between your ears.

    • BS61

      Spikess – The reason I fail to call out David Horowitz is he is the first one to explain anarchist in the OWS documentary. I appreciate him for calling out the Islamonazis. I’m not sure what history or connection he has with Diana West or Ron, I’m a contributor do David so I’m hoping that he is mistaken

  • Digli

    My new book will do what Diana West’s book could not.
    My Thesis is based on the indisputable fact that Hirohito, Churchill and Hitler were all amateur landscape painters and the inescapable conclusion that we must draw is that World War II was a conspiracy of amateur landscape painters designed to dominate and control the world. All this Soviet agent nonsense is just so much absurd fluff when these historical facts are objectively considered.
    I cannot imagine any book being as pointless as Ms. West’s.

    • RCraigen

      Hi Digli. While I think your brief satire of Ms. West’s piece pointless and off the mark, it is nevertheless a nicely tossed ball. Thanks for a fine chuckle.

      • Digli

        You’re welcome.
        Satire is often pointed and on the mark.
        A perfectly thrown split finger can often retire the side.
        How pray tell does one argue with speculation and invention?
        Ms. West’s book doesn’t deserve any of the thousands of words of commentary or an apology from David Horowitz or needless to say the hundred words of crap that I wrote.
        Best regards, Digli

        • RCraigen

          A pleasure to disagree amicably with you sir. Let us together lift the level of this discourse. Cheers!

    • BS61

      Hi Digli – So you don’t believe that communist exist and still want to take us down?

      • Digli

        Oh yeah…..
        I can totally see how you got that idea from what I posted.
        What else did I not imply that you could some how imagine I believe?
        Patton wanted to march from Berlin to Moscow and Churchill said he would hold hands with the Devil to beat Hitler. Some things like these are facts and some things are imaginative invention. Like Diana West’s book and your reply to my comment.
        Best, Digli