Was Harry Hopkins A Soviet Spy?


FDR_Harry_HopkinsFrontpage Editors: Today, we are proud to publish this scholarly article by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr on the question of whether or not “Agent 19,” the code name of a Soviet agent found in the decrypted Venona documents, is Harry Hopkins. Haynes and Klehr are the foremost scholars of the Venona documents and have published a series of books on them for Yale University Press.

This article is a model of how to evaluate historical evidence, and shows the perils involved when isolated data is plucked from historical sources without adequate acquaintance with the sources themselves or with the scholarly discourse concerning them. It also shows why those who insist Hopkins was a Soviet agent have not carried out a scholarly inquiry, and why their conclusions are unreliable.

In 1933 newly elected President Franklin Roosevelt extended diplomatic recognition to the Soviet Union.  But high expectations of a fruitful relationship soon dissipated.  Diplomatic relations were politely cordial, but significant economic and personal engagement between the two nations failed to develop.  After the signing of the Nazi-Soviet Pact in August 1939, diplomatic relations cooled, and President Roosevelt publicly rebuked the USSR for its attack on its neighbor Finland in late 1939.

But the Nazi attack on the Soviet Union in June 1941 began a new phase in Soviet-American relations.  FDR quickly extended American aid to the USSR and sought to assist its resistance to the German invasion.  When the United States entered the war in December, Roosevelt regarded maintaining a military alliance with the USSR as indispensable for defeating Nazi Germany and sought to make the USSR a full and leading partner in the coalition of Allied powers fighting Nazi Germany.  FDR’s policy toward the Soviet Union was one of accommodation, demanding little from the Soviets while offering generous military and economic aid without strings and seeking to satisfy Stalin’s foreign policy wants and needs.  Further, as Allied victory became more certain, Roosevelt sought to make the USSR a full partner in shaping and leading the international system that would emerge after the war.

The president’s policy of accommodating the USSR had wide support among FDR’s advisers, but none was more fervent than Harry Hopkins.  Hopkins had long been a close Roosevelt associate, but by 1940 he had emerged as his most trusted aide.  Indeed, when Hopkins developed serious health problems, FDR insisted that he move into the White House where his medical condition could be better treated and monitored.  He would live there more than three years.  In addition to his policy advice, Roosevelt used Hopkins as his personal envoy for sensitive wartime diplomatic missions.  Additionally, FDR appointed Hopkins to administer the Lend-Lease program.  This massive program of providing military and economic aid to America’s wartime allies was a vital part of America’s war effort, and Hopkins’ direction of it made him a powerful figure in wartime Washington.

After the war ended the hopes of a peaceful post-war era vanished as Soviet-American tensions escalated and the Cold War developed.  (Hopkins died in 1946, so what he thought of the collapse of the plans that he and FDR had pursued is unknown.)  With the development of the Cold War, not surprisingly, harsh retroactive criticism emerged toward Roosevelt’s wartime policy of lavish accommodation of Soviet wants and needs.  As one of the figures most identified with FDR’s accommodationist policy toward the Soviets, Hopkins was among the chief targets of post-war critics.

However, some critics went beyond criticism of Hopkins’ foreign policy judgment and suggested that he had been a Soviet agent, a spy who subverted American national interests in cooperation with Soviet intelligence officers.  Until the 1990s the case for Hopkins as a Soviet agent was an unconvincing one.  There was no direct evidence of Hopkins having any covert contact with Soviet intelligence.  Instead there was simply the fervor of his pro-Soviet policy.  Essentially, the case came down to asserting that anyone as ardent as Hopkins, in pursuing Roosevelt’s policy of accommodating the Soviets, in particular Hopkins’ role in providing the Soviet Union with massive, no-strings-attached Lend-Lease aid, just had to have been a Soviet agent.  From the point of view of serious historical scholarship such an argument is a non sequitur.  That Hopkins enthusiastically supported, embraced, and carried out an accommodationist policy toward the Soviet in World War II is not at issue.  Someone, including senior government policy makers, can easily hold mistaken, stupid, destructive, or outrageous views about what should be the foreign policy of the United States without being the agent of a hostile foreign power.  Indeed, numerous people have done so and continue to do so.

But in the 1990s some direct evidence appeared that some researchers judged was sufficient to conclude that Harry Hopkins knowingly cooperated with Soviet intelligence agencies. Among the more prominent works are Herbert Romerstein and Eric Breindel’s The Venona Secrets: Exposing Soviet Espionage and America’s Traitors, M. Stanton Evans and Herbert Romerstein’s Stalin’s Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government, and, most recently, Diana West’s American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character.[1]  Ronald Radosh has ignited an angry debate with a full-throated attack on West’s conclusions about Hopkins as well as other aspects of her book that has been met with fierce denunciations by her and her defenders.[2]

The case advanced for Hopkins’ guilt has two parts.  The first is a highly specific claim that Hopkins was a Soviet agent code-named “19,” a high level source who appears in a Soviet cable deciphered by the U.S. National Security Agency.  That claim, however, is entirely mistaken.  The fallback position is that even if Hopkins is not “19,” there is nonetheless convincing evidence that he was a Soviet agent.  That claim is based on evidence too weak to be the basis for a confident conclusion.  We do not believe the notion that Hopkins had a knowing and covert link to Soviet intelligence should be entirely dismissed, but the evidence of such a link is insufficient to support so explosive a charge.

Hopkins and Agent “19”

“Venona” was the name of a highly successful American project to decipher a set of coded Soviet international cables, largely exchanges between Soviet intelligence stations in New York, Washington, London, and other locations with their headquarters in Moscow.  The Soviets had used a normally unbreakable code, but a procedural error made about 3,000 cables, largely 1942-1946, vulnerable to decryption.  While the messages generally used cover names to refer to sources and persons of interest to Soviet intelligence, in many cases it was not difficult to attach a cover name to a real name.  Because the Soviets believed their cipher to be unbreakable, they on occasion used real names.  Further, even when a real name was not given, the deciphered messages often described the cover-named person in such detail as to his or her employment, travel, and other activities that Venona project analysts, assisted by FBI field work, could confidently attach a real name to a cover name.  But while hundreds of cover names were identified, there remained hundreds that were not due to the paucity of the information provided about the person’s activities.  One of those unidentified cover names was a Soviet source with the cover name “19.”

Source “19” appears in a single Venona message numbered 812, dated 29 May 1943, and sent to Moscow from the New York station of the NKGB (predecessor to the Cold War era KGB).  The NKGB station operated out of the Soviet diplomatic consulate in New York City.  The National Security Agency declassified the decrypted Venona messages in 1995-96 and has made them public on the web.[3]

In 1999 we published Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America, a book that explored what could be learned from the Venona decryptions about Soviet intelligence operations in the United States. We discussed the mysterious “19” at length, writing: he “reported on a private conversation he had with President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill during the just ended ‘Trident’ conference of the two Allied powers in Washington.  The message, from the New York KGB office to Moscow, is signed by the KGB illegal officer, Iskhak Akhmerov.  It states ‘19 reports that Kapitan [Roosevelt] and Kaban [Churchill], during conversations in the Country [USA], invited 19 to join them and Zamestitel.’  Unfortunately much of the subsequent text is only partially deciphered.  It is clear, however, that Source no. 19 reported on Churchill’s views that an Anglo-American invasion of continental Europe in 1943 was inadvisable.  The message also reported that Zamestitel supported a second-front and that it appeared that Roosevelt had been keeping Zamestitel in the dark about ‘important military decisions.’”[4]

We further stated: “There is too little material for a firm judgment on the identity of Source no. 19 It appears that this source was at the Trident conference or one of its ancillary events and was very highly placed, since he was asked to join a private conversation with Roosevelt and Churchill.  Beyond that, however, it is difficult to get much of a clue about Source no. 19’s identity.  It is not even clear that Source no. 19 was American; possibly he was part of the British delegation that accompanied Churchill, and there were a few Trident events attended by senior officials of other Allied powers and several governments-in-exile.  Unfortunately, the deciphered parts of the message do not give the exact date of Source no. 19’s conversation with Roosevelt and Churchill.”[5]  Additionally, we noted that even the identity of Zamestitel was not clear.  Since in Russian it means “deputy,” Venona project analysts at first though it referred to Vice President Henry Wallace but later suggested that it might be Harry Hopkins.  We thought the original Wallace designation the more likely.

While we judged “19” to be unidentifiable, a colleague had reached a different conclusion.  The late Eduard Mark published an essay in 1998 entitled “Venona’s Source 19 and the Trident Conference of May 1943: Diplomacy or Espionage?”[6]  We knew and respected Mark’s scholarly ability.  We discussed the agent “19” issue with him as he was preparing his essay (and we were then preparing our Venona book) and, at his request, commented on early drafts of his essay.  Mark’s argument was essentially a “last man standing” one.  He meticulously went over records of who was known to have been at various Trident-related events to narrow down the list of who was present simultaneously with Roosevelt, Churchill, and Wallace and could plausibly have discussed the second front issue.  (Mark also considered the possibility of Zamestitel being Hopkins but, as we had, thought Wallace more likely.)  Mark came down to seeing only four plausible candidates for “19”: Harry Hopkins, Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King, London-based Lend-Lease coordinator W. Averill Harriman, and Britain’s Lord Beaverbrook.  He then considered each in turn and finally concluded, “the fact remains that there is no plausible candidate for 19 but Hopkins.”[7]

We disagreed and told him so when his essay was still in draft form.  In our view a “last man standing” argument is indirect and circumstantial and is only convincing when one can definitely identify all of the possible candidates and eliminate all but one.  While the records of who attended formal Trident conference events were largely reliable, those of Trident-related events, particularly less formal social events, were not.  Record keeping in that era of social functions were simply too casual to be regarded as definitive.  Not everyone on an invitation list showed up, and those that did would, particularly if they were of senior standing, bring a guest.  Mark was of the view that most social events could be ignored because something as sensitive as the second front would not be discussed.  Our view was that senior officials in that era were notorious for gossiping about such matters among themselves even at such events and those venues could not be ruled out.  Consequently, one could not be confident of knowing all of the possible candidates for “19” and a “last man standing” argument could not be viewed with certainty due to the fragility of the scaffolding of evidence.

We also added that the substance of the message did not suggest Hopkins as a likely candidate for “19.”  While the message was so poorly broken that it was difficult to be sure of anything, nonetheless one could tell that “19” was reporting new information that he had discerned from the conversation between FDR, Churchill and Wallace and that one of the revelations was: “19 thinks that ‘Kapitan’ [FDR] is not informing Zamestitel [Wallace] of important military decisions and that therefore Zamestitel may not have exact knowledge of [1 cipher group unrecovered] with the opening of a second front against Germany and its postponement from this year to next year.”  Given the close relationship of Hopkins to FDR, the knowledge that Roosevelt was and had been almost from the outset of the war excluding Wallace from the inner-circle of war policy advisors would not have been new information and would have been reported to the Soviets long ago if Hopkins were “19.”

Mark, however, was confident of his argument and proceeded with publication.  We made note of his argument that “19” was Hopkins in our Venona book which was published subsequent to Mark’s essay and noted that he also concluded “that the readable portions of the message do not allow a clear determination of whether Hopkins/19 was a Soviet covert source or as a benign ‘back channel’ diplomatic contact between Roosevelt and the Soviets.  We agree that the partial decryption and ambiguity of the message does not allow a confident judgment on Source no. 19’s relationship to the Soviets; while impressed by Mark’s analysis, we view the evidence as too slim to enable us to reach a judgment about Source No. 19’s identity.”[8]

We would add that there was never any acrimony between us over this matter.  We simply agreed to disagree.  Indeed, our respect for Mark was such that a few years later we invited him to assist with our work on Alexander Vassiliev’s notebooks that had not yet been made publicly available.  Vassiliev’s notebooks with their 1,115 pages of extracts, lengthy quotations, and summaries of KGB archival documents were a true treasure trove of primary documentation of Soviet espionage in America.  The notebooks would be the basis of our 2009 book, Spies:The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America.[9] Simultaneous with the appearance of our book, Mark published an exceptionally fine essay on Alger Hiss using the Vassiliev material.[10]

We did not, in fact, give any more thought to the identity of “19” until we gained access to the Vassiliev notebooks.  These notebooks put a “case closed” end to the mystery of “19.”  Source no. “19” was Laurence Duggan.  Duggan had joined the State Department in 1930 and served as Latin American Division chief, 1935–37, and then chief of the Division of the American Republics (merger of the Latin American and Mexican Divisions).  In 1940 he became a senior advisor to the Secretary of State on Latin America.  He left the State Department in 1944.  He was recruited as a Soviet spy in 1935 and remained an active source until he left the State Department.  Soviet intelligence remained in touch with him even after he resigned from the State Department in hopes he would regain a government position of interest to them, a hope based on his close relationship with Henry Wallace.  The two were friends, and Wallace often asked Duggan for advice on foreign policy matters.  (Vassiliev’s notebooks also put an end to the ambiguity of “Zamestitel.”  He was Wallace, as Venona analysts first determined.)  Duggan’s close relationship with Wallace also suggests why he was included in a conversation involving Wallace with FDR and Churchill.

Duggan and his wife were well-liked figures in Washington society.  Duggan had met President Roosevelt on numerous official and social occasions and was a favored acquaintance of Mrs. Roosevelt.  In 1948, after a former KGB spy, Hede Massing, identified Duggan as having been a Soviet source in the late 1930s, the FBI questioned him, but he denied any involvement.  Five days later the KGB, which had not been in touch with him for several years, attempted to recontact him.  The pressure from two sides appears to have been too much for Duggan, and he jumped to his death from his sixteenth-floor office at the Institute of International Education in New York. A few days later a reporter asked Congressman Karl Mundt, a member of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, when the committee would name other Soviet spies, and he tactlessly responded, “We’ll name them as they jump out of windows.” Enraged, Duggan’s prominent friends—including former undersecretary of state Sumner Welles, former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt, poet Archibald MacLeish, and prominent journalists Drew Pearson and Edward R. Murrow—all defended his reputation and integrity and blamed his death on irresponsible red-baiting.  Several generations of historians agreed. As late as 1995 the prominent historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., denounced Yale University Press for allowing our book, The Secret World of American Communism, to refer to Duggan as a Soviet source, angrily writing that it “should not have permitted this book to blacken the name of a man whom many knew as an able public servant.” All of them were wrong. Duggan was a Soviet spy.[11]

Not only was Duggan a Soviet spy, he was “19.”  His career is exceptionally well documented because Alexander Vassiliev had access to Duggan’s personal KGB files, and his extracts from these files occupy thirty-nine pages of his Yellow Notebook #2.[12]  Because of his lengthy service Duggan was designated by a number of cover names in KGB communications.  The one he held the longest was “19” along with variants “Nineteen” and “Nineteenth” from 1935 to 1944. There are two exceptions in this period.  Duggan was recruited and run by the KGB “illegal station” but the “legal station” operating out of the Soviet embassy in Washington briefly designated him with the cover name “Official” in 1935 before it was waved off by the illegal station because it had already begun his recruitment.  Further, in 1943 and 1944 Iskhak Akhmerov wrote some special reports on Duggan where he referred to him as “Frank.”  As for KGB regular communications, a Moscow directive changed his cover name from “19” to “Sherwood” in August 1944, and then to “Prince” starting in September 1944.  Duggan appears in various Venona messages under these same cover names.  Venona analysts correctly identified Duggan as the real name behind “Frank,” “Prince” and “Sherwood” but, as we know, designated “19” as unidentified due to it occurring only in a single message with too little personal information.[13]

While a number of KGB officers had contact with Duggan, his longest and closest relationship was with Akhmerov, who had first dealt with Duggan in the late 1930s and had to engage in a good deal of “hand-holding” as the American grew uneasy with the Moscow Trials and news that the upper leadership of the Soviet government was being purged.  There had been a gap in their relationship after Akhmerov returned to the USSR in 1939; he came back in 1942.  Other Soviet officers had been in contact with Duggan in the interregnum, but the relationship had been rocky, and one of Akhmerov’s task on returning was to reestablish Duggan’s trust and convince him to become a more active source.  Duggan was a special concern to Akhmerov because he was at that time the most highly placed source the illegal station had in the U.S. Department of State.  In a report to Moscow in August 1942 Akhmerov wrote: “In a ‘Re ‘Frank.’ – For the sake of convenience and simplicity I will continue to call ‘19’ ‘Frank.’  My relationship with him has improved significantly. He is not displaying his former nervousness and conveys the impression of a person who is sincerely sympathetic to us,” but went on to note that increasing Duggan’s productivity might take some time.[14]

Our book Spies with its lengthy section on Duggan that noted his various cover names and quoted from various KGB documents about him as “19” up through August 1943 has been available since 2009.  Further, the Vassiliev notebooks have been on the web and available for research use as part of the Woodrow Wilson Center virtual archive since 2009 as well, although a page index making research much easier was not available until 2013.  Consequently, we are puzzled that two books, Evans and Romerstein’s Stalin’s Secret Agents and West’s American Betrayal, that appeared subsequent to Spies and to the public availability of the Vassiliev notebooks, assert that “19” in Venona 812 was Hopkins but fail to note our description of “19” as Duggan and avoid mentioning how “19” as Duggan appears in the Vassiliev notebooks through August 1944.  Both book stress, and rightly so, that Harry Hopkins was President Roosevelt’s chief personal advisor on war policy.  Consequently, the assertion that Hopkins was a Soviet agent is not a minor matter.  We think these authors had a responsibility to show that they had considered the evidence of the Vassiliev notebooks and why they had, nonetheless, concluded that “19” in Venona 812 was Hopkins.  They failed to do so, and we think it seriously weakens both books.

Even if Hopkins is not “19,” is there convincing evidence of his having been a Soviet agent?  The single item of quasi-direct evidence suggesting Hopkins’ link with Soviet intelligence is found in Christopher M. Andrew and Oleg Gordievsky’s KGB: The Inside Story of Its Foreign Operations from Lenin to Gorbachev.[15]  Andrew, a British historian, is one of the leading Western historians of Soviet espionage and many professional historians would name him the leading historian. Gordievsky was a senior KGB officer and head of its London station from 1982 until 1985.  But in the late-1960s he had become a double agent for Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service (SIS).  When he fell under KGB suspicion in 1985 he defected to the United Kingdom.  The book was a collaboration that combined Andrew’s deep understanding of the history and evolution of the KGB with Gordievsky’s personal knowledge of its operations in Western Europe from the late 1960s until his defection in 1985.  It remains to this day one of the premier histories of the KGB.

The portion of KGB relevant to the Hopkins matter derives from Gordievsky, not from Andrew’s archivally based historical research.  It is secondhand, verbal, and not contemporary.  From the point of view of scholarly history this is the weakest sort of evidence.  Not so weak that it should be entirely dismissed and forgotten, but too weak to be regarded as much more than suggestive and something to be kept in mind in case it allows one to make sense of more reliable contemporary documentation.  What is reported in KGB is that Gordievsky remembered in the late 1980s a lecture he attended in the mid- to late-1960s as a young KGB officer.  The lecturer was Iskhak Akhmerov, then a retired KGB officer in his mid-60s.  Akhmerov had been a highly successful field officer with a long career with the KGB, operating in Europe, Asia, and North America.  As told in KGB:

The main subject of his lecture was the man whom he identified as the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in the United States: Harry Hopkins, the closest and most trusted adviser of President Roosevelt. Gordievsky later discussed the Hopkins case with a number of officers in Directorate S [illegals] and FCD [foreign intelligence] American experts.  All were agreed that Hopkins had been an agent of major significance.  Gordievsky, however, came gradually to the conclusion, as he discussed the Hopkins case, that Hopkins had been an unconscious rather than a conscious agent.  That interpretation of Hopkins’s connection with the KGB best fits the evidence of his career available in the West.[16]

What we have here is Gordievsky’s 20+ year old memory of a lecture by Akhmerov remembering events from 20+ years earlier.  Gordievsky never saw any documentation, contemporary or otherwise, about Hopkins.  The story is secondhand: Gordievsky is reporting what he heard Akhmerov say.  This is literally what is called “hearsay” evidence that is not normally admissible in an American court.  “Hearsay” evidence, however, is perfectly admissible in history as long as it is treated with care and excessive weight is not put upon it.  In this case, it is not only secondhand, it is second hand and 40+ years after the events in question happened, so this is the edge of what a responsible historian would take seriously.  Non-contemporary secondhand evidence is, frankly, notoriously unreliable.  Not only are non-contemporary memories poor, there tends to be a significant amount of embellishment that occurs.  Was Akhmerov embellishing?  That, we believe, was Andrew’s conclusion and the source of the last sentence quoted above that Hopkins was likely an unconscious source.

Because of its inherent weakness, scholarly historians treated Gordievsky’s secondhand memory as an interesting uncorroborated story or, as had Andrew, as an embellishment of Hopkins’ long know attitude toward the Soviets.  What gave Gordievsky’s story renewed life was when some researchers connected Gordievsky’s story with Venona 812.  The latter message was signed by Akhmerov, and some writers leaped to the conclusion that since Venona 812 was signed by Akhmerov and mentioned a source close to FDR, that source must be Hopkins.  Further, Eduard Mark appeared to prove that “19” was Hopkins.  The Breindel, Romerstein, Evans, and West books all take this position.  But “19” wasn’t Hopkins, he was Duggan.

Venona 812, then, provides no support for Gordievsky’s story.  Nor do any other Venona messages offer any support.  Consequently we are back to his story being non-contemporaneous secondhand evidence that is too weak to support a confident assertion.

Since Venona’s release in the mid-1990s, two other significant sources of documentation on Soviet espionage have become available: the Mitrokhin archive and Vassiliev’s notebooks.  Neither offers any support for Gordievsky’s story.

The Mitrokhin material came to light in 1999.  Mitrokhin was a KGB field officer who later became the agency’s archivist.  Alienated from the regime, he began copying, extracting and summarizing archival material on KGB operations.  He defected to the British SIS in 1992.  Mitrokhin’s material covers sixty years of KGB operations.  Some of Mitrokhin’s material has been made public but most is available only via the two books: Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin’s The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB and The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the Third World.[17]

The only new material Mitrokhin provided on Hopkins was a 1943 report that Hopkins had notified the Soviet ambassador in Washington that the FBI had observed a Soviet diplomat meeting covertly with Steve Nelson, who supervised San Francisco area operations of the Communist Party of the United States.  The FBI had bugged Nelson’s residence and overheard Soviet diplomat Vasily Zubilin delivering funds for Nelson’s work and discussing possible cooperation between Nelson and covert Soviet activities.  The FBI surmised, correctly, that Zubilin was likely a Soviet intelligence officer.  Indeed, he was the new head of the KGB legal station.  (His real name was Vasily Zarubin.)  The FBI had reported the incident to the White House via a letter to Hopkins.[18]

This incident, however, was not evidence of Hopkins having a covert link to Soviet intelligence.  Had that been true, it would have made far more sense for him to deliver the information to his covert intelligence contact.  Instead, Hopkins delivered the warning to the Soviet ambassador.  Soviet intelligence officers often used diplomatic cover for their activities; Zubilin/Zarubin is an example of that.  But real diplomats and intelligence officers avoided getting their activities mixed up.  The Soviet ambassador was not a professional intelligence officer, and neither he nor the KGB officers who worked undercover in his embassy wanted him to knowingly engage in meeting with Soviet agents.  It was too complicated and risked either disrupting Soviet diplomacy, Soviet intelligence, or both.[19]  That Hopkins approached the ambassador with this information is actually evidence that he did not have a covert intelligence contact to whom he could provide the information.

But, even if he did not have a covert link to Soviet intelligence, why would Hopkins alert the Soviets to what the FBI had learned?  It was likely yet another example of the exaggerated lengths to which not merely Hopkins but other leading officials in the Roosevelt administration, including the president himself, went in attempting to win the Soviets’ trust and make them into working partners with the United States in winning the war and in constructing the peace to follow.  To give another example, in late 1944 the U.S. Office of Strategic Services (predecessor to the Central Intelligence Agency) obtained from Finnish intelligence officers a Soviet code book (or a collection of Soviet code and cipher material, the record is not entirely clear).  Secretary of State Stettinius learned of the matter, and in what is in retrospect a remarkably naive act, successfully urged President Roosevelt to order the OSS to hand the material over to the Soviets as a gesture of good will.  So far as is known, the OSS did not even keep a copy.[20]

Likely Hopkins’ 1943 act was a similar gesture of good will and a friendly warning to the Soviet ambassador to keep the intelligence officers on his staff under control.  Like virtually all such gestures to the Soviets, it went unreciprocated and was treated as a sign of American weakness.  It was both reckless and destructive, but not evidence that Hopkins was a Soviet agent.[21]

In addition to establishing that “19” was Duggan and not Hopkins, Vassiliev’s notebooks do not have any information pointing toward Hopkins having a covert relationship with Soviet intelligence.  Hopkins’ name shows up on numerous occasions, but always as innocuous references to his position as head of the Works Progress Administration and other New Deal agencies in the 1930s, secretary of commerce in the late 1930s, and during WWII, chief personal adviser to and personal representative of President Roosevelt.[22]  Also, in regard to Gordievsky’s report of Akhmerov’s claims about Hopkins, Vassiliev copied excerpts in his notebooks from the 1984 book Station Chief Gold, an internal KGB summary of Akhmerov’s career, used as an instructional textbook at the Andropov Red Banner Institute, a KGB training school, when Vassiliev was a student there in the late 1980s.  None of the passages Vassiliev excerpted mention Hopkins.[23]  There are cover names of sources in Vassiliev notebooks that cannot be attached to a real name, but none that could be Hopkins.   To be sure, no information is not negative information.  The absence of information linking Hopkins to Soviet intelligence in Vassiliev’s notebooks is not proof that he did not have such ties, but simply shows that this source offers no corroboration for claims that he had such ties.

Nor is there any information from defectors from Soviet intelligence in the 1930s and 1940s such as Whittaker Chambers (from Soviet military intelligence), Hede Massing (KGB) or Elizabeth Bentley (KGB) that point to Hopkins. Nor is there any information in FBI files that we have reviewed, and we have reviewed tens of thousands of pages of FBI files.  Again, however, this is simply a lack of corroboration, not negative proof.  There are also plenty of FBI files we have not read.

We are left, in the end, with a view that, first, Harry Hopkins was not source “19” in Venona 812.  Any argument that Hopkins was a spy based on that assumption is simply false.  Second, the Gordievsky story is interesting and should not be dismissed but it is secondhand, purely verbal, and 40+ years after the events in question.  Without corroboration it should not be used to make an assertion that Hopkins was a Soviet agent, and we are not aware of any corroboration. We do not totally dismiss the idea that Hopkins had covert Soviet intelligence ties, but the evidence is very thin.

Some people would point to Hopkins’ avid pursuit of a “give the Soviets everything they want and ask for nothing in return” and ask “what difference does it make whether he was a Soviet agent or not?”  There is an important difference between a policy-maker who advocated and implemented policies highly destructive to American national interests because they had foolish, naive, or even dangerous notions about foreign policy and those who are agents of a foreign power.  The first are wrong, the second are traitors.  We don’t think an assertion that someone was an agent of a foreign power should be made unless one has convincing evidence.  To do so in the absence of convincing evidence is poisonous and contaminates civil discourse.  That Hopkins made stupid or pernicious decisions is one thing: there is, however, no convincing evidence that he was a traitor.

Notes:

[1]Herbert Romerstein and Eric Breindel, The Venona Secrets: Exposing Soviet Espionage and America’s Traitors (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2000), 112–15; M. Stanton Evans and Herbert Romerstein, Stalin’s Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government (New York: Threshold Editions, 2012), 112–22; Diana West, American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2013), 129–48.

[2]Ronald Radosh, “McCarthy On Steroids,” FrontPage Magazine, 7 August 2013, Http//Frontpagemag.Com/2013/Ronald-Radosh/Mccarthy-on-Steroids/.  Diana West’s website, dianawest.net, has posted her own replies, such as Diana West, “If Frontpage Lies About This, They’ll Lie About Anything – Pt-2” (2013), Http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/2610/If-Frontpage-Lies-about-This-Theyll-Lie-about-Anything-Pt-2.aspx, as well as those of others.

[3]A downloadable image of Venona 812 can found at http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/venona/may_1943.shtml.  A more easily readable transcription can be found in Venona New York KGB 1943, 100 accessible via John Earl Haynes, “Venona Project and Vassiliev Notebooks Index and Concordance” (2013), Http://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/venona-project.

[4]John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press [Nota Bene], 2000), 205.  While this book first appeared in 1999, we are quoting from the 2000 edition.

[5]Haynes and Klehr, Venona [2000], 205–06.

[6]Eduard Mark, “Venona’s Source 19 and the Trident Conference of May 1943: Diplomacy or Espionage?” Intelligence and National Security 13, no. 2 (April 1998).

[7]Mark, “Venona’s Source 19,” 16.

[8]Haynes and Klehr, Venona [2000], 422–23, n. 42.

[9]John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr, and Alexander Vassiliev, Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009).

[10]Eduard Mark, “In Re Alger Hiss: A Final Verdict from the Archives of the KGB,” Journal of Cold War Studies 11, no. 3 (Summer 2009): 26–67.  Mark originally presented this article as a paper at a May 2009 symposium, “Alexander Vassiliev’s Notebooks and the Documentation of Soviet Intelligence Operations in the United States, 1930–1950,” at the Cold War International History Project, Woodrow Wilson Center, Washington, DC.  During one of the question-and-answer periods and in informal conversations at the symposium Mark remarked that the Vassiliev notebooks had convinced him that “19” was Duggan and he no longer held to his 1998 position.  He died unexpectedly shortly after the symposium and, consequently, never published a formal statement on the matter.

[11]Harvey Klehr, John Earl Haynes, and Fridrikh Igorevich Firsov, The Secret World of American Communism, trans. Timothy D. Sergay (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 117; Allen Weinstein, Perjury: The Hiss-Chambers Case (New York: Random House, 1997), 269; Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., “The Party Circuit,” New Republic, 29 May 1995, 39.

[12]Vassiliev Yellow Notebook #2, 1-39.

[13]Both Vassiliev’s notebooks and the Venona messages where these cover names appear as well as his real name can accessed on the web.  See Haynes, “Venona & Vassiliev Index” for downloadable PDF files of all of these sources.  Duggan appears under his real name at: Vassiliev Black Notebook, 17, 78, 88; Vassiliev Yellow Notebook #2, 1–4, 30–32, 36; Venona New York KGB 1943, 209; and Venona New York KGB 1944, 22, 152, 258, 312, 372, 463, 649, 668.  He appears as “19” in Vassiliev Black Notebook, 17, 43, 46, 48, 78, 88, 161, 170, 172–75; Vassiliev White Notebook #1, 12–13, 30–33, 45, 47, 55; Vassiliev White Notebook #3, 116, 118–119, 121; Vassiliev Yellow Notebook #2, 2–3, 5–30, 33–38; Vassiliev Yellow Notebook #4, 96, 98–99, and Venona New York KGB 1943, 65–66.  He appears as “Nineteen” in Vassiliev Yellow Notebook #2, 23 and as “Nineteenth” in Vassiliev Yellow Notebook #2, 11, 25–28.  His single appearance as “Official” is in Vassiliev Black Notebook, 17.  He appears as “Frank” in Vassiliev White Notebook #1, 45; Vassiliev Yellow Notebook #2, 29, 32–33; Venona New York KGB 1943, 208–9; and Venona New York KGB 1944, 22, 152, 258, 312, 371–72.  He appears as “Sherwood” in Vassiliev White Notebook #1, 55; and Venona New York KGB 1944, 462–63.  He appears as “Prince” in Vassiliev Black Notebook, 72, 78, 88; Vassiliev White Notebook #1, 55; Vassiliev Yellow Notebook #2, 1, 34, 36; and Venona New York KGB 1944, 462–63, 648–49, 666–68.

[14]“Mer” [Akhmerov] letter to the Center via Zarubin, 29 August 1942, Vassiliev White Notebook #1, 45.

[15]Christopher M. Andrew and Oleg Gordievsky, KGB: The Inside Story of Its Foreign Operations from Lenin to Gorbachev (New York, NY: HarperCollinsPublishers, 1990).

[16]Andrew and Gordievsky, KGB, 287.

[17]Christopher M. Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB (New York: Basic Books, 1999); Christopher M. Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the Third World (New York: Basic Books, 2005).

[18]Andrew and Mitrokhin, Sword and the Shield, 111.  FBI summary of Nelson/Cooper [Zarubin] conversation, 22 October 1944, serial 3515, FBI Comintern Apparatus file 100–203581. The FBI summary of the recorded conversation is found in U.S. Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, Interlocking Subversion in Government Departments [Hearings] (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1953), part 15, 1050–51. See also “COMRAP—Vassili M. Zubilin” and J. Edgar Hoover to Harry Hopkins, 7 May 1943, reproduced in Robert Louis Benson and Michael Warner, Venona: Soviet Espionage and the American Response 1939–1957 (Washington, D.C.: National Security Agency; Central Intelligence Agency, 1996), 49–50, and FBI report, “Soviet Espionage Activities,” 19 October 1945,” attached to Director to Vaughan, 19 October 1945, President’s Secretary’s Files, Harry S. Truman Library, Independence, Missouri.

[19]In the late 1940s the Soviets attempted to coordinate diplomacy with intelligence by making the ambassador not only the chief diplomat but the ‘chief of station’ of the intelligence unit operation out of the Soviet embassy.  The experiment did not go well, and was soon abandoned. Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev, Spies, 521–22.

[20]Edward Stettinius, Jr., memorandum for the President, “Soviet Codes,” 27 December 1944, President’s Secretary’s Files, “Russia — 1944,” box 49, Franklin D. Roosevelt Library.

[21]This 1943 Hopkins warning to the Soviet ambassador is the single item of new information on Hopkins that is derived from Mitrokhin’s archival material.  There is, however, a confusion in The Sword and the Shield that requires explanation.  Mitrokhin’s archival notes contain documents on KGB activities in the late 1930s in the United States and identify Duggan as a KGB source with the cover name “19,” just as do Vassiliev’s notebooks.  Andrew drew the conclusion that Duggan’s cover name had changed to “Frank” by 1943, based the 1943 Venona messages were “Frank” appears and is identified as Duggan.  Because of this assumption, Andrew gives credit to Mark’s analysis of Venona 812 that the “19” in that message is Hopkins and takes the view that it was reporting back-channel diplomacy, not espionage.  Andrew and Mitrokhin, Sword and the Shield, 106, 111, 591, n. 7, 594, n. 65.  However, the Vassiliev notebooks show that “19” remained as the regular cover name for Duggan until it was changed to “Sherwood” in August 1944. Center [Moscow] to May, 11 August 1944, Vassiliev White Notebook #1, 55. “Frank” was a special name that Akhmerov used in some special reports on Duggan in 1943 and 1944, adopted, he said “for the sake of convenience and simplicity.” Mer” [Akhmerov] letter to the Center via Zarubin, 29 August 1942, Vassiliev White Notebook #1, 45

[22]The references to Hopkins can be found at: Vassiliev Black Notebook, 42–43, 46; Vassiliev White Notebook #1, 22, 26, 87; Vassiliev White Notebook #2, 116; Vassiliev White Notebook #3, 113, 120; Vassiliev Yellow Notebook #4, 38, 122, 124.  References to him in Venona, equally innocuous are: Venona New York KGB 1943, 66; Venona New York KGB 1944, 517–18, 767; Venona New York KGB 1945, 185; Venona USA Diplomatic, 17, 67; Venona USA Trade, 3, 22.

[23]A. E. Vassiliev and A. A. Koreshov, Station Chief Gold, Andropov Red Banner Institute, 1984, Vassiliev Black Notebook, 19, 138–40.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • Brett Woods

    Romerstein on Harry Hopkins, Alger Hiss and the Betrayal of Eastern Europe

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwL6K8Kt2Fw&feature=youtu.be

    • Brett Woods

      Is the “Frontpage editor’s note” meant to indicate that Herbert Romerstein, Stanton Evans and Eric Breindel are incapable of evaluating sources?!?

      What a mindboggling, disrespectful and ridiculous thing to say.

      “This article … shows the perils involved when isolated data is plucked from historical sources without adequate acquaintance with the sources themselves or with the scholarly discourse concerning them. It also shows why those who insist Hopkins was a Soviet agent have not carried out a scholarly inquiry, and why their conclusions are unreliable.”

      jeez, how low can you go.

      • david horowitz

        You obviously didn’t read the Klehr-Haynes piece. Breindel died before the book with Romerstein was completed.

      • david horowitz

        The note referred to West and her inability to evaluate the evidence or the reliability of her sources. The Mark case is a perfect example. Her inability to respond to the careful analysis by Haynes and Klehr of the evidence that Agent 19 was Duggan and not Hopkins, is another. Breindel and Romerstein are gone. You might ask Evans for his response to the information released after the publication of his book that shows that Hopkins was not Agent 19. Don’t you think the burden is on him now?

    • bobguzzardi

      Terrific and very informative. Looking forward to reading more by Herbert Romerstein.

  • Dobermite

    Never mind – Repeat Post

  • Dobermite

    I just offer a vigorous defense of Diana West, whom this column is clearly directed at, and indeed I castigated FP for this ongoing smear campaign against Miss West and her book. The thoughtful commentary I posted was immediately retrieved and is awaiting moderation despite no use of profanity or anything that breaks the rules of decorum. I am hoping that FP will release my comments for consumption and not censor them as they censored the previous positive review of Miss West’s book that FP had posted prior to Ron Radosh’s hit piece.

    • Texas Patriot

      I wonder if FP has any idea how strange it looks when they try to suppress the truth about Diana West’s book.

      • Dobermite

        As I said in my prior post, the one FP has heretofore chosen to censor, I cannot claim to know what is motivating this smear campaign, particularly from David whose credentials as a staunch anti communist are well established, but I suspect it might have something to do with Miss West’s re-investigation of WWII, perhaps there is something she discovered that makes them feel uncomfortable from a Jewish perspective, some Pandora’s Box in that respect that they would rather not have opened. In that regard, defeating the Nazis, they may be more comfortable with the current narrative and thats a boat they would rather not rock.

        I’m just guessing here, because the ferocity with which they are going after Miss West and her book makes no sense strictly from an anti communist POV, but its clearly personal. As I said elsewhere, they are going after her the way the Marxist left went after McCarthy and Chambers, literally calling her mental stability into question by tossing around toxic terms like conspiratorial and paranoid. This is exactly how McCarthy and Chambers were discredited and marginalized. Its the exact same playbook and thats what I find most troubling, which I explained in much greater detail in my prior post, the one that is “awaiting moderation.”

        • david horowitz

          Please. Her book is an atrocious mangling of the facts which will discredit conservatives whom she is able to mislead. Yes, there was plenty of Communist infiltration in the Roosevelt administration; yes there were Soviet agents; but this doesn’t mean West’s interpretations of World War II based on massive ignorance of military history, and baseless accusations that officials who disagree with her are Soviet agents, hold any water.

          • david horowitz

            And our “ferocity” as you call it, in addition to being a response to her ferocious attacks (and preceded by her ferocious attacks) does have an anti-Communist rationale. She has discredited herself and will discredit every ant-Communist who endorses her book. I explained all this in a post on Breitbart’s Big Peace yesterday.

          • Dobermite

            David,

            I want you to know something. The reason I am so disappointed in you here is precisely because I have long admired you. In fact I have learned more about Marxist influence in America from you than from another other person on the planet, well, with the possible exception of Andrew Breitbart who first made me aware of Cultural Marxism, but until you came along I was mostly in the dark about the real effects of Marxist ideology in America and I am eternally grateful, but I think that your loyalty to Radosh has clouded your judgement here. Radosh may be a dear friend of yours, but that initial review he wrote, the one that started all this, was a vicious hit piece I’m disappointed that you would even risk your good name to join forces with such a mean-spirited piece that was clearly designed to injure Miss West on a personal level. That she would take it personal and respond in kind should come as no surprise. JMO for whatever its worth.

          • Texas Patriot

            To me, Radosh and Horowitz seem like two peas in a pod.

          • Dobermite

            David has done immeasurable damage to himself here. He should have taken my advice when I gave it to him and left Radosh to fend for himself. I told him his loyalty to a (malevolent) friend threatens to severely damage his good name and all of the good will he has built on the right. I know the heart of conservatives and I knew how they would react to this character assassination and piling on. I’ve been in the conservative movement all of my life and I could have predicted this reaction, AND DID, but David foolishly chose to double-down with Radosh and ignore my advice, and the consequences for that decision can be read all over this forum and throughout the internet.

          • Texas Patriot

            The idea that David Horowitz thought could pull off such a stunt and actually get away with it speaks volumes about what he really thinks of the American people.

            The truth of the matter is that the Marxist Culture of lies and character assassination has left America bitterly divided and a cultural wasteland, and it’s had the same effect virtually wherever it has been tried. Perhaps now is the time for a rebirth of the Authentic American Culture of truth and reason, of building people up instead of tearing people down, and of solving our problems together rather than trying to destroy those who disagree with us.

            It’s high time we start start turning America into the paradise on earth it was meant to be, a land of truth and justice, of free speech and common sense, where human beings are more important than ideology, where all ideas for advancing the human condition will get a fair hearing, and where a profound respect for the innate dignity of all human beings is the order of the day. And in order to do that, we are going to have to leave behind the Marxist Culture of lies and character assassination forever, as well as all those who wish to to practice it.

            It’s not too late for David Horowitz to apologize to Diana West and make amends. The longer he waits, the harder it will be, but it will never be too late. If he’s such a great guy, what’s he waiting for?

          • Dobermite

            TP,

            Watching what David has done to himself here is tragic. That doesn’t mean the reaction he has invited is not merited, it most definitely is, nonetheless it is tragic because I am well aware of all that David has given too and sacrificed for the cause of anti communism. This man was like a son to the late-great Reed Irvine and I believe Reed would be brokenhearted over this, but if he were still alive this never would have happened because Reed would have given David wise council and David would have heeded Reed’s council as he always did. This, in my view, is tragic.

            Radosh, on the other hand, is getting exactly what he deserves. He’s an Alinskyite piece of garbage whose vilification on the right is a long overdue. That he was finally exposed and imploded in such spectacular fashion is a beautiful thing to watch. Couldn’t happen to a bigger d-bag.

          • Dobermite

            TP,

            Watching what David has done to himself here is tragic. That doesn’t mean the reaction he has invited is not merited, it most definitely is, nonetheless it is tragic because I am well aware of all that David has given too and sacrificed for the cause of anti communism. This man was like a son to the late-great Reed Irvine and I believe Reed would be brokenhearted over this, but this would not have happened if Reed were still alive because he would have given David wise counsel and David would have heeded his counsel as he always did. This is tragic, but of course not nearly as tragic as the hell this cabal tried to release on this good and decent woman who in no way deserved this.

            Radosh, OTOH, is getting exactly what he deserves. He’s an Alinskyite piece of trash whose vilification on the right was long overdue. That he was finally exposed and imploded in such spectacular fashion makes it all the more satisfying. It could not have happened to a bigger creep.

          • Texas Patriot

            Unfortunately, I’m just not convinced that former Marxists, Communists, and/or Leftists can ever completely make the transition to Authentic American Conservatism of the kind exemplified by Barry Goldwater both in his life as well as in his timeless classic, “The Conscience of a Conservative”. As clearly seen in the vicious personal attacks by Messrs. Radosh and Horowitz against Diana West, when push come to shove, they seem all too anxious to revert to the old Marxist/Communist/Leftist tactics of lies and character assassination rather than constructive political debate.

          • bobguzzardi

            I am not award that you, David H, nor Ron Radosh or Harvey Klehr or John Earl Haynes are military historians.

            FYI Eisenhower thought that dropping A and H bombs were unnecessary. He is a true patriot but that doesn’t mean he is right about everything.

            The Romerstein link is excellent http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwL6K8Kt2Fw&feature=youtu.be and Klehr and Haynes cite him with approval.

          • David Horowitz

            Correct Bob. We can disagree with Eisenhower without calling him a Communist. Unfortunately, this idea is foreign to Diana West. As it happens Romerstein who was right about a lot of things was wrong about Hopkins being a Soviet agent.

          • BrettWoods

            And this you just happen “know”?

            Curiously Evan Stanton, who is infinitely more knowledgeable about this particular period than you are, believed Romerstein to be right about Hopkins, as is laid out somewhat in detail here:

            http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/08/fdrs_traitor.html

            So clearly there is disagreements about this even among the most eminent of scholars. Stanton and Diana whent with Romerstein, others didn’t. And thus the question remains:

            What’s the biggie?

          • BretWoods

            typo: M. Stanton Evans, of course

          • David Horowitz

            Did you read the Haynes Klehr article. Agent 19 is Duggan. Evans is wrong. The biggie is that West’s entire book attributes major decisions of the war and events of the war to a centrally orchestrated conspiracy which is absurd on its face for reasons I have gone over in my Breitbart article and here but which none of her supporters bothers to address.

          • Jed West

            Retract that comment unless you can site with a page number from American Betrayal where Diana West called Eisenhower a Communist. Your lie here is outrageous.

          • david horowitz

            You obviously don’t understand the meaning of “lie.” Like Diana, you are too angry to think straight.

          • Jed West

            A lie is a false statement. You made an egregiously and demonstrably false statement designed to malign and attack the credibility of the author. You falsely stated that she has written in her book that the President of the United States (Eisenhower) was a Communist. She did not do what you accused her of doing. That is a lie.

          • ernie1241

            A lie is much more than a false statement. All of us make innocent mistakes in judgment and analysis — those mistakes do not make us liars.

            A lie is when someone KNOWINGLY repeats false information.

          • Texas Patriot

            David Horowitz: “We can disagree with Eisenhower without calling him a Communist. Unfortunately, this idea is foreign to Diana West.”

            Americans know the meaning of “lie” very well, and we know a lie and a liar when we see one. By the foregoing statement, you clearly imply that Diana West called Eisenhower a Communist. In her defense, her brother, Jed West, insists that is a false claim, and he asked you to provide proof that what you said is true. You failed to provide the requested proof or any basis for your statement. Instead you resorted to tactics reminiscent of Communist mind games. “You obviously don’t know the meaning of ‘lie’.” “[Y]ou are too angry to think straight.” Ronald Reagan said that when dealing with Communists we should “trust but verify”. You were asked to verify your statement, but you failed to do so. Maybe in your own mind you are not a liar, but what difference does that make? The American people can judge for themselves what kind of man you are.

          • Jed West

            Well said Texas Patriot. This is the Horowitz method of argument. He assaults your character (my “conspiratorial mind”). He attacks your intellect and impugns your mental stability (I’m, “too angry to think straight”). Then, after the set-up, he then he slips away from the challenge to his unsupported, wild charge against the book. He made a false statement (AKA lie) that Diana West called President Eisenhower a Communist. We all know that she did not. He has made so many false statements about the book in writing that’s is doubtful he even read the book. He just says things which are not true repeatedly. It’s sloppy, dishonest, and vicious.

          • Texas Patriot

            I agree that it clearly seems dishonest and vicious, but I’m not really sure that it’s sloppy. From my standpoint, it seems like something straight out of the Communist playbook for discrediting political opponents. I think it’s called the Big Lie theory. In other words, if you tell a big enough lie and repeat it often enough, sooner or later people will believe it. The whole thing just seems surreal to me. Like, can this really be happening in America? I mean, how could a former Communist and a former Leftist ever be regarded as Conservative in any sense of the word? It’s bizarre, really. The good news, though, as Abraham Lincoln said, “You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”

          • Jed West

            Note my comment in this position was moved down somehow so it now doesn’t make sense. I challenged David Horowitz to retract his comment stating that Diana West called Eisenhower a Communist unless he can site a page number where this can be found in American Betrayal. His statement is a lie.

          • david horowitz

            Ah the conspiratorial mind at work. The posts on this thread are moved automatically by the program which is a program created and controlled by Discus not Frontpage. I have the same problem. Your comment is hairsplitting. My meaning is that when you say that Washington was Soviet occupied and that D-Day was a Soviet plot and served Stalin’s interests not ours you are in effect calling Roosevelt and his Military commanders, Eisenhower and Marshall, Soviet pawns, Communist pawns — whatever you like. This is no different from Welch’s calling Eisenhower a Communist and will get the same result. What’s missing from this conspiratorial equation is an appreciation of the fact that the decision to invade France and not go through the Balkans was a decision that may have been warranted by American interests — but this would require a consideration of the military arguments for D-Day and a familiarity with the scholarly histories of the war that take these into account. Unfortunately, West regards everyone who disagrees with her as a communist, a Soviet dupe, or in the case of myself an “anti-anti communist”, i.e., a pro-communist. This kind of thinking is poison.

          • Roy_Cam

            I am about to read that “atrocious mangling of the facts”, DH. If I should come down on Diana West’s side in this case, this will be third time I haven’t agreed with you, the other two times being your comments about Ann Coulter’s book, Treason, and your first article on the Zimmerman case in which you assert Zimmerman’s guilt.

            When you talk about “discrediting conservatives”, I would like to know in whose eyes? I mean does anyone outside the center or center-right care about this at all?

            Does anyone on the left who might renounce his leftist rationalist nihilism think that the outcome of this tempest in a conservative teapot is important to how he looks?

            I don’t think so.

            So, why the level of clamor? The degree of animus?

            Something more at stake here.

          • David Horowitz

            Well, you will notice I took a very different tack with Coulter’s book because her facts generally not mangled and her theories not so preposterous and damaging to conservatives. I thought she undermined her argument by casting too wide a net and failing to see that leading Democrats could not be faulted for treason in any reasonable meaning of the term after 1946 and before McGovern. I thought her attitude towards McCarthy was also mistaken. But West’s preposterous book is a horse of a very different color. It is a mish-mash of incoherent theories refuted by obvious facts (if Stalin had the kind of influence to shape Lend Lease (1941) why couldn’t he get Roosevelt to open the second front in 1942 as he so desperately desired? The brunt of the war was borne by the Russians. Was this a Soviet plot as West maintains every other war decision was?

            The level of clamor was partly provoked by West who accused me of being pro-communist simply because I removed an endorsement of her book that appeared on our website for the reasons I just mentioned. This was before Radosh’s book appeared. But the main reason is that wild-eyed conspiracy theories do not serve the conservative cause.

          • Roy_Cam

            Thanks for the reply. I will keep it in mind as I read on in West’s book.

          • Shari Goodman

            Why not? Conspiracy theories served the Left very well. They have succeeded in influencing the young, our academia, the media, Hollywood, and every other victim group into believing that Conservatives are selfish greedy capitalists who want the elderly to die, the masses to starve, and our young to engage in needless wars. Consequently, our leading institutions are afraid of Conservatives and what a win for the Left.

          • George Ford

            David,

            Respectfully, you are changing your story. First you claimed several days ago in the comments section that Coulter responded to you in a civil way, and West did not. And West’s incivility is what prompted you to say bad things about her.

            Now you are saying that Coulter’s book was merely flawed and West’s is fundamentally flawed. And so it is the book’s content that caused the abrasive back-and-forth.

            Which is it? Civility or content? You are not a historian. When you pulled Tapson’s review on July 8th you couldn’t possibly have known specifically what Radosh was going to write in his review, so you couldn’t make an objective judgement. At one point you cited “methodology” as the major reason you pulled Tapson. But how would a non-historian be able to access West’s “methodology?” What is it about her methodolgy that is deficient? How would you know without an open and fair debate?

            And without an objective judgement, you removed Tapson based on the opinion of an historian whose review you had not yet read. Which leaves me to wonder how you as an editor could make such a move without knowingly inflaming the debate, as opposed to simply informing the debate.

            Now American Thinker and National Review Online have adopted this approach of promoting the negative coverage of the book.

            I do appreciate those on the right who throw things, I’m just looking for your acknowledgment that you are the one who threw this particular rock at this particular window.

            You led us to believe that West reacted badly to criticism, and Coulter did not. Here is what you wrote about Coulter:

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

            This level of courtesy is absent from your discourse with West. From the “she refused to respond, period” assertion to Radosh’s initial emails to West which were hectoring in tone, to your labeling of Tapson and West as incompetent, to Radosh’s recent, nasty, immature email to West after the Conrad Black article was posted — the side of Horowitz has been brutish when a calmer tone would have been more appropriate. You, David, in my view, are the adult in the room and that places a responsibility on your shoulders.

            I have been a big supporter in many ways of David Horowitz. I understand and applaud you for wanting to teach Republicans to take off the gloves. But I don’t like what I see in this case. It feels like fear of the Left. It feels to me like you want to modulate the revelations and new historical discoveries of the past 25 years. To modulate them into a revised history that is at least semi-palatable to the New York Times, so that you and other senior-level people do not have to answer for claims that Hopkins was agent 19.

            Just my opinion, but in retrospect it would have been better if the person who pulled the Tapson review had been the same person who struck up a conversation with West, and said, “Let’s have a debate, and the ground rules are civility at all times.”

            Easy for me to say as a bystander, but that’s what I feel.

          • David Horowitz

            I don’t remember Coulter replying to my review. My review of her book was critical but respectful because her book deserved respect as West’s book does not. What I said was that Ann and I have remained friends and she has appeared at many of my events since. I intended actually to invite West to debate Radosh at my Restoration Weekend this year, just as I invited her to reply to Radosh with all the space she needed in Frontpage. It was she who declared war on me, just as she who began accusing me of political treason — before I commissioned and published Radosh’s review — making a civil dialogue obviously impossible. The vitriol directed at me in these posts has nothing to do with the intellectual issues involved since none of them are seriously addressed by the posters. They are entirely emotional based on some commitment to West who is a classic aggressor posing as a victim. West herself has done little to defend her book but repeat what it already says. There is not a conservative historian whose work is on the Communist infiltration of the Roosevelt Administration or the history of World War II who has stepped forward to defend her book.

          • George Ford

            Thanks for the reply. I meant to write that your criticism of Coulter was civil, and I mistakenly wrote that her reply to you was civil.

            I believe that you presented yourself to others as wanting to wage war on West. That very well may be a misapprehension on my part, but I write this because I support your work, and it therefore concerns me that I see a number of regular posters at American Thinker writing very critically of you. The common theme of these postings in my view is unfairness, and the support for that theme is the Tapson de-posting and your subsequent choice of words to describe West and her book.

            Tapson’s article was removed without comment. You have been a very prominent political editor since I was in junior high, so you would know more about the significance of a de-posting than me. But it strikes some as provocative. Regardless of whether the article was retrievable, FPM made a strong statement by not saying anything about it, and allowing the yanking to speak for itself.

            You had the author to consider. I’m not privy to your relationship with West, but I see no evidence that you personally contacted her to explain. I believe I read somewhere that the Freedom Center wanted to cancel its sponsorship of the LA book event on July 8th. Again, I don’t know if you contacted West about this, but if not it is regrettable.

            Several days after the de-posting and the LA book event, West said some negative things about you on her site. Apparently, as gleaned from what she wrote, these negative words were triggered by the events of July 8th combined with a response from FPM to her July 12th inquiry about the de-posting. She was clearly peeved, but since no one at FPM had explained what happened until she inquired on July 12th, what would you expect any author to say? Indeed, what were you expecting, David?

            She has written in the comments sections that in the month of silence that followed, Radosh contacted her about his disappointment with her book. West’s reply to Radosh was civil, based on what she has posted.

            When the Radosh article (“McCarthy on Steroids”) was posted at FPM on August 7th, Glazov contacted West, presumably just before the article was posted. She learned that she would be given the space at FPM to respond to this new article. When the article appeared the next day, a note was attached from the editor saying that West had refused to respond. West was presented with a very lousy situation. Either agree right now to write a defense at FPM, or FPM will label you a coward. The grammatical construction that your website used to convey this was “She refused.” That line may have worked in earlier eras when publications maintained a loyal audience and alternative venues were limited, but nowadays writers have a wide choice of where they can respond and be read. Declining an invite to write at FPM does not mean cowardice, as indeed she has responded at her website, but that was the obvious take-away meaning of the note.

            Your organization was notably silent on the de-posting, but loud on the implication of cowardice. You allowed both of these provocations. I do think that these two provocations are important to note. I may be over-stating them, but it is hard to know how to be objective about insults aimed at someone’s profession. Try as I may to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you somehow were disengaged from these two provocations, I can’t get there. Maybe you can help.

            If the confrontation had ended at this point, I would be very critical of what you did. But it did not end there. Over time, you characterized West as launching “ferocious attacks” on you, you claimed you were not suppressing her point of view, you called her work “ludicrous,” you called her incompetent, irresponsible and dishonest, you accused her of “abusing” facts, you referred to her as 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.”

            You wrote, “It is West who instigated the attack. That’s an indisputable fact.”

            So, after provoking West twice, you went nuclear. In the course of going nuclear and drawing attention to your own behavior, you diluted the emphasis that should have been on WWII. You also were silent as the colleague you commissioned to write “McCarthy on Steroids” went low-down and personal.

            As you responded to posted attacks against you, the rationale for the de-posting expanded and morphed. First it was not the point-of-view of West’s book but her “methodology,” and her misuse of facts. Then it was her incompetence. Then it was the “dishonesty in West’s use of conservative sources, her alleged abuse of evidence, and her construction of conspiracy theories not based on facts.”

            The reason Tapson’s review appeared on your site was not an oversight on your part, or on the part of your editor, even though you state that he was “incompetent” to write the review. You later changed that to no one being able to review a book that is dishonest. And when your second reviewer posted his piece, he wrote, “As a historian I normally would not have agreed to review a book such as this one.”

            You wrote, ” … the reason there was no explanation for the removal of the piece was I didn’t want to embarrass my writer by attacking his piece.” But you did not mention owing professional curtesy to the author who had not yet written a negative word to you when you removed Tapson’s piece.

            I am dwelling on the personal attacks and commentary to make this point: readers of the websites where this controversy has raged remember the personal back-and-forth, the de-posting and so forth more than they do the historical disputes. This is important because you are directly involved in the back-and-forth. This is not your usual role of explaining the theory behind conservatism and “liberalism.” It is hurting you among those who agree with you on most issues.

            On a personal level, I believe that you and Rush Limbaugh are the most valuable assets we have on our side. There is no one in America who can put into words the motivations and actions of the Left as well as you can. The sub-brands you have spawned — Discover the Networks, Restoration Weekend, FPM, as well as the campaigns you have launched with the college kids, and the talks you have given (“Party of Defeat”, etc.) are all successful because of your huge determination to teach conservative America about the threat of the Left.

            If we face more controversial theses in the future, from those authors who wish to take an unconventional and possibly inflammatory approach, what will happen if we attack and attack? Who but you do we have to calm the situation?

            We need you as guru. The conservative vs. Leftist lessons should be taught over and over. By getting into arguments over who shot John you are diminishing your prestige within all of your sub-brand operations. People can disagree with you over a single issue like Zimmerman, but this West episode is protracted and very negative in terms of image.

            What would happen if three or four young conservatives publish books attacking crony capitalism within the GOP and Mitch McConnell and other leaders are brought down? We need a way to handle these disputes because there is a growing rift between Tea Party and the establishment and so forth.

            Finally, I do fear being called a McCarthyite. The word is toxic. While I want to ignore the label, I can’t. It may be that there is a White House inspired New York Times piece being readied tonight for publication smearing the Conservatives and their new-found fondness for McCarthy. But will the words that you have used against West immunize you against this attack, and immunize your organizations and the movement in general?

            Never. I think the words will hurt you more than immunize. I’m old fashioned and I believe if you see something in your own neighborhood you don’t like, do not approach the problem with a chain in one hand and a switch blade in the other. Approach unarmed as a priest or a rabbi would. That’s the David Horowitz we need.

          • kevinstroup

            The brunt of the land war in Europe was borne by the Russians. Not the whole war. The Americans/British did almost all the air war/naval war in Europe with respect to destroying industrial production in Germany and supplying Britain. Furthermore, America supplied Russia to a large extent. In addition, in the WHOLE of WW2 it was America and Britain who took on the Japanese in the Pacific. The fact that the Russians lost more people than EVERYONE else combined (Axis and Allied) says something about their leadership. Russia took on Germany. We took on Germany and Japan.

          • Julius O’Malley

            Dear Mr Horowitz,

            This is the second time I have read the following question – the one in, unconcluded, parentheses – put by you:

            “It is a mish-mash of incoherent theories refuted by obvious facts (if Stalin had the kind of influence to shape Lend Lease (1941) why couldn’t he get Roosevelt to open the second front in 1942 as he so desperately desired? The brunt of the war was borne by the Russians. Was this a Soviet plot as West maintains every other war decision was?”

            Obvious facts? Even if Stalin had George Marshall, the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff and Henry Stimson on his payroll it still would not have been possible logistically to have mounted a major cross-Channel invasion of Western Europe in 1942 or 1943. The vast numbers of men and quantities of materiel needed for such had to be first transported across the then perilous Atlantic to England – the Battle of the Atlantic was not won until April-May 1943.

            The Dieppe raid of August 1942 – a kind of trial run – was an utter disaster and caused an extreme fearfulness that endured until mid-June 1944. The amphibious landings in North Africa, Sicily and mainland Italy, especially the latter and the airborne element thereof, were marked by huge and costly errors of gross ineptitude. These were not publicly acknowledged during or after the war. To give one example: hundreds of paratroopers were dropped into the sea kilometres off shore and drowned because of rigid drop orders that took no account of the prevailing winds. 1943 was a year when the Allies learned some painful lessons in inter-service coordination regarding amphibious landings. Those lessons helped make Normandy a success – it may not have been if Rundstedt and Rommel had agreed on the disposition of German armoured units. And if Hitler had not believed it was a feint. Normandy, despite the ex post facto backslapping, was a close-run thing. There was terror in the hearts of its planners that it may fail and the predicted casualty estimates were daunting. When a storm destroyed one of the two artificial harbours there was widespread official concern that Overlord would simply wither from lack of supply.

            You accuse Ms West of “gross ignorance of military history” without, as far as I can ascertain, identifying with specificity the particulars of that ignorance .

            It is fatuous and does you no credit whatsoever to snidely and facetiously ask whether the Russians [sic] bearing the brunt of the war was also a “Soviet plot” in Ms West’s mind. This manner of criticism is best left to … the Left.

            I have long admired your work and that of Jamie Glazov. Front Page has for many years been a rich source of pleasure and intellectual stimulation. I cannot comprehend the evident personal animus and, dare I say it, juvenile glee you have employed to “Take down” Ms West. Just using that term alone is unbecoming and indecorous.

            Perhaps you might consider recalibrating your criticism of American Betrayal and, without resiling from your substantive criticisms of Ms West’s book, acknowledge that the ad hominem element you engaged in was unwarrantedly intemperate, inappropriate and not conducive to civil discourse.

          • Mittymo

            Commanders in Chiefs are somewhat beholden to their military leaders’ counsel & advice. Our military leaders may have advised that America was not ready to open a second front in 1942 & doing so may have resulted in catastrophic
            losses harmful to FDR’s political standing in America.

            Recall that we did not have full military capacity in 1941 & had to gradually build up to it.

            Furthermore, if we had the military capability to do so and did in fact open a second front in 1942, we likely would have beat Stalin to Berlin & prevented a partition of that City & shrunk the size of the territory that became East Germany. So, Stalin may not have been pushing for a second front as hard as some may think.

        • Jillian Becker

          Now I part company with you, Dobermite.

          ” … perhaps there is something she discovered that makes them feel uncomfortable from a Jewish perspective.”

          Whatever do you mean by that? What are you thinking?

          • Dobermite

            I am not implying anything sinister, Jillian, just that perhaps there is something that makes revisiting the history surrounding WWII and how it was executed that makes Jews more uncomfortable than gentiles, what with the recent history of holocaust denial, so I can understand where Jews might get a little uncomfortable when the history of WWII is re-investigated, because thats often done in an anti semitic context.

            Again, I’m just guessing at motivation here because this doesn’t make much sense too me strictly from an anti communist POV, and I’m well aware of David’s credentials as a staunch anti communist.

          • Jillian Becker

            What should worry Jews about holocaust denial that shouldn’t worry every decent person as much?

          • Dobermite

            Of course nothing, but clearly the Jewish holocaust is felt more deeply and profoundly by Jews than it is by gentiles. That doesn’t mean I don’t empathize, but I would never presume to believe that it affects me as deeply as it does a Jew whose own ancestors were led to the slaughter.

            Well again, because WWII and the holocaust are so intrinsically linked, and because we already have a well established narrative complete with heros and villains, I can see where an attempt to revisit that history and disturb the narrative, where suddenly heroes who in part are seen as having saved the Jews from complete extinction, are being called villains, “might” make Jews uneasy, just like it would make me uneasy if you, oh say, told me everything I have ever believed about a great hero of Christendom is a lie, that in fact he or she was evil and not the saint I had been led to believe. That might not affect you as a Jew, but it would affect me as a Christian.

            Thats all I was surmising here, Jillian, and I could be wrong, I said from the outset this is just a guess, just trying to make some sense of something that otherwise makes no sense too me. When I see one anti communist viciously attacking another over what amounts to small details and not the big picture, it leads me to believe something else is at play here and its something that hit a nerve, so I’m just guessing at what that might be.

          • Observer

            The wacky notion that Diana West is being attacked by Jews who are “uncomfortable when the history of WWII is revisited” is just the familiar “blame the Jews” trope. John Haynes, of course, isn’t Jewish (whereas both Herb Romerstein and Eric Breindel were), but who cares about facts?

          • Dobermite

            This is the kind of ridiculous response that makes people of good will reluctant to discuss anything that has to do with race or ethnicity, because inevitably some overly sensitive demagogue will use the occasion to stand on a soapbox and imply racism or anti semitism or what have you.

            Good job being that guy, but I did not say anything that could even be construed as anti Semitic, unless you are looking for a reason to be offended.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            They’re worried about credibility because they endorsed the book and then were led to believe that it’s a bit deranged from an evidence perspective.

            Conservatives don’t want to win purely on naked politics. We want to win because we’re right. Demonstrating that we know the difference between facts and guesses is important than if we want people to trust our ideas.

            You must fight communism with facts, and when you’re guessing, explain honestly where your calculations come from. If you don’t carefully calibrate your positions, people have no reason to trust you other than naked politics and allegiances, and then you lose your appeal to the middle who are not yet sure who to trust.

            Many people today trust 0′Bama just because they know so little. We need to remain objective and show that our views can be trusted if we want more people to consider them. It’s not enough to preach to the already converted.

      • david horowitz

        Look who’s talking about truth. We didn’t suppress anything let alone the truth. We removed an ill-informed review of a ludicrous book that treats for example Winston Churchill as a Soviet stooge and a brave anti-Communist on different pages when it suits West’s conspiratorial theories. We removed the review because we did want to mislead our readers. We did not threaten Ruthfully Yours with a lawsuit for reposting the review without our permission, precisely cause we were not interested in suppressing opposing points of view. We just didn’t want to endorse them. We offered West 7,000 words or as much space as she needed to reply. This is hardly suppression of her point view. When you talk about smearing, look in the mirror.

        • Dobermite

          David,

          In regards to your comment on Churchill, how Miss West portrays him as an anti communist and useful idiot, you know very well that both things can be true in the context of the times and circumstances. The free world was at world with Nazism, Fascism and Imperialism and war makes strange bedfellows. Like it or not Russia was part of the allied forces during WWII, we were all on the same team, so its not difficult to comprehend that Churchill or FDR were used by the communists during WWII nor that post WWII Churchill came to see the Soviets for what they really were. Only Patton was pointing out the evils of the Bolsheviks prior to the conclusion of WWII, at least in a public setting, and it nearly got him crucified.

          • David Horowitz

            Dear Dobermite,

            Yes, if West reasoned the way you do in this post, I would have no argument with her. But she doesn’t. That’s the problem. You are actually voicing in this email one of my main criticisms of West’s book, that she takes the fact that the invasion of France helped Russia in one way, and concludes that it was a Soviet plot. She doesn’t examine the arguments why following Churchill’s advice to go through the Balkans might not have been in America’s interests. She doesn’t look at the military histories or weigh the consequences. She just ascribes the decision to the Soviet puppet master in control of Washington.

            As for injuring West on a personal level, it was she who started the name calling (“anti-anti communist,” “totalitarian”) off the bat and before we even posted the Radosh review. I asked Radosh to do the review not because I was loyal to him (he wasn’t under attack) but because he is an expert in the very field that West is an amateur — Soviet spies and Soviet infiltration — during the Roosevelt era. Same reason I invited Haynes and Klehr to do their piece. West’s responses to factual challenges is more name calling. It was I who gave Radosh’s piece the title “McCarthy on Steroids.” If West were serious about liking McCarthy she would wear the description proudly. “On Steroids” refers to the vast (and preposterous) conspiracy she claims to have discovered.

          • TheOrdinaryMan

            Mr. Dobermite: What(whose) history are you reading? Churchill was never a “useful idiot.” He knew exactly who Stalin and the Bolsheviks were, since WW1. This was why he authorized an Allied expedition to Murmansk, in 1920, to help White Russian forces defeat the Red Army, in the Russian civil war. This was also why Stalin had a number of private talks with FDR at Yalta, excluding Churchill entirely.
            Churchill knew of Stalin’s treachery and dissembling, for a long time, and Stalin knew that Winston mistrusted him. Thus your statement that “post WWII Churchill came to see the soviets for what they really were” is plain wrong. FDR was also very sick at Yalta. There are a number of factual and respected texts that support what I’ve said.

          • Dobermite

            You missed the point and perhaps my use of the term useful idiot was inappropriate in this instance, but I was not calling Churchill a useful idiot, I was simply suggesting that theoretically West could be right, that in the context of the time and circumstances it was possible for a leader of the allied forces to be manipulated by the Soviets, even if he were simultaneously an anti-communist, because at that point in time the first priority was winning the war and we we already dancing with the devil (Bolsheviks).

          • semus

            Churchill made a decision, the matter at hand was to defeat Germany no matter what it took he’d have made a deal with devil to do this. He knew exactly what Stalin was about whereas FDR may not have or perhaps couldn’t have cared less. I will surmise now if it’s true Stalin met more often with FDR there may be two possibilities 1) He wasn’t as intelligent as Churchill. 2) FDR was more sympathetic to the Soviet than Churchill. I think might history supports this.

          • ffighter13

            I contend that it got him dead in a car accident in Europe under unusual circumstances.

        • bobguzzardi

          If Mark Tapson could make such a blunder, isn’t everything he writes a suspect. I did not see the review but appears it was not a minor error that caused it to be pulled.

          • David Horowitz

            No. He made the blunder because he took on a review which he didn’t have the background to do counting on West to be a responsible and honest author, which she is not. This is an understandable error. I’m sure if Mark gets into a controversy with a liberal he will be made to pay for that mistake as will Amity Shlaes whom I also understand is embarrassed by her blurb.

          • Debra Burlingame

            And, of course, you aren’t the least embarrassed by the fact that you published his piece? You, as–what–editor-in-chief, have no accountability for the reviewers you choose or the books your magazine reviews? Did Mr. Radosh call and give you your marching orders? You then pulled the piece without explanation, and replaced it with his hatchet job. It took two or three paragraphs of Radosh’s piece, ripping Diana West on a personal level, before he got to the actual book. And then he reviewed a book she didn’t write. I think you have been caught unawares by the natural response of readers familiar with West and her work, strongly objecting to this heavy-handed, fundamentally unfair treatment. Mr. Horowitz, you can summon the entire Columbia University faculty to stand with you denouncing Ms. West and her book, but it won’t win you any admirers in this sordid episode. Talk about irresponsible and dishonest. Stand down.

        • bobguzzardi

          I did not read Diana West as saying that Winston Churchill was a stooge or a useful idiot or a dupe. It appears he made mistakes, some of which were helpful to Stalin. Dwight Eisenhower, either as president or Supreme Commander, did not seem to have been influenced by Soviets in any way. And I don’t think Diana West says that. Maybe I missed it. FDR/Hopkins controlled US policy, not Ike or Churchill.

          • David Horowitz

            Re-read her description of why the allies covered up the Katyn massacre and put that together with the fact that Churchill was insistent on the suppression, and you’ll get the idea.

          • John

            David—But why did they, and Churchill, want to and agree to cover up Katyn at all—as they quite clearly did, as West usefully recounts? If restraining Hitler via supporting Stalin was THAT crucial, militarily, then OK— maybe the pact with the devil was inevitable. But even if we accept that McCarthy wasn’t above reproach; throw out the Hopkins claim (although If Hopkins wasn’t an agent he was at minimum the bad icing on a pretty foul cake, and that cake was baked by FDR, who shows at times what can only be called naiveté; and the ninnies, useful idiots and spies hanging around); throw out her support for a south Europe invasion; is West not still onto something significant: all those elisions, denials, and compromises (for which she does offer documentation; even Sydney Schanberg, for example, has described a conspiracy of silence regarding lost American POW’s, about which West writes, interestingly)— are the background/context for today’s moral and intellectual rot. That I think is her very interesting base thesis: FDR’s initial recognition of the USSR, an evil and murderous force dedicated to our destruction, and the subsequent denials and accommodations were an “original sin” whose pernicious after effects we’re still mired in. It’s possible to glean a certain “Leave history to us official historians/stay off our turf” attitude here, as by Ron, that many of us find distasteful. I think this could have been handled a bit more graciously, perhaps a “round table” approach to her book from the get go would have made more sense, been more cordial, and more in keeping with what I expect from FPM—rather than the attack dog campaign by Ron, with a “Oh, would you like some space to respond.”

          • semus

            David I haven’t read her book yet, it’s on my list. This information was suppressed.

        • Texas Patriot

          Looking in the mirror is probably an excellent idea, for all of us. We’re supposed to be on the same team, analyzing the facts, postulating new theories, and formulating new strategies for Winning All-American Conservatism of a kind that Barry Goldwater tried to bring to American government and the kind we desperately need today.

          Unfortunately, that’s not happening, and we need to find out why. Is any historical figure sacrosanct? Is anyone free from blame? Is anyone above criticism? I think not. We all can do better, and we all must do better to resurrect the Authentic American Conservative Movement that we all know is the key to America’s brightest future.

          Diana West is a passionate conservative who truly loves America and is desperately searching for answers to the horrible predicament we find ourselves in today. Perhaps her scholarship could use some fine-tuning, but her overall points of drawing a parallel between Communist Anti-American infiltration of our government in the 20th Century and Islamic Anti-American infiltration today, is extraordinarily important. We need to understand how that happened before in order to understand more clearly how that could be happening today.

          Instead of attacking her and removing the only positive review of her book, why not praise the things about her work that deserve praising and offer constructive criticism about her work could be improved. That’s the way forward, and there is no other.

          • semus

            I’m disappointed that Horowitz did this. I’m sorry to say I’m suspicious of the motivations.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Your theory is that these are the new communist 5th columnists?

        I agree that the tone and volume is out of scale considering what they’re arguing over. But in the end, they have a reasonable and rational point to make.

        It does “look strange” but if you read along, you’ll see they do explain their salient points. I just think it’s over-the-top in terms of resources devoted and tone, but there are probably personality issues going on that have nothing to do with politics. Which is unfortunate because I also agree that the overall approach on balance is probably harmful to conservative causes and getting the truth out, which is ironic considering all that they are really saying is that we (especially conservatives) need to be more rigorous and measured when making claims about objective facts.

        I’m disappointed but I’m not looking for conspiracies to explain. I think it’s somewhat explained by a clash of egos, but that’s just a guess. Hopefully things will simmer down and we can all focus more on the salient facts at that time.

    • jamieglazov11

      Dear Dobermite, we do not censor comments on here. Sometimes it is the computer system dealing with some kind of glitch. Just rewrite your comment, try to perhaps reword anything that you think might flag the computer system, and post it again.

      • Dobermite

        Thank you for the response, Jamie, that was very considerate of you. I believe you and I apologize for assuming the worst.

      • Debra Burlingame

        You removed my comment from your Facebook page after posting FPM’s second, “correct” review of American Betrayal, then “unfriended” me without explanation. Not that I am owed one. We’ve never met. But it does seem odd to me, as you are a free speech champion. Thank you for allowing me to post here, given that FPM has posted numerous attack pieces/editorials trashing Ms. West with increasing intensity.

        • Dobermite

          David,

          I don’t even have a Facebook page. I can assure you, if someone is using “Dobermite” on Facebook it is not yours truly. We may have a disagreement here, but as I explained below, I have long admired you and I would have been honored to friend you on Facebook, if I was on Facebook.

          • DBurlingame

            My remark was meant for Jamie Glazov. Hope I didn’t cause you confusion.

          • Dobermite

            No I figured that out, Debra, sorry about that.

      • Andrew Bostom

        I have done that 3X now Jamie to no avail. One secondary comment appeared, but not an original more important one. How many times do you suggest I try and re-post it??

        • jamieglazov11

          Hi Andrew, the world of Disqus sometimes has its strange glitches and its own rules just like the world of cyberspace. I am checking with our tech expert. For now, perhaps try breaking the comment into two or three parts — and leave out a link if you are trying to use one, and try rewording a bit according to your discretion. Then it may catch. I sometimes have problems posting my own comments. We are always working on making the comment section work as smoothly as possible. Cheers, Jamie.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            According to disqus, they don’t have any global rules. These rules are as far as I understand set by your administrator. You should publish the list of banned and flagged words so that people can verify on their own why they were automatically processed and rejected.

            Given the confusion I’m hearing, it sounds like the administrator was given discretion when the list of banned words should have been reviewed at a higher management level since this is a site that handles controversial topics.

          • warpmine

            We might be better off if Disquis just posted the words we’re allowed to use.LOL

      • Rostis

        For a moment I have to break my decision to stop commenting here: you lie, Sir! (Just as your editor-in-chief lies about Diana West’s book). My decision was due exactly to the FP outrageous censorship in the best traditions of Pravda – without any explanations, that is. Horowitz’ words above about “post is being held up by Discus over which we have no control” are contradicted by the Disqus policy, which says quite the opposite: it’s any site’s “moderators” only who can censor the posts, not Disqus, who hardly has some specific reason for comments’ suppressing. And even if it has such a reason – why did FP choose it? For this ability exactly? As for your “sometimes it is the computer system dealing with some kind of glitch” – well, it’s also in the best traditions of Pravda childish explanations (pre-computer epoch, of course): “Dear Comrade, unfortunately your letter didn’t reach us”… No, no – Diana West is absolutely right, maybe not in every tiny detail, but in her general view: FDR’s decision to have relations with the cancer tumor of the USSR was duly rewarded by this deadly cancer’s rapid devouring the newly acquired body. Your great country becomes more and more a copy of our accursed Soviet practice in everything, be it PRISM total surveillance, indoctrination of education or the FP’s arbitrary censorship. I do not know if it’s too late, but it’s surely just too bad. Rostislav, Saint-Petersburg, Russia

        • objectivefactsmatter

          They don’t censor based on views but based on forbidden or flagged words. You should have inferred that when he asked you to try rewording. The rules are automated, and in some cases a moderator can “approve” a flagged comment while others are apparently rejected immediately.

          While that process is happening, it’s not difficult to understand that some comments will get rejected because you unknowingly broke the rules. They should publish the list of forbidden words so that the paranoia will diminish a bit.

          And if you think you have a controversial comment, go ahead and copy it to a local text file in case it is rejected, then bring it up here and someone like me can help you parse it to see what possibly led to the rejection.

          He’s not lying. He just didn’t explain it clearly enough for you to understand and accept.

          • Rostis

            You see, Sir, being an editor myself, I can’t but wonder, why all these intermediaries (like Disqus) between the site and the commenter are suddenly becoming so fashionable in the USA. And I’m sure, that the reason for it is not some bad words (I never use them), but editorial bad moods. About a year ago I tried to find the truth from the Freedom Outpost’s chief (as censorship-generous) – he was very condescending, while explaining to a simple Russian like me that if he don’t want his children to hear foul mouthing on TV, he just switch in control – and it’s his holy right. I’ve answered that there wasn’t a single bad word in my disappeared comment. Obviously the guy got distressed with my stupidity, so he gave me the final laconic answer: it’s his private site, so he does with it whatever he wishes. I’ve never visited Freedom Outpost since that – but I respect the editor’s honesty. Unfortunately, my general impression is that little by little more and more U.S. conservative sites are falling in love with censorship. My guess, it’s one more expression of the suicidal common trend “Not to offend”, the fear to take a really independent stand. The trend is already rather familiar to the observers of your Congress or of your presidential candidates, but to see it in your last fortress of free thought exchange, like conservative blogspots – !!! – it’s really painful. At least for me. Respectfully – Rostislav.

          • david horowitz

            The reason for having an automated monitor is lack of manpower. If you would like to donate some salaries for live monitors, we’ll hire them.

          • Rostis

            No, Sir, I wouldn’t donate anything for automated monitors. Not because I’m some Russian Scrooge, but because I do not know what these strange things are for, being quite happy in my editorial work without them. Our readers’ comments go straight to the magazine’s site, without any additional complications for our budget or for our team of 12. Of course, it may look technologically ancient (we have no fingers up or down, no special “reply” or “share” knobs and sometimes the language of our readers is pretty coarse, indeed, – Russians are Russians!), but then we have a great pleasure of honest non-politcorrect mutual contact, without constant look-back “Are my thoughts permissible?” And that’s the main thing both for journalists and for readers in a country, which didn’t enjoy such contact for nearly a century. Of course, it’s possible to argue, that the USA, thanks God, has no such sad experience, and hence is not too over-sensitive to censorship. Rightly so, but nevertheless I have one unpleasant observation during the last few years: while we – very slowly, torturously and sometimes even losing our imprisoned or shot colleagues – are climbing out the quagmire of the USSR “unwritten” rules, the American press is slowly moving right into this quagmire, and without any prisons or paid murderers at that. Naturally, I may be wrong about these counter-courses, but such is my opinion (and it’s a very painful opinion for an old friend of your great country, believe me!) Rostislav.

            P.S. Your argument “But you can see so many critics of mine who are not censored at all in this thread” is convincing for this thread only – and I think, it’s easy to understand why the usual bar was lifted: thanks to the unusual number of critics. Means, your worthy readers are persistent and your worthy site is not hopeless, automated monitors or not!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I don’t think anyone is critical of it so much as confused by it. When they lack understanding they make false assumptions.

            Is there any reason we can’t have an article discussing this where specific questions are answered by the administrator? Or at least an FAQ page would be good. There are many misstatements about the issue and you need clarity much more urgently then you need volunteer admins, who would probably make it worse rather than better.

            I know it’s more than the mere “words you can’t say on radio” because you’re trying to keep people from using maniacal references to German National Socialists and so forth and you’re trying to keep it civil. I get it.

            But we criticize the left for being delusional about how much they can control thoughts and expression, and I’m not saying that you have no right to filter “hate” speech, but the cost of trying to achieve your goals might be higher than you realize.

            I’m just guessing based on what I see from the outside. I’ve been flagged and filtered a number of times and tried to work out what rules I violated. Now I almost never get filtered. But I also verified that it had nothing to do with positions taken. I can testify to that for anyone that feels “suppressed.”

            Let’s not go all leftist on each other.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You see, Sir, being an editor myself, I can’t but wonder, why all these intermediaries (like Disqus) between the site and the commenter are suddenly becoming so fashionable in the USA. And I’m sure, that the reason for it is not some bad words (I never use them), but editorial bad moods.”

            I’m sure that in general, both are factors.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I respect the editor’s honesty. Unfortunately, my general impression is that little by little more and more U.S. conservative sites are falling in love with censorship.”

            When that happens, it seems like conservatives are trying to appeal to leftists according to the rules of the left.

            What I would do is allow users to turn off filters. Filter the words only. Don’t ever let anyone accuse your site of hiding ideas. How can we go about rectifying false ideas when they’re not fully exposed?

            I agree with your concerns but I also know that because of technical and organizational complications, imperfect people end up creating barriers that they did not intend to.

            All of these issues are factors that must be considered by FPM going forward.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The trend is already rather familiar to the observers of your Congress or of your presidential candidates, but to see it in your last fortress of free thought exchange, like conservative blogspots – !!! – it’s really painful. At least for me. Respectfully – Rostislav.”

            I hear you, but let’s not give up prematurely. Your concerns are valid. But I don’t think I”m ready to make any concrete allegations.

          • Rostis

            “let’s not give up prematurely” – but of course! I was never giving up even in the Arctic Siberia, during the darkest years of our crazy “Building of the bright future”, so why change the good old tradition to resist now, when the future is maybe not so bright, but then the present is finally so free, – of course, for those who want be free, notwithstanding all the dangers connected with this noble word. Thank you for your patient explanations of the situation with censorship, Sir, – you know, your line about “forbidden words” has suddenly hit me like some heavy hammer: the only texts, which I could associate this line with, were books by Orwell, Ayn Rand or my compatriot Zamiatin, not the famous “Don’t fence me in”. And your advice was not about some NYT or “Daily Worker”, no – it was about CONSERVATIVE free speech tribunes!!! I suppose, the mix of free speech with forbidden words must have quite a loathsome taste, mustn’t it? Your “conservatives are trying to appeal to leftists” sounds so true, and I think it sounds true also about the present campaign to smear the brave and honest Diana West’s book (I can’t but remember another shameful campaign – that of Sarah Palin’s smearing) – I constantly see here and there “Her book may scare this our dear ally and that our dear ally and all those charming dears, who are a bit to the right from a bit to the left” – well, her magnificent book may scare all those allies indeed, but my long Soviet (or rather anti-Soviet) experience confirms that so easily scared allies do not worth even a false ruble. Sir, you are absolutely right: let’s not give up! With the best wishes from the sunny Saint-Petersburg morning – Rostislav.

        • david horowitz

          Well the fact is we haven’t removed any posts on this thread as should be obvious from all the attacks on me personally. Also the reason there was no explanation for the removal of the piece was I didn’t want to embarrass my writer by attacking his piece. To call this censorship is cuckoo. As I have already said, we allowed Ruthfully yours and other sites to publish the review in question. Had we removed a piece by West it would be a different story, but she removed herself.

          • Texas Patriot

            David Horowitz: “Well the fact is we haven’t removed any posts on this thread as should be obvious from all the attacks on me personally. Also the reason there was no explanation for the removal of the piece was I didn’t want to embarrass my writer by attacking his piece. To call this censorship is cuckoo. As I have already said, we allowed Ruthfully yours and other sites to publish the review in question. Had we removed a piece by West it would be a different story, but she removed herself.”

            The fact that a former Leftist now masquerading as a conservative feels the need to describe what is probably a majority of his readers as “cuckoo” speaks for itself. But the fact that he obviously thinks its funny to refer to Diana West as “Ruthfully yours” opens up yet another new can of Horowitzian Doublespeak. Unfortunately, like most of the Horowitzian gemstones of recent vintage, it is highly likely that this one impresses the author far more than the rest of us. From my standpoint, it’s pure Horror Wits.

    • David Horowitz

      Dobermite: How is the Klehr-Haynes piece examining the available evidence about Hopkins a smear? Also, we do not suppress comments. Your post is being held up by Discus over which we have no control. Calm down, and maybe try again.

  • Debra Burlingame

    So, lemme get this straight, Mark, Breindel, Romerstein, and Evans believe Harry Hopkins was a Soviet spy, and they are to be respectfully disagreed with. Diana West, who makes the case similar corroboration and admits the evidence is not dispositive, must nevertheless be assassinated by Horowitz, Radosh, and Herf. Bring in the boys club to keep this audacious woman off their turf. Call her “dangerous” and “fringe” and a “crackpot.” I don’t believe any of them have read her book. And none of them have addressed her larger thesis. Whether foolish appeasement of Stalin, or outright treason, she outlines how the failure to acknowledge “Uncle Joe’s” intrinsic evil and crimes against humanity is analogous to the appeasement/treason we see taking place with regard to Islamist regimes and their salafist/wahhabi co-religionists. Ditto the failure of our media to objectively report it. What sad irony, Mr. Horowitz.

    • Dobermite

      I don’t know if you are thee Debra Burlingame, but if you are its an honor to speak with you and I just want to extend my belated and heartfelt condolences for the loss of your heroic brother.

      That said, your post is dead on the money and as I said below, what I find most troubling are the toxic terms that are being used to describe Miss West (paranoid, conspiratorial, dangerous, fringe, crackpot etc.), because these are the exact same tactics and ad hominem’s that were used against great anti communist warriors like Joe McCarthy and Whittaker Chambers, they were effectively ostracized and they essentially died broken men for their sincere efforts to save this country from the perniciousness and malevolence of Marxism, and it is shameful that Radosh and David and friends are clearly attempting to do likewise to Diana West, using the exact same playbook that was used to destroy McCarthy and Chambers.

      Then David challenges Miss West to answer this charges, knowing damn well there is no answer for such charges, thats why they were so effective when used against McCarthy and Chambers, because you cannot disprove a negative, how do you counter being dismissed as a lunatic, YOU CAN’T, all you can do is expose this shameful tactic.

      • DB

        Thank you, sir/madam, for your kind remarks. And for your defense of Ms. West’s work.

        • Dobermite

          Its “sir” and you are very welcome dear lady.

      • David Horowitz

        Whittaker Chambers despised McCarthy and thought he was damaging the anti-Communist cause. In other words, he took exactly the position Radosh and I are taking vis-a-vis West.

        • Shari Goodman

          And how well did that work out for the United States?

        • Texas Patriot

          David Horowitz: “Whittaker Chambers despised McCarthy and thought he was damaging the anti-Communist cause. In other words, he took exactly the position Radosh and I are taking vis-a-vis West.”

          Comparing yourselves to Whitaker Chambers and Diana West to Joseph McCarthy? Wow. That really is the most preposterous thing you have ever said. Here’s a hint. There were Communists in government. It’s an historical fact. Maybe you don’t like that idea. Fine. But killing the messenger won’t change it. And what did Whitaker Chambers do to Joseph McCarthy that is remotely comparable to what you and Mr. Radosh are trying to do to Diana West?

          Let’s put it this way. If we lined up the tactics you have employed against Diana West and compared them item by item with the worst sort of Bolshevist and Stalinist smear campaigns and attempted character assassinations of political opponents, it would be hard to tell the difference. Here’s a question. Where did you learn those tactics? Can’t remember? Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to look in the mirror. Any sign of that “totalitarian screaming to get out” that you’re always talking about?

          Wake up, David. This is America. We believe in free speech and vigorous political debate. It’s in the Constitution. Read it. And if you didn’t realize that encouraging political debate is also a part of what it means to be a Conservative, reread Barry Goldwater’s “The Conscience of a Conservative”. You won’t be sorry. And if you’ve never read it, you’re in for a treat.

        • Mittymo

          Mr. Horowitz,

          What is your source for Chambers’ belief that McCarthy (and not the Communist inspired backlash against him) hurt the anti-Communist cause?

          Read about “Active Measures”, notice how much the Soviets spent on disinformation & character assassinations, & then ask yourself who were the recipients of that money & what did those people do to earn it.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_measures

          The Soviets were masters of character assassination, having honed those skilled during the purges of the 1930s when they had to turn Soviet public opinion against former heroes of the Russian Revolution & Soviet military. And many of those techniques are currently being used today in American politics.

    • Erudite Mavin

      Thanks Debra for your comments re Hopkins.
      Have read much over the years by sound scholars and authors.
      If Hopkins was not an official soviet cell worker, he did the closest
      thing there was to being one.
      The Splitting hairs from some of the writers here and elsewhere and continuing their attempt to discredit Diana West is shameful and telling.
      There are several such articles here and elsewhere and the question,
      why the constant spin by the Hopkins apologists.
      Thanks again Debra for your respected comments.

      • David Horowitz

        It is not splitting hairs to disagree with someone who thinks Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Marshall and Churchill were being run by KGB controllers.

        • Erudite Mavin

          Do Not believe Ike, etc. were part of a
          Soviet run group.
          Roosevelt does not get a pass. He was just a tool. FDR had too many friends of the Soviets around him such as Hiss, White Lattimore,Currie
          along with his first VP Wallace. The list can go on.
          Hopkins regardless what anyone wants to call him had a
          mindset the same as many of the others in the FDR adm.
          listed above.

          FDR’s Uncle Joe killed 10s of millions more than Hitler and FDR at Yalta says it all.

          I am a Conservative Republican. Not a fringe especially like those who sat at home or voted third party and enabled Obama’s 2nd term.

          • semus

            Couldn’t agree more, and I don’t understand Mr. Horowtz stand on this.

          • Erudite Mavin

            Appreciate your comments semus.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          I wish I could read these passages, because it seems like there could be tension over wording and interpretation.

          There were dupes and doves that allowed the Soviets to influence our policies far more than they should have. They infiltrated our highest offices. We all agree on that.

          If I’m not careful and say that the Soviets “controlled” FDR, you can reasonably ask me to be more precise in what I”m talking about. I didn’t say the Soviets “turned” FDR and that he was a spy intent on turning the USA in to a communist satellite. I’m saying that they had way too much control over our decisions.

          I haven’t read the book and won’t have access to it for a while. So I’ll just add that the Soviets were master manipulators, and dupes were often just as effective for their causes as those who knowingly conspired with them. I’m not sure if her language allowed for that interpretation.

          • Dobermite

            Highly intelligent response.

          • Jed West

            Check out Breitbart and you can get one of the chapters free. Best,

          • semus

            Well said.

        • Debra Burlingame

          A ridiculous over-simplification of West’s book and the source material she marshals.

        • Jed West

          Rather than trust the version of Diana West’s views on this as seen through David Horowitz’s cracked prism, please see what she actually wrote.

          http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/08/17/Diana-West-American-Betrayal

        • AlexanderGofen

          Mr. Horowitz distorts the message of this book. Ms. West DOES NOT “think” as though Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Marshall and Churchill were being run by KGB controllers (although hundreds of lower echelon officials were). Roosevelt had a mind set of a communist sympathizer on his own. Otherwise he would never ever granted diplomatic recognition to a monster, a cannibal such as the USSR was (prior to Hitler in Germany and long after him). And America too already then had negligible opposition and near zero understanding of the scope of the Marxist infection. The rest is history. Read the “American betrayal” and make your mind on your own.

          • Jason Roberts

            If FDR was such a Communist sympathizer,then why did he denounce the Soviet Union’s invasion of Finland? If FDR was a Communist sympathizer, then why did he decide not to reveal the Manhattan Project to Stalin?

          • AlexanderGofen

            Your questions stand on the head! Should the Manhattan Project be revealed to anybody at all?!! FDR once dared to peep a word against comrade Stalin?! Shocking!!! Unthinkable!!! The poor thing FDR was under severe pressure of right wing nuts, birthers, you name it…

          • Jason Roberts

            FDR spoke out against Stalin far more than once. He criticized the Soviet invasion of Finland (he was booed at the White House by the left wing American Youth Congress), he did not reveal the Manhattan Project to Stalin, and he was critical of Stalin in private remarks and in cables at the end of his life. Far from a Soviet stooge. By the way, you did not answer my questions.

          • AlexanderGofen

            You offer a few items as though a decisive proof of FDR not being a stooge of Sovetskich, yet you do not even see the inappropriateness of your items.

            1) How can you even consider a possibility of sharing the Manhattan Project with ANY other nation (never mind a monster like Stalin)?

            2) The list of monstrosities of Stalin’s USSR and the scale of them is so huge, that FDR, whispering a few objections now and then, did it merely pro forma (appropriate to his position). FDR had cooperated WITH STALIN in ALL GROSS BETRAYALS OF AMERICAN INTERESTS, AMERICAN SOLDIERS, AND THE HUMANITY IN GENERAL (I listed above just a short list of such betrayals).

            I can agree with your word “stooge” (put in my mouth) as a characteristic of FDR with the following clarification. Indeed, FDR was not on pay roll of KGB, nor perhaps engages in other kind of material stimuli – but he did not need any. He – and thousands of others – were stooges of Sovetskih because of the “belief system” of those thousands (including FDR); Because they ACKNOWLEDGED USSR, agreed with the existence of this monster, sympathized with the “ideas” promoted by Marxists, and dared to wish to change the world by CONVERGING WITH CANNIBALS.

          • HughdePayens

            He recognized the communists, and he did it after it was general knowledge of Stalin’s murder of 30 million peasants. It is as if we would have recognized the Nazis after finding out he had just murdered 11 million.

        • semus

          There are some interesting revelations in a documentary called “The Soviet Story” Mr. Horowitz.

        • acesandeights

          You did not disagree with West, David. You assassinated her when she came to the same conclusion as Mark, Breindel, Romerstein, and Evans. Perhaps you could point us to your ‘critique’ of their books so that we might be able to see how differently you ‘disagreed’ with them; otherwise, your personal attack on Diana will serve to say decidedly more about you than it ever will about her.

        • Mittymo

          FDR may not have had his complete mental faculties. Plus, he surrounded himself with Soviet agents; he backed Henry Wallace; & he married a woman that was piquantly pink. Doesn’t that give you some insights into FDR’s character & thinking.

          FDR talked France & Britain into declaring war on Germany after it attacked Poland, even though neither had the wherewithal to pursue that war. Plus, Britain & France ignored the Soviets near simultaneous attack on Poland, & later welcomed the Soviets as allies in their quest to defend & preserve freedom in Europe. (Don’t those facts jump off the page at you & suggest something was terribly wrong with that picture?)

          Churchill was totally dependent on & beholden to the U.S. during that war. So, his voice carried little weight with FDR. FDR even mocked & made fun of him at Yalta.
          Eisenhower & Marshall were subordinates to the Commander in Chief, but Marshall was closely aligned with Hopkins.

        • HughdePayens

          Being run…where in the book does she make that claim. Be specific.

    • Andrew Bostom

      Dear Debra,

      Another point the authors need to address is the claim spatchcocked into the original Radosh screed, which I asked Mr. Haynes, about in an e-mail:

      Dear Mr. Haynes,

      I read with interest your piece at Frontpage re: Harry Hopkins http://frontpagemag.com/2013/john-earl-haynes-and-harvey-klehr/was-harry-hopkins-a-soviet-spy/#_edn18 and noticed you did not repeat this definitive claim by Radosh:

      http://frontpagemag.com/2013/ronald-radosh/mccarthy-on-steroids/

      “At a conference on Soviet espionage held a week before his untimely
      death, West’s source, Eduard Mark, publicly stated that he now acknowledged that Harry Hopkins was not Agent 19, and that the conclusion he had reached in his 1998 article was false.”

      Since you were featured prominently at the 2009 conference, can you please direct me to the point in the video coverage of the conference where one may view, as Radosh put it: “Eduard Mark, publicly stat[ing] that he now acknowledged that Harry Hopkins was not Agent 19, and that the conclusion he had reached in his 1998 article was false.” ?

      Short of that–although that is what is needed–can you verify that you too heard that public proclamation??

      Thanks,

      Andrew G. Bostom, MD, MS

      • Brett Woods

        It is indeed very interesting that Haynes and Klehr discuss the issue of Hopkins, Agent 19 and Eduard Mark in a paper for the 2009 Symposium on Cryptologic History, which took place AFTER Mark passed away.
        And here we find NO mention of Mark having “publicly acknowledged” anything. They write:

        “The late Eduard Mark argued in “Venona’s Source 19 and the Trident Conference of May 1943: Diplomacy or Espionage?” that an analysis of a variety of records of meetings at the Trident conference suggest that “19” probably was Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt’s right-hand man. Further, Mark argued that it was likely, but not a certainty, that the message was a report of “back-channel” diplomacy rather than espionage.” (my emphasis)

        http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page102.html

        Why did they not add the “public acknowledgement” to that section on “19″ to settle the issue?

        • John Haynes

          Eduard Mark’s reference to his changed view at the 2009 symposium is noted in note 10 of the essay.

      • Ron Radosh

        In answer to Andrew G. Bostom’s query, as well as that by Diana West, let me shed light on this.

        The reason you did not find it on any C-Span video is that the network did not tape the entire proceedings. The long afternoon panel and another one were not recorded. At the time, a number of us commented how upset we were that they did not choose to film the very important afternoon panel in particular.

        More to the point, I am now quoting the e-mail I and others received from Mark Kramer, the editor of The Journal of Cold War Studies, and Program Director at the Project on Cold War Studies, Harvard University, and Fellow at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

        Kramer wrote me the following on August 16th:

        “Ron, I can definitely confirm
        it. I was chairing the session, and Ed intervened when Stan Evans
        referred to Harry Hopkins as No. 19. Ed said “The Vassiliev
        notebooks show that this isn’t true. I thought it was, but it
        isn’t. When I found out that I’m wrong, I’m willing to admit
        it.” I talked about this with Ed after the session, as he and I were
        heading for the metro station.”

        Others, including me, remember this quite well.

        Ronald Radosh

        • Andrew Bostom

          So let me understand this, what does the “C-SPAN un-recorded session” of the actual conference have to do with this question–if anything? Are you saying Eduard Mark, as you did at Frontpage in your screed, “publicly stated that he now acknowledged that Harry Hopkins was not
          Agent 19, and that the conclusion he had reached in his 1998 article was
          false.”–at the un-recorded session in front of multiple eye/ear witnesses, but only one, Mark Kramer can confirm this, or, that the important revelation took place during the conversation between Kramer & Mark outside the conference on the way to the train station? In either case why wasn’t there a public presentation of Mark’s evolved views at the conference–indeed as a major session–and a detailed explanation in writing after the conference as to why he had changed his views on this substantive issue? It is pure hearsay at this point, regardless, but it would be more credible hearsay if someone in addition to Mark can confirm what is being alleged

          • Ron Radosh

            So, you accept the hearsay of Gordievsky, then a junior officer, of what he heard 20 years ago supposedly from Ahkmerov 40 years ago, and don’t accept what Mark Kramer, a distinguished scholar and Cold War historian, says took place at a conference that is recent at which I and others heard this exchange?
            The exchange came up while discussing another point, and was not the focus of the entire conference. It occurred only because he answered the argument made by Stan Evans. Why should there have been a major presentation in writing about an exchange during a Q and A discussion?

            If this is hearsay, and hence you dismiss it, you must also dismiss the Gordievsky claim as hearsay. I await your answer to this, Dr Bostom.

          • Dobermite

            “Why should there have been a major presentation in writing about an exchange during a Q&A discussion?”

            =

            Well, judging from your reaction to Diana West’s assertion that Hopkins was Agent 19, obviously you think its pretty damn important, important enough to go nuclear on this woman. So judging from your own reaction its an issue that deserved clarification in a public forum. That is, unless your outrage over this assertion is feigned and merely being used as a means to an end, to marginalize Ms. West and discredit her book, as I (and many others) suspect that it is.

          • John Haynes

            The title of the 2009 symposium was “Alexander Vassiliev’s Notebooks and the Documentation of Soviet Intelligence Operations in the United States, 1930-1950” and all of the papers given there were built around material in Vassiliev’s notebooks. Aside from the negative information that “19” was not Hopkins, there was little that was new or interesting about Hopkins in the notebooks. Thus it never occurred to the organizers, of which I was one, to devote a session or even a single paper to Hopkins.

    • Andrew Bostom

      Dear Debra,

      West has eviscerated Horowitz & his mendacious, gross misrepresentations of her and her book by simply posting a relevant book chapter http://bit.ly/12dhhru at BB

      • Andrew Bostom

        Part 3: Finally Diana West has also http://bit.ly/15Rp5wm posted a corrective on the Haynes and Klehr statement re: what Andrew and Mitrokhin actually say about the Soviet embassy incident http://bit.ly/1eSR9Vz Bottom line: Contra to what Haynes and Klehr claim, the Andrew and Mitrokhin analysis says nothing about Hopkins having spoken to/warned the Soviet ambassador; the book only claims, “Earlier in the year he [Hopkins] had privately warned the Soviet embassy in Washington that the FBI had bugged a secret meeting at which Zarubin (apparently identified by Hopkins only as a member of the embassy) had passed money to Steve Nelson, a leading member of the US Communist underground”—never identifying whom inside the embassy Hopkins warned.

        • Andrew Bostom

          Part 2b (cont’d) [Hopkins] his dismissal of the 1940 Soviet
          Katyn massacres of 22,000 Polish civilians, soldiers, and officers; his labeling of Soviet defector to the U.S., Victor Kravchenko (author of the memoir, “I Chose Freedom”), a “deserter,” while pressing FDR to deport Kravchenko back to the USSR, where he faced certain execution; and, according to one very credible American witness, his apparent role in the facilitation of uranium shipments to the Soviets—after such shipments were embargoed.

        • John Haynes

          Christopher M. Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB (New York: Basic Books, 1999), p. 122, regarding the FBI incident “The Soviet ambassador
          [emphasis added] in Washington was told confidentially by none other
          than Roosevelt’s adviser, Harry Hopkins, that a member of his embassy
          had been detected passing money to a Communist in California.”

        • John Haynes

          Christopher M. Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB (New York: Basic Books, 1999), p. 122, regarding the FBI incident “The Soviet ambassador
          [emphasis added] in Washington was told confidentially by none other
          than Roosevelt’s adviser, Harry Hopkins, that a member of his embassy
          had been detected passing money to a Communist in California.”

      • Andrew Bostom

        Part 2a: This pattern of behavior is consistent with a
        myriad of other Hopkins behaviors, all of which are consistently omitted by
        Haynes and Klehr (including herein) in their bowdlerized, de-contextualizations:
        his excessive largesse toward the USSR via Lend-Lease, which he oversaw, even
        to the point, arguably, of sacrificing American and British military needs; his
        relentless dedication to Stalin’s “Second Front” demands, opposing at least equally
        viable military alternatives less “advantageous” to Soviet expansionist designs
        in Eastern Europe, as originally laid out in the secret August, 1939
        Molotov-Ribbentrop pact between the USSR and Nazi Germany;

    • Andrew Bostom

      Dear Debra,

      Part 1: What Haynes and Klehr state about Hopkins as agent 19 is still open to debate by serious scholars and hardly “settled” given the vast extent of the KGB, and moreover GRU archives unavailable for review. M. Stanton Evans will be weighing in on this matter soon, based upon his own (and likely the late Herb Romerstein’s) assessment of the archival evdience

      But what Haynes and Klehr argue about the incident described in this
      blog http://bit.ly/1eSR9Vz and detailed in Diana West’s book (the relevant pp. are contained within the blog) is simply risible, i.e., their basic contention being that Hopkins’s disruption of an active, clandestine FBI eavesdropping effort gathering crucial information from the Soviet embassy was somehow the “benign” act of a “patriot.” At minimum, if Hopkins were just a blundering patriot, he would have gone to the embassy with law enforcement and had the spy arrested–still foolishly disrupting the eavesdropping effort–but at least a genuine sign of patriotic concern. But no, Hopkins the “patriot” only acted in a way that was destructive to US interests, not Soviet interests.

      • John Haynes

        In the essay Hopkins’ action in regard to the FBI matter is described as “reckless and destructive.” The statement that it is described as “benign” and the act of a “patriot,” both words in quotation, is not accurate.

    • Mittymo

      Plus, only 3% of the Venona decryts have been translated, & all were communications to or from the NKVD & KGB and their agents of influence in America.

      The much larger & more effective Soviet subversion machine was the GRU.

      For all we know, Hopkins could have been working for (with) the GRU.

  • Jillian Becker

    Whether Hopkins was “Agent 19″ or not, whether he was PAID by the enemy or not, he was an agent of the USSR. What he did benefitted the Soviet regime, and that’s what he intended to do. That makes him an agent and a traitor. Besides, the Romerstein video, linked to by Brett Woods, can surely be regarded as decisive. Critics of Diana West’s book may just be annoyed that she is encroaching on what they regard as their bailiwick.

    • david horowitz

      I am annoyed that she doesn’t give any credence to the fact that supporters of D-Day like Eisenhower were not Soviet pawns and might have had America’s interests at heart, and might know more about military strategy than she does.

      • Jillian Becker

        With great respect: if that is all you are annoyed about (and it is reasonable that you should be) then please call off the fuming critics who are annoyed about much more.

        • 8ball

          Where do you get the idea that that is all Horowitz is annoyed about?

          • Jillian Becker

            Read his reply to me above.

      • bobguzzardi

        I am not aware that you, David H, nor Ron Radosh or Harvey
        Klehr or John Earl Haynes are military historians.

        FYI Eisenhower thought that dropping A and H bombs were unnecessary. He is a true patriot but that doesn’t mean he is right about everything.

        The Romerstein link is excellenthttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v… and Klehr and Haynes cite him with
        approval.

      • Texas Patriot

        David Horowitz: “I am annoyed that she doesn’t give any credence to the fact that supporters of D-Day like Eisenhower were not Soviet pawns and might have had America’s interests at heart, and might know more about military strategy than she does.”

        Did you ever stop to think that lifelong American Conservatives could be much more than “annoyed” that you not only don’t give any credence to the most significant conservative book since Barry Goldwater’s “The Conscience of a Conservative”, but also that you have done your dead level best to discredit and destroy the book, along with its author, who happens to be one of the brightest rising stars in the Conservative intellectual universe? If you think you are annoyed, I don’t think you have a clue how profoundly annoyed Authentic American Conservatives can get when someone deliberately tries to destroy a promising conservative writer who has done her dead level best to bring forward a story that all Americans desperately need to hear.

  • johnt

    Yeah, and Alger Hiss wasn’t a spy either, he wasn’t even a communist. Harry the Hop may not have had the Hammer & Sickle tatood on his nose but he served the Communist cause. I think that says enough. There were a fair amount of them, credentialed in the Party or not, Harry Dexter White, the fellow who wanted to turn post-war Germany into a nature park, Lauchlin Currie & others. Oh and the China lobby, the one that pushed the “agrarian reformers” line. Mao a communist? Don’t be silly. And so it went.

    • Barbara

      Yes Mr. Horowitz, to some degree we are talking about distinctions without a difference. Intelligent people can disagree about whether or not any individual was acting as a soviet agent or as a highly-placed, powerful “useful idiot.” But this hardly merited the nasty, ad hominen-like attacks upon Ms. West.

      I have had great respect for you but some of that has eroded.

      • Barbara

        Actually, whether Hopkins considered himself to be a friend of the Soviet Union or an agent, he was more than the usual useful idiots we see all around us.

        I understand that these distinctions can be important, but can’t you critique without the sheer nastiness of the initial articles?

  • http://oldschooltwentysix.blogspot.com/ oldschooltwentysix

    Followed this from a distance. I think it has minimal relevance to life today. From what I see, I feel more convinced that West’s critics make a more compelling case.

    I also agree with this point, in the final paragraph:

    “There is an important difference between a policy maker who advocated
    and implemented policies highly destructive to American national
    interests because they had foolish, naive, or even dangerous notions
    about foreign policy and those who are agents of a foreign power. The
    first are wrong, the second are traitors. We don’t think an assertion
    that someone was an agent of a foreign power should be made unless one
    has convincing evidence. To do so in the absence of convincing evidence
    is poisonous and contaminates civil discourse.”

    • GuyGreen

      So, at the very least, you admit that Hopkins, and his President, were naive dangerous fools. Expound, please, on the importance of that difference to those who lose their freedom. Especially because there is no reason for the stupidity, given the information these dangerous fools chose to ignore.

      • http://oldschooltwentysix.blogspot.com/ oldschooltwentysix

        If you cannot understand the issue of culpability based on intent, then what more can I say?

        I need not expound about my opinion, and do not admit anything of the sort you indicated. I don’t know, and neither do you. I do not pretend to be expert like many. People will believe what they like. To me, your interpretation does not makes sense, especially in light of the substantive criticism offered.

        For those who lose their freedom, it makes no real difference, only to those who usually have lost nothing yet like to argue as if they have.

        • GuyGreen

          As to what more you can say, my point was you had said enough.

          • http://oldschooltwentysix.blogspot.com/ oldschooltwentysix

            That’s not what you said, however.

            But based on the last comment, it appears you were not sincere in the first instance.

          • semus

            I no longer respectfully disagree with you. I don’t respect anything you’ve written here.

    • semus

      I respectfully disagree with your conclusions.

    • sarai

      “I think it has minimal relevance to life today.”

      No. It has every relevance today when our government has been infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood, and useful idiots like John McCain are attacking those trying to expose the infiltration. We are repeating history.

  • stone7

    Useful idiots are as evil and the same as enemy spies.

    That’s the trick here.

    Technical-smecknical, these people all deserve to hang.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      The point FPM is making is that if we do advocate harsh positions on a certain person, we’d better be more precise about the evidence available or we can reasonably be accused of being no better than the leftists.

      • $45526997

        Re-read your own comment. You’re using the leftist as the standard bearer. That is not objective.

        It’s the lame argument that to shoot a nazi makes you a nazi.

        Objective facts matter, not to you. What you’re doing gives the left a power they’ve never deserved.

      • GuyGreen

        Fear of being accused is not the same as guilty, and represents the victory of cultural Marxist PC. The Left does not share your fears, and never will. They hate you simply for who you are, innocent and painstaking or not. Face it, pal. You’re in a war. And you are losing.

        • Dobermite

          Well said, GuyGreen.

          • semus

            Ditto

  • bobguzzardi

    Do the authors think that accommodationist ” ‘give the Soviets everything they want and ask for nothing in return” policies were detrimental to US interests?

    Note the difference in tone and approach of Harvey Klehr and
    John Earl Haynes and Ron Radosh’s hysterical “McCarthy on Steroids”.

    Diana West has raised important issues about Soviet Stalinist
    and American Stalinist Communist influence on US wartime and post war policies.
    Contrast FDR/Harry Hopkins to Harry Truman and the Berlin Airlift and Korean
    invasion.

    Given Ron Radosh’s late conversion to anti Stalinist Communism (and maybe communism in general which may or may not include advocating pro-capitalist policies), some humility may be in order toward a friend like Diana West.

    The law distinguishes between inadvertent, mistaken negligence, reckless endangerment and intentional criminal wrong going. Harry Hopkins may, or may not according to Harvey Klehr and John Earl Haynes, been an conscious Stalinist Soviet Communist agent, a traitor as the authors say, but it does
    appear he acted with reckless disregard for the consequences of an
    accommodationist policy. Winston Churchill argued for accommodationist policy
    but Harry Hopkins and FDR did not, as Churchill did, the threat of Marxist
    Stalinist Communism and Harry Hopkins and FDR were not American Churchills.

    Then, like now, the Democratic Administration does not listen to dissenting viewpoints. There was not, it seems, in the FDR/Hopkins Administration a Reagan Rumsfeld Clark Team B. There is not now in the Obama Administration dissenting views.

    Diana West may have some things wrong, including Hopkins, but she has the big theme right, in my view. FDR/Hopkins and their cadre of Stalinist Soviet Communist advisers did, profoundly, influence those who controlled US foreign policy.

    • Ron Radosh

      Speaking of smears, anyone who reads what I have written in the past 30 years or more knows well that I am not a convert to “anti-Stalinist Communism(and maybe communism in general.)”
      To put it bluntly, you emulate Diana’s hero Joe McCarthy wonderfully. No wonder so many of you like him.

      • Dobermite

        I’d rather emulate McCarthy than Edward R. Murrow, and besides, you play the latter role so well, the role of the leftist character assassin. I guess some Marxist habits are hard to break.

      • Dobermite

        Let me see, who should I respect more, someone who admires McCarthy or a father who raises a son who becomes a staff writer for a leftist attack dog and propagandist like Jon Stewart?

        I think I’ll go with Door #1, Radosh, and I’m betting #2 will never happen with Diana’s offspring. Their mother will teach them better.

      • semus

        Review “Black listed by history”

  • David Horowitz

    Dear Debra,

    As an admirer of yours and many brave and audacious women like my friend and McCarthy admirer Ann Coulter, whose book Treason I reviewed and criticized in very different terms than I have treated West, it saddens me that you would take this tack. As Radosh, Klehr and Haynes have written, Mark came to the conclusion that he was wrong about Hopkins before he died. Moreover Klehr and Haynes go very carefully over the claims if each of the writers you mention and show that Hopkins was not Agent 19 as West continues to claim. Mark repudiated his own article; Gordievsky “revelation” was a memory once removed from 40 years previous, and Vasiliev’s notebooks definitively refute the supposition. These sources were the basis for Romerstein’s and Evans’ views (we should leave Breindel out of this because he died before his joint book was completed and had serious differences with Romerstein over these very issues.

    I have taken a harsh stand on this book because its preposterous accusations threaten to discredit the conservative and anti-Islamist movement. “Oh, you think Churchill was a Soviet stooge and D-Day a Russian plot! So why should I believe anything you say about Huma Abedin?” I have yet to see a single defender of West’s book deal with a single argument offered by Herf, Radosh, Conrad Black, or Haynes and Klehr as to why the evidence she marshals is not evidence and her conclusions are ludicrous.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      This I understand very well and agree with. I don’t think any reasonable person can question the need for precision.

      But what about tone? Shouldn’t we be as careful in critiquing West as we are asking her to be in discussing accused traitors?

      It’s time to slow down and use as much precision in describing West and her book as you do in describing the evidence. She’s not a hostile enemy. At worst, she’s confused.

    • George Ford

      David, I understand your desire to prioritize the battles that conservatives must fight. You are right that we on the right don’t want to lose credibility over unnecessary issues. But you can’t control the debate without losing your own credibility. You are not editor of the right wing. You are editor of FPM, head of the Freedom Center, speaker, author and more. That’s a lot, but that’s all. Just because a fellow conservative says Hopkins was a conscious agent doesn’t mean you have to internalize the opposing brief.

      I urge you to rise above this and try to regain the credibility you are endangering here. The right needs you. If your goal is to quarantine West, you will only hurt yourself and the broader movement.

      • Dobermite

        I don’t care what David says to protect that dooshbag he calls a friend, Ron Radosh, I know David never would have gone nuclear on Diana West this way if he wasn’t egged on by said dooshbag.

        I know that because this is totally out of character for David, who is normally mild mannered and supportive of conservatives, particularly conservative women, but all you have to do is listen to this smug SOB Ron Radosh for five minutes and you know this (going nuclear) was 100% his idea.

        • semus

          Maybe he didn’t switch sides, maybe things in this book got too close. Not based in fact but based on “methinks thou protest too much”. I have to read West’s book.

          • Dobermite

            Good point, semus.

            I didn’t know much about this Radosh character prior to this ugly episode. I’d heard of him, but really didn’t know much about him. I have since tried to learn more about him and I get a really bad vibe from this guy. He was a very active Marxist during the rise of the counter culture, and a particularly belligerent one too, in that respect his abrasive personality and M.O. have really not changed very much and unlike Horowitz or Chambers, I can’t find any sense of a real repentant heart or any sense of genuine sorrow over the damage he did to this country as a young man.

            Maybe its there, but I can’t find any evidence of it.

            Even when he initially left the communist party, its not like he had an epiphany, but instead became an active leader in the new left and was very hard line in regards to Vietnam.

            Somewhere along the line he apparently had a conversion, but I can’t find one ounce of remorse over his prior life, again, unlike Horowitz and Chambers.

            And as I mentioned below, I also learned that his son is a staff writer for the leftist attack dog and propagandist, Jon Stewart, which in my view would be inconceivable if his father was truly remorseful about his old life and took great pains to explain to his son the damage he and other leftists have done to this nation.

            And now we have this ugly episode where he viciously attacks a decent woman who devoted a big part of her life to cause of anti communism. Even if some of his criticisms are valid, the level of vitriol and the smear tactics he has used against this woman (paranoid, conspiratorial, McCarthyite etc.) is inexplicable if he were what he claims to be. Something just is not right about this guy, and BTW, what anti communist do you know who uses the term “McCarthyite” as a pejorative to attack another anti communist? That is a distinctly leftist attack.

    • Ivan

      the only problem with the theory that ’19′ is Duggan is that Duggan was not present at the meeting where the decision about which ’19′ is reporting:
      The cable 812 says
      “19 reports that KAPITAN and CABAN during conversation in the COUNTRY invited ’19′ to join them and Zamestitel”

      Nobody has ever presented any evidence that Duggan was present at this meeting. And there were many people there. Duggan met briefly Walace just once, and that was two days before the meeting which is referred to in the cable.

      You and Radosh and Haynes are simply lying about Mark changing his mind. Radosh wrote on June 13 this year an email to Diana West that Mark would have agreed that 19 was Duggan if he were alive today. Two months later he come up with a contradictory story: that Mark actually did change his mind. Haynes published a paper in 2013 criticizing Mark without mentioning this ‘conversion’. Stanton Evans in most categorical terms denied that the exchange Radosh invented has ever taken place. And your third buddy Kramer in the meantime retracted the lie. it;s time for you to apologize. This is simply ugly what you are doing.

  • quousque

    Has United States penetrated Soviet apparatus to the equivalent degree during that period of time?

    • objectivefactsmatter

      If we had, it’s would be one of history’s best kept secrets.

    • Dobermite

      The answer is no, because as Yuri Bezmenov (former KGB operative) explained when he defected to the west, the Soviet system was a closed system and a police state, not an open society like we have in the west, therefore the Soviets, by design, were virtually impenetrable to western infiltration and internal subversion. Towards the end the Soviets became slightly more open and we did manage to subvert them to some degree, but nothing that even approaches the level of subversion we experienced in the west. Western subversion was so complete and so effective, particularly in the area of Cultural Marxism, that this is no longer the country I grew up in, much less the founders and and ancestors, the degree to which Western Civilization has been corrupted by Cultural Marxism just in my lifetime has been staggering, and I’m only in my early 50′s

  • Dobermite

    I read below where there is some debate about Romerstein’s comments on Hopkins, but Romerstein suggested Hopkins was explicitly fingered as a Soviet agent by some high level KGB operative to a classroom he taught in Moscow.

    Why would he brag to his students about bagging Hopkins if he didn’t?

    If that incident Romerstein sighted occurred, combined with Hopkins track record as a useful idiot, I’m inclined to believe Hopkins was a fellow traveler.

    • Larry Larkin

      That scenario is covered in the article. Go and read it again.

      • Dobermite

        Ah okay, I got it now, thanks.

    • GuyGreen

      Note the calm, confident, and utterly absent the fear of being called a loony with which the late great Mr. Romerstein delivered those remarks, as well. An interesting contrast to the bombast of West’s detractors.

    • Jason Roberts

      Dobermite–Where is the evidence that Hopkins was a Soviet spy in Venona or in KGB files? If he was a Soviet spy don’t you think the evidence would have shown up in those places?

  • glennd1

    And Diana West slinks away, leaving a track of grease behind her as she slithers back under the rock she came out from under. Fyi, many people who subscribe to her line of reasoning are also strangely non-judgmental of the Nazis. Just as one finds that many so called libertarians who loathe Lincoln also support a “New Confederacy” and are “tolerant” of white supremacists. There are scumbags in our movement and we need to excise them like a sebaceous sore. Nice work, gentlemen, nice work.

    • Roy_Cam

      That’s exactly the the rhetoric I don’t see as necessary. Totally personal, as if you relish the put-down.

    • GuyGreen

      More ice, more mix. When you start, continue, and finish with adolescent ad hominem, you don’t make it out of the gate. In case you haven’t noticed, the whole world is on to the “race” card, the Islamophobe card, and every other joker in your short deck. And another thing: THIS AIN”T YOUR MOVEMENT!

      I’m guessing your age at about 25. All those years spent in your parents house.

    • semus

      Utter Bullsh!t.

  • amwassil

    Harry Hopkins did a lot of things that were stupid and/or naive in 20/20 hindsight and likely influenced FDR to do things that in 20/20 hindsight we might like him not to have done. Maybe Hopkins thought the Soviet system was wonderful and should be emulated by the USA. Maybe Hopkins thought Stalin was the model of a modern major general. BUT, as the authors document beyond argument to the contrary, he was NOT “19″. And that’s the foundation of West’s contentions. Ergo, West loses this argument. As Conrad Black points out, nice novel.

    • Roy_Cam

      I am reading the book now and it seems that a lot more is there than Agent 19. Certainly Hopkins functioned “as if”.

      We’ll see if your criticism of West is on a par with your take on her thesis, right or wrong.

  • Lawrence

    Whilst I am impressed with this piece by historians and specialists in this area, Haynes and Klehr, who unlike West, are not in over their heads and know what they are talking about (it’s why West’s defenders ignore everything that is actually written in this article re agent 19 notably and Duggan), FP does censor comments, like mine – when I criticized FP for endorsing an article on South Africa replete with anti-black racism not that long ago.

    Notice though that some of West’s defenders defend Joe McCarthy, which only discredits them. And Coulter! Give me a break, Coulter has far less credibility than West. Doesn’t Horowitz know that, or maybe he doesn’t care (and I’m in agreement with him here re West and her errors).

    I don’t even know if this comment will go through.

    • semus

      Another baseless attack on West.

  • Andrew Bostom

    What Haynes and Klehr state about Hopkins as agent 19 is still open to debate
    by serious scholars and hardly “settled” given the vast extent of the KGB, and
    moreover GRU archives unavailable for review. M. Stanton Evans will be weighing in on this matter soon, based upon his own (and likely the late Herb Romerstein’s) assessment of the archival evdience

    But what Haynes and Klehr argue about the incident described in this
    blog http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/an-unambiguous-example-of-harry-hopkinss-pro-soviet-perfidy-revealed?f=must_reads
    and detailed in Diana West’s book (the relevant pp. are contained within the
    blog) is simply risible, i.e., their basic contention being that Hopkins’s
    disruption of an active, clandestine FBI eavesdropping effort gathering crucial
    information from the Soviet embassy was somehow the “benign” act of a “patriot.” At minimum, if Hopkins were just a blundering patriot, he would have gone to the embassy with law enforcement and had the spy arrested–still foolishly disrupting the eavesdropping effort–but a least a genuine sign of patriotic concern. But no, Hopkins the “patriot” only acted in a way that was destructive to US interests, not Soviet interests. This pattern of behavior is consistent with a myriad of other Hopkins behaviors, all of which are consistently, including herein, omitted by Haynes and Klehr in their bowdlerized, de-contextualizations:

    his excessive largesse toward the USSR via Lend-Lease, which he oversaw, even to the point, arguably, of sacrificing American and British military needs; his relentless dedication to Stalin’s “Second Front” demands, opposing at least equally viable military alternatives less “advantageous” to Soviet expansionist designs in Eastern Europe, as originally laid out in the secret August, 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop pact between the USSR and Nazi Germany; his dismissal of the 1940 Soviet Katyn massacres of 22,000 Polish civilians, soldiers, and officers; his labeling of Soviet defector to the U.S., Victor Kravchenko (author of the memoir, “I Chose Freedom”), a “deserter,” while pressing FDR to deport Kravchenko back to the USSR, where he faced certain execution; and, according to one very credible American witness, his apparent role in the facilitation of uranium shipments to the Soviets—after such shipments were embargoed.

    Finally Diana West has also http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/2630/Harry-Hopkins-Did-He-Warn-the-Ambassador-or-Did-He-Warn-the-Embassy.aspx posted a corrective on the Haynes and Klehr statement re: what Andrew and Mitrokhin actually say about the Soviet embassy incident http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/an-unambiguous-example-of-harry-hopkinss-pro-soviet-perfidy-revealed?f=must_reads

    Bottom line: Contra to what Haynes and Klehr claim, the Andrew and Mitrokhin analyses says nothing about Hopkins having spoken to/warned the Soviet ambassador; the book only claims “Earlier in the year he [Hopkins] had privately warned the Soviet embassy in Washington that the FBI had bugged a secret meeting at which Zarubin (apparently identified by Hopkins only as a member of the embassy) had passed money to Steve Nelson, a leading member of the US Communist underground”—never identifying whom
    inside the embassy Hopkins warned.

  • Andrew Bostom

    What Haynes and Klehr state about Hopkins as agent 19 is still open to debate
    by serious scholars and hardly “settled” given the vast extent of the KGB, and
    moreover GRU archives unavailable for review. M. Stanton Evans will be weighing in on this matter soon, based upon his own (and likely the late Herb
    Romerstein’s) assessment of the archival evidence

    But what Haynes and Klehr argue about the incident described in this blog http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/an-unambiguous-example-of-harry-hopkinss-pro-soviet-perfidy-revealed?f=must_reads
    and detailed in Diana West’s book (the relevant pp. are contained within the
    blog) is simply risible, i.e., their basic contention being that Hopkins’s
    disruption of an active, clandestine FBI eavesdropping effort gathering crucial
    information from the Soviet embassy was somehow the “benign” act of a
    “patriot.” At minimum, if Hopkins were just a blundering patriot, he would have gone to the embassy with law enforcement and had the spy arrested–still foolishly disrupting the eavesdropping effort–but at least a genuine sign of patriotic concern. But no, Hopkins the “patriot” only acted in a way that was destructive to US interests, not Soviet interests. This pattern of behavior is consistent with a myriad of other Hopkins behaviors, all of which are consistently, including herein, omitted by Haynes and Klehr in
    their bowdlerized, de-contextualizations:

    his excessive largesse toward the USSR via Lend-Lease, which he oversaw, even to the point, arguably, of sacrificing American and British military needs; his relentless dedication to Stalin’s “Second Front” demands, opposing at least equally viable military alternatives less “advantageous” to Soviet expansionist designs in Eastern Europe, as originally laid out in the secret August, 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop pact between the USSR and Nazi Germany; his dismissal of the 1940 Soviet Katyn massacres of 22,000 Polish civilians, soldiers, and officers; his labeling of Soviet defector to the U.S., Victor Kravchenko (author of the memoir, “I Chose Freedom”), a “deserter,” while pressing FDR to deport Kravchenko back to the USSR, where he faced certain execution; and, according to one very credible American witness, his apparent role in the facilitation of uranium shipments tothe Soviets—after such shipments were embargoed.

    Finally Diana West has also http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/2630/Harry-Hopkins-Did-He-Warn-the-Ambassador-or-Did-He-Warn-the-Embassy.aspx posted a corrective on the Haynes and Klehr statement re: what Andrew and Mitrokhin actually say about the Soviet embassy incident http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/an-unambiguous-example-of-harry-hopkinss-pro-soviet-perfidy-revealed?f=must_reads

    Bottom line: Contra to what Haynes and Klehr claim, the Andrew
    and Mitrokhin analyses says nothing about Hopkins having spoken to/warned the Soviet ambassador; the book only claims “Earlier in the year he [Hopkins] had privately warned the Soviet embassy in Washington that the FBI
    had bugged a secret meeting at which Zarubin (apparently identified by Hopkins only as a member of the embassy) had passed money to Steve Nelson, a leading member of the US Communist underground”—never identifying whom inside the embassy Hopkins warned.

  • Andrew Bostom

    Part 1: What Haynes and Klehr state about Hopkins as agent 19 is still open to debate by serious scholars and hardly “settled” given the vast extent of the KGB, and moreover GRU archives unavailable for review. M. Stanton Evans will be weighing in on this matter soon, based upon his own (and likely the late Herb Romerstein’s) assessment of the archival evidence

    But what Haynes and Klehr argue about the incident described in this blog http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/an-unambiguous-example-of-harry-hopkinss-pro-soviet-perfidy-revealed?f=must_reads
    and detailed in Diana West’s book (the relevant pp. are contained within the
    blog) is simply risible, i.e., their basic contention being that Hopkins’s
    disruption of an active, clandestine FBI eavesdropping effort gathering crucial
    information from the Soviet embassy was somehow the “benign” act of a
    “patriot.” At minimum, if Hopkins were just a blundering patriot, he would have gone to the embassy with law enforcement and had the spy arrested–still foolishly disrupting the eavesdropping effort–but at least a genuine sign of patriotic concern. But no, Hopkins the “patriot” only acted in a way that was destructive to US interests, not Soviet interests.

    • John Haynes

      In the Haynes and Klehr essay Hopkins’ action in regard to the FBI matter is described as “reckless and destructive.” The statement that it is described as “benign” and the act of a “patriot,” both words in quotation, is not accurate.

  • David Bloch

    Harry
    Hopkins was a traitor. Harry Hopkins was
    a communist traitor. If the two
    professors have trouble understanding this then they should ask all the
    American soldiers who died on the Bataan Death March (or their surviving
    family). Remember, any American soldier who was too weak to continue was either
    shot on the spot or kicked to the side of the road to die slowly. Harry Hopkins as the head of the Lend Lease
    program sent war materiel and aid to Stalin to save communist Russians but left
    150,000 Americans for dead in the Philippines. Every day for seven months, Harry Hopkins
    decided to send aid to Stalin and decided not to send aid to General Douglas MacArthur. That is a traitorous
    act. Do the professors refute this fact
    which was brought out in Ms. West’s book?
    And while they are at it, if they have the courage, the professors
    should also ask the dead Bataan Death
    March American soldiers if they think
    Harry Hopkins was a “conscious communist,” or an “unconscious communist,” or perhaps
    he was just naïvely “stupid’, because that is extremely important to know and
    makes all the difference in the world.

  • Jeff Ludwig

    Harry Hopkins’ errors in judgment are more serious than just being “wrong,” as Klehr asserts; however, they do not amount to being a traitor either, as Duggan was. At best, Ms. West could claim that Hopkins’ approach to the USSR was traitorOUS. She went a bit too far in her assessment of Hopkins. It’s a case of being essentially right about how wrong he was, but her point about his being an agent of the KGB is overkill. Her argument does not completely collapse with the admission of having made a mistake, and I think she should do so.

    • semus

      To whom would this distinction/admission you want to force on her -which doesn’t seem to be correct anyway- be presented to?

      • Jeff Ludwig

        By not continuing to defend the Agent 19 point, she and her supporters would be admitting the error.

  • JVR

    Ms West claims that people (Hopkins in particular, but certainly more individuals) were at at least sympathetic to the Soviets, even if they were not outright spies. She base this on the analysis of others and herself of the Venona files (and other formerly secret sources).

    I do not believe that this reconstruction of the past is outlandish.(1)

    But that is an aside. Ms West arguments are not out of line with what many mainstream historians have been saying (and yes, there are lots of disagreement).

    The fact is that communist infiltration had a significant influence on US policy, in particular internationally. The stunning depth of Soviet penetration into the highest and most secure areas of the American state was illustrated later by the Greenglass/Rosenberg spying ring — these people gave over atomic secrets to the Soviets. Just imagine that — the most secret, most important weapons development plans in history was compromised as soon as it came off the drawing board. These events gave rise, later, to McCarthy, and others.

    However, the sheer scale of the victory of the Left since WW2 is illustrated by the modern framing of this (relatively old and not so important any more) history. No-one wants to know about the Venona files, or what is contained in the other secret service files that became declassified when the USSR decomposed. Even with these new sources available some people argued seriously until as late as 2007 that Julius Rosenberg was framed, and that no atomic secrets were compromised, etc. Elsewhere it has recently come to light, for example, that Nelson Mandela was a secret member of the South African Communist Party in the 1960s when he was sentenced, but no-one seems to want to know this.

    Humans are clearly not empirical. Facts do not matter, really — we only feel things, and believe or reject them emotionally. We shall abscond and twist ourselves in order to protect holy cows, whether they are Mandelas or Roosevelts.

    ——–

    (1) That is, if you believe that the past is classical, fixed, instead of probabilistic like quantum mechanics, where things may or may not have been by some probability measure. As an aside, the past has a quality similar to the future, the further you look forward or back, the less sure things become, and the harder it becomes to (re)construct. At some point too much information is lost or unknowable so that it becomes impossible in principle to determine history — can we then still argue that it was realised in any given way?

    • semus

      So true and the quicker things become unknowable the better the left likes it.

    • Bill_H2

      We have journeyed from the Age of Reason and Enlightenment into the Dark Age of Emotion. And of the two, reason and emotion, emotion is far more primitive.

  • Leonard Wessell

    Jumbing ahead to years after the Obama administration is long past, will we repeat this debate? From many sources, particularly from the articles in FrontPage, I have the opinion that Obama is pro-Islamic, indeed, pro-Muslim Brothrhood. What am I to make of this?

    Is Obama sort of a FDR and Hopkins fused into one person? Has Obama simply, well, misjudged Islam of the MB type? An error anyone could make. Back to Hopkins: Am I really to believe that anyone who must have had knowledge of Stalin (knowledge known in the 1930s) would naturally, for no other reason than a misplaced judgment (anyone could do the same, even J. Edgar Hoover), extend massive, unretrained, one-sided, etc. help of Stalin’s Soviet Union? Frank Meyer extended help because he believed in Communism and was a party member. That makes sense. But, a Hopkins, who leads the charge to advance one of the worst dictators of history (and enough knowledge was around about Stalin) in a way that make all of Meyer’s then traitorous behavior look like a mole hill in comparison, well, Hopkins is but the victim of a overzealous or, whatever, mistaken judgment?

    Back to Obama: FrontPage writers, PJ Media writers, NR writers, etc. etc. have repeatly (like Barry Rubin of the Jerusalem Post) designated Obama’s preference for radical Islam as a function of this “pro-Islamic” attitude. If I extrapolate from the argument of the article above, I must so conclude yes and then conclude by condemning the rich calmuny of FrontPage re Obama. Or … what?

    I do not hold that Hopkin’s was a Soviet agent. The proof given above does not allow any such conclusion. Alas, it leave Hopkins as pardonable dupe. The question is why did Hopkins do so much pro-Sovient activity that it just screams out that he must have been a spy (even though there is no proof)? George Bernard Shaw visited the Soviet Union during the time of the trials and came back, and I listen over and over in internet to his “mistaken” judgment, that he saw naught but smiling faces and praised Stalin’s Soviet Russia. Shaw did not make a silly mistake of judgment, rather judged from his ideological stand point. I find it worthy of consideraton to discuss in detail the pro-Soviet leanings of Hopkins (and other New Dealers). Until FrontPage does this, it has cut off an understanding of the period with ramifications for its current “calumnies” (sic) against Obama at a future date.

    So I ask the powers to be at FrontPage the following: Is Obama making discisions favorable to radical Islam because of an innocent judgment of error (one that even Sen. McCain could make) or are their pro-Islamic preferences in Obama’s thinking? I predict that in eons to come we will have the same historical analysis condemning the shortsighteness of FrontPage for all the means things it says about Obama as if Obama wanted REALLY to do said things as opposed to making silly mistakes typical of (to borrow from Ed Klein) an “amateur”.

    FrontPage may just have won the debate against West, Evans, etc., but it has just lost the war against Obama.

  • bobguzzardi

    Why did so many serious scholars like Herbert Romerstein and Eduard Mark and others think that Harry Hopkins, or even VP Henry Wallace, could be Agent 19? No one ever suspected John Nance Gardner or Harry Truman or Winston Churchill or Dwight Eisenhower of being Soviet agents. What made it so plausible that Harry Hopkins could be a Stalinist Soviet agent? Eisenhower supported the Normandy invasion and no one thinks he was, or might have been, a Soviet agent.

  • Peter B

    As Haynes and Klehr show, Hopkins was not “19″. That leaves at least two supports for West’s “fallback position,” which they proceed to critique as inadequate to support the “explosive charge” that Hopkins was an active agent rather than an extraordinarily useful idiot.

    Akhmerov, in Gordievski’s account, identifed Hopkins as a Soviet agent. OK, well and good, unsubstantiated hearsay.

    But with Hopkins’ reported betrayal of an important FBI counterespionage coup, ( as Andrew Bostom has noted) Haynes and Klehr misrepresented a statement of West’s and then challenged their own misrepresentation. They say she said that Hopkins reported the FBI’s eavesdropping on a Soviet agent running atomic spies to the Soviet “ambassador” when what West wrote was “embassy”. Had Hopkins been a spy, they wrote, he would have reported the breach of Soviet security to his handler rather than the ambassador – probably true, but irrelevant. Akhmerov, operating as an illegal was certainly not at the embassy, but there equally certainly would have been at least one spy at the embassy with an official cover.
    Haynes and Klehr may say that West hasn’t proven her case to their satisfaction, but if they are going to argue as professional historians, erecting a straw man won’t cut it. It is interesting that Radosh has also resorted to straw men.
    Is history too important to be left to the professionals?

    • Dobermite

      Aside from the vicious ad hominem’s (paranoid, conspiratorial etc.) that are being directed at Ms. West by this cabal, this is the other thing I find so troubling, the persistent and belligerent mischaracterizations of what West actually wrote (and all it takes is a slight tweak here or there), in a clear attempt to turn otherwise rational arguments into absurd arguments, which in my view is designed to thoroughly discredit, marginalize and ultimately ostracize Miss West from the right leaning intellectual community.

      If they can convince you and I not to buy the book in the process that would be gravy, but thats not the primary objective. The real objective here, as I see it, is to marginalize West within the right leaning intellectual community. Thats why despite the overwhelming support Ms. West has received from an outraged public, outraged by the treatment she has received, that bully Ron Radosh can still feel emboldened to send Ms. West a nasty, gloating email proclaiming:

      “Sorry to upset you again, Diana, but I’m afraid you’ve lost, big time.”

      As with the ad hominem’s, this is another tactic that was used against McCarthy and Chambers. This is how THE LEFT personally destroys their political enemies. These are all distinct characteristics of the left, the vicious ad hominem’s, the straw men and the red herrings, all designed to make the target look hysterical, misinformed and not very bright either, and perhaps mentally unstable as well. Classic Marxist pay-ops.

    • Peter B

      On p. 122 of The Sword and the Shield, Andrews and Mitrokhin do indeed refer to Hopkins contacting the Soviet Ambassador. However, p. 111 contains the following (emphases in caps mine):

      “Hopkins had established a remarkable reputation in Moscow for taking the Russians into his confidence. Earlier in the year he had privately warned the Soviet EMBASSY in Washington that the FBI had bugged a secret meeting at which Zarubin (apparently identified by Hopkins only as a member of the embassy) had passed money to Steve Nelson, a leading member of the US Communist underground. (64) Information sent to Moscow by the New York residency on the talks between Roosevelt and Churchill in May 1943 had also probably come from Hopkins. (65) There is plausible but controversial evidence that, in addition to passing CONFIDENCES to the Soviet ambassador, Hopkins sometimes used Akhmerov as a back channel to Moscow, much as the Kennedys later used the GRU officer Georgi Bolshakov. Hopkins’s confidential information so impressed the Centre that, years later, some KGB officers boasted that he had been a Soviet agent. (66) These boasts were far from the truth.”

      Notes from p 111:

      64 vol 6, ch 12 [of, I think, the Mitrokhin archives] Hopkins had been personally briefed by Hoover on Zarubin’s visit to Nelson (Benson and Warner (eds.), VENONA, document 9). Hoover would doubtless have been outraged had he known that Hopkins had informed the Soviet EMBASSY.

      65. The source for the information on the talks between Roosevelt and Churchill was codenamed “19” – an example of the Centre’s confusing habit of sometimes recycling the same codename for different people. Laurence Duggan had formerly been codenamed “19” but by now had the codename FRANK; he cannot, in any case have provided this information. A detailed, meticulous and persuasive study by Eduard Mark concludes that it is “probable virtually to the point of certainty that Hopkins was 19.” Mark, “Venona’s Source 19 and the ‘Trident’ Conference of 1943.”

      66. Andrew, “Anglo-American-Soviet Intelligence Relations,” pp. 125-6. Crozier, Free Agent, pp. 1-2.

      To recap: while Andrews and Mitrokhin say that the identification of Hopkins as a Soviet agent is “far from the truth,” they swing both ways about embassy/ambassador.

      Haynes and Klehr, in their FPM critique of West, after summarizing the documentary and other evidence that led them to reject any identification of Hopkins as “19,” take a more scholarly and modest tone: “We do not totally dismiss the idea that Hopkins had covert Soviet intelligence ties, but the evidence is very thin.” They don’t understand why

      Romerstein and Breindel, Evans and Romerstein, and later West don’t agree.

      Evans and Romerstein cite Gordievsky to support the claim that Hopkins and Akhmerov had regular back channel contacts, which would have been unnecessary for Hopkins unless he was using them as a cover for treason. On the other hand, KGB Lt.-General Vitaly Pavlov stated that Gordievsky was completely wrong about Hopkins: http://www.documentstalk.com/wp/harry-hopkins-a-glimpse-into-the-russian-records,

      I still have a problem with Haynes and Klehr, though: while in the light of Andrews and Mitrokhin’s embassy/ambassador ambiguity “straw man” was probably excessive in their case (Radosh, on the other hand…) Nonetheless, they speak ex cathedra as skilled and responsible professionals. They then resting a big part of their argument on “ambassador” without clarifying the internal conflict in the source they rely on. This is slipshod work, and seriously impairs the credibility of their critique of West.

  • HG

    The precursor to KGB was NKVD, not NKGB. Little quibble, but excellent article.

  • Dobermite

    When trying to decide, West or Radosh, here’s something to consider:

    Ron Radosh is a former Marxist radical and prominent figure in the new left, whom I would hope feels a great deal of remorse for the damage he did to this country, not to mention the suffering he has caused around the world by propping up Marxist regimes in Vietnam and elsewhere. If his conversion is genuine, I would imagine he has a heavy heart over the killing fields and for a million other reasons. Yet somehow he managed to raise a son who would go to work as a staff writer for one of the most prominent leftwing propagandists in the country, Jon Stewart.

    Isn’t that odd?

    Imagine if you had Radosh’s past and were now looking back at your prior life through the prism of an anti communist. Just imagine how consumed with guilt you would be. Imagine the conversations you would have with your children regarding leftist ideology and its pernicious affects on this country, and you would be in a position to go incredibly in-depth. So assuming you genuinely recognized the damage you did and had a repentant heart, what are the odds that your own son would go to work as a staff writer for the likes of Jon Stewart?

    To be clear, this is not an indictment of his son, but an indictment of Radosh. IMO this calls into question the sincerity of his conversion and the depth of his sorrow, or if he even begins to understand the havoc he has wrecked.

    Perhaps thats why he doesn’t share our profound respect for Ms. West and her commitment to exposing Marxist subversion. Perhaps that explains his capacity to go nuclear on such a woman over what amounts to small details in the big picture.

    Think about it.

    • Jason Roberts

      Dobermite–You are unfair to both Radosh and Stewart. Ron Radosh has been attacked by critics on the left since the release of The Rosenberg File in 1983. Recently, he criticized Oliver Stone’s left wing documentary on Showtime and took the Nation to task for refusing to acknowledge (despite overwhelming evidence) that Harry Dexter White was a Soviet spy. Before you make assertions about Radosh, you should study his background and his scholarship.
      As for Stewart, he is no apologist for Obama. On a number of occasions he has criticized Obama. For example, check out his segments on the VA.
      So what if Radosh’s son works for Stewart? Is that not a McCarthyite tactic that you are using? Is that not guilt by association? Conservative parents (Radosh is right of center) sometimes do have liberal children and vice versa.

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

    Whatever respect I once had for Ron Radosh, who in his time wrote some fine books, is now gone. And whatever respect I have had for David Horowitz is rapidly disappearing down the toilet as the two of them engage in one of the most depiscable and cowardly attempts to smear a person’s reputation in a manner that seemingly comes straight out of the handbooks used by Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann and the other “McCarthyite” figures of the modern Left who have used invective and smearing to marginalize people they have a personal axe to grind with.

    And I’m saying this as someone who frankly thinks the issue of Hopkins is not relevant to my forming this decision. Radosh and company may even technically be in the right regarding Hopkins, but their attitude (along with the filth written by Conrad Black at NRO which has put him permanently on my ignore list) violates every standard of fair play in a discussion I would have expected to see on this issue where it seems to me there can be good discussion. And as one who admired M. Stanton Evans’ “Blacklisted By History” and who was NOT impressed by Radosh’s hit piece on that book, I am more loathe to be skeptical of him in this case (and I guess Evans is an evil fool as well, right? Why is only West getting tarred here? Is Evans, whose contributions are numerous to this area also an evil figure and should his work end up on the banned book list too? And is EVERY work West has written before now suspect? THis I think is what has West’s defenders really outraged. She could be wrong in this case, but Diana West has made some valuable contributions to the conservative cause in the past and I think it’s safe to say a lot of us don’t care for this attempt to turn her into something she isn’t just because of the spliting of hairs on whether Hopkins, whose unfitness to serve the interests of the US is apparent regardless of whether he was a spy or not.

    If David Horowitz were really serious about letting West have space to respond, then he should have had the honor and integrity to leave Tapscott’s review up for us to judge for ourselves and not in the process render EVERY argument he has used in favor of academic freedom in the campus null and void since he clearly doesn’t believe in practicing it at his own website. That sense of total, bare-faced hypocrisy is what I also don’t care for either, and if you really want me to be symapthetic to the idea that Radosh and company have the better scholarly argument on this point, then all I can say is, the both of you need to take remedial courses in How To Win Friends (Especially Conservatives) and Influence People because this whole approach from the get-go has been a classic case of making me wonder if the spirit of Maher and Olbermann showed up at this place.

    • Dobermite

      Bravo!

      My only regret is that I cannot approve of this post a hundred times or more, that I am limited to just one, which is woefully inadequate.

  • Texas Patriot

    Like a malevolent computer virus taking over the operating system of an otherwise healthy computer, the ability of foreign totalitarian ideologies to penetrate, infiltrate, and corrupt, even in the slightest possible way, the government of the United States of America remains a shocking concept to me, even to this day. What I never imagined was that foreign totalitarian ideologies would be able to penetrate, infiltrate, and corrupt the Grand Old Party of Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater, and perhaps that should be the subject of Ms. West’s next book. Let’s put it this way. If Messrs. Horowitz and Radosh have reacted so hysterically to Ms. West’s discussion of the influence of totalitarian ideologies over the United States Government, we can only imagine how they would react to a book discussing the influence of totalitarian ideologies over the Republican Party.

  • Mladen_Andrijasevic

    I came across this reference to Hopkins in William Manchester’s The Last Lion, Winston Spencer Churchill, Defender of the Realm 1940-1965, page 792:

    Churchill had found a friend and ready ear in Hopkins, who had championed England’s cause more strongly and more effectively than did the president’s chief of staff, Admiral Leahy, and his secretary of state, Cordell Hull. Hopkins, not Roosevelt, had been Churchill’s best friend in the White House. He had completed the circuit between his boss and Churchill.

    • Texas Patriot

      Churchill was a great anti-Nazi, but he wasn’t such a great anti-Communist. And it was during Churchill’s lifetime that Britain began the long decline into Marxist liberalism and socialism that continues to this day.

      • Mladen_Andrijasevic

        Churchill was not a great anti – Communist? I am sorry, but you do not know your history. Churchill did everything he could to defeat the Bolshevik revolution

        Churchill was a staunch advocate of foreign intervention, declaring that Bolshevism must be “strangled in its cradle”.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill_in_politics:_1900%E2%80%931939

        And after the war he warned of the Soviet threat on March 5, 1946 in Fulton, Missouri, before George F Kennan X-article in 1947

        From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an iron curtain has descended across the Continent.
        http://www.winstonchurchill.org/images/pdfs/for_educators/MilliganChurchillsIronCurtainSpeech-LessonPlanFinal2.docx-1.pdf

        • Texas Patriot

          Churchill was a total failure as an anti-Communist, and the Marxist-Islamist secularism and totalitarianism that is now strangling the life out of Great Britain is the proof in the pudding. As we have seen time after time in many places around the world, including Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan just to name a few, foreign military intervention is not the best way to win ideological warfare. In fact, it is almost always a sure way to lose it. What good is it to kill Communists and Muslims on foreign battlefields if the totalitarian ideologies they represent are infiltrating and corrupting your own government? That is where Churchill failed, and that’s why Diana West is so great.

          • Mladen_Andrijasevic

            I think you live in a parallel universe:

            http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,852574,00.html

            Opposition Leader Winston Churchill last week gave the Tory party the slogan for which it had been fumbling: “The People v. the Socialists.”

            To the Conservatives’ Central Council he made the issue splendidly plain. Socialism now was not a radical specter with which to frighten commonsensical Britons at election time; it must be presented now as a bureaucratic barrier between Britons and the better life they wanted.

            In tenebrous tones Churchill surveyed the Spartan boundaries of Labor’s promised land. “All enterprise, all initiative is baffled and fettered. The queues are longer, the faces are longer, the shelves are barer, the shops are…

          • Texas Patriot

            Like many other patriot conservatives, Churchill couldn’t see the forest for the trees. As Diana West and many others have pointed out, the Soviet infiltration of Western governments and the influence of Communist ideologies was far deeper and far more influential in transforming the culture of Great Britain and America than anyone has heretofore realized. It is only recently with the revelations of the KGB secret files that we are beginning to see the full extent of the hijacking of Western governments and Western cultures by Marxist-Leninist ideology.

            Furthermore, if it is true, as it undoubtedly is, that Marxist-Leninist ideology could penetrate and influence the policy-making mechanisms of British and American governments in the past, why do we suppose that Islamist ideologies could not be making similar inroads into our governments today. If Winston Churchill were alive today, I am certain that he would agree with me 100% that his personal failures are a valuable lesson that must be learned, if we are to have any hope of preserving Western ideals of Individual Freedom and Constitutional Democracy against Individual Slavery and Totalitarian Submission.

            The key to the future lies not in making false-heroes of the Conservative champions of the past who did their best but ultimately failed to stop the totalitarian onslaught of Communist ideology; but rather, in recognizing and supporting the real Conservative heroes of the present who are fighting tooth and nail against the current onslaught of Islamist ideology in Great Britain and America today. And the far-reaching and deeply insightful research and writing of Diana West puts her at the head of that class.

          • Mladen_Andrijasevic

            You write “Like many other patriot conservatives, Churchill couldn’t see the forest for the trees”. This this utter nonsense. I suggest you read a few books written by Churchill ( his 6 volume masterpiece, The Second World War) or about Churchill ( William Manchester’s The Last LIon, Michael Shelden’s Young Titan: The Making of Winston Churchill, Martin Gilbert: Churchill- The Power of Words) or read some of his speeches and then you will see how absurd your statement is.

            Never Despair
            http://www.madisdead.blogspot.co.il/2013/03/never-despair.html

            Is the House of Commons abdicating its duty regarding the Iranian nuclear threat?
            http://www.madisdead.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/is-house-of-commons-abdicating-its-duty.html

            Peres, Clinton and Blair – The Unteachable Trio
            http://www.madisdead.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/the-unteachable-trio.html

          • Texas Patriot

            Unless you want to start sounding a lot like the Leftists, Bolsheviks, and Stalinists you say you oppose, I wouldn’t be too quick to say anything is “utter nonsense” about the extent of Soviet influence over the policy of Great Britain and the United States. But just in case you’re not here as an apologist for the very totalitarian ideologies you claim to oppose, here’s a clue.

            You can’t fight what you can’t see. And as history now reveals, neither Churchill nor Roosevelt had any idea of the degree to which Soviet agents and spies had infiltrated and were hard at work actively influencing the policy and decision-making apparatus of Great Britain and the United States. You can cite all the great speeches and great books you want, but without the knowledge of the actual degree to which their internal security had been breached, Churchill and Roosevelt were powerless to do anything about it regardless of how much they wanted to and intended to.

            In that regard, there is no question that both Churchill and Roosevelt were great patriots of Great Britain and the United States. But against the “invisible enemy” of Soviet espionage, they were like sitting ducks in a shooting gallery, with the result that the nations they loved and the nations they served with all their hearts, souls, and minds were outflanked, ambushed, beaten like a drum in the ideological warfare of the 20th Century. And the central thesis of Diana West’s brilliant work “American Betrayal” is that unless we take great pains to examine the mistakes of the past and learn the lessons of the past, we are almost certainly destined to make the same mistakes again.

          • Mladen_Andrijasevic

            I wrote that your statement “Churchill couldn’t see the forest for the trees.” is nonsense, and I stand by what I said. It displays your total ignorance of the man and that is the reason you should educate yourself about Churchill first. The degree of Soviet penetration of the Western governments apparently did not include their knowledge of Ultra which was crucial to allied victory in WWII. Is stuxnet the new Ultra?
            http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/09/is_stuxnet_the_new_ultra.html

            I spent 6 years in the USSR where our apartment, elevator and car were bugged and where I could only talk to my father if we took a walk far away from home. When the Swedes built their new embassy in Moscow in 1973 they brought all the building material except water from Sweden, afraid that bugs would be built into the walls and impossible to get rid of.

            I am perfectly aware of the Soviet past, the Kronstadt rebellion, the collectivization, the Ukrainian famine, the Kirov murder, the great Purge of the thirties, the Gulags, the Katyn massacre and I have read “Le livre noir du communism”. I have also read Vassily Grossman’s Life and Fate and Everything Flows

            http://www.amazon.com/Life-Fate-Review-Books-Classics/dp/1590172019/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1376975483&sr=8-1&keywords=life+and+fate

            I am not an apologist for totalitarian ideologies but an apologist for the truth and your statement that “Churchill couldn’t see the forest for the trees´ is as far away you can get from the truth.

          • Texas Patriot

            Do you know what that phase means? It means that because you are focused so much on a smaller part of the whole picture that you can’t see the whole picture. Churchill could see part of the picture of global Communism (i.e. the trees), but he couldn’t see the whole picture (i.e. the forest) because it was intentionally hidden from him.

            What Churchill saw, as evidenced by your own material, was a global Communist threat that was located in various locations around the world. These were the “trees” that he saw. What he couldn’t see were the Communist infiltrators in his own country and his own government in the form of secret Soviet Agents This was the larger “forest” that remained obscure to him.

            If Churchill had seen the whole forest, instead of just the trees, there is no question that he would have first taken steps to combat the Communist menace in Britain before advocating foreign military intervention to combat the Communist menace abroad. This was Churchill’s biggest mistake, and that mistake, more than anything else, probably accounts for the severity of Britain’s decline today.

            But again, you can’t fight what you can’t see. And the extent to which Soviet Agents had penetrated the Government of Great Britain remained largely hidden from him and therefore virtually exempt from any resistance to it. So while Churchill focused on fighting Communists abroad, the Communists at home were destroying Great Britain from within; and that is the reason they were so successful.

            The great thing about Churchill was that he was not afraid to admit a mistake. And if he had learned of the Communist threat in his own back yard, it is a virtual certainty that he would have abandoned any effort to fight them abroad until every last Communist was eliminated from British soil. And if Winston Churchill were here today, I am quite sure that he would agree with me 100%.

          • Mladen_Andrijasevic

            You have completely inverted the meaning of the phrase ‘couldn’t see the forest for the trees’. If Churchill had not understood the global Communist threat he would have been even less inclined to search for particular communist spies like Burgess, Maclean and Philby. This is precisely the problem with Obama who has completely castrated the American capability to fight terrorism by cleaning the English language from terms used to define the threat

            The purpose of Newspeak: To make all other modes of thought impossible.
            http://madisdead.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/the-purpose-of-newspeak-to-make-all.html

            Besides it was Roosevelt who believed he could talk to Stalin and charm he and was duped by Stalin, not Churchill.

          • Texas Patriot

            I don’t see Churchill as a dupe. Rather I see him as someone who was fighting an “invisible enemy” he could not see. He could see the obvious “trees” abroad in Russia, Eastern Europe, and Communist China. What he could not see as clearly was the “forest” of Communists in Great Britain. Hence, his efforts were largely misplaced. He may have won the wars against Communists abroad; but history reveals that he lost the wars against Communists at home. Likewise, today, we are engaged in wars against Islamists abroad, but the more important battles are the wars to be fought against the Islamists at home. And that is why Diana West’s book is so important, and also why I think Winston Churchill would be one of its biggest fans.

          • Mladen_Andrijasevic

            You write ” Likewise, today, we are engaged in wars against Islamists abroad, but the more important battles are the wars to be fought against the Islamists at home.”

            This is simply inaccurate. The US is not “engaged in wars against Islamists abroad.” The Obama administration SUPPORTS the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt! Even the Republican senators went to Egypt to help persuade al-Asisi to free the Muslim Brotherhood ! What a disgraceful episode in American history. What shame! All because of American ignorance.

            Two years on – who was right on the Egyptian crisis?
            http://madisdead.blogspot.co.il/2012/12/two-years-on-who-was-right-on-egyptian.html

          • Texas Patriot

            Mladen_Andrijasevic: “The US is not “engaged in wars against Islamists abroad.”

            Unfortunately, we are, or at least we have been. Between Iraq and Afghanistan we have probably spent $5 trillion, lost 5,000 dead, had 25,000 to 100,000 soldiers maimed or permanently injured, and for what? Al Qaida is stronger than ever, and the number of Muslims in America has increased by 71% since 9/11/2001. It’s been even worse than our war against Communism. Diana West is right. We lost the war on totalitarian Communism, and we are losing the war against totalitarian Islam.

            But I think you are mistaken about Iran. Obama’s consistent position has been that the Iranians should not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. My understanding (prediction) is that in the event Iran takes steps to begin assembling a nuclear weapon, the United States will remove all Iranian nuclear weapons facilities by a surgical attack with overwhelming force. Here today, gone tomorrow. No ifs, ands, or buts, just removed completely by a single strike.

            And of course if Israel wants to go ahead with the job in the meantime, I think they have already been given the green light to do so. Either way, Iran will not be permitted to develop a nuclear weapon, and that has been Obama’s position on the issue since at least the presidential campaign of 2008.

          • Dobermite

            No he’s not living in an parallel universe, he’s actually making a salient point about cultural subversion and you would be wise to take heed.

            Ask most Americans today, who won the cold war, and almost without fail they will say we did, but try telling that to Marcuse and Adorno (if they were alive today) and they would laugh in your face.

          • Dobermite

            No he’s not living in a parellel universe, he’s making a salient point about cultural subversion and the failure of the west to combat it, and the devastating affects Cultural Marxism has had on the west, as intended (“We will make the west so corrupt that it stinks.” – Willie Munzenberg).

            Ask most Americans today; Who won the cold war?, and almost without fail they will say; “We did.” But try telling that to Marcuse or Adorno (if they were still alive) and they would laugh in your face.

  • RMF007

    For what it’s worth:

    I remember talking to an ex-FBI agent who was both an administrator and a field agent during the 1940′s for the Bureau.

    He told me the story of Harry Hopkins in some detail. Many, he said, had concluded that he was most likely a Soviet Agent.

  • Julius O’Malley

    Dear Messrs Haynes and Klehr,

    There seems to be a typographical error in your essay: the last word is “traitor”, whereas I’m sure you meant to write “Soviet agent”.

    Regards

    Julius O’Malley

  • Giovanelo

    The only remaining puzzle is: how come that Hopkins knew Akhmerov? Akhmerov was a Soviet agent under the guise of a foreign businessman. This is the most convincing argument that Hopkins was a Soviet spy himself, otherwise his chances of knowing personally Akhmerov and communicating with him would have been exactly zero.

  • ernie1241

    The FBI received inquiries during the 1960′s about Harry Hopkins as a result of allegations made by former FBI Special Agent, W. Cleon Skousen, in his 1958 book, The Naked Communist.

    I copy below one section from my Skousen report (posted online) which addresses the matter:

    —————-

    In October 1961 Skousen participated as a speaker in an “anti-communism school” in New Orleans under the auspices of Fred Schwarz’s Christian Anti-Communism Crusade. Ed Palmer, a local television station (WDSU-TV) commentator contacted the Bureau concerning “a number of startling and unbelievable charges” made by Skousen during his speech. One of Skousen’s assertions was that “Harry Hopkins in 1943 had turned over to the Russians 50 suitcases of information concerning the Manhattan Project.”

    Palmer asked for Bureau confirmation that Skousen actually had been an FBI Special Agent. A Bureau memo discussing this controversy states:

    “Apparently Skousen, Schwarz, et al are becoming more and more irresponsible and have apparently succumbed to the philosophy that the ends justify the means.” [HQ file 94-47468, no serial #; 10/26/61 memo from C.D. DeLoach to Mr. Mohr regarding W. Cleon Skousen Statements on Communism, New Orleans Louisiana 10-24-61.]

    The Bureau received another inquiry concerning Skousen’s assertions regarding Harry Hopkins. An official of the Jefferson Parish (LA) Chamber of Commerce asked Hoover:

    “Is The Naked Communist based entirely on fact? Is the information concerning Harry Hopkins true, especially the part that he obtained and gave to the Russian Communists Top Secret information on the Atomic Bomb and almost half of our supply of refined uranium?”

    The file copy of Hoover’s reply contains the following notation:

    “It is noted that on page 167 of his book…Skousen states that Harry Hopkins, former aide to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, supplied Russia with a large quantity of uranium during the early 1940’s. Bufiles contain no information to support this charge or to indicate that Hopkins was engaged in subversive activity.” [HQ 94-47468, #37; 11/1/61 Hoover reply to David A. Moynan Jr., Chairman, Operation Americanism of Jefferson Parish Junior Chamber of Commerce, Metairie LA.]

  • Mittymo

    Harry Hopkins was FDR’s right hand man. And Oleg Gordievsky was a top KGB agent. Does one suppose that Gordievsky might misremember something as shocking & astonishing as the revelation that Hopkins was secretly working with the NKVD & KGB? Really? The authors should be ashamed of themselves for suggesting as much.

    Secondly, when such an allegation is made, one should line it up with everything else that is known about Hopkins to determine if it is consistent of inconsistent with that information.

    The authors should read “Stalin’s Secret Agents,” by Stan Evans & Herbert Romerstein, because Hopkins was either s Soviet agent or one of the most naive & least sophisticated buffoons to have ever worked or acted as an adviser at high
    levels in our government. If not a Soviet agent, then the man was an utter disgrace to both common sense & good judgment. And FDR must have been an utter fool to have relied on Hopkin’s counsel.

  • Mittymo

    FDR’s emissary & personal confidant William Bullitt told FDR that a European war would end-up “destroying Britain, France, Italy, & Germany and handing
    Europe over to the Bolsheviks.”42 In another letter to the President in December 1936, Bullitt predicted that, “war will mean such horrible suffering that it will end in general revolution, and…the only winners will be Stalin and Company.”43 As late as May 20, 1938, Bullitt was still warning FDR that a general European war would result in “the complete destruction of western Europe and the spread of Bolshevism from one end of the Continent to the other.”44

    42. Bullitt, For
    The President, p. 188.

    43. Ibid., p. 200.

    44. Ibid., p. 262.

    And that’s precisely what happened.

    Please read See “Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe, 1944-1956,” by Anne Applebaum and “The Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World,” by Patrick Buchanan.

  • Mittymo

    “A confidential message from FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, reproduced in Ms. West’s book, described how an FBI investigation had discovered that Russian diplomat (and Comintern agent) Vasily Zarubin had made a payment to U.S. Communist Party official Steve Nelson to help place espionage agents ‘in industries engaged in secret war production … so that information could be obtained for transmittal to the Soviet Union.’ This information had come from a ‘bug’ at Nelson’s home in Oakland, California, through which the FBI first learned of the Soviet effort (code-named ‘Enormous’) to obtain the atomic secrets of the Manhattan Project.

    Instead of warning President Roosevelt, however, Hopkins ‘privately warned the Soviet embassy in Washington that the FBI had bugged a secret meeting’ between Nelson and Zarubin, according to documents from the KGB archives smuggled out by [former Soviet intelligence officer Vasili] Mitrokhin.”

  • Mittymo

    Does it makes any difference whether Harry Hopkins was a
    sucker for Soviet propaganda or actually working for Soviet intelligence
    agencies, as some seem to think?

    Does Hopkins come off better in history
    by saying the poor man just couldn’t see the forest for the trees?

    For
    purposes of Stalin & the achievement of his goals, it made absolutely no
    difference. Whether Stalin had to pay secret agents or whether he found useful
    idiots high up in our government (persons too dumb to be aware of the disastrous
    consequences they were helping to bring about) to do the same things for free,
    the results were the same for America, Eastern Europe, & parts of central
    Europe.

    Please read, “The Crushing of Eastern Europe,” by Anne
    Applebaum.

    Stalin used the U.S. government like a puppet on a string for
    achievement of his goals. The Soviets intended to subvert & convert the
    world to communism, either through covert internal subversion (as in America,
    Cuba, Egypt, Syria, etc.) or bloody bayonet military force (as in Eastern &
    parts of Central Europe, China, Korea, Vietnam, etc.).

    Plus, Stalin’s
    worst fear was that he would become encircled by his fiercest enemies, Japan,
    Poland, & Germany. Therefore, he developed a Machiavellian plan to
    destabilize & weaken them for decades to come.

    First, people denied
    that Stalin had secret agents of influence in our government. Now, they admit
    that Soviet Trojan Horse secret agents penetrated deep into our government, but
    now say that Stalin’s agents of influence in our government were ineffective,
    accomplishing next to nothing.

    Yet, Stalin’s three most virulent enemies
    (Germany, Japan, & Poland) were crushed in the process (rendered militarily
    impotent for nearly 70 years), while the Soviets imposed their will on Eastern
    & parts of central Europe, & extended their tentacles into other parts
    of the world. What more could a Machiavellian strategist have hoped
    for?

    General Albert Wedemeyer, who commanded our troops in China,
    repeatedly warned the State Department, his superiors, and both Roosevelt and
    Truman that failure to support Chiang Kai-shek would ultimately lead to a
    Communist takeover of China. He reiterated these recommendations in his famous
    1947 report to President Truman but the report was suppressed, and the result
    was a Communist takeover in 1949. All Wedemeyer’s recommendations, like the
    mythical Cassandra, were accurate. But his prescient & sage advice was never
    heeded because Stalin’s agents of influence working in high levels of government
    were able to deflect, dissemble, & counter the counsel of realists like
    Wedemeyer.

    Maybe Hopkins’ family will gain slightly more solace from the
    fact ol’ Harry the Hop was an idiot, rather than a spy. But for the rest of us,
    it makes absolutely no difference.

    For me, I would have preferred Hopkins
    to be a spy, rather than an idiot. We can defend against spies through
    vigilance. But there is no defense against smooth-talking idiots. The fact that
    people as dumb & as incompetent as Hopkins could become a Rasputin-like
    influence in government & have profound influence over a majority of
    Americans’ lives frightens the daylights out me.

    Here’s how Robert E.
    Sherwood, Hopkin’s friendly biographer described him in 1948:

    “During the
    years when Harry Hopkins lived as a guest in the White House he was generally
    regarded as a sinister figure, a backstairs intriguer, an Iowan combination of
    Machiavelli, Svengali and Rasputin.”…

    All Alger Hiss, Laughlin Curry,
    Laurence Duggan, Harry Dexter White, or one of the multitudes of other
    high-level Soviet secret agents had to do was sit down with Hopkins & say,
    “Now, Harry, this is what Franklin needs to do next. And tell Franklin that
    we’ve met with Eleanor, Rex Tugwell, Hugh Johnson, & Henry Wallace; &
    they’re all wildly enthusiastic about the idea, as well.”

    And then Harry,
    with the enthusiasm of a schoolboy & charm of a Svengali, would rush off to
    sell an ailing & feeble-minded President on it. Over time, it became so easy
    & so routine, it was like a rubber stamp.

    Authors Stan Evans &
    Herbert Romerstein suggest that it may have become so easy & so routine to
    get approvals that perhaps Stalin’s secret agents reached the point where they
    regarded prior approvals as unnecessary formalities & did many things
    without them. See “Stalin’s Secret Agents,” describing how some questionable,
    against the Geneva Convention policies (like slavery as reparations) were
    approved at Yalta.

    If persons today conspired to take advantage of an old
    man in FDR’s condition (using extreme undue influence & taking advantage of
    his illnesses), legal authorities would charge them with the added crime of
    “elder abuse”.

    See “FDR’s Deadly Secret,” by Eric Fettmann.

    • http://www.DNotice.org/ Dean Jackson

      “The fact that people as dumb & as incompetent as Hopkins could become a Rasputin-like influence in government…”

      They can’t, of course, unless both political parties were co-opted. The defense of the “realm” means no nation takes a chance on its survival…this is an axiom.

      Both political parties were co-opted decades ago by Moscow & allies. In fact, all Western political parties were co-opted, which is why after the “collapse” of the East Bloc and USSR the West inexplicably refused to send into those supposedly “collapsed” nations investigative teams to ferret out the truth, by going over each affected nation’s intelligence files (in the case of East Germany, most Stasi files were destroyed, and those that survived are hidden from general public viewing).

      You see, unlike World War II where the Allies occupied Axis nations, no such Western occupation occurred in the East Bloc nor USSR, making it a critical measure for the survival of the West that the West be allowed to search all Soviet Bloc intelligence files. In fact, the “freed” populations of the East Bloc and USSR would have been demanding that the West send into their respective nations such investigative teams, because they too would have wanted to know for sure that the “collapses” were genuine. But no such requests came from Soviet Bloc nations, proving that (1) the “collapse” of the East Bloc and USSR were strategic ruses; and (2) that Western political parties were co-opted before the “collapses”, since Communist strategists needed to ensure that the West wouldn’t demand that it be allowed to send investigative teams into the claimed “collapsed” nations.

      For those unfamiliar with this subject, the “collapse” of the USSR in 1991 was a strategic ruse under the “Long-Range Policy” (LRP). What is the LRP, you ask? The LRP is the “new” strategy all Communist nations signed onto in 1960 to defeat the West with. The last major disinformation operation under the LRP was the “collapse” of the USSR in 1991.

      The next major disinformation operation under the LRP will be the fraudulent collapse of the Chinese Communist government. When that occurs, Taiwan will be stymied from not joining the mainland. This is why China is buying up gold all over the word. It is believed that China currently has 3,000 tons of gold. When it has 6,000 tons it will have the minimum gold reserves to replace the United States as the world’s reserve currency, that is after the fraudulent collapse of the Chinese Communist government.

  • http://www.DNotice.org/ Dean Jackson

    Part II

    All Western political parties were co-opted by Moscow & allies decades ago, which is why after the “collapse” of the East Bloc and USSR the West inexplicably refused to send into those supposedly “collapsed” nations investigative teams to ferret out the truth, by going over each affected nation’s intelligence files (in the case of East Germany, most Stasi files were destroyed, and those that survived are hidden from general public viewing).

    You see, unlike World War II where the Allies occupied Axis nations, no such Western occupation occurred in the East Bloc nor USSR, making it a critical measure for the survival of the West that the West be allowed to search all Soviet Bloc intelligence files. In fact, the “freed” populations of the East Bloc and USSR would have been demanding that the West send into their respective nations such investigative teams, because they too would have wanted to know for sure that the “collapses” were genuine. But no such requests came from Soviet Bloc nations, proving that (1) the “collapse” of the East Bloc and USSR were strategic ruses; and (2) that Western political parties were co-opted before the “collapses”, since Communist strategists needed to ensure that the West wouldn’t demand that it be allowed to send investigative teams into the claimed “collapsed” nations.

    Here are the behaviors that didn’t take place in early 1992 USSR, proving that Western political parties were co-opted: The “freed” Soviets would have been begging for Western troops on their territories to ensure (1) that the USSR was indeed free; and (2) prevent an uprising of any possible Communist apparatus hidden within Soviet governments/militaries/institutions when cornered by Western investigative teams backed up by NATO.

    Western investigative teams, backed up by NATO contingents, would have acted as trip wires, proving that the collapses of East Bloc nations and the USSR were either frauds or legitimate.

  • http://www.DNotice.org/ Dean Jackson

    Are the authors really unaware that the “collapse” of the USSR was a strategic ruse, therefore KGB notebooks/purloined KGB documents are tampered with.

    Take a look at these pictures out of Russia…

    Google: ‘Photos: Antonov An-12BK-PPS Aircraft Pictures | Airliners net’

    and

    Google: ‘MiG-23UB Share this photo on forums’

    Then for Russian Naval vessels (take a look at what’s still appended to the bows)…

    Google (enlarge picture): ‘Russia seeks sea power with decrepit fleet Base expansion likely an empty threat’

    Those pictures were taken in 2009, 2011 and 2001, respectively, not before the “collapse” of the USSR. As you can see, the Soviet era nationality emblem of the Communist Party…the Red Star… is still present. That political symbol of the Soviet government would have been immediately removed in early 1992 if the “collapse” of the USSR were genuine. As the legal emblem of the USSR and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Red Star emblem can only be present if Communists are still in power in Russia and the other 14 republics that made up the USSR.

    Take a look at what’s still on Aeroflot aircraft…

    Google (open the first picture): ‘airplane pictures Aeroflot Airbus A319 VP-BDN’

    Note the Soviet emblem of the hammer & sickle stenciled on the aircraft’s fuselage!

    Now, for the main paper of the Russian Ministry of Defense…

    Google: ‘Krasnaya Zvezda’

    “Krasnaya Zvezda” is Russian (no kidding!) for “Red Star”, the official newspaper of Soviet and later Russian Ministry of Defense. The paper’s official designation is, “Central Organ of the Russian Ministry of Defense.” Note the four Soviet emblems next to the still existing Soviet era masthead, one of which pictures Lenin’s head!

    The fraudulent “collapse” of the USSR (and East Bloc) couldn’t have been pulled off until both political parties in the United States (and political parties elsewhere in the West) were co-opted by Moscow & Allies, which explains why verification of the “collapse” was never undertaken by the West, such verification being (1) a natural administrative procedure (since the USSR wasn’t occupied by Western military forces); and (2) necessary for the survival of the West. Recall President Reagan’s favorite phrase, “Trust, but verify”.

    Now you know why the hated Communist Red Star is still placed on the bows of NEW Russian Naval vessels (and the wings of Russian military aircraft), and why the “electorates” of the 15 republics that made up the USSR continue to “elect” for President Soviet era Communist Party Quislings. There have been 52 such Presidential “elections” since the “collapse” of the USSR, resulting in 40 Soviet era Communist Party member Quislings being elected. That’s 76.92%! If the “collapse” of the USSR were legitimate not one such Quisling would have been elected President. In fact, such persons would have been either arrested in the interests of national security or shunned by society. Remember, Communist Party members made up no more than 10% of the USSR, and it was they who for 74 years persecuted the remaining 90% of the population.

    Imagine it’s 1784 America. The Treaty of Paris (1783) was signed the previous year ending the revolutionary war with Britain. So who do the electorates of the newly independent 13 colonies elect for their respective governors? They elect persons who were Loyalists (American supporters of Great Britain) during the war for independence! Of course, in reality the persecution was so bad for Loyalists in post independence America that they had to flee the country en masse for Canada.

    Or try this one out: After the collapse of the South African Apartheid Regime in 1994, the majority black population reelect for their Presidents only persons who were National Party members before the 1994 elections!

    Now you also know why immediately after the “collapse” of the USSR the United States wasn’t given Russia’s strategic nuclear weapons, including delivery vehicles, for safe keeping! Imagine that, the freed Russian people not ensuring their freedom against a Communist counter-coup with the assistance of Chinese PLA ground and air forces backing up Soviet Special Forces and Airborne Guards. If the “collapse” of the USSR had been real, then a freed Russia, for national security reasons, would have ensured that its nuclear weaponry was secured by United States military elements. That no such actions were taken proves that (1) both American political parties were co-opted by Moscow & Allies; and (2) the United States Armed Forces were not co-opted, otherwise elements of America’s armed forces would have been deployed to Russia in order to pretend to safeguard Russia’s nuclear weapons.

    In addition, the KGB agent Quislings that controlled the Russian Orthodox Church before the “collapse” of the USSR are to this day still in control. They were never identified and thrown out of that institution after the “collapse” of the USSR. The same is true for all other religious institutions in the other 14 republics of the USSR, including East Bloc nations, proving not only co-option of those religious institutions, but that the “collapses” of the East Bloc and USSR were disinformation operations.

    For those unfamiliar with this subject, the “collapse” of the USSR in 1991 was a strategic ruse under the “Long-Range Policy” (LRP). What is the LRP, you ask? The LRP is the “new” strategy all Communist nations signed onto in 1960 to defeat the West with. The last major disinformation operation under the LRP was the “collapse” of the USSR in 1991.

    The next major disinformation operation under the LRP will be the fraudulent collapse of the Chinese Communist government. When that occurs, Taiwan will be stymied from not joining the mainland. This is why China is buying up gold all over the word. It is believed that China currently has 3,000 tons of gold. When it has 6,000 tons it will have the minimum gold reserves to replace the United States as the world’s reserve currency, that is after the fraudulent collapse of the Chinese Communist government.

    The “War on Terror” & Iraq War I and II:

    Regarding the “War on Terror”, Moscow and Beijing tasked America to conduct the operation to ensure that while the USSR was in a “liberalized” and therefore weakened state, such a war would (1) create enmity between Islam and the West; thereby (2) aborting any possibility for an alliance between Islam and the non-co-opted militaries of the West against their mutual and true enemy…World Communism; and (3) create the image that the United States is a rogue state, invading/attacking nations with impunity, thereby setting the stage for a future “democratic” China replacing United States preeminence on the world stage.

    Before the fraudulent collapse of the USSR in December 1991 Moscow tasked Washington, DC to ready the 1990 Gulf War with Iraq. Why? Because Moscow, after the “collapse”, was going to intentionally implode its economy to ensure foreign investments went to China instead. Russia could live on the relatively higher price that its oil exports (Russia is #2 behind Saudi Arabia in oil exports) would obtain thanks to the United States placing an embargo on Iraqi oil, thereby raising the world price of oil relative to the lower price the commodity would have fetched if the Iraq embargo hadn’t been in place. China has no such export market for oil, therefore would have to rely on foreign investments to build her military.

    Then by 2001 oil began getting too expensive due to India’s emergence on the economic scene, threatening China’s military buildup. To ensure China had the oil it needed, and at a lower relative price then what it would have been otherwise, and not exhaust Russian oil reserves, Moscow once again tasked Washington, DC to invade Iraq for the purpose of now opening up Iraq’s oil reserves once again to the world oil market. Hence the March 2003 Iraqi War, and why China is the major player that has benefited from Iraqi oil contracts.