Diana West Down Crackpot Alley

west_dianaReprinted from PJ Media

Yesterday, my review of Diana West’s new book, American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character, was posted at FrontPageMagazine, the website of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. I urge PJM readers to go and read it, and to consider the arguments I make about why I find her book to be a betrayal, but not the kind she charges existed in our past. Indeed, what I argue in the review is that her book is actually a betrayal of serious and honest history, an ideologically bound argument that ignores real evidence, distorts our past, and creates a mythical counter-narrative to understanding decisions made during WWII.

Here is my concluding paragraph:

Conspiratorial theories of history are easy to create once you are prepared to ignore the realities on the ground, or regard those who do take them into account as part of the conspiracy too. This is the path that Diana West has taken in her misconceived and misleading book. Why did the U.S. and Britain not prevent the totalitarian USSR from taking over Eastern Europe after it had defeated the totalitarian Nazis?  It had nothing to do with the Rubik’s Cube of diplomatic and military considerations, a calculus that had to take into account the willingness of the American and British publics to continue to sacrifice and their soldiers to die.  No, it was a conspiracy so immense, as West’s hero Joe McCarthy might have said, that it allowed Western policy to be dictated by a shadow army of Soviet agents. It is unfortunate that a number of conservatives who should know better have fallen for West’s fictions.  It is even more depressing that her book perpetuates the dangerous one dimensional thinking of the Wisconsin Senator and his allies in the John Birch Society which have allowed anti anti-communism to have a field day in our intellectual culture.

What I want to discuss is why I took upon myself the job of writing a lengthy and detailed critique of West’s book.

First, as a historian and a conservative, I believe that my responsibility is to the truth. I cannot countenance conspiracy theories, whether they come from those on the Left or those on the Right. On these pages and elsewhere, I have regularly written about the corruption of history by writers such as Howard Zinn, and the team of Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick. I have also written a great deal about Soviet espionage, the influence of Communism on American life, and the fallacies of anti anti-Communism.

When self-proclaimed conservatives echo the methodology and conspiratorial type thinking of those on the Left, because they consider themselves conservatives means that those of us who want a responsible, sane conservative movement, and a vibrant conservative intellectual culture, have the responsibility to speak out and to criticize, no matter what source it comes from.

An analogy can be made with the dilemma William F. Buckley Jr. faced when, in 1962, he decided to take on first Robert Welch, the head of the John Birch Society, and later the Society itself. At the New Republic last year, Geoffrey Kabaservice wrote the following:

Having spent the better part of a decade doing research in Buckley’s archives, I can attest that it was no easy matter for Buckley to take on Welch and his Society. Many of the financial backers and readers of Buckley’s National Review magazine admired Welch and his organization; Buckley’s own mother was a Bircher. His editorial colleagues warned that criticizing Welch risked splitting the conservative movement. Buckley’s position as movement leader would be jeopardized by the liberal plaudits that predictably would follow his editorial condemnation of the Birchers; as Buckley put it privately, “I wish to hell I could attack them without pleasing people I can’t stand to please.”

Nonetheless, in February 1962 National Review ran a six-page editorial against Welch, arguing that he was damaging the anti-Communist cause by “distorting reality” and failing to distinguish between an “active pro-Communist” and an “ineffectually anti-Communist liberal.” It would be several years before Buckley excommunicated all Birchers from the conservative movement, but his editorial emphasized that “There are bounds to the dictum, Anyone on the right is my ally.”

Two years later, Buckley finally wrote his famous editorial condemning the Society. The conspiracy theories of the Society, Buckley wrote, made conservatism seem “ridiculous and pathological,” allowing liberals to portray conservatives as extremists. Conservatism, he wrote, had to expand “by bringing into our ranks those people who are, at the moment, on our immediate left…If they think they are being asked to join a movement whose leadership believes the drivel of Robert Welch, they will pass by crackpot alley, and will not pause until they feel the embrace of those way over on the other side, the Liberals.”

As his biographer John B. Judis wrote in 2001, Buckley and National Review,“drew the line when the John Birch Society and its founder, Robert Welch, began to maintain that the American government itself was being run by Communists rather than liberals. Such a position not only ran directly counter to that of National Review; it also threatened to cast the Right into what [James] Burnham called ‘crackpot alley.’” As readers of Diana West’s book know, she argues that during World War II and the early Cold War, the American government was “occupied” and run by Stalin’s secret police, through its agents who controlled the White House. This is, indeed, thinking that echoes Robert Welch.

Of course, Buckley was talking about a movement, and not about a book. But the analogy holds. Diana West’s thought pattern indeed bears a strong resemblance to that of the Birch Society and Robert Welch. As Buckley himself wrote in Commentary in March of 2008, Birch thinking went like this:

The fallacy is the assumption that you can infer subjective intention from objective consequence; we lost China to the Communists; therefore the President of the United States and the Secretary of State wished China to go to the Communists.

Readers of Diana West’s tome will no doubt quickly see the similarity in what Buckley attacked as the method of the conspiratorial mind. West believes that since Eastern Europe was lost to the West and conquered by Stalin, it meant that the American and British leaders, including FDR and Winston Churchill, were presiding over an “occupied” and controlled government. As I write in my review, West thinks that “The Roosevelt administration [was] penetrated, fooled, subverted, in effect hijacked by Soviet agents… and engaged in a ‘sell-out’ to Stalin” that “conspirators of silence on the Left…would bury for as long as possible, desperately throwing mud over it and anyone who wanted the sun to shine in.” According to West, it was only because Washington was “Communist-occupied” that the United States aligned itself with the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany and, later, that the President allowed Stalin to gain Eastern Europe.

The other question I wondered about is why so many conservatives, who I believe should really know better, have responded so favorably to her book. I think the answer is that they are fed up with the leftist narrative that there was no threat from Communism in any way; that the 50s were a period of witch-hunts against non-existent enemies; and that, therefore, anyone who realizes this was not an accurate picture of that era must be correct in their analysis about what happened.

As I believe I show in my review, West takes this understanding one step further — to argue that not only was Communism an actual threat, and not only had Communists infiltrated the government during the New Deal, but that they actually controlled and ran the White House and made the major foreign policy decisions. She also castigates all of those, including me, who have written for decades about Soviet espionage and Communism. While she acknowledges at times that scholars like me, Harvey Klehr and John Earl Haynes, Alexander Vassiliev and Allen Weinstein have done a yeoman’s job of revealing the extent of Soviet espionage, she condemns all of us for not accepting her judgment and conclusion that American policy was made for the benefit of the Soviet Union, and that the spies literally ran both the American and British governments.

She knocks down straw men continually. For example, on the question of espionage, she argues that all of us view Soviet espionage as a matter of personal conscience and “not as an issue of national security.” This is preposterous, and I point specifically to article Steve Usdin and I co-authored  in 2011 that appeared in The Weekly Standard, in which among other things we specifically reveal what real damage the Rosenberg spy ring did to our national security, above and beyond trying to obtain material pertaining to the atomic bomb. Telling the truth, however, would interfere with her narrative in which she is continually trying to show that, in essence, even those who have exposed the extent of Soviet espionage are part of the great conspiracy to cover up the truth.

I end by asking readers to carefully read my review, and to reconsider jumping on the Diana West bandwagon. To continue to give her very bad book credibility will only work to harm the integrity and reputation of conservative intellectuals. After all, it has been decades since William F. Buckley Jr. acted courageously to push the Birchers out of the movement he was building. Do we really want to welcome their successors into it now, after so many lessons have been learned?

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Chez

    I consider FPM to be perhaps THEE premier conservative web-sites on the net. But I’d like to make one unsolicited suggestion: Perhaps just a single article every day could differ from the otherwise steady diet of work exposing Islamo-left atrocities and fallacies, something that might INSPIRE us by emphasizing the positive…..validating conservative principles by featuring stories of human courage, of human compassion, of admirable aspects of our culture, of the BEST in human nature.

    God knows we need the exposition of the lies and hatred espoused by the Islamo-Left…and this is exactly what makes FPM so invaluable. But we also need hope. We need to occasionally deepen our humanity to compliment the cultural warfare we are waging. As individuals, our sum total has to occasionally transcend being cultural warriors….otherwise we become completely one-dimensional. Should FPM be any different as an institution? For those of us who have made this fine web-site a second home on the Net, it would be great if we could – just occasionally – be truly inspired or even laugh while we’re here.

    I know Jamie often interviews guests who are inspirational, but what about an occasional effort in prose from such an impressive array of writers? Just a thought, folks.

  • Ron Lewenberg

    As someone who like’s Ms. West’s work I am mortified by this. Worse, she is doubling down on ignorance.
    She just ran a piece calling the fall of the Philippines a communist plot, as if the US Navy was in any position to do anything about the Japanese invasion.

    Diana West needs to grow up and get a historian to review here work. Barring that she needs to grow up and accept people pointing out fundamental flaws.

  • Hank Rearden

    I take the point that the book Radosh is reviewing is a crackpot view of World War II. The Nazi movement was the heir to an entire century of German philosophy which exalted the state as the highest expression of society, combined with Darwinism that was interpreted as saying that life was a struggle between states and that therefore the German state, representing the German volk had to conquer or perish.

    So the aggression of Nazi Germany was not an accident of history. It was the result of Hitler’s view of his role in history. He said on his 50th birthday in April 1939, that it was important to fight the war that he foresaw with the East while he was still young enough to run it.

    It was not a question of either Britain or the U.S. being maneuvered into the war by the Communists in the absence of a real mission. There has always been a strain of revisionist history in Britain that Churchill could have responded to Hitler’s “peace offer” in July 1942. The problem with that is the ruthlessness of Naziism which Churchill understood very well.

    I just think that as conservatives we should not sign on to the “evil of McCarthyism” when McCarthy was right. McCarthy was not, except in his unfortunate speech about Marshall, focusing on World War II but on China. It may be that the correlation of forces meant that China was going to go Communist. But when you get into the details of our advice to Chiang, our leaking data to the Reds, Solomon Adler being Marshall’s preferred advisor to during his mission to China, it does appear that our policy to China was contaminated. It was one of those things that WAS a “conspiracy so enormous” that it IS difficult to believe it until you examine the mosaic tile by tile.

    Why is any of this important? Because we now have a Liberal/Left/Democratic leadership that is making common cause with the Muslim Brotherhood, has purged any reference to Islamic terrorism from training manuals for the FBI, has instituted rules of engagement in Afghanistan that puts Islamic political correctness ahead of the safety and success of our troops and which includes members of the Muslim Brotherhood in policy-influential positions in the government. This is a problem that nobody but Allen West among potential presidential candidates recognizes. Michelle Bachmann and some colleagues attempted to call the Obama administration on the presence of the Muslim Brotherhood in various security and policy positions, and they were shouted down.

    So McCarthy and calling out anti-American agents in our government is as fresh as today’s lettuce.

  • Hank Rearden

    McCarthy was right. Why is this important?

    Because we are now facing a similar problem with the Obama administration welcoming members of the Muslim Brotherhood into positions of influence and with the administration purging references to Muslim terrorism from FBI training and procedures and our troops in Afghanistan being given ridiculous rules of engagement due to fear of offending MB sensibilities.

    Is this a problem? It was for the Richard family in Boston, whose 8-year-old son Martin was killed; whose 11-year-old daughter had one leg blown off; whose mother had metal driven into her brain and who lost an eye; and to the father who lost his hearing. The FBI was notified by the FSB, the Russian successor to the KGB, that the Tsarnaev’s were dangerous. But the FBI could not do a serious investigation due to its “rules of engagement.”

    Michelle Bachmann and some colleagues tried to launch an investigation of the issue of MB influence in the government and they were shouted down. Why? Are people saying it is IMPOSSIBLE that the MB could have gained influence in essential operations of the government? Do they have no respect for Arabs, and assume that they would not take action that would benefit them enormously?

    McCarthy was demonized by the majority in the Senate which was Democratic from 1950 – 1952. The Dems could not admit that they had been lax in their duties in running the government so they had to pretend that McCarthy was either crazy or lying. His censure? Based on 1 count out of the 42 filed against him,and that count involved his saying something unkind to a senator who had been denouncing him. 1 out of 42 charges. What does that tell you?

    • wildjew

      Mr. Reardon, I don’t see how you can compare Michelle Bachmann (who I support) to Joseph McCarthy. I don’t see any indication Obama’s courting Muslim Brotherhood activists is part of a broad-based conspiracy unless you want to include former President George W. Bush – who also courted Muslim Brotherhood activists – and his administration in that conspiracy.

      • TheOrdinaryMan

        I’m not a conspiracy theorist, and I quite agree with Mr. Radosh, that Diana West’s book is off the deep end; but you’ve got to admit there are more people in the Obama administration, who are committed to MB penetration of the US government, than there were in that of George W. Bush. Example–who was Bush’s attorney general? Michael Mukasey. You can’t compare Mukasey’s ideology to Eric Holder’s–they’re as different as night and day. Another example, there are a number of people in the DOD, committed to the MB, that weren’t there under Bush. Also,
        Bush wouldn’t have called the Ft. Hood massacre “work place violence.” In fact Bush, out of office, visited Ft. Hood before Obama did. Bush wouldn’t have kept the victims from getting the benefits they deserve, either. And what about Van Jones? Valerie Jarrett? Both MB supporters. There’s no question Bush, perhaps unwittingly, started the process of MB penetration. But Obama has–quite intentionally–made it much worse. And what do you call it when a large number of people, working towards a common goal, get together?

        • wildjew

          You are right. I would never compare Bush to Obama. My criticism of Bush comes from the fact that I am a conservative; a life-long Republican. I expect more from a self-professed Christian conservative than I do from a Democrat, much less an anti-American, “Muslim-born” president with deep sympathies for Islam. Bush was not a conservative (most conservative acknowledge it “today”) and that he was compromised by his and his father’s financial dealings with the Saudis. Obama is beyond compromised. He poses an existential threat (or approximating an existential threat) to this country. Much of the blame for the rise of Obama I lay at the feet of Bush and his uncritical conservative supporters. I maintained my silence in the face of Bush’s repeated untruths (lies?) about Israel and Islam for nearly four years. I betrayed my own convictions for nearly four years before I came to my senses.

          • TheOrdinaryMan

            Thank you. Bush certainly wasn’t politically conservative; he was a limousine-type Republican from Yale, who as you say, had dealings with the Saudis. But he was also compromised by his grandiose thinking, that is, he often overestimated the effect American ideals, customs, and way of life would have on those who haven’t had the good fortune to live in the USA. Thus he sometimes failed to fully understand those he dealt with; with disastrous unintended consequences.

        • BS61

          Americans can’t afford anyone ‘unwittingly’ doing anything. CAIR is in the WH. MSA has invaded schools. Bush also allowed the border open after 9/11 – if you can’t get the US support then, when can you?
          ALL former Presidents refuse to take on Islam – with the exception on Thomas Jefferson who actually named our enemy and fought Muslim pirates!

      • Paul of Alexandria

        Obama’s Role in Empowering the Muslim Brotherhood


        The Muslim Brotherhood and Weiner


        Proof that Huma Abedin Has Muslim Brotherhood Connections


        Why is Obama in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood?


        Ok, perhaps the conspiracy hasn’t taken over the entire U.S. government, but it does have deep roots, and the prevailing political climate certainly assists it.

        • wildjew

          I am talking about Michele Bachmann’s tactics vs. McCarthy’s tactics. Obama’s affection for the Muslim Brotherhood is no secret. He is very open about his warm feelings for these Islamic supremacist / racists. Where is the conspiracy? Where is the evidence Harry S. Truman was in league with Communists?

      • BS61

        To this ex-Dem – Bush was a wimp and Obama is a supporter of Islam. Both are a detriment to the US.

        • wildjew

          Some ex-Dems have more insight than life-long Republicans.

  • know your nuclear physics

    why send uranium and aluminum tubes at all since the Russians had no means of their own to create plutonium? U238 turns into plutonium by adding a neutron … after some decay. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/619232/uranium-processing/81603/Conversion-and-isotopic-enrichment

  • AlexanderGofen

    The veracity of the concept of the American Betrayal is supported by the list of true historic facts.

    1) In the 1920s America failed to realize the terrible threat of the 1917 Bolshevik coup in Russia, failed to suffocate it while it was so easy, and failed to confront this infection at home.

    2) Worse, in 1933 America recognized and established diplomatic relations with a monster, a cannibal – USSR. In doing so America suppressed information about the recently staged by Stalin Ukrainian famine (akin to Holocaust). America kept suppression of all the information about other massive (on the scale of millions) repressions, GULAG, tortures, and kangaroo trials in the USSR. That was the clear moment when America lost its soul (noted Diana West). If nothing else, this fact alone supports the entire concept of the book.

    3) In 1939 America suppressed the leaked information about the real content of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact: Hitler and Stalin reached an agreement about occupation of the Eastern Europe starting the WWII.

    4) In the same time America failed to recognize a near obvious yet diabolical strategic plan of Stalin to pit Hitler against Europe, then to hit Hitler in the back and to come as a “liberator” of Europe – see the Icebreaker of V. Suvorov. Stalin was responsible for WWII no less than Hitler, and Stalin kept helping Hitler up to 6/22/1941. America’s siding with Stalin was pointless and immoral from the very beginning. However America turned actually into a bootlicker of Stalin taking a role much exceeding that of a temporary ally.

    5) America had suppressed the information about the Khatyn atrocities committed by Stalin. America and Britain betrayed and literally handed out millions of legal Russian refugees in Europe to Stalin – a despicable crime in itself! America and Britain also betrayed the Vlasov resistance Army and handed them out to Stalin too.

    6) To please Stalin, America rejected the most obvious course of defeating Germany from the bulwark in Italy, and chose the most disadvantageous landing to France on the D-Day instead.

    7) America had betrayed thousands of our soldiers to Stalin leaving them to disappear in GULAG turning into the camp dust: Denied, never heard about, forgotten forever – a despicable crime in itself! On a lesser scale the similar crime was repeated much later in regard to our Vietnam soldiers. Those were a bit luckier. After 7-8 years in Hanoi Hilton they were finally retrieved.

    8) During the Nuremberg trial, America failed to bring to justice Stalin or any of his crimes – notwithstanding that Stalin’s guilt in triggering the WWII was equal to that of Hitler. In the same tune much later America refused to stage analogous trial over the crimes of the defeated Communism: This time to not displease comrade Gorbachev.

    And all the above being just an overture to ascendence of the impostor and thief Obama-Soetoro-Soebarkach-Bounel (the name uncertain) with all that followed.

    Do not believe a word of Radosh. Judge for yourself, or go to Amazon and read over 60 5-star reviews. (One of them is mine: http://www.amazon.com/review/R3J8XJD1HG31OO ). See also



    • Productivity Market

      I have read several times that Wall street financed this coup. Anglos and American banks have financed every terrible thing since 1913. Thnks to them the last 100 years have been a psycho freak show.

      America has a soul but your leaders, the real leaders, the financiers are evil. BTW, the US Fed debt is approaching 17trillion and there are 10trillion dollars in circulation

      • AlexanderGofen

        The 1917 Bolshevik coup was financed by Germany, which also allowed the sealed train from Switzerland with several hundreds key Bolsheviks (including Lenin) to pass through and reach Russia. Germany had a deal with Bolsheviks, that as soon as they grab the power, they stop the war with Germany.

        Having a lot of German cash, Bolsheviks could steeply rise in the political scene of Petrograd – and the rest is history.

        • William Nevin

          That’s not the whole story. Yes, Lenin was sent on the sealed train from Europe, but he couldn’t have achieved supreme power there during his putsch without the military leadership and other support of “Leon Trotsky” a.k.a. “Lev Davidovich Bronstein.”

          Trotsky at this time was publishing a communist newspaper from a building on Broadway in Lower Manhattan, allegedly with financial support from interests close to the J.P. Morgan companies. (FDR had offices in the same building. Small world, no?)

          So at the same time Lenin was sent from Switzerland, Trotsky was sent from NYC. His ship stopped in Canada, where he was caught with 3 passports in 3 different names, one Russian, one Polish, and one, iirc, German. He claimed the Russian one, in the name of Lev Davidovich Bronstein was real and the others were the fakes. And of course Trotsky the great Bolshevik leader had to be a genuine Russian, so it is that name which today is considered his “real” one by the arbiters of taste in the groves of academe.

          The RCMP attempted to detain him in Canada, but were given orders from above to let him continue his voyage to Russia.

          Interestingly, in their investigation the Mounties found that, while he could speak Polish easily at a native level, his Russian was somewhat fractured and spoken with a pronounced Polish accent. So their official report concluded he must be a Pole, and the Russian passport a forgery under a pseudonym.

          American and Canadian government officials weren’t taking orders from Germans in 1917. So where did “Trotsky’s” money come from, and his mysterious get-out-of-jail-free orders when his ship put in to Halifax?

          Read Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution by Antony Sutton for more information.

          • AlexanderGofen

            The order to release him came from Russian foreign minister Pavel Milyukov:

            “Trotsky was living in New York City when the February Revolution of 1917 overthrew Tsar Nicholas II. He left New York on 27 March, but his ship, the SS Kristianiafjord, was intercepted by British naval officials in Canada at Halifax, Nova Scotia. He was detained for a month at Amherst Internment Camp in Nova Scotia. After initial hesitation, the Russian foreign minister Pavel Milyukov demanded the release of Trotsky as a Russian citizen, and the British government freed him on 29 April.”


  • DynastGideon

    I’m glad you took the time out to write a review on the book, there no way I could have read that myself. American Betrayal turns out to be a betrayal…quite funny though.


    Where to buy wartrol

  • Ben

    This piece have nothing to do with an honest critic. Mr Radosh clearly attacks Diana West in personam. Would Mr Buckley said about anyone that he or she is “on the crackpot valley”?

  • Ammianus

    While many of the critics of your review may not understand the nature of academic discourse, they do have a point. Your utilization of phrases like “McCarthy on steroids” and “crackpot ideas” have the effect of inflaming the debate. This is especially true if they have difficulty understanding the more substantive points of your argument in the first place. Dealing with undergraduate level comprehension is not difficult if you control the grade book, but in an open forum you need to choose words more carefully. That is of course if your ultimate goal is to push the Birch successors out of the movement.

  • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

    I place greater emphasis on the ideas and philosophies that dominate our culture than the cast of characters who come and go. Frankly I can’t keep track of the cast of characters that West and Radosh discuss. But I do know the ideas that blind us to the policies that are destroying our nation. I’ll leave the casting details to full time historians. We have a culture to save.

  • timpottorff

    No conservative writer, historian, journalist should be above critique or investigation of facts. We as conservatives say we detest the falsehoods that are promulgated in the media by the Left. Therefore, we MUST have our arguments square with reality and the existence of verifiable facts of history. We must not fear examining even our most popular and revered leaders and heroes. Sometimes they get it wrong…we must be willing to admit it when it happens.
    Facts are stubborn things.

    • NADS1

      Mr. Radosh doesn’t seem to think that William F. Buckley ever “got it wrong”.

  • wallypalo

    Mr Radosh. I would like to take you seriously, but when you use derisive terms like “crackpot”, you have given away the right to be considered a dispassionate historian concerned with Truth. You come across as just another bat-swinging blogger. I have enjoyed the excerpts from Ms West’s book so far, though I have yet to see anythng that I haven’t already read in “Witness” and books about the Venona transcripts.

  • hpe reader

    Mr. Radosh,

    The unfortunate explanation of why so many conservatives have sided with Diana West’s version of history is that there are a lot of intellectual lightweights (polite description) in the country, and world for that matter. And both on the Right, and Left. Many of these people are angry and will automatically side with whoever attacks their perceived enemies in the most enthusiastic manner. Sad, but true and quite simple, actually.

    • Sue Sponte

      exactly so

    • TienBing

      Intellectual lightweights tend to dismiss those holding contrary opinions as intellectual lightweights – as if that will add some weight to their own gossamer intellect. Actually they come across as pompous twits.

  • Michael Ferrin

    I read the book, and found that West made a compelling case that the Soviet spies in FDR’s cabinet, chiefly Harry Dexter White, essentially brought on Pearl Harbor, by manipulating the US to take action in the Asia-Pacific regions that would compel Japan to conclude that war with the US was inevitable. It has been proved that White et al were following orders or directives from Moscow, and wanted to protect Stalin and his USSR from Japan’s substantial rise to his east. What better way than to get Japan involved in a war against the US? One finds it hard to deny that this makes sense of the otherwise confounding mystery of why Pearl Harbor happened, the usual explanation of which is hollow, i.e. that Japan was irrationally overconfident, insane or suicidal.

    • Batman

      My friend i’m afraid your wrong with the Japanese pilots. If you actually understood Japanese culture, you would know that one of the oldest traditional forms f punishment was seppekuu or ritual suicide wear a samurai or any other servant would commit suicide. and meaning suicide combined with the desire to become a martyr for a Japan (KamiKaze) was and is totatly acceptable in Japanese culture. Second an american intelligence network codenamed MAGIC found out through breaking Japanese codes that the planner of the attack was admiral Yamamoto.
      Also cobmined with the fact Japan was a Theocratic Monarchy that made the Kamikaze attacks apart of Japan’s Ketsu Go or decisive operaton.

      For more information on Japan check conservative communicter bill whitte in his episodes memes and his cricticism of jon stewart

      • Michael Ferrin

        So Yamamoto planned the attack after the US compelled Japan to conclude that war with the US was inevitable. Same same. Btw, I said nothing about Japanese pilots, so it’s impossible for me to be wrong about them. The kamikaze aspect is completely irrelevant.

  • James Keir Baughman

    The very explanatory comments by both Ron and David are excellently expressed as usual. But, I believe there is one more unsung factor here that deeply affects many American Conservatives. And that is a hugely growing weariness with dodging the word Communism and Communist. And fearing, in great Political Correctness, to “name names” or groups who we know are, even while they purposefully hide it. After all we have Saul Alinsky’s virtually exact explanation that the name “Communist” and the word “Communism” MUST be hidden from a most naive and gullible American public in order to – take a deep breath now – bring COMMUNISM into America. That is exactly why many of us are willing to listen to what seem overtly probable “conspiracy theories.” That does not mean we should not search deeply for, and base our final beliefs on, actual facts. But, lets not forget that after the 30 long years we were viciously accused of “conspiracy theories” against the Rosenberg spy ring, the true facts found we were, by far, right on target. The work that David and his excellent staff are doing gives all who will listen a desperately needed “heads up” this time around.

  • Christine Brim

    West’s “American Betrayal” has stayed in the top ten best-seller lists at amazon.com in a couple categories – Commentary and Opinion, and History and Theory, It has been reviewed positively widely. You owe it to yourself to read the book and make your own judgments. Give it a try!

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

    Conspiracy theories it seems to me are akin to the disputes over evolution. While micro evolution is a fact and provable science for all to see, macro evolution is not and requires great leaps of faith across gigantic chasms. Yet, still with the lack of evidence people still believe. Millions buy periodicals that survive off of outlandish claims of Elvis sightings, alien abductions and Jesus’ image on toast crying blood. Gossip and Reality TV shows where decency is assassinated, pain is worshiped and lives are ruined are watch by millions more. Today it seems people are more inclined to gossip rather than hold to a secret. More Americans likely to believe that a two headed alien crash landed in a corn field than their President is a narcissistic liar whose actions are unbecoming of any American and truly are “transforming America.” It also seems that while a conspiracy is possible within a very small tight knit group it is nearly impossible with anything beyond a handful and impossible throughout an entire bureaucracy. It is far more plausible to see at work the ignorance or stupidity of people or an ideology (like the destructive and self defeating political correctness we see around with regard to Islam) rather than a conspiracy. Connecting the dots of history — filling in the gaps with the imagination, possibilities or worse hopes and desires — gives us false history far more often than it gives us accurate history. But for some (far too many) they prefer their thoughts and mind live in some alternative universe rather than the one they find their feet are planted in. That little old shed in the back yard near the tree line filled with cob webs and rodents can be pretty scary to some folk, but just because you drop your flashlight and run at the first unfamiliar sound doesn’t prove it’s haunted.

  • Darrell

    The inflammatory headline does the article no favor. If a book is deserving of a poor review, issue one, but when the criticism becomes personal, one must shake one’s head and wonder why. I think I’ll pick up a copy of the book and form my own opinion.

    • Paardestaart

      Please do – you won’t regret it, and it may answer some nagging question you’ve been wondering about yourself.

    • BS61

      Diana West has also post on Breitbart of the last couple of weeks if you want to get a taste for free. :)

  • paparotc

    Sorry Ron. You are flailing at small and irrelevant facts to defend your position. I can agree that Russia is a bad example to prove West’s point. I prefer to cite that of China, which was handed over to the communists, with aid from all the fellow travelers in the White House. We betrayed Chang Kai Chek in favor of Mao based on the desires of a handful of subversive White House Communists even tho Chang was winning the Chinese “civil” war until the U.S. cut off aid to him and his freedom seeking people.
    What is it with you self-appointed intellectuals that you feel it necessary to attack McCarthy, Diane West (and all of us Americans) who believed McCarthy was right. We are still paying the price today for the damage caused by the communists in our government in the 30’s and 40’s. What part of this don’t you understand? And there are many anarchists. still in our government today. The betrayal of America is still going on while you nit pick the past. Your animus toward us begs a larger question however, and it is a disturbing one…………

    • BS61

      Thanks PapaROTC! As a former Dem, I’m still trying to catch up on all the news media lies, but I’ll add China to that list!

      • Patriot077

        Full details of the betrayal of Chang Kai Chek is in “Blacklisted by History” about McCarthy. I had not known of it before. I was naive and so was shocked to learn that The American Ideal had been so thoroughly perverted by these commie worms in our highest offices.

  • TienBing

    I think this discussion has become unnecessarily personal and antagonistic. Mr. Radosh seems to want to make molehills of difference into mountains of disagreement.

    There is no doubt that FDR was very sympathetic to socialism. Looking at his policies, solutions to problems, and the people he appointed to key decision making and policy shaping positions, it is not hard to suspect he and most of his bureaucratic appointees and supporters were possibly closet communists. At any rate they seemed to have consciously worked to lay the bed and map the route of the road that we have travelled so far. Maybe they were just dupes, or victims of the accumulative effects of their own past decisions – or maybe it was deliberate design. The hard evidence is ambiguous. Some come down on deliberate – some come down on coincidence, accident, etc.

    The same can be said of the decisions made to enter the Second World War, the manner of US execution of that war, and US actions at the end of the war. By the time the US entered the war Western Europe was lost, the Balkans were going, and Russia was reeling.

    We did not need Soviet help – they needed ours. There was no reason to give lavish assistance to a totalitarian communist regime to aid them in their fight against a totalitarian socialist regime. There were many alternative strategies available. But the choice made was to support the Soviet Union. There was no reason to passively give that regime carte blanch in Eastern Europe. Some have argued in essence that Roosevelt was trapped – he had no choice but to acquiesce to the demands of Stalin. Maybe, but Roosevelt’s decisions set the trap. They further argue that neither he nor Truman could have turned around American opinion to take on the Soviets in alliance with the defeated erstwhile enemy Germany. That is an argument full of chutzpah – create the conditions then whine that you are helpless. Maybe if they had told the American people the truth about the Soviet utopia, and the atrocities committed by the Soviets before, during and immediately after the war…? Maybe if a completely unnecessary decision to back the Soviets hadn’t been made? What if Roosevelt had not seized on the “crisis” caused by Pearl Harbor to react to Hitler’s declaration of war?

    I am not arguing that FDR was a card caring communist out to turn the US into a mirror of the USSR. I am arguing that although one can nitpick the individual pieces of evidence or interpretations thereof, the cumulative evidence could support that position and does not call for rancorous invective in rebuttal.

    Please don’t invoke William F. Buckley, or his well-who-the-hell-didn’t-know-that aphorisms. He did as much damage as he did good. At the very least his demeanor and approach made conservatism the very image of stuffy snobbery. His reification has stifled so called conservative thought for five decades.

    • tagalog

      The U.S. decision to enter World War II was the conduct of imperialistic Japan in attacking Pearl Harbor. Until then, we had a Neutrality Act – and a powerful pacifist lobby- that caused the FDR administration to adopt a hostile neutrality toward the European Axis. It was Germany that declared war on the United States in December 1942.

      • TienBing

        “…it still doesn’t make FDR a Soviet Communist.”

        I didn’t say he was. My point was that evaluating whether or not FDR was actually a communist, a dupe, or merely a man trapped by events, is a call that can be refuted or supported by analysis of events, decisions, and out comes.
        Based on your post, you don’t think he was. Others disagree. I don’t know.
        The US decision to enter WWII was preordained by decisions made by Roosevelt and his advisors well before 1941. Roosevelt, like most Americans – to the extent they paid attention at all, was more interested in events in Europe than the Pacific. After Pearl Harbor, attention, and now intense anger, was directed at Japan. Roosevelt did not let that emotion go to waste, he directed it toward Germany. It wasn’t necessary to respond to Hitler’s stupidity with immediate massive aid to the Soviet Union while leaving the war against an enemy that actually attacked us on life support. The defense of Midway was touch and go – we lucked out. The Dolittle Raid was a needed morale booster, but militarily a mere sting. The Japanese reaction after their strike on Pearl Harbor was cautious. They were in many ways like a dog that caught the car: “Now what do I do with it?” We benefited from Japanese military temerity more than any military response up until 1943.

  • Paardestaart

    Much as I admire mister Buckley and National Review, I ‘ve never been able to rid myself of the impression that they tactically decided to distance themselves from people and causes who would taint their own reputation, i.o.w. that the conservative movement has planned its route and long ago agreed to rid itself ruthlessly of who and what it fears may be tarnished as crackpots and will make their own position more difficult. This may be understandable and prudent, but it may also be the unpleasant contamination of activist mannerisms..: exchanging debate for heckling, jeering and banning.
    If mr Radosh thinks Diana West is wrong he should demolish her facts and
    arguments, not tell us why he thinks she should be shunned..

  • Paul of Alexandria

    “when the John Birch Society and its founder, Robert Welch, began to
    maintain that the American government itself was being run by Communists
    rather than liberals”

    Except, as we’ve found out through the Venona intercepts, it was. Sen. McCarthy was right.

  • Arius

    What is happening in our time, the Muslim Brotherhood and other Muslim penetration of American institutions, government and private, happened in the 1930’s and 1940’s with Soviet agents gaining access to even the White House. The people trying to quash these facts are afraid that we might find out about the money trail into their pockets from Muslim interests. The attacks on Diana West are telling us who are our friends and who are our enemies. It’s quite a surprise to find out how many on the ‘right’ are running interference for Muslim interests. We already know about those on the ‘left’.

  • Charles Martel

    I am kind of surprised by your response to the book. You indicate it is conspiratorial. Did you not read Ann Coulter’s book in defense of Joe McCarthy? Did you not read Whitaker Chamber’s book “Witness”? After the Verona files were opened these people were proven to be correct. I am surprised you do not acknowledge this factual data.

    No, the only time I think of conspiracy in this is when someone tries to say MacCarthy was the target of Jews because they run Hollywood and were the largest represented group of members within the communist membership and ultimately buried and sullied forever the name of MacCarthy. Now that is conspiratorial.

  • Charles Martel

    I sometimes wonder if Mr Horowitz dislike of the now proven correct McCarthy stems from the fact of his parents and his earlier communist party affiliation. I know it caused them some grief, and when the people you love are caused grief, even when later found to be somewhat justified, it will stay with you throughout much of your life.

    • BS61

      I’ve seen David at numerous speaches and interviews and support him forever. I’m surprised to find this debate going on at Frontpage, however, I’m glad it’s going on… this never happens at the uber-liberal schools David Horowitz speaks at!

  • Digli

    It is very simple:
    Diana West is a Leftist if not an actual Communist. She has written this book to help put more nails in the coffin of Conservatism. The Liberal/Media Cabal’s idea of Conservatism as lunacy is being advanced by this book, pure and simple.
    Acting as a double agent Ms. West gives ammunition and proof of Conservative insanity to Liberal activists/pundits/commenters and furthers the idea that all Conservatives are “Crackpots”.
    Do not be fooled:
    Diana West is a double agent. Not a Conservative…..a Socialist!

    • TienBing

      Please, I had to wipe the coffee off my computer screen and add another layer of tinfoil to my hat.

      • Digli

        I know. Right?

  • joboy

    I am grateful for the review. In passing I have heard about Major Jordan’s Diary and stuff about FDR’s most senior advisers. I simply lack the maturity in the subject of history to be able to have seen such errors in the work reviewed, most probably. After decades of work in mathematics and applied physics I possess some maturity in these areas, and though logic and reason will be my guide and I will try to grasp as much as I can on my own when reading about subjects in history, I need to turn to the work of scholars and their recommendations -I don’t have that much time left in life to do it all myself. Case in point: Dave’s “Unholy Alliance” was a heady read for me, it was work and I will have to re-read it more thoroughly. I expect this from a scholarly work. I appreciate the heavy lifting you guys do. I am finding Radicals a relatively easier read as I was a liberal/leftist for sometime in the 60’s.But then I went the other way years later as a Bircher for a couple of years, I was able to find the exit through reason. In my case I found some of their harshest criticisms strident and nonconstructive.So I left that behind. Thanks to the work of historians I don’t have to read all of Lukac, Adorno, or Horkheimer, et al. Instead I get a general lay of the land -and though I may lack depth I am very well aware of the major “contributions” of this gang to cultural Marxism and political correctness. I cringe when I hear the word “extremist” as it is most often unfitting.We conservatives need to make sure our side of the street is clean -by that I mean fact based and not over the top. I would like to know to what extent the FDR administration was compromised.i hope that some historian will do justice to this.

  • Christine Brim

    I strongly recommend reading Diana West’s Part 2 in her responses to the Radosh critique: see http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/2610/If-Frontpage-Lies-about-This-Theyll-Lie-about-Anything-Pt-2.aspx

    A highly informative post on Hopkins and the variety and range of evidence establishing his role as an agent of influence in the White House.

    I think readers may want to make their own judgments on this ground-breaking book – available of course at amazon.com – where it continues in the top 10 books in 2 categories (#5 in History and Theory, #8 in Commentary & Opinion). Why not give it a try and see for yourself the evidence and arguments that are the center of this debate?

  • Robert_Fl

    I have not read Diana West’s book (yet), but I have read many of her articles. She appears to be a very intelligent lady who is concerned with the future of our country. I find it hard to believe that any book she would write would deserve such an attack from Mr. Radosh. Couple this with David Horowitz’s preachy and factually distorted article to conservatives of a few weeks ago in regard to the Zimmerman/Martin situation which he followed up with another thin skinned “I don’t understand the reaction” article, and I begin to question why I come to Frontpage.

    • BS61

      I’m sorry Robert, but real life has gotten to me – what article are you refering? Can you provide the link? Thanks!

      • Robert_Fl

        Her articles appear regularly on WND.com as well as other websites.

  • ratonis

    I am not a member of the Birch Society, but I used to read The New American magazine in the college library. I didn’t know, at first, that it was published by the Birch Society, and I just found it interesting. One thing I would say, though, and that is that our world does seem to be evolving along the lines of warning outlined by the writers featured in that magazine. Can anybody seriously deny that the United States gets closer and closer to an authoritarian, elitist dominated reality, and that the alleged difference between the parties is, well, questionable?

  • Feisty Hayseed

    I see Ronald – it’s all about you isn’t it? Diana West, a brilliant author and researcher and historian, doesn’t agree with Ronald and Ronald doesn’t like that and Diana West didn’t have a whole chapter in her book about what a wonderful trailblazer historian Ronald was, Yada, Yada, Yada. Give me a break. Sour grapes, Ronald.

  • Sue Sponte

    How is the Obama Administration promoting the Muslim Brotherhood? Seems like they’re doing the opposite.

    • semus

      Really. What about whats going on in the middle east?

    • BS61

      Please give us a link on how he is doing the opposite. According to what I’ve read he’s the one promoting the Arab spring AKA Muslim Brotherhood.

  • Debra Burlingame

    Mr. Radosh, after reading your review, and now your defense of your review, I’m starting to wonder whether you actually read Diana West’s book. Not content to simply differ with her analysis of decades of evidence, including more recent, post-Cold War revelations and overlooked primary source material, you have cast aspersions on her very sanity! In this second go at her, you are actually challenging Ms. West’s Conservative credentials and fitness for inclusion in the Conservative movement, casting yourself as the late William F. Buckley who faced criticism for keeping the movement free of “crackpots” and “extremists.” This is so far off the mark, I now wonder what your real agenda is, but I suspect it has something to do with your own personal past and self-regard.
    Folks, read Diana West’s meticulously sourced book and decide for yourself. It’s not a feverish, fabricated conspiracy theory, it’s a fresh look at old and new evidence about a huge turning point in history which continues to resonate. West also draws interesting parallels between the Western press corps which helped cover up one of Stalin’s most infamous human atrocities (according to a reporter who was in the room and later wrote about it–with shame and regret), and our current media, who help enable Islamists by looking the other way.
    Contra Mr. Radosh, history is a living thing.

    • BS61

      Thanks Debra! She was also interviewed on CSPAN booktv and I believe a talk radio person – can’t remember who, just look it up.

  • Brian Schiff

    This is the short version of ‘Ron Radosh Down Meshugenah Alley’.

  • ratonis

    This whole thing smacks of a turf battle, where an author has invaded territory thought to be “owned” by someone. If Diana West has some facts wrong, that is one thing, but I am inherently suspicious of “scholarly” work that makes its main appeal through ad hominem attacks. Perhaps Ms. West’s book was dangerous to Mr. Radosh’s own work because it got off to a promising start and actually threatened to sell quite a few copies. A book like West’s is likely to have some stuff that can be challenged; most history does. But having read her book it is very evident that the woman is NOT a crackpot, nor does she appear to be a careless scholar.

    • BS61

      ratonis – I agree, there is something more. This bothers me in talk radio and online that criticize instead of uniting like the left does!

  • piter

    Mr. Reardon, how you can compare Michelle Bachmann (who I support) to
    Joseph McCarthy? I don’t see any indication Obama’s courting Muslim
    Brotherhood activists is part of a broad-based conspiracy unless you
    want to include former President George W. Bush – who also courted
    Muslim Brotherhood activists – and his administration in that
    conspiracy. Little doubt, unlike Bush, Obama is driven by a deep-seated
    ideology and commitment to (as he said in his 2009 Cairo speech) “fight
    against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”


    przeprowadzki poznań

  • NADS1

    Why is Ron Radosh telling me how to think? I can think for myself, thank you very much Ron.
    Read the book TARGET PATTON. Then draw your own conclusions about who was influential in running the US government during WW2 and the cold war.
    Sounds to me like Mr. Radosh is a tad too investing in William F. Buckley.

  • Stonewall

    Ron Radosh: “as a historian and a conservative, I believe that my responsibility is to the truth. I cannot countenance conspiracy theories…”

    According to M. Stanton Evans & Herbert Romerstein, in their book Stalin’s Secret Agents, there was a vast left wing (Communist) conspiracy directed against the United States, just as Diana West has said. Here is an excerpt from Evans and Romerstein.

    “With the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, conflict between the new Soviet rulers of Russia and the non-Communist nations was fore-ordained and… would last for generations. The hostility stemmed… mainly from the belief of Soviet commissars Lenin and Trotsky that their victory would be the precursor to a Red revolution elsewhere, and that the new Communist state would lead the way in making this happen. Soviet methods of secret warfare were developed to advance this revolutionary vision. Generally speaking, what the new disclosures tell us about all this is that Communist covert actions against the United States and other target nations were relentless and effective, far more than most historians have imagined. The Kremlin used such tactics in systematic fashion, made them key elements of state policy, and devoted enormous resources to them…As the record further shows, a main object of Moscow’s subliminal onslaught was to plant secret agents in the United States and other Western nations, with emphasis on official agencies that delt with military, intelligence, or foreign policy issues. From these positions, pro-Soviet operatives were able to engage in policy sabotage, spying, and other species of subversion that advanced the interests of the Kremlin… It’s evident from now-available records that Communist penetration of our government – and our society in general – was, over a span of decades, massive. Hundreds of Soviet agents, Communist Party members, and fellow travelers were ensconced on official payrolls, beginning in the New Deal era then increasing rapidly during World War II… As the record further shows, Communists and fellow travelers on official rosters in case after case were agents of the Soviet Union, plighting their troth to Moscow and striving to promote the cause of the dictator Stalin… In sum, as shown by a now substantial mass of data, a powerful and devious enemy had by the middle 1940s succeeded in planting myriad secret agents and sympathizers in offices of the U.S. government (and other posts of influence) where they were able to serve the cause of Moscow and betray America’s national interests.”

  • Stonewall

    Ron Radosh: “Conservatism, he [William F. Buckley] wrote, had to expand ‘by bringing into our ranks those people who are, at the moment, on our immediate left…If they think they are being asked to join a movement whose leadership believes the drivel of Robert Welch, they will pass by crackpot alley [referring to Welch’s idea that Eisenhower was a Communist or fellow traveler], and will not pause until they feel the embrace of those way over on the other side, the Liberals.’”

    This excerpt from an essay published at American Thinker last year supports Welch’s idea that Eisenhower was in fact a Communist or fellow traveler, and a murderer of our greatest World War II General. Robert Welch and the John Birch Society may well have been correct about Eisenhower, so William F. Buckley may well have been the crackpot and Robert Welch the truth-telling

    “At the time of his accident, Patton was the lone high-level Allied voice arguing to fight the Soviets, who had been American allies. He knew their treachery that would develop into the Cold War and was preparing to go back to the U.S. and campaign against them — a move the American and Soviet governments feared. The U.S., in meetings with Soviet leader Stalin, had basically signed over Eastern Europe to the Russians in return for Stalin’s help in establishing the United Nations, a dream of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who had died in early 1945, and liberal Democrats who, under new President Harry Truman, were continuing Roosevelt’s pro-Soviet policies. I had always accepted the standard story of accident until my cousin, a private investigator with an international firm, told me he knew a former World War II clandestine who said Patton had been murdered. The clandestine was Douglas Bazata, a former OSS Jedburgh, the US’s first special forces unit. I checked at the National Archives and Bazata’s record was sterling. He had been an OSS assassin. He was awarded the Bronze Star and Purple Heart for valor behind German lines. He had stayed in Europe after the war as a clandestine working for various organizations, including the CIA. As it turned out Bazata, who had suffered a stroke and was, after a professional lifetime of silence, willing to talk, told me to my surprise that it was he who had been ordered to kill Patton. The order had come from OSS head, “Wild Bill” Donovan, and he had set up the accident with an NKVD agent, the Soviet spy agency. Since, Patton had not died at the scene, the NKVD finished the job in the hospital.”

    “Bert C. Roosen, a former German and today a naturalized Canadian businessman, says as a youth in war-torn Germany working for Eisenhower he heard the general and his aides discussing Patton’s elimination. “I lived with this all my life,” says Roosen of Vancouver. Eighty-three now, he was barely 17 and an interpreter for Eisenhower on the general’s special train in Germany during the occupation. One day, Patton came to see Eisenhower at the train station, testifies Roosen. He watched from a train window. “I could see them arguing. They were on the platform in heated debate.” Finally, Patton, obviously frustrated, abruptly left. Eisenhower entered the train car Roosen was in. “He [Eisenhower] was very mad. He said, ‘That guy is going to screw things up.'” The general went into a portion of the car set up for meetings. Several high-ranking American officers were waiting for him. Roosen isn’t positive who they were, but believes among them were Gen. Omar Bradley and General Bedell “Beatle” Smith, Eisenhower’s aide. The area where they were sitting had a light partition for privacy. But Roosen, whose duties included cleaning the car, stayed nearby and could hear everything. “Ike said, ‘We’ve got to stop him’ [meaning Patton]. Another said, ‘How? We can’t shoot him.’ A third said, ‘Don’t worry. I’ll take care of it.'”


    Buckley was also wrong about American conservatives and liberals – because of his action against the John Birch Society Buckley helped ensure that those conservatives on the immediate right of the liberals were brought into the ranks of the left.

    • kid_you_not

      Buckley was a CIA scumbag operating his little Mockingbird operation. Never met a war he didn’t like – and big government LOVES war.

  • Barbara

    It is not surprising that Rashosh’s ad hominem attacks have elicited an similar response. Too bad that he couldn’t have made his points with some civility.

    And it would appear that he can justly be accused of factual errors as well.


  • BS61

    I’ll stick up for Diana West for consistently reporting her disappointment when Bush made sure to clear out Saudi Arabian people hear while we were on lockdown. I didn’t hear Fox reporting on that one!
    Who are you Ron, to be telling us who we conservatives should read? There are communist here – I lived with them in Chicago. Their Nazi headquarters is now LaRaza – same thing to me – anti-American.

  • kid_you_not

    This makes me want to get West’s book. Fake conservatives like this Radosh guy are highly suspicious. I wager I know the REAL reason he is freaking out about what little cabal might be discovered – a certain international group that certainly had a lot of influence in the USSR (and Leftism from the beginning with Marx being a member) and this same cabal being heavily overrepresented in US government.

  • Mittymo


    People should read “Stalin’s Secret Agents, by Evans & Romerstein, “Day of Deceit,” by Robert Stinnett, “White Snow,” by John Koster, and “The Chief
    Culprit,” by Viktor Suvorov, former officer in Soviet Military Intelligence (GRU).


    The worm is starting to turn.

  • Huuf Arted

    Diana is one sexy babe l’d like to slip my salami into!