Diana West’s Attempt to Respond


Picture-3On her own website, amidst yet more personal smears and snide comments, Diana West offers a couple of responses to my critique of her book. After clearing her throat with the comment that my review was “7,000 words of misrepresenting, twisting, and omitting…passed off as a ‘review,’” she adds that it was also “a series of flattened, screaming, straw-man arguments that fail in terms of the most basic intellectual honesty to convey any reality-based synopsis of the evidence assembled inside the pages of my book.”

Then she proceeds to reassert her discredited claim, made on numerous occasions throughout her book, that Harry Hopkins was a Soviet agent, specifically the “Agent 19” referred to in the Venona decrypts. Since I refuted this in my review, she adds yet another claim: “I could burn the Venona document Radosh singlemindedly and dishonestly focuses on to the exclusion of other evidence and still make the same case against Hopkins.”

Here West simply skips over the fact that my review also points out that the Vassiliev notebooks, which she also alleges substantiate her conclusion about Hopkins, on the contrary make clear in scores of different entries that Agent 19 was not Hopkins but actually State Department official Laurence Duggan. Talk about dishonesty! It is not as though this claim is unimportant. It makes a big difference whether Hopkins was a sucker for Soviet propaganda or actually working for Soviet intelligence. Those who don’t understand this distinction will think highly of Diana West and her unreliable book. Not surprisingly she also fails to address the fact, raised in my review, that Eduard Mark, a third main source she draws on for the erroneous claim about Hopkins, eventually conceded that he was wrong after being confronted by the evidence that West ignores.

Later next week, Harvey Klehr and John Earl Haynes will deal with her fourth source for the claim, a KGB agent named Iskhak Akhermov, as well as other aspects of her book.

Now for her second and last point:

I will not, however, take responsibility for Radosh fabrications he attributes to me. I don’t yet know how many there are in this ridiculously long review, but here is something Radosh hits me for that isn’t in my book:

Instead of weighing these fears, West turns to another anecdote telling how George Elsey found confidential files in the Map Room that showed FDR naively thinking he could trust Stalin, and instructed Hopkins to tell Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov that FDR was in favor of a Second Front in 1942. She believes that this was a smoking gun proving that FDR was “making common cause with the NKVD.”

This “anecdote” Radosh says I supposedly ‘turn to’ is not in my book! When I first read it, the story wasn’t familiar to me, so I scanned the book, also performed a search of the electronic version, and couldn’t find it. I do find one reference to Elsey, circa 1948, regarding the Whittaker Chambers case.

Maybe she couldn’t find the anecdote. But it is there in three different places where she writes how FDR told Hopkins to go into Molotov’s bedroom while he was staying in the White House so that he could meet with the President, and at that meeting, Hopkins told Molotov that FDR was in favor of a Second Front. They can be found on p. 129, p. 268 and p. 296. She missed them because of a trivial error I did make which was to associate the anecdote she took from her source, Laurence Rees’ WW II Behind Closed Doors: Stalin, the Nazis and the West, with the anecdote about Elsey’s find, which is in another part of Rees’ book. West may not have mentioned Elsey’s role in her own text, but it is the anecdote itself about the Second Front that is the crux of this matter and she does refer to it on three occasions. So much for her evidence that my review is “ a series of flattened, screaming, straw-man arguments.”

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • DogmaelJones1

    I leave it to Diana West to refute the particulars of your charges, and I provide a link here to my own defense of her and her book. But the most serious charge I can level, not so much against you, but against the editors, is that they indulged in a bit of mind-manipulation by removing Mark Tapson’s review of West’s book. I can attribute that disgraceful action to a number of unflattering motives, not least of which is to deny readers the chance to compare Tapson’s review with yours.

    Furthermore, there is this insulting email to West from Mr. Horowitz, insulting not only her, but Mark Tapson, as well. If I were Tapson, I’d want to duke it out with Horowitz. That insult is the behavior of juveniles. The Jets and the Sharks from West Side Story had a little more panache than that.

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

    Another question, or rather a mystery: If Horowitz and Glasov and others did not think much of Tapson’s review, why did they run it in the first place?

    http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2013/08/frontpages-spitballs-strike-diana-west.html

    • ratonis

      WHAT!? HOROWITZ ACTUALLY E-MAILED THAT MESSAGE TO DIANA WEST? That’s REALLY disappointing.

      • DogmaelJones1

        Yes, he did. Go onto West’s website. She documenting everything.

        • ziggy zoggy

          Yes. West is a trustworthy source. (Insert rolling of eyes here.)

    • erma652

      as Jimmy answered I am in shock that anyone able to make $5920 in one month on the internet. have you seen this site link w­w­w.K­E­P­2.c­o­m

    • BS61

      I’m disappointed as I was when Fox News removed the story by Todd Starnes on the Saudii link to the Boston bombing!

    • gabriel benzur

      I began reading the articles that Ms West wrote regarding her book this summer while enjoying an otherwise very pleasant afternoon in Maine. I am very much an amateur historian, but after only few minutes it be became apparent to me that Ms West was more concerned with selling books than scoring valid, historical points. Dr Horowitz, and other legitimate historians, are perfectly justified in sending Ms West “insulting emails” because she certainly is deserving of them. She is an insult to any historian, amateur or professional, who attempts to study history objectively. Her “interpretation” of history reflects ignorance of facts as well as a desire to sell as many books as she can to ignorant readers who are excited by the idea of conspiracy theories. Even the casual reader of history will find her ideas both amusing and disturbing. She is, in two words, an expert in “Junk History”. Yes, I know she has an undergraduate degree in English from Yale. However, the Unibomber had an undergraduate degree from Harvard and Lee Oswald was a former Marine. She is an insult to conservative thought and an embarrassment to any American who attempts to view history objectively.She, like Joe McCarthy,gives conservatism a bad name.

  • beboper

    It’s bad enough when the left attempts to revise history for their own political gain, but West’s attempt at such does the right no such service. Radosh’s critique of her work is quite accurate, and West’s response is little more than hysteria.

    It’s true that leftists permeated the FDR administration, most swayed by an ignorant naivete of what the Soviet system was really all about. But there was one, State Dept employee Hiss, who was an actual operative in service to Stalin. As such West’s thesis of significant Soviet control of the US Government of the WWII years is quite over the top.

    Our alliance with Stalin was more Hitler’s fault than anything the US Government did when he stupidly declared war on us after the Pearl Harbor attack. And Soviet/KGB archives have opened since the USSR’s collapse and there’s absolutely no support whatsoever for the notion that Hopkins worked for them.

    It is disappointing that so many are heading down ‘crackpot alley’ (Buckley’s term) by buying into this obvious attempt at sensationalizing for literary marketing purposes, or that the Heritage foundation has lent itself to this sort of trash.

    The left loves to trade on this kind of discreditable ‘history’ because it provides political cover for that very kind of ideological infiltration that has managed to saturate all levels of the Federal bureaucracy and academia as well, by giving it something to ridicule.

    David Horowitz and Ron Radosh have made a valuable historical contribution by challenging the scholarship of this book, ‘American Betrayal’.

    • blocked again

      Radosh lied about lend lease by making it appear uranium couldn’t turn into plutonium. hit U238 with neutrons and it will become plutonium, the first Russian nuclear weapon was from plutonium. Maybe Radosh can explain how that happened or maybe he is more interested in providing cover for a hopkins.

      • Benjamin Kerstein

        Radosh points out that long after the shipment, the Russians were still desperate to solve their “uranium problem” and would not be able to solve it for some time. This would indicate that, at the time, they had no means of weaponizing their uranium, rendering the shipment itself irrelevant to the Soviet atomic program.

        • Stonewall

          Their problem with weaponizing U238 was solved by further espionage against the United States – with help from the Rosenbergs and others. FDR’s supplying the Soviet Union with U238 was the first step in the process.

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            This points to the role played by espionage outside the Roosevelt administration. Nor does it prove that particular shipment of uranium was relevant to the USSR’s atomic program.

          • Stonewall

            FDR sends Joseph Stalin U238 during the middle of our Manhattan Project, and you say that it is not relevant to the nuclear weapons program of the Soviet Union. Sorry buddy, you are living in a state of blind paranoia – or worse – you might be sympathetic to the cause of Communism just like Harry Hopkins.

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            I said that Radosh has proved that it was not relevant. Sorry if you don’t like that.

          • Stonewall

            Radosh did not prove that it was not relevant. FDR’s sending U238 to Stalin during our Manhattan project was self-evidently relevant to the future success of Soviet nuclear weapons development. Since you are clearly intelligent, I believe your failure to connect the dots is willful.

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            The fact that you – in decidedly paranoid fashion, ironically – insist on it being relevant does not make it so. Radosh went into extensive detail as to why it was not. I suggest you reread that section of his review.

            And, of course, you’re right. I’m a card-carrying member of the CPUSA and am engaged in an evil comments page conspiracy. Well done ferreting me out.

          • Stonewall

            Failure to see a threatening truth is the blind species of paranoia, and that fits you very well.
            We now know that Marxists, neo-Marxists, Communists, Liberals, etc. dominate the curricula and social structure of public universities and schools, the mass media and the Federal Government, so why should it come as a surprise that you might be a fellow traveler. I’ll give you a chance to prove yourself a non-Marxist – just answer one simple question.
            Do you believe that all individuals are equally endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights to life, liberty and the fruit of their own labor (property) in creative pursuit of happiness?

          • Stonewall

            One other question for you, Mr. Kerstein, to help prove you are not a Marxist:

            Do you believe like Abraham Lincoln that liberty is where each man may do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor – and that tyranny is where some men may do as they please with other men, and the product of
            other men’s labor?

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            A Marxist believes some very specific things – that all of human history is defined by economic and class conditions, that history is moving toward a messianic climax in which the communist revolution will triumph and eventually make the state irrelevant, that this revolution will pit the working against the middle classes, etc. I do not believe any of these things, but that is hardly relevant to your obvious ignorance of the thing you think you are opposed to.

          • Stonewall

            Marxists mistakenly believe, or pretend to believe, that the proletariat class is the working class, when in fact, under a system of free enterprise, the proletariat end up as the non-disabled lazy bums and criminals of society. Marxists mistakenly believe, or pretend to believe, that the middle class oppresses the proletariat class, when in fact, under a system of free enterprise, the middle class is simply the working class.

            Marxists believe that the Communist counter-revolution (as opposed to the actual American Revolution) established a “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” followed by a utopian so-called classless society. In reality Marxism establishes a permanent Dictatorship of the Marxists – a permanently rigid top-down system of class inequality – with the Marxist class looming over a uniformly equalized mass of impoverished proles.

            Karl Marx had everything ass-backwards.

            I’ll tell you what Marxists don’t believe – they don’t believe in the American Declaration of Independence – they don’t believe that each man may do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor. BTW, you didn’t answer the two questions above pertaining to the Declaration of Independence and Lincoln’s definition of liberty and tyranny.

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            I think it’s clear enough that Marx got it wrong, although your answer is completely irrelevant. As are your two questions. Marxists, generally speaking, do believe that every man “may do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor,” but that he cannot do so under the current capitalist system, thus a revolution by the proletariat class is necessary (and inevitable) in order to achieve it.

            You also seem to think revolution is necessary to achieve it. Perhaps – in your heart of hearts – you are the Marxist here, and all your belligerent rhetoric is born of your need to deny it to yourself and others.

            In addition, you don’t actually seem to know much about what you claim to defend (much like what you attack). The Declaration of Independence does not say “equally endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights to life,
            liberty and the fruit of their own labor (property) in creative pursuit
            of happiness.”

            It says that “all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
            certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the
            pursuit of Happiness.”

            As you can see, it says nothing about the “fruit of their own labor”, property, or creativity.

            I think it is a statement of very noble ideas but somewhat unrealistic. All people are clearly not created equal (some are strong, some weak; some smart, some stupid, etc.), which is an unfortunate reality of our existence. Nonetheless, to treat all more or less equally under the law is a fine principle. I find it unlikely that there is a Creator, but if there were, he would not endow rights, since these are man-made creations, enshrined in law and tradition (I do not in any way deny that they are also good things). I agree that life and liberty are essential human goods, though I question the idea of the “pursuit of happiness.” I am with Aristotle in that I think man ought to pursue excellent rather than happiness. In fact, I’m not sure happiness per se can be “pursued.” I think it comes as a result of, even a side effect of, the pursuit of excellence.

            Nonetheless, I think it is an eminently admirable document and has served the United States as well as any founding document that can be imagined.

            As for Mr. Lincoln, you’re quote is once again inaccurate. He in fact said

            “The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and
            the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare
            for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing.
            With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases
            with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same
            word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the
            product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but
            incompatable things, called by the same name—liberty. And it follows
            that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two
            different and incompatable names—liberty and tyranny.”

            Mr. Lincoln, in short, was admitting that liberty is difficult. You perhaps ought to remember that.

          • Stonewall

            The Declaration of Independence is the opposite of Marxism, and yes, Jefferson is speaking about equal unalienable God-given human rights to life, liberty and property (John Locke and Samuel Adams used the term property whereas Jefferson substituted the term “pursuit of happiness” for property.

            “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another’s pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another’s uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our’s.” John Locke

            “Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these:
            First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.” Samuel Adams

            Marx rejected each and every natural human rights listed in the Declaration of Independence (and by John Locke and Samuel Adams) because the all-powerful Marxist state tyrannically subsumes those rights.

            “The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property… In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend… In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and
            political order of things. In all these movements, they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time.” Karl Marx – Communist Manifesto

            “There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality.” Karl Marx – Communist Manifesto

            “Communism has never concealed the fact that it rejects all absolute concepts of morality. It scoffs at any consideration of “good” and “evil” as indisputable categories. Communism considers morality to be relative, to be a class matter. Depending upon circumstances and the political situation, any act, including murder, even the killing of thousands, could be good or could be bad.” Alexander Solzhenitsyn

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            I’ve tangled with you before haven’t I? Something about the relentless quote-mining and babbling about things you don’t understand rings a distant bell.

          • Stonewall

            Personal insults are a prime attribute of a Marxist, particularly when they meet their intellectual match or superior. I understand all of this better than you, and you should be thanking me for the relevant quotes – that is if you were interested in what is right and good – which you are not.

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            If I thought you had the slightest idea what a Marxist is or what they believe, I might take that seriously. Instead I’m amused. Please don’t stop now, I sense that the comedy will only improve from here.

          • Stonewall

            Insults like yours naturally flow from a sense of inferiority or defeat, so laugh all you want, but yours is a pathologic laughter, reminding me of the Joker.

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            Why so serious, comrade?

          • Stonewall

            I am not your comrade, but on a lighter note, I’m having some fun with you.

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            We are all comrades, comrade. Soon your revolutionary consciousness will be raised and we will rise up with our fellow oppressed commentators and seize the means of cyber-production. Rise up, rewriter of Jefferson, you have nothing to lose but your chains!

          • Stonewall

            You do a pretty good job rewriting Marx and Trotsky. As you well know, under Marxism some comrades always end up more equal than others.

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            Marvelous. Unfortunately, when it comes to Orwell, there’s a difference between me and you. I’ve actually read him. More or less everything by him, actually. Turns out he was one of those socialists you despise. Oh, and he loathed American capitalism. Shall you rewrite him as well, comrade?

          • Stonewall

            I’ve read Animal Farm, 1984 and some of Orwell’s essays myself, so you are wrong about that along with so many other things. How on earth could you possibly know what I read?

            George Orwell was a socialist early on but, like many people, he changed. Orwell wrote Animal Farm and 1984 as a rejection of the Marxist form of socialism, which is the boilerplate for all other forms of modern socialism. Orwell understood that when socialists excessively seize or take control of the people’s property, and its means of production, they take control of the people themselves and their will, and become tyrants, because control or ownership of the people’s property is temporal power – too much power. Orwell understood that the self-serving Pigs of Animal Farm (a metaphor for the Marxist socialists) were, in the end, no different from the Farmer (a metaphor for self-serving Feudal Kings and Princes) that they overthrew.

            Orwell may have rightly loathed Crony Capitalism (economic Fascism), but not American Capitalism per se. because ordinary Americans also reject Crony Capitalism and simply desire to be engaged in free enterprise where each man may do as he pleases with himself and the product of his labor. In the end Orwell loathed Marxist socialism because it invariably leads to totalitarianism; he didn’t live long enough to see that the milder forms of modern socialism have drifted further and further to the left – toward the thing he hated the most – Marxist socialism.

            “It had long been realized that the only secure basis for oligarchy is collectivism. Wealth and privilege are most easily defended when they are possessed jointly. The so-called “abolition of private property” [Communist Manifesto] meant in effect the concentration of property in far fewer hands than before… In the years following the Revolution it [The Socialist Party of Oceania] was able to step into this commanding position almost un-opposed because the whole process was represented as an act of collectivization… It had always been assumed that if the Capitalist Class were expropriated Socialism must follow; and unquestionably the Capitalists had been expropriated. Factories, mines, land, houses, transport, everything had been taken away from them; and since
            these things were no longer private property it followed that they must be public property. Ingsoc [Socialist Principles of Oceania], which grew out of the earlier Socialist movement and inherited its phraseology, has in fact carried out the main item in the Socialist program with the result; foreseen and intended beforehand, that economic inequality has been made permanent.” George Orwell – 1984

            “So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.” George Orwell

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            Orwell was opposed to Stalinism. That is, to totaliarian socialism. He never embraced capitalism, despised its American form, and ended his life as a supporter of the British Labor party, which was openly a democratic-socialist party.

            In short, he did not see politics as a stark choice between Ayn Rand-style capitalism and a Stalinist nightmare. He believed in a democratic form of socialism that was, yes, influenced by Marx, though it would be difficult to call Orwell a Marxist, given his anarchist sympathies.

            1984 and Animal Farm are written as obvious anti-Stalinist tracts . The second is, of course, a blatant allegory – Napoleon is Stalin, Snowball is Trotsky. Unfortunately for you, Marx appears as Old Major, who is actually a rather heroic character and presented as being quite right about the exploitation occurring on Manor Farm. This leads me to think, once again, that you may be a repressed Marxist yourself.

            In any event, neither book is an endorsement of free market capitalism. I suggest you read Orwell’s review of Hayek’s Road to Serfdom to get a good idea of what his thoughts were on the subject. You won’t like them, comrade. I look forward to your rewrite, however.

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            And since you’re so into quoting, here is Orwell on Hayek:

            “[Hayek] does not see, or will not admit, that a return to ‘free’ competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because more irresponsible, than that of the State. The trouble with competitions is that somebody wins them. Professor Hayek denies that free capitalism necessarily leads to monopoly, but in practice that is where it has led.”

            Sorry, comrade.

          • Stonewall

            “By bringing the whole of life under the control of the State, Socialism necessarily gives power to an inner ring of bureaucrats, who in almost every case will be men who want power for its own sake and will stick at nothing in order to retain it. Britain, he says, is now going the same road as Germany, with the left-wing intelligentsia in the van and the Tory Party a good second. The only salvation lies in returning to an unplanned economy, free competition, and emphasis on liberty rather than on
            security. In the negative part of Professor Hayek’s thesis there is a great deal of truth. It cannot be said too often – at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough – that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamed of.” George Orwell

            http://thomasgwyndunbar.wordpress.com/2008/10/09/george-orwell-review/

            I’m glad you sent me to this essay by Orwell, because here he condemns Socialism its self. So, it is not true that George Orwell remained a Socialist permanently – he eventually saw the light and lived to condemn Socialism as this essay makes perfectly clear.
            I think Orwell was disappointed with the rigged “competitions” of Fascist Crony Capitalism as it existed in Europe at the time, and as it still exists today. It is also true that we have a considerable amount of Fascist Crony Capitalism in the USA as well, but the cure for it is not Marxist Collectivization – for that is even worse. The cure for both Fascism and Marxism is real Free Enterprise – where each man may do as he pleases with himself and the product of his labor.

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            Precisely. Orwell was well aware of socialism’s potential for tyranny. As he also noted in his review, however, he thought that unbridled capitalism could lead to a worse tyranny. You can’t seem to process that, though I have no idea why.

          • Stonewall

            Old Major (Marx) had a legitimate beef against Feudal Monarchy (the Farmer), but the Marxist system (the Pigs of Animal Farm) ended up even worse that the Feudal system (the Farmer) that it overthrew. Orwell understood that Old Major’s system was doomed from the start, ending in totalitarianism, because Old Major’s (Marx’s) system was based on property collectivization. Orwell elaborated further on the tyranny of Marxist collectivization in his book 1984.

            “It had long been realized that the only secure basis for oligarchy is collectivism. Wealth and privilege are most easily defended when they are possessed jointly. The so-called “abolition of private property” [Communist Manifesto] meant in effect the concentration of property in far fewer hands than before.” George Orwell – 1984
            So, George Orwell didn’t just condemn Stalinism, he condemned the philosophy upon which it was built – Marxism.

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            A disappointing rewrite, comrade. You should have cast Old Major as a Randian free-marketeer, with his utopia identical to that of John Galt. Oh, and Manor Farm should be an example of “Fascist Crony Capitalism.” Give it another shot.

          • Stonewall

            BK: “Marxists, generally speaking, do believe that every man “may do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor,” but that he cannot do so under the current capitalist system, thus a revolution by the proletariat class is necessary (and inevitable) in order to achieve it.”

            No, Marxists believe, as Abraham Lincoln noted in his definition of tyranny, that some men may as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor – the Marxist ruling class will tax the laboring middle class for its own benefit and for that of the so-called proletariat – enslaving and destroying the middle class – and in the end enslaving the proletariat class into which the middle class is subsumed.

            “The proletariat [lazy, tax-eating, non-disabled, government-dependents] will use its political [democratic] supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital [property]
            from the bourgeoisie [laboring, tax-paying middle class and entrepreneurs], to centralize all instruments of
            production in the hands of the state [self-serving Marxist Government]… Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property… You must, therefore, confess that by
            “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible… And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois [middle class] individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.” Karl Marx – Communist Manifesto

            Under a Fascist (Crony Capitalist) or Feudal economic system there will be an underclass of have-nots who are oppressed by the Fascist or Feudal ruling class, so, yes, under that kind of system the proletariat have a legitimate grievance and, like our Founding Fathers, a natural right to revolution, but not so under a system of truly free enterprise. And that’s the rub – American Marxists seek to overthrow the system of free enterprise its self; they have no interest in overthrowing Crony Capitalism, but in using it as a justification for Marxist revolution – which is a counter-revolution in the face of free enterprise. Marxism is not the cure for Fascism, free enterprise is the cure.

            The fly in the ointment of Marxism is that once the power to take “from each according to his ability” is established, it becomes too powerful, and Marxists inevitably become drunk with power, and thus Marxism always results in tyranny and mass-murder. Marxists simply have too much power to take – and that power corrupts in every case. Also, in Orwellian fashion, Marxists do not establish equality at all, only equal serfdom for the great mass of proles beneath them.

            “It had long been realized that the only secure basis for oligarchy is collectivism. Wealth and privilege are most
            easily defended when they are possessed jointly. The so-called “abolition of private property” [Communist
            Manifesto] meant in effect the concentration of property in far fewer hands than before… In the years following the Revolution it [The Socialist Party of Oceania] was able to step into this commanding position almost un-opposed because the whole process was represented as an act of collectivization… It had always been assumed that if the Capitalist Class were expropriated Socialism must follow; and unquestionably the Capitalists had
            been expropriated. Factories, mines, land, houses, transport, everything had been taken away from them; and since these things were no longer private property it followed that they must be public property. Ingsoc [Socialist Principles of Oceania], which grew out of the earlier Socialist movement and inherited its phraseology, has in fact carried out the main item in the Socialist program with the result; foreseen and intended beforehand, that economic inequality has been made permanent.” George Orwell – 1984

            Marxists believe that “Equality in ownership and control of the means of production is a necessary prerequisite
            for freedom,” when in fact, as twentieth Century has shown, and as F. A. Hayek noted: “Equality before the law and material equality are…in conflict with each other… A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers.” The truth which Hayek wrote highlights an Orwellian contradiction: Government concentration in ownership and control of the means of production is a necessary prerequisite for totalitarian government power which results in unequal rights, inequality before law, and the destruction of freedom.

          • Stonewall

            Abraham Lincoln’s definition of liberty is just as you quoted and as I paraphrased. It is not difficult at all, and his understanding of human liberty matched that of Thomas Jefferson – with the essential idea that human liberty is meaningless without equality of the three natural rights among people – life, liberty and property – equal natural rights being the rightful limiting factor for human liberty.

            “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.” Thomas Jefferson

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            You don’t seem to have the slightest understanding of what Lincoln was saying, since he gives no conclusive definition of liberty in the quote you used. As for Jefferson, you can’t have much respect for him since you insist on rewriting him.

            I don’t know what is more pathetic, your ignorance or the ironic belligerence with which you express it.

          • Stonewall

            I’m not surprised by your failure to understand the meaning of human liberty so eloquently stated by Jefferson and Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln’s (and Jefferson’s) definition of liberty was conclusive – it is simply where each man may do as he pleases with himself and the product of his labor. When each man naturally possesses this freedom of action, this ownership of self and his property, there must be an equality of those natural rights – a channeling of the Jeffersonian definition of rightful liberty. When only some men may do as they please with themselves and the product of their labor, the remaining men are thereby reduced to a state where the other men may do with them as they please, and the product of their labor, because some men would then be unnaturally more equal in rights than others, and thus tyranny, as per Abraham Lincoln, is the opposite of liberty. – the enemy of liberty.

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            You’re simply repeating yourself, and still getting it wrong. In any event, a Marxist would argue that capitalism inherently creates a situation in which “only some men may do as they please with themselves and the product of
            their labor, the remaining men are thereby reduced to a state where the
            other men may do with them as they please, and the product of their
            labor,” since only a few possess the means of production and all others are forced to labor for them and hand over a large portion of the fruits of their labor to them in he form of profit, even though the owners do, in fact, no labor whatsoever. Hence, in their ideology, the necessity of revolution. In effect, then, YOU are the Marxist here, since you essentially believe the same thing. I, as I have outlined above, do not.

          • Stonewall

            Free Enterprise does not create a situation in which only some men may do as the please with themselves and the product of their labor because Free Enterprise is the very system where each man may do as he pleases with himself and the product of his labor. When people are actually free the natural competition between them, in their struggle to wrest a living out of Mother Nature, limits the power of only a few to possess property and the means of production. If one man’s enterprise makes him very successful others will emulate his effort and become his competition, thus limiting his concentration of property. Excessive and unjust concentration of property power occurs under a system of Fascist Crony Capitalism where government power favors certain men over others, and in Orwellian fashion, excessive and unjust concentration of property also occurs under the Marxist system where government power is used to take direct possession of the peoples property – the people must then crouch down and lick the hand that feeds them.

            I am an anti-Marxist (and an anti-Fascist) because Marxism, as Orwell noted, does not lead to social justice – it leads to excessive concentration of property and power into the hands of a few – just as occurs under Fascism. Marxism is a revolution against Free Enterprise. I believe, like Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson, that the people possess a natural right to revolution against any system where some men may do as they please with other men and the product of their labor (Feudalism, Fascism, Marxism, etc.) in order to establish truly Free Enterprise where each man may do as he pleases with himself and the product of his labor.

            Our Founding Fathers were the real revolutionaries, not Karl Marx.

            “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of
            the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Thomas Jefferson

            “This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.” Abraham Lincoln

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            For the sake of argument, let’s say you’re right. It’s completely irrelevant. I was not talking about Marxism in practice but about the ideology of Marxism, i.e., what Marxists actually believe, about which you appear to know absolutely nothing.

          • Stonewall

            I read the Communist Manifesto in its entirety and took notes on it. I understand Marxism and I hate it, because Karl Marx set up a system where some men, the Marxists, may do as they please with other men and the product of other men’s labor. Marxism is tyranny – in theory and in practice.

            “The proletariat [lazy, tax-eating, non-disabled, government-dependents] will use its political [democratic] supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital [property]
            from the bourgeoisie [laboring, tax-paying middle class], to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state [self-serving Marxist Government]… Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property… You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible… And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois [middle class] individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at…We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the [non]
            working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.” Karl Marx

            “There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all
            religion, and all morality.” Karl Marx

            http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            Failure to perceive a threat has nothing to do with paranoia. Paranoia is the perception of illusory threats. As I pointed out below, you don’t seem to now what Marxism is or what Marxists believe.

          • Stonewall

            I’ve responded to your challenge regarding an understanding of Marxism – see above. Your ignorance of the meaning of paranoia could not be more complete.

            Paranoia is an irrational belief, believing something to be true when it is false. When a person believes something to be true; and the belief is supported by observation and
            reason, the belief is not paranoia. Rational belief is based on truth whereas paranoia is based on untruth. To prove paranoia one must first prove that the belief in question is untrue. Most people think of paranoia as seeing something that isn’t really there – suspicious paranoia – the man who irrationally thinks there’s someone “out to get me” when it is not true. There is however another type of paranoia – another type of irrational belief which is intellectual blindness or blind paranoia. The blind paranoiac is the man who can’t see what really is there – a man who believes someone is not out to get him when in truth a man is out to get him. The
            blind fool is as paranoid as the suspicious fool.

            Phobia is the hell of irrational fear which follows on the heels of suspicious paranoia – irrational fear of something that is not really there – the hell of falsehood seen. Another form of hell follows on the heels of irrational lack of fear – irrationally lacking fear of something that is there – which brings to mind an insight of Thomas Hobbes: “Hell is truth seen too late.”

          • Stonewall

            It is clear that you have an incomplete understanding of paranoia. Paranoia is an irrational belief, believing something to be true when it is false. When a person believes something to be true; and the belief is supported by observation and reason, the belief is not paranoia. Rational belief is based on truth whereas paranoia is based on untruth. To prove paranoia one must first prove that the belief in question is untrue. Most people think of paranoia as seeing something that isn’t really there – suspicious paranoia – the man who irrationally thinks there’s someone “out to get me” when it is not true. There is however another type of paranoia – another type of irrational belief which is intellectual blindness or blind paranoia. The blind paranoiac is the man who can’t see what really is there – a man who believes someone is not out to get him when in truth a man is out to get him. The
            blind fool is as paranoid as the suspicious fool.

            Phobia is the hell of irrational fear which follows on the heels of suspicious paranoia – irrational fear of something that is not really there – the hell of falsehood seen. Another form of hell follows on the heels of irrational lack of fear – irrationally lacking fear of something that is there – which brings to mind an insight of Thomas Hobbes: “Hell is truth seen too late.”
            Please refer to my discussion of Marxism above.

          • Stonewall

            Paranoia is an irrational belief, believing something to be true when it is false. When a person believes something to be true; and the belief is supported by observation and
            reason, the belief is not paranoia. Rational belief is based on truth whereas paranoia is based on untruth. To prove paranoia one must first prove that the belief in question is untrue.
            Most people think of paranoia as seeing something that isn’t really there – suspicious paranoia – the man who irrationally thinks there’s someone “out to get me” when it is not true. There is however another type of paranoia – another type of irrational belief which is intellectual blindness or blind paranoia. The blind paranoiac is the man who can’t see what really is there – a man who believes someone is not out to get him when in truth a man is out to get him. The blind fool is as paranoid as the suspicious fool.

            Phobia is the hell of irrational fear which follows on the heels of suspicious paranoia – irrational fear of something that is not really there – the hell of falsehood seen. Another form of hell follows on the heels of irrational lack of fear – irrationally lacking fear of something that is there – which brings to mind an insight of Thomas Hobbes: “Hell is truth seen too late.”

          • Stonewall

            Paranoia is an irrational belief, a belief that something to be true when it is false. When a person believes something to be true; and the belief is supported by observation and reason, the belief is not paranoia. Rational belief is based on truth whereas paranoia is based on untruth. To prove paranoia one must first prove that the belief in question is untrue.
            Most people exclusively think of paranoia as seeing something that isn’t really there – suspicious paranoia – the man who irrationally thinks there’s someone “out to get me” when it is not true. There is however another type of paranoia – another type of irrational belief – which
            is intellectual blindness or blind paranoia. The blind paranoiac is the man who can’t see what really is there – a man who believes someone is not out to get him when in truth a man is out to get him. The blind fool is as paranoid as the suspicious fool.

          • Stonewall

            Correction to the first sentence:

            Paranoia is an irrational belief, a belief that something is true when it is false.

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            Your definition is an archaic one. Paranoia has long been defined not as the mere holding of irrational beliefs, but a state of irrational anxiety and fear. As for “blind paranoia,” I have no idea where you got that from, so I’m forced to conclude you simply made it up.

          • Stonewall

            Paranoia is any irrational belief, so your definition of paranoia is an incomplete one since it only addresses a subset of irrational belief. It is self-evident that there are only two possible types of irrational belief – one where a person perceives something that isn’t thee – and the other where a person can’t perceive something that is there. The first instance can be rightly called suspicious paranoia and the later blind paranoia, but it doesn’t really matter what name you use as long as you understand the concept of irrational belief which, in the end, can only be expressed in these two opposite ways.

            Phobia is the hell of irrational fear which follows on the heels of suspicious paranoia – irrational fear of something that is not really there – the hell of falsehood seen. Another form of emotional distress follows on the heels of an irrational lack of fear for something that is there – which brings to mind an insight of Thomas Hobbes: “Hell is truth seen too late.”

          • Stonewall

            Paranoia is any irrational belief, so your definition of paranoia is an incomplete one since it only addresses a subset of irrational belief. It is self-evident that there are only two possible types of irrational belief – one where a person perceives something that isn’t thee – and the other where a person can’t perceive something that is there. The first instance can be rightly called suspicious paranoia and the later blind paranoia, but it doesn’t really matter what name you use as long as you understand the concept of irrational belief which, in the end, can only be expressed in these two opposite ways.

            BTW, my earlier post on paranoia was blocked for some reason, so I entered it several times in the hope of overcoming the blocking feature.

          • Stonewall

            Ron Radosh says: “The Soviets would have faced an insurmountable problem in using the shipped [U-238] ore for bomb making. The problem they would have faced was in separating bomb-grade U-235 (which makes up only 0.7 percent of natural uranium) from U-238 (99.3%), a difficult technical engineering challenge. Until the Soviets could figure out how to separate the isotopes,
            which they eventually did through the post war espionage at Los Alamos we are all familiar with, the uranium ore they received would be useless for making a
            weapon.”

            As blocked pointed out above, weapons grade Plutonium-239 is created by bombarding U-238 with a beam of neutrons, so the technical engineering challenge of separating bomb-grade U-235 from U-238 ore was minimized since they could go the Plutonium-239 route instead – and produce the same type of “Fat Man” nuclear weapon we used on Nagasaki. This is exactly what happened on August 29, 1949 when the Soviet Union exploded their first atomic bomb – a Plutonium-239 implosion fission device. It didn’t take the Soviet Union very long to develop Plutonium-239 nuclear weapons due to the shipment of U-238 by FDR and their
            espionage network.

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            To prove that, you would need evidence that a) The USSR was capable of bombarding U-238 with neutrons, b) that they did so with that precise shipment, c) that without that shipment they would have been unable to do so by any other means, and d) the only reason for that shipment was the Soviet’s control over FDR. Then you’d have to prove that control. Good luck.

          • Stonewall

            a) The Soviet Union did in fact bombard U-238 with neutrons and produced Plutonium-239 atomic bombs within a few years of FDR’s U-238 shipment to them.
            b) In this case the burden of proof is on you to show that the Soviets did not use FDR’s shipment of U-238 to make their atomic weapons. Common sense should tell you that it is much more likely that they used FDR’s U-238 for Plutonium 239 atomic weapons since WWII was still in progress when the shipment arrived.
            c) If the Soviet Union at that time had other means of acquiring U-238 there would have been no need for them to hit up FDR for a supply, and therefore no need for FDR to send them a U-238 supply.
            d) As detailed by Venona decrypts, Oleg Gordievsky, Stanislav Levchenko, Victor Kravchenko, Christopher Andrew, Whittaker Chambers, Elizabeth Bentley, M. Stantion Evans, Herbert Romerstein, and Diana West, the Soviet Union in fact held great sway over FDR and his administration.

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            a) This is not relevant unless you can prove a direct connection to the shipment, as well as the fact that the Roosevelt administration knew that the Soviets had that capability at the time and deliberately handed it over to them for that purpose.
            b) I’m afraid not. You cannot prove a negative and “common sense” is perfectly meaningless when it comes to establishing historical fact, let alone high treason. The burden of proof remains your own.
            c) Not necessarily, the Allies may simply have been the easiest source from which to acquire it.
            d) Completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. See the above.

          • Stonewall

            a) There is a direct temporal correlation between FDR’s U-238 shipment to Joseph Stalin and the subsequent production of Soviet Plutonium-239 atomic weapons.
            b) You cannot prove that Stalin did not use FDR’s U-238 in the production of nuclear weapons, so the burden of proof lies where common sense points – and that is with those who irrationally believe that Stalin didn’t use it for nuclear weapons. Common sense is never meaningless, and is always connected to self-evident truth or the greatest probability of truth.
            c) Why should FDR make it easy for a mass-murdering Communist dictator to acquire weapons of mass destruction? Obviously, FDR was a fool or a traitor.
            d) Soviet influence over FDR is the main issue at hand because it is the main issue of Diana West’s book.

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            a) “Temporal correlation”? Seriously? I think you mean “coincidence,” which, as any halfway intelligence person could tell you, is not causation.
            b) I’ve answered this one already. Keep repeating yourself endlessly if you feel the need.
            c) I think Radosh and many, many other commentators have dealt with this issue at enormous length.
            d) No, the main issue is this specific uranium shipment about which West and you are making completely insupportable claims that Radosh has already debunked.

          • Stonewall

            a) A coincidence is when two events occur closely in time and space but are otherwise completely unrelated. FDR’s U-238 transfer to Stalin occurred closely in time and space to the Soviet development of Plutonium-239 atomic weapons; to believe that these two events were completely unrelated is self-evidently irrational, and thus appealing to your mind.
            b) I’ve answered this one already, and you are just getting more and more boring.
            c) Radosh completely fumbled the notion that FDR in fact enabled a mass-murdering Communist dictator to more easily develop atomic weapons.
            d) Diana West correctly pointed out that FDR shipped WMD materials to a mass-murdering Communist dictator. Ron Radosh did not debunk the significance of that stupid and possibly traitorous act; he completely misunderstood it because he possesses little understanding of nuclear science.

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            Again, you’re simply repeating yourself ad nauseum.
            a) My previous point still applies. Coincidence is not prove of causation.
            b) Now you’re repeating me as well. Boring indeed.
            c) Again, you’d have to prove a. in order for this to be true, and you haven’t. And, I imagine, can’t.
            d) See above.

          • Stonewall

            Repetition is good and necessary in the face of stubborn irrationality.

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            I agree, hence my repeating the obvious points you refuse to acknowledge, comrade.

          • Stonewall

            I agree to disagree with you – apparently on everything.

        • Sebastian Gorka

          I am half way through Ms West’s book, have lived for 15 years in Eastern Europe, and my father was imprisoned for life by the Communists.
          Whilst the book is not – and does not profess to be – an academic tome written for the occupants ivory towers – I number it as one of the most important books, along with Anne Applebaum’s “Gulag,” to have been published since the end of the Cold War. This is all the more so given the relevance of Ms West’s core theme – how clear evidence of subversion did not lead to logical conclusions and defensive measures being taken – to today’s America and the threat of Jihadism.
          Of course, the real question should be why a website that bills itself as being anti-totalitarian would so vehemently attack one of the bravest anti-totalitarians writing today? If the issue were just that the book is structurally flawed – which it most certainly is not – then wouldn’t you expect any FPM review to be sympathetic with the goal of the book but just disappointedly and objectively highlight its mistakes? The way in which the reviewer and Mr Horowitz have so zealously gone overboard to attack Ms West is not only disturbing but suspicious. Cui bono?
          Sebastian Gorka PhD

          • bepober

            Let me remind you of something, Sebastian Gorka, Piled Higher and Deeper. Applebaum’s ‘Gulag’ was nothing more than a very condensed rehash of the real work on the matter of the Soviet camp system, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s ‘Gulag Archipelago’, 3 volumes, 1st person historical, written several decades before when no lib writing for a leftist rag like the WaPo would ever dream of exposing their much admired hero state, the USSR.

            Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is a giant of literature in his own right with a huge body of work – the unimpressive Applebaum is a comic book writer by comparison.

            Your comment as to the character of FPM’s critique with regard to West’s work reflects the same shallow appreciation as this cited reference.

          • Sebastian Gorka

            Dear Bepober

            Sorry I can’t make a childish joke about your qualifications as you do of my since you don’t provide any.

            It is clear you haven’t read Applebaum’s book.
            Pathetic really.

            DrG

    • bobguzzardi

      Was Alger Hiss a potted plant at Yalta?

      Were Owen Lattimore and John Stewart Service merely high level
      bureaucratic paper shufflers?

      And what explains the replacement of John Nance Gardner by an extreme
      Soviet sympathizer, all but a conscious agent, Henry Wallace?

      Soviet agent Harry Dexter White was the architect of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank?

      Admittedly, it seems likely that Soviet Communist agents and Soviet Communist sympathizers, like VP Henry Wallace, would advocate policies sympathetic to Soviet Communism?

      The confluence of communists in the highest levels of the Roosevelt Administration cannot be co-incidence. Was this all driven by fear of Hitler and the NAZIs? Did the NAZI threat justify admitting Stalin’s Soviet agent and Stalin’s Soviet sympathizers, covertly, into highest levels of government?

  • RCraigen

    This is dishonest, Ron. It’s sad to see this kind of downward spiral in discourse. I’ll enumerate a few problems, incompletely.

    1. You fail to address West’s assertion, which she amply supports, that your assertion that this piece of evidence is “the linchpin” of her contention about Hopkins is a straight-out lie (or a wrong guess — I suppose you can’t be charged with lying on this point if you haven’t actually read the truth of her argument). Her statement that she could make the same case after burning that document is merely a rhetorical way of summarizing the evidence she adduces to this effect.

    2. Your re-assertion here that she re-asserts in her rebuttal that Hopkins was “Agent 19″. She does not, this is simply a fabrication on your part. What she does do is assert that this has not been ruled out definitively, and that she is prepared to support this assertion but does not digress to do so. If you believe this is a bluff on her part, perhaps she would agree to a public debate with you on that particular point.

    3. You fail to adequately address her rejoinder to the whole-cloth fabrication in your first piece of the notion that West “turns to” the anecdote about Elsey in her book. In fact, this anecdote does not appear at all in her book. Your provision of three page numbers from her book, in none of which the anecdote appears, does not substantiate your new version of your fabrication, that “it is there in three different places”. Nor is there any absolution to be found in your second gambit, admitting that she is, in fact, correct in this point but that your assertion was merely “a trivial error I did make” concerning Elsey’s role — in other words, the very essence of the anecdote you cite.

    I would think this point alone should suffice for the editors here to seriously rethink their decision to run your original attack piece and that of affording you the liberty of using their pages to compound your offence in this manner.

    4. I find your point about the distinction between being a sucker for soviet propaganda and actually working for soviet intelligence pretty shallow. Of course this is an important categorical distinction. But in terms of Hopkin’s activities, is it really a “big difference”, as you assert? What are you suggesting? That Hopkins was “as sucker for soviet propaganda”, but was not “actually working for soviet intelligence?” I.e., you suggest that he was a sucker but that this did not manifest itself in his actions in any way? Or that he did not compromise his loyalty to his own country, but thought the soviets were the bees knees, and kept an autographed portrait of Stalin on his nightstand? This strikes me as a naive position relative to a man who privately warned the Russian Embassy when it came to his attention that the FBI were surveilling their agents involved in industrial espionage into U.S. military secrets. Does such constitute being a “sucker for propaganda” while not actually “working for soviet intelligence”? It suddenly seems you are making a distinction without a “big difference”.

    I, for one, would like to know the truth of these matters, and what I’ve seen thus far is just a catfight. I’d like to see the two of you debate some of these points, minus the ad hominem, on neutral territory. How about a PJTV-moderated 2 hour live debate?

    • Benjamin Kerstein

      1. West’s claim that Hopkins was Agent 19 is the only real evidence she presents. The rest is circumstantial evidence and anecdote that she tries to pass off as prove positive of Hopkins supposed treason.

      2. Her book claims that Hopkins was Agent 19 and her rebuttal is a clearly a defense of that claim. If it is not, then she is simply conceding Radosh’s point while trying to avoid saying so explicitly.

      3. Actually, on this point West is nitpicking. She refers to the anecdote in a slightly different way that Radosh does. This in no way negates the fact that she did refer to it.

      4. Yes, there is an enormous difference. One is – as West claims – active involvement in a criminal conspiracy. The other is simply political idiocy that deserves to be condemned, but not criminalized.

      • EndlessSummer

        Please provide the page number where West asserts Hopkins is Agent 19. I just did a Kindle search and find only a single reference in which West asks the question of could Hopkins be “the KGB’s Agent 19?” She merely raised the question as a question. She does not answer it, nor does that constitute the breadth of her indictment of Hopkins. Frankly, it wouldn’t matter if he is or not, to the extent that his own behavior is so damning. Hair-splitting between who was formally a Soviet agent vs who was merely a useful idiot or fellow traveler engaged in the same subversive or traitorous behaviors as formal Soviet agents, really is a diversion. The real question now is WHY does RADOSH make claims against West that are easy to verify as FALSE? Unless Kindle’s search tool is broken, West never claims Hopkins is Agent 19 nor does that constitute the breadth of her case against him. His own documented behaviors & perspectives do that well enough.

        • ziggy zoggy

          Try harder, ret@rd.

    • Stonewall

      “Though this be madness, yet there is method in ’t.”
      Mr. Craigen, regarding Harry Hopkins pro-Soviet activism, only Shakespeare could say it better. There was method in his pro-Communist (and thus anti-American) madness.

  • Texas Patriot

    Dear Mr. Radosh,

    If your writing ever bore any resemblance to authentic conservatism, which I doubt, there can be no doubt regarding Ms. West’s claims that we not only “lost” the Cold War in the past but we are now effectively “losing” the war against Islamic totalitarianism today, and for the same reasons. If you care at all about truth, if you care at all about freedom, and if you care at all about the supremacy of Constitutional Democracy over Totalitarian Submission, you will humbly apologize to Ms. West and take your marbles and go home. Whatever you may have contributed to the conservative debate in the past, it is clear that you are offering nothing of consequence today.

    Thanks in advance.

    • TheOrdinaryMan

      Excuse me, I care a great deal about freedom; but I also understand that one of freedom’s main supports is objective, well-written history. Radosh has proved that Diana West’s book is nothing of the kind. By insisting that Harry Hopkins was Agent 19, when eye-witness accounts of contemporaries say otherwise, is to say the least, shabby scholarship that undermines her credibility. Also, if you want further credible refutation of Diana West, read Jeffrey Herf’s article, “Diana West v. History,” on this site today, and pay particular attention to items 1–6.

      • Texas Patriot

        Diana West’s critics focus on unimportant nitpicking about her historical research in order to obscure the overall points she is making which are unassailable: we “lost” the ideological war against totalitarian Communism and we are now “losing” the ideological war against totalitarian Islam. Why would her critics want to do that? Many reasons. Primarily because they don’t understand the ideological threats of totalitarian Communism and Islam to authentic American democracy and authentic American freedom, and secondarily to hide the obvious truth that they are much more a part of the problem than a part of the solution. Diana West talks about reality. Her critics have long ago lost sight of the reality of what is happening in America and the world, and are addicted to their narrow and short-sighted focus on relatively minor details that really don’t matter that much in the larger scheme of things.

        • Benjamin Kerstein

          Radosh’s criticisms are in no way unimportant nitpicking. They blast West’s scholarship and her conclusions into pieces.

        • T.A.

          If all Diana West said was that “we ‘lost’ the ideological war against totalitarian Communism and we are
          now ‘losing’ the ideological war against totalitarian Islam,” that would be a different story.

          Apparently, she said a good deal more than that. I haven’t read her book nor do I intend to, since I do care that people do good research and keep true to supportable facts.

          • TimeTraveler303

            That is a shame that you have not read the book and are taking someone else’s word for the content and theme. You are only seeing half the picture as presented and the tone of the critique is far less than professional. You might be surprised by the book.

        • TheOrdinaryMan

          You’re forgetting that Hitler hated objective scholarship, and regularly burned books. Cherry-picked versions of history do not support authentic American freedom. West is correct when she talks about the grave threat that Islam poses to our democratic institutions, but how is a distorted version of soviet infiltration in our government, 75 years ago, going to help us with THAT? We need to focus on the Islamic infiltration that is occurring at present. And you say, “West’s critics don’t really understand the true nature of the ideological threat of totalitarian communism and totalitarian Islam to authentic American democracy and freedom.” Oh, really? David Horowitz and Ron Radosh don’t understand, but you do?!

          • Texas Patriot

            If Mr. Horowitz and Mr. Radosh were true ideological warriors against totalitarian Communism and totalitarian Islam, they would be applauding the historical connections Ms. West has made and the historical parallels she has drawn, and they would be helping her fill in the historical details that would add significantly to her narrative.

            They’re not doing that. Instead they are attacking her with nitpicking points about minor historical inaccuracies that do nothing to detract from the validity of her overall thesis.

            Obviously Mr. Horowitz and Mr. Radosh are much more concerned with obscuring and hiding their own legacies of failure in the decades long ideological wars against totalitarianism Communism and totalitarian Islam than they are with advancing the cause of truth that will be essential to the ultimate victory of freedom.

          • TheOrdinaryMan

            “Nitpicking points about minor historical inaccuracies?” Give me two examples. These “minor historical inaccuracies,” as you call them, undermine Ms. West’s narrative. So if Horowitz and Radosh are failures, why do you read this site, and post your isolationist comments?

          • Texas Patriot

            You really only need one example to understand what I’m talking about. Diane West has articulated a brilliant thesis that we are making the same kinds of mistakes in fighting totalitarian Islam that we made in fighting totalitarian Communism. Instead of complimenting and encouraging her on that overall thesis and helping her by suggesting constructive ways to refine and improve her overall narrative, Messrs. Rodash and Horowitz have have chosen to gang up and attack her mercilessly on side issues that have nothing to do with her overall thesis. Why would they want to do that? I really don’t know. Perhaps you should ask them that.

            But from my perspective as a life-long conservative, my question is how could they possibly have the nerve to attack an authentic American conservative in such a blatantly merciless and cutthroat manner if they didn’t retain a large part of their own historical totalitarian tendencies?

            As David Horowitz himself has famously said, “Inside every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out.” If the truth be known, he’s probably much more of an expert on that subject than any of us imagine.

          • hrwolfe

            Have you ever read any of Mr. Radosh’s books? Maybe you ought to.

          • Texas Patriot

            I believe in fresh starts, and if a former devotee of Leftist and totalitarian ideologies claims to have seen the light and now wishes to conduct himself as an Authentic American Conservative, I’m willing to keep an open mind and consider the evidence.

            Therefore, if Mr. Radosh is willing to apologize to Ms. West and offer to help her in the future, as he should under the circumstances of this case, I am willing to consider reading some of his books. But the first principle of authentic conservatism is civility and gentility based on a universal respect for the innate dignity of all human beings, which was embedded in our amazing American Declaration of Independence as immortalized by Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and all of the other great intellectual American revolutionaries who signed that document. If Mr. Radosh wishes to walk in that tradition, I will welcome him to the ranks of Authentic American Conservatism and look forward to reading his books Otherwise, I won’t.

            Accordingly, unless Mr. Radosh is willing to demonstrate a complete and total break with the Bolshevik tactics of personal slander and character assassination which have clearly been linked with heavy-handed Leftist and totalitarian politics since the early days of the Russian Revolution, his claims to have left his Leftist and totalitarian past behind him will fall on deaf ears in my case, and I will have no interest whatsoever in reading any of his books.

          • lairdwilcox

            I was wondering how long it would be until Hitler was mentioned in this exchange.

      • EndlessSummer

        Ordinary Man: As you repeat the claims that Benjamin Kerstein does above, I will repeat my posted reply:

        Please provide the page number where West asserts Hopkins is Agent 19. I just did a Kindle search and find only a single reference in which West asks the question of could Hopkins be “the KGB’s Agent 19?” She merely raised the question as a question. She does not answer it, nor does that constitute the breadth of her indictment of Hopkins. Frankly, it wouldn’t matter if he is or not, to the extent that his own behavior is so damning. Hair-splitting between who was formally a Soviet agent vs who was merely a useful idiot or fellow traveler engaged in the same subversive or traitorous behaviors as formal Soviet agents, really is a diversion. The real question now is WHY does RADOSH make claims against West that are easy to verify as FALSE? Unless Kindle’s search tool is broken, West never claims Hopkins is Agent 19 nor does that constitute the breadth of her case against him. His own documented behaviors &
        perspectives do that well enough.

        • Benjamin Kerstein

          Again, p. 147. Fix your search tool.

  • Nga

    sach kinh doanh
    Then she proceeds to reassert her discredited claim, made on numerous occasions throughout her book, that Harry Hopkins was a Soviet agent, specifically the “Agent 19” referred to in the Venona decrypts. Since I refuted this in my review, she adds yet another claim: “I could burn the Venona document Radosh singlemindedly and dishonestly focuses on to the exclusion of other evidence and still make the same case against Hopkins.”
    hoc phi du hoc nhat

    • bobguzzardi

      Harry Hopkins shared the values and ideas of the Stalin’s Soviet Communists including recognizing the Soviet Union in 1933,.

      Roosevelt, advised by Hopkins, did have a Pro-Soviet policy going back to recognizing murderous Stalinist government in 1933

      The horrors of the Ukrainian Famine detailed in Timothy Snyder’s “Bloodlands: Europe between Hitler and Stalin” occurred in the two years immediately preceding US recognition of the Soviet Union which Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover all of whom refused to do.

      Maybe Stalin’s Soviets did not recruit Harry Hopkins as a
      conscious agent because they did not have to.

  • William_Bradford

    Let it die… the point has been effectively made. She has been rebuked… let it go. There are enough leftists seeking our demise, that we do not need to destroy each other. It serves no useful purpose to mute someone who has been show decisively the errors made. Reach out to her to help her in her next effort, hopefully her next effort effort will be more thoroughly, and effectively researched.

    • Texas Patriot

      The biggest enemies we face may be the closet-Leftists in our own ranks. I applaud Mr. Horowitz and Mr. Radosh for leaving their Leftists roots and speaking up for conservative causes and publishing this website. And I can see very clearly how former Leftists would be able to see the fallacies and falsehoods inherent in the totalitarian ideologies of Communism and Islam. But the problem I’m having is this. What basis is there for supposing that they really “get it” about the underlying motivators of Constitutional Democracy. If they get it now, did they get it when Barry Goldwater was running for president in 1964? Where were they then? Who did they support in that election? And if they really get it now, why are they so freakishly venomous and vitriolic in their attack of a very bright young conservative author who has always gotten it about the Leftist tendencies toward ideological totalitarianism? The bottom line is that Mr. Horowitz and Mr. Radosh owe Ms. West a HUGE apology. They need to extend the hand of friendship to her and, as you suggest, offer her whatever assistance they can in her future endeavors. It’s the least they can do.

  • Hugh Jasse

    I am all for scholarly history devoid of the revisionist’s poison pen. Unfortunately, I have no idea who is correct in this pissing match between Diana West and the editors of Frontpage Mag. I have not read West’s book and my rudimentary knowledge of the Venona decrypts does not allow me to pass cursory judgment on either side. However, I do know both sides come off as if competing middle school cheerleaders are their peer group. I have read articles from Diana West and David Horowitz et. al. and have usually found them interesting, sometimes enlightening, and almost always intelligently written. The recent back and forth between these two have sullied both their reputations. Immature, egocentric, and self-absorbed come quickly to mind when one clamors for adjectives to describe this hot mess. The title of this article resembles myriad propaganda titles from various Occupy Wall Street fliers….all designed to hook the reader to the “right” way of thinking. This type of tactic does little to lend gravitas to Frontpage Mag’s assertions. West does no better with her comments about Frontpage Mag. Let the facts presented dictate whether the reader determines West is responding (and writing) in a scholarly fashion…..not the title of the article, not sarcastic comments about her honesty, and certainly not because David Horowitz has a friend who wrote a book that disputes West’s claims.

  • Ben

    It seems like Mr Horowitz, Glazov and Co. wage their own jihad against Diana West. It is depressing and disgusting. Bye, bye al-Frontpage. Bye bin Radosh and bin Horowitz. I am removing al-Frontpage from my bookmarks… Never again. Never again here.

    • Benjamin Kerstein

      Speaking of jihadist, depressing, and disgusting criticism…

    • bobguzzardi

      David Horowitz and the Freedom Center are outstanding resources in defense of the American Exceptional Constitutional Republic. My 99% friend is not my 1% enemy. So Ron Radosh’s vicious attack on Diana West’s useful work is over the top. It happens.

  • Cole

    I have to say that I found the review and this article petulant. The hostile tone was off-putting. And deleting the first review is concerning. You can’t rest on your laurels and demand respect in case like this. The article seemed needlessly adversarial to many readers. Many feel the criticism moved from the book to a more personal attack. After the Zimmerman kerfuffle this seems an unwise stance to take. And the fault lies solely with Front Page. If you’ve got a problem with the book and initial review publish more reviews. You do no good by silencing people. And I don’t see why West would respond to such a hostile piece on site and give you more page views. Who would? Maybe Radosh is the legitimate authority on these specific historical points. You don’t prove that by deleting articles or treating authors rudely. You do it by having Radosh make the more cogent and factual argument. I find the whole affair troublesome and believe many conservatives will have lingering doubts about Front Page going forward. And for the record I don’t know West. I haven’t read her book. No one asked me to write this. I’m just tired of childish fights on the conservative playground when the country is dying. You should know better and be ashamed.

    • T.A.

      I really don’t see why it’s a problem to delete the first review, if the editors decided it was fact-challenged. This isn’t “silencing” someone. It is ceasing to promote them. There is a difference.

      Wouldn’t we expect that editors who strive for accuracy would pull a review they think is inaccurate?

      And, while it was certainly a negative review, I don’t know why you would call it “hostile”.

      • Murray Lawrence

        “Fact-challenged” is one thing, but there is nothing inaccurate in Tapson’s report of West’s central themes and their aims. The problem is that Radosh and Frontpage have rejected those views, and they have done so by smearing them as “conspiracy theories” and by piling on misleading, questionable, and often intemperate arguments against “American Betrayal.” Like the book itself, her counter-arguments are fully in line with what is meant by intellectual debate, and Tapson’s review was worthy of being included in that discussion as well. I am a scholar myself and know exactly what it takes for a book, essay, or review to be legitimately described as a “fact-challenged” work. Tapson’s review is simply not that kind of piece, and “American Betrayal” is not that kind of book. The title of Radosh’s first piece alone, “McCarthy on Steroids,” is a falsehood six ways from Sunday and a good example of what West means by referring to his Zinn and Alinsky-like piling on (I too can play his game) as an intellectual “disgrace.”

      • Darrell

        If the first review was fact-challenged, why publish it in the first place?

      • BS61

        I agree TG.A.! But not in this case. I’ve donated to David and now wonder who he is and who is Ron?

    • rsilverm

      I agree with Cole. I always enjoy reading Ron Radosh and value his insights. But here he seems overly determined. And Horowitz deleting the first review seems just plain wrong.

      Something in the whole matter doesn’t smell right, as though something unspoken is eating at Frontpage here. And I say that as a fan of Frontpage.

  • Teleologicus

    I have read Diana West’s latest book and do not find it to be “awful” or worthy of the degree of condemnation heaped upon it(her) by Professor Radosh and others. It is clearly a political polemic, written “direct and flamingly from the heart,” shrill, loud, indignant, outraged, hyperbolic, exaggerated and no doubt mistaken in some particulars and questionable in some speculations. It is not a PhD doctoral dissertation or a scholarly article. It is a specimen of political propaganda intended to attract and sustain attention – and because it is a good polemic, it has succeeded. Everybody should read it for themselves and make up their own mind. No sensible person would believe every word or accept every idea found in any book. Critical examination and judgment are always needed. Professor Radosh in my opinion is applying the wrong standard of judgment to Diana West’s partisan jeremiad. I am sorry to see the division this controversy is causing among conservatives and the continued participation of Frontpage Magazine in what has become a boring and surprisingly juvenile ego-driven p*ssing contest. Is it not time to let it go? Everybody has some good points to make, but all attempts to reduce this controversy to a binary, either/or, black or white, all or nothing conclusion are Procrustean. Read the book, take what you need, leave the rest. Check out the questionable points for yourself. It is time to dismount from our high horses and grapple with the ambiguities and complexities of the real world of human beings, their opinions, their personalities, their widely different ways of collecting, verifying and interpreting facts.

    This is a fantastic website. I can’t say I know much if anything about Ron Radosh except that he is a pal of David Horowitz and an important part of the work and the war against the radical Left. I regard David Horowitz as a hero and a saint for his incredible, indefatigable, courageous crusade against the Left. America needs more like him and Ron Radosh. But America also needs more outraged, passionate, polemicists like Diana West. America needs all the help it can get from everyone who is able and willing to pitch in. The last thing we need to be doing is squabbling among ourselves.

    • Texas Patriot

      David Horowitz and Ron Radosh may both know the Left and hate the Left because of their former association with and membership in the Left, but they obviously know very little about authentic American conservatism or how to win philosophical wars against the totalitarian ideologies of Communism and Islam. Diana West is a fresh voice of truth with authentic American conservative credentials. And of course it is not surprising that two reformed Leftists hate her with a passion.

      • Richard Hiltbrunn

        Indeed! I strongly agree with you. I have read a few of Radosh’s books and loved them. I have to say though, that I could detect a little of a soft spot, in them, for his former friends and ideologies. That’s to be expected, though, since it was such a major part of his life, for so long. Again, I agree. It’s important to take West’s writing with a critical view, and the same for Radosh’s.

        • Texas Patriot

          The Bolshevik and Stalinist style of personal attack and character assassination employed by Messrs. Radosh and Horowitz in dealing with any form of perceived political opposition concerns me even more than the obvious weakness in their ideologies. Diana West may have substantial room for growth and improvement in the area of documenting her work with rigorous historical research, but her basic thesis rings true with a clarity rarely seen in the worn out “party lines” of current political thinking. However, the spectacle of two avowed former Leftists ganging up together to attack a fresh voice of Authentic American Conservative is nothing short of disgusting from my point of view.

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            So being completely wrong and asserting an insupportable conspiracy theory is fine so long as one is “a fresh voice of Authentic American Conservatism.”

          • Texas Patriot

            Mr. Kerstein,

            Who else besides Messrs. Radosh and Horowitz and you think Diana Ross is “completely wrong”? Here are some snippets about her book from yesterday’s American Thinker that suggest she is not completely wrong at all:

            “Diana West comes charging in at a furious gallop unfurling the banner of treason in her recent book American Betrayal. The Secret Assault on our Nation’s Character. She arrives late to the subject of Soviet infiltration of the United States. But she brings attitude, wearing her outrage on her sleeve as she recounts the duplicitous activities of key American communists and sympathizers who allegedly transformed U.S. policy to conform with Stalin’s ambitions. Despite her hyperbolic, exclamation point, italicized febrile style, the awful truth appears to materialize, like a photographic image in a pan of developing fluid. Yes, yes…. it is true! she constantly exclaims. And to her credit she explores key events and individuals beyond the declassified evidence available since 1991 after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

            West’s intensity is what is needed for Americans to grasp that our culture has been hijacked. For example, the national media and our major universities continue to ignore the Left’s political agenda in which traditional American beliefs have been gradually undermined and replaced with utopian theoretical doctrines born in Marxism and other esoteric ideologies: political correctness, multiculturalism and an incessant condemnation of religion. Our culture today reads like the Comintern handbook, thanks largely to the gullibility of the American Left which swallowed propaganda dished up by communist agents of influence. And that is why the Left should never be taken seriously. Any individual or group that did not turn away in disgust from the murderous evil of the Soviet Union due to the belief that it was a better system than ours is beneath contempt. Yet it happened, and Diana West wants everyone to know how it happened — a far greater service than picking nits over insignificant details.”

            http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/08/reds_under_the_beds_diana_west_cant_sleep.html

            So, despite the hysterical railings of Messrs. Radosh and Horowitz, it would appear that Ms. West is not completely wrong at all, but rather brings the clear voice of truth to the American People regarding a BIG LIE of historic proportions.

            Sorry if you’re having trouble grasping the significance of what this means. Let me put it this way. Before the infiltration of our national government by the BIG LIE of totalitarian Ideology, the idea of TRUTH was a very big deal in the scheme of authentic American thinking. In fact, it might be said that the idea of truth goes to the very heart of what it means to be an Authentic American Conservative. Diana West represents a clear voice of that truth, even if what she has to say is not entirely welcome by Messrs. Radosh and Horowitz.

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            I despair at the prospect of convincing you, but Ms. West (and you) is – yes – COMPLETELY wrong in her conspiracy theory. No one denies that communist espionage severely damaged U.S. policy toward the USSR early on in the Cold War. What they deny is that there was the kind of total control over US policy and government that West claims. And Radosh has proven that to be correct. At least, he has thoroughly debunked Ms. West’s supposed “evidence” of her theory.

          • Texas Patriot

            Benjamin Kerstein: “No one denies that communist espionage severely damaged U.S. policy toward the USSR early on in the Cold War. What they deny is that there was the kind of total control over US policy and government that West claims.”

            Where in her book does Ms. West claim that the Soviets had “total control” over the U. S. Government? She’s not alleging a state of total control over U.S. foreign policy by Soviets then any more than she is alleging total control over U.S. policy by Muslims today. What she is saying, I think, is that there were elements in our government then, just as there are elements in our government today, with political priorities and values contrary to the best interests of the American people. And I think she is probably right about that.

    • Benjamin Kerstein

      I agree that West’s book is a polemic, but it also contains innumerable footnotes and claims to make new historical findings. This clearly attempts to put a scholarly veneer on her polemic – much as Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky do on the Left – and therefore justifies scholarly criticism. Indeed, Radosh’s entire point is that the book is pseudo-scholarship.

      • monostor

        R&H actually fell in their own zeal’s trap. There are a few red lines around which DW’s storyline is built one of them being the still very strong anti-anti-communist attitude that doesn’t allow objective criticism and condemnation of the atrocities of the communist regimes. They are really nitpicking and beating the bush: how dare she goes into the sacred territory of historical research without being qualified to do so. Sour grapes.

  • bobguzzardi

    “It makes a big difference whether Hopkins was a sucker for
    Soviet propaganda or actually working for Soviet intelligence.” says Ron Radosh
    and he is right. What is the difference, if any? Ron Radosh does not say.

    “Personnel is policy” and the impact on American policy of the
    confluence of communists, whether conscious Soviet Communist agents or Soviet Communist sympathizers sharing the values, ideas
    and ideologies of the Soviet Communists agents, in the Roosevelt Administration needs to be investigated and explained.

    “Personnel is policy “VP Henry Wallace, Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, Owen Lattimore, John Stewart Service, Harry Hopkins were not potted plants.

    Diana West starts the process of talking about the impact on policy of Roosevelt’s Communists. Diana West’s book may not be perfect book; it is an important book because it begins a discussion of things many of us did
    not know what we did not know.. And it has lessons for our confrontation with
    Radical Islam.

    • Benjamin Kerstein

      The difference is obvious and essential. The first is damnable idiocy, the second is a capital crime.

      • bobguzzardi

        What, operationally, in the real world, is the difference? Don’t both have identical consequences? And how do you explain the confluence of communists in the Roosevelt Administration?

        Coincidence? Random Statistical Chance? Is there only a correlation between Roosevelt’s personnel with shared ideas and values and policies they advocated and implemented?

        • Benjamin Kerstein

          I don’t think anyone claims that the presence of pro-Soviet officials in the Roosevelt administration – as well as actual spies – did not have disastrous consequences in many ways. The point of Radosh’s review, however, that West’s specific claims are inaccurate and based on both discredited sources and an overall conspiracy theory that is not credible.

          • bobguzzardi

            What were the disastrous consequences of pro-Soviet officials and how do we avoid the mistake in fight with Radical Islam?

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            Clearly, the Roosevelt and early Truman administrations were not tough enough on the Soviets, though there was – practically speaking – little they could do militarily to eject the Soviets from the entirety of Eastern Europe. In regard to radical Islam, I think we need to continue criticizing naivite, useful idiocy, defeatism, and appeasement toward it; as well as work to put people who do not suffer from these illusions in power.

          • bobguzzardi

            Roosevelt did not have to be so helpful. Harry Truman did do something and a lot more than FDR for which Truman is vilified to this day.

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            The Soviets were the only effective land force opposing Nazism until 1944. I can well understand FDR and Churchill’s aid to them. Truman is now widely considered one of the greatest presidents of the 20th century, vilified only by the totalitarian Left.

          • James Keir Baughman

            True, it seems to me, and a good addition to the discussion. What makes me uneasy in many of these posts is concentrating hugely on Islam, vital of course, but overlooking that Communists are vicious internal enemies of America now, have gained much political power in this administration, are willing to work with Islam against us, and are very busy traitors among us.

          • markolinux

            Reality is often not “credible”. Why else would we use the word “INcredible!” when seeing something happen with our eyes that befuddles us?

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            That’s completely ridiculous, of course; but I will only say that while reality may be incredible sometimes, you’d better be able to prove it if you want other people to believe it. West couldn’t.

          • EndlessSummer

            Still waiting for you to provide the page number on which West asserts that Hopkins was Agent 19. Since you find that Radosh critique so persuasive, you must have read the book. Where is it? If you continue throughout this thread to tell us Radosh has discredited West, then we must surely be able to source those mistakes. My Kindle search tool finds NO SUCH ASSERTION in the whole of Ms. West’s book, nor does it serve as the basis of her much more comprehensive indictment of Hopkins. Nu?

          • Benjamin Kerstein

            It took me two seconds to find precisely such an assertion on p. 147. Why do you feel the need to lie about it?

      • bobguzzardi

        There were quite a few Soviet Communist agents in the Roosevelt Administration. Were any convicted of treason?

    • ratonis

      As far as I’m concerned, the fact that the Roosevelt Administration actually supported the making of the movie “Mission to Moscow” says it all about dupes and deceivers. Ever see that thing? That single episode (verified by the host on Turner Classic Films program that screened it recently) tends to verify West’s reflections. The larger issue she raises is how we understand history through narratives. Why have so few people any awareness of, say, the Terror Famine? The Katyn massacre, and other stuff she explores? Even if I accept Radosh’s criticisms re. Hopkins, these other matters are very real conditions and pose questions that call for answers. I’m not upset that someone would challenge her on some matters of fact, but to imply that the book is of NO value whatsoever is just little more than a personal attack.

      • bobguzzardi

        The pro Soviet policies were more than a coincidence. Compare Harry Truman to FDR and VP Henry Wallace. The Terror Famine 1932-33 does not get the attention it deserves. See Timothy Snyder Bloodlands, Europe Between Hitler and Stalin for more on the Ukrainian Terror Famine which killed millions of helpless and innocent peasants. The Communists did not, and do not, believe every life has value.

        • Merican

          Remember FDR was the POTUS that established diplomatic relations with the U.S.S.R., 11/33, effectively opening the door to Soviet invasion! Kudos to Ms. West for her book. I’m actually not surprised how Radosh and Horowitz seem to revert back to their Red Doper Diaper personalities when anyone challenges the Communist FDR Administration!

      • bobguzzardi

        PS good points Ratonis

  • Brian Schiff

    I still haven’t read the book-but as a hardcore boxing fan,this is simply an attempt to deal with the appearance of West continued to be suckerpunched;more of her “snide” etc. comments…http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/2614/-Professor-Radosh-Gets-an-F.aspx

  • KnowThyEnemy

    Frontpage Magazine has lost it’s ever lovin’ mind. This smear of Diana is such a turnoff.

    • Texas Patriot

      Actually they’ve done a great service by showing us their true colors.

  • tagalog

    Gents, please. This volley of accusations and explanations is unnecessary and an example of wretched excess. You are better than this. Who cares if Diana West is doing things you don’t like, or you’re doing things she doesn’t like? I humbly pray of you, let’s move on.

  • Crazycatkid

    Again, I do appreciate the writers at Frontpagemag but I am beginning to wonder if this is a site I need to frequent. Disagreements are fine. But I feel like I am caught in an academic ivory tower personal dispute (who wants to be the next chair person?). Ugh, I don’t miss those days.
    While these people are back stabbing, Rome and the rest of the world are, ya’ know, burning.

  • pennant8

    Without getting into the role of Soviet intrigue, but from a strictly tactical standpoint, I support Diana’s contention that Normandy could have been bypassed. The other day on her web page she noted with evidence of a New York Times front page story that Rome had been liberated by the allies a few days before D-Day. At this point in the war we owned North Africa, Sicily and Southern Italy. The entire allied armies could have been put ashore in Italy virually unopposed.
    German troops in France would have had to be relocated to try and stop the massive allied push steamrolling up through Italy. With most German troops gone from France that country could have been reclaimed at a leisurely pace with much less loss of life.
    I believe that military planners sometimes get caught up in what I call the Somme syndrome. In that epic battle during WWI thousands of troops were mowed down while charging into withering machine gun fire.
    I am a firm believer that whenever possible go around an enemy stronghold, isolate it, starve it. We could have done that in France. We had the same experience in the Pacific island hopping campaigns. Some amphibious landings were necessary, but others were not. Tarawa is an example of one that was not. It was one of the costliest battles in Marine Corps history, and it simply could have been bypassed, isolated and starved out.

  • jburack

    The comments from West’s defenders here are even more depressingly irrational and fact-free than West’s own vituperative style of response when caught in flat-out falsehoods. What is truly dismaying about this, however, is not even the factual failures of her book, which are devastating to it. What is even more appalling and depressing is the underlying narrative she seeks to construct – that the U.S. should have aligned with Hitler’s war machine (sans Hitler) so as to divide Europe up among the militarist totalitarians of the Nazi regime and the totalitarian regimes constructed by Stalin. Rather than doing what it did, which was to smash Nazi Germany to bits in order to reconstruct Germany and Europe on a decent basis. It was this reconstructed Europe in alliance with America via NATO that ultimately then did check and in the end defeat Soviet Communism as well. In the face of this complete defeat of Soviet Communism and victory for the U.S., West holds to the deluded notion that it was WE who were defeated BY Soviet Communism! It is hard to fathom a notion more detached from reality than this.

    • Barbara

      “What is even more appalling and depressing is the underlying narrative she seeks to construct – that the U.S. should have aligned with Hitler’s war machine (sans Hitler) so as to divide Europe up among the militarist totalitarians of the Nazi regime and the totalitarian regimes constructed by Stalin.”

      Really? You really think that is the “narrative” she is trying to construct?

      Unbelievable!

  • jburack

    It is truly depressing to see both West and her many defenders here descending into almost incoherent invective against Ron Radosh instead of answering honestly his specific factual criticisms. The amount of obfuscating over her embarrassing errors regarding Hopkins is unreal. But what is more dismaying is the underlying narrative West has committed herself to by insisting on the idea the U.S. ran its war against Hitler on orders from Stalin. The narrative is that we sided with Stalin when we could instead have allied with an intact, ruthlessly totalitarian Germany military machine (sans Hitler only) to check, partially, a ruthlessly totalitarian Stalinist regime a bit farther back to the east of where it wound up. Even assuming something so ludicrous were possible, WHY would anyone prefer it? The army that had facilitated the Holocaust and the army of the Gulag together, instead of the reconstructed Germany and the Western Europe of NATO as the check on Soviet Communism. It was this vibrant, rebuilt, democratic Western Europe that with the US, did in fact defeat Soviet Communism. To listen to the crackpot notions of West and her supporters here you have to deny the very existence of one of democracy’s great triumphs. All to hold on to a paranoid view of America that will have only one possible effect – to further marginalize a conservative movement now driven by bitterness and bile that will appeal to very few, thank goodness.

    • jm323

      “Even assuming something so ludicrous were possible…. [That's fair enough. By the time the German Army officer corps would be willing to seriously commit to removing Hitler it would have been --and was, in July of 1944-- quite late, probably too late to keep the Red Army out of central Europe] .., …..WHY would anyone prefer it? The army that had facilitated the Holocaust and the army of the Gulag together, instead of a re-constructed Germany and the Western Europe of NATO as the check on Soviet Communism.”

      I suppose the reply would be …..that the German Army (the Wehrmacht) was actually not a Na zi institution, but a force of professionals that had pre-existed the Na zi regime; whereas the Red Army was created by and a product of the Communist revolution. Surely you do not suppose that the July 20 conspirators had intended to leave the Gestaapo and SS organizations intact, do you?

      I hadn’t realized that the division of Europe, specifically the ceding of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, the Baltic states, etc. to one of the worst totalitarian regimes ever to exist, was “one of democracy’s greatest triumphs”?!? ….I mean, you aren’t really proposing that we Americans (or Brits) introduced the concept of constitutional, democratic government to the nations of Western or even Central Europe (i.e. Czechoslovakia, Poland), are you? ….The strategy we did take resulted in several of those countries falling into Stalin’s orbit. ….You think that a democratic, constitutional UNIFIED Germany (…the July 20 conspirators planned on installing people such as Carl Goerdeler, Konrad Adenauer and Ludwig Erhard in positions of power –some of the same people who went on to create the West German state…) would have had a more difficult time keeping the Soviets out of Central Europe than half of Germany, which wasn’t even constituted until 1949, ….not allowed to re-arm until 1955, and never possessed the military power of former times…?!?

      I suppose you figure that the creation of the United Nations, right after the war, with the totalitarian Soviet Union as a Charter Member as well as a Permanent Member of the Security Council (…the only council that matters in that body…), thus legitimizing this regime as a respectable power for peace and human rights, ….was also one of “democracy’s great triumphs”?!?

  • RCraigen

    “West’s ATTEMPT to Respond?” You’re digging yourself deeper, Ron. Here’s her brief answer to this piece:
    http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/2614/-Professor-Radosh-Gets-an-F.aspx

    You know, as a scholar myself, I’ll remind you of a simple trick: Read an author’s footnotes before making bald assertions about whom they are citing. You could save yourself from a lot of embarrassment. And address what they say, not what you appear to wish they had said.

    How deep do you plan to dig?

    • glennd1

      He concedes the attribution error, no? As for the finer distinctions West offers in her response, I’m not sure they prove Radosh incorrect. Are you a scholar in this area? Fyi, I’m certainly not and I find it impossible to evaluate the claims personally, rather relying on this back and forth. If you an offer any light (versus the heat), I for one would appreciate it.

  • ratonis

    I just now read her response to this article. It’s pretty good, and not nearly as personally insulting as Radosh has been towards her.

    I still think this is a turf war, with Radosh in the protecting mode.

  • Darrell

    I’ve read Diana West’s comments and Ron Radosh’s articles. I fully support Diana West and look forward to reading her book.

  • gbyrneg50

    I think that it’s a pity that this issue has arisen. It would be nice of one could persuade Diana to have the humility to rectify her errors and do another edition with appropriate corrections. I think that the other side is powerful enough without acrimony on our side. There is too much baloney on our side about the Bilderbergers, the Skull and Bones club, the Illuminati and so on. Let’s stick to the known facts and demolish the other side honestly and truthfully.

  • narciso

    The evidence a little more equivocal, as well as it’s presentation;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AHarry_Hopkins

  • RCraigen

    Ann Coulter weighs in:

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

    Yep, she … wait a minute.

    That was 7 years ago. My mistake — hard to tell the controversies apart. Seems Radosh is merely recycling his previous screed against M. Stanton Evans over, ah, much the same points. And he’s still making the same sort of factual errors. Coulter does not mince words:

    “Radosh makes misstatements of fact about the book, misstates facts about the cases and falsely accuses Evans of plagiarism…. The review makes it comically obvious that Radosh didn’t so much as glance through the pages of Evans’ book… But Radosh is not about to let the first book to render a full and honest historical account of Joe McCarthy ruin his blissful ignorance. Radosh knows less about McCarthy than I know about fly-fishing. He gets cases wrong, sources wrong, hearings wrong. He’s been pulling this nonsense for 25 years now.”

    Ah, I see. It was deja vu back in 2008. So by 2013, Radosh’s worn-out arguments must be golden oldies.

    • Magwheelz

      Good find. Maybe Ann will come out with another one….

  • David Bloch

    The following quotes from Nietzsche pretty much sum up Mr. Radosh, the man who is convinced he is right:

    “Conviction is the belief that on some particular point of knowledge one is in possession of the unqualified truth. This belief thus presupposes that unqualified truths exist; likewise that perfect methods of attaining to them have been discovered; finally that everyone who possess convictions avails himself of these perfect methods. All three assertions demonstrate at once that
    the man of convictions is not the man of scientific thought; he stands before
    us in the age of theoretical innocence as a child, however grownup he may be in other respects. Convictions are prisons.”

    “When it is advisable to be in the wrong.– We do well to tolerate accusations against us without refuting them even when we are wronged by them (Ms. West), when it is the case that our accuser (Mr. Radosh) would consider us even more in the wrong if we contradicted him, let alone refuted him. It is true, of course that in this way a man can be always in the wrong (Mr. Radosh) and always appear to be in the right, and in the end become with the clearest conscience in the world the most unendurable tyrant and bore; and what applies to the individual can also apply to entire classes of society (The Ruling Class).”

    “Irony (humorous/sardonic)– All ironical writers depend on the foolish species of men who together with the author would like to feel themselves superior to all others and who regard the author as the mouthpiece of their presumption. – Habituation to irony, moreover, like habituation to sarcasm, spoils the character, to which it gradually lends the quality of a malicious and jeering superiority; in the end one comes to resemble a snapping dog which has learned how to laugh but forgotten how to bite.”

    • jburack

      This postmodern effort to rescue West does what all the other attacks on Ron Radosh do here – substitutes rhetoric for critical attention to the facts Radosh presented. Yes, David Bloch, “unqualified truth” is impossible to attain. However, facts, while not the unqualified truth, are its anchors. And they can be verified. Neither you nor the others here have done a thing to deal with the facts Ron Radosh has presented. Meanwhile the last Nietzche paragraph on irony is itself rich in irony in this context. In that your entire entry and its use of Nietzche is so clearly presented with a sarcastic tone meant to justify your side’s “snapping dog” like expressions of superiority, all without the more prosaic labor of dealing with the facts.

      • David Bloch

        Did you read the word “habitual” in the quote? What does the word “habitual” mean to you? Radosh has presented nothing more than his opinions and his convictions. You have decided they are facts. Ms. West’s book is also her opinion. The readers are free to decide their own opinions on the matter. Radosh is acting like a snapping dog “attempting” to defend his territory and reputation among his idolaters. Of which, no doubt, you are one.

        • jburack

          Actually, David, it’s “habituation,” not “habitual,” but I see no relevance either way, since irony played no part in either Ron’s review or his response to West’s complaints about his review. As for “nothing more than his opinions,” it is not an opinion that U238 is useless in an atomic weapon without a capacity to refine it into U235. It is a fact. Easily verifiable. No disputes at all. West got the fact wrong, Ron got the fact right. Just one of several significant instances of that, none of which appear to interest any of Ms. West’s fans here, the only “idolaters” I see in this debate.

  • devilof76
  • Taimoor Khan

    Front Page getting exposed for what it really is.

  • Judy

    I saw Diana West talking about her book and it sounded like something I’d enjoy reading. Then I’ve followed this conversation and wonder — what good is all this sniping doing the conservative cause? Maybe you should call a truce on this, shake hands and start over. Aim all your arrows against the REAL enemy – the Liberal Democrat Establishment and Republican RINOs taking this nation down the drain.—wedon’tneedmoreinfighting

  • HollyW

    All this whooping and hollering is a bit unnerving. The FrontPage magazine can post whatever they want to post and remove what they want to remove because it’s their website. Diana West is just stirring the pot to garner some attention for her book. I do not know enough about the subject matter to make a judgement either way, but I do believe West’s posting of the emails shows that she’s willing to take any route necessary to get some attention. Whether Horowitz’s email to her was rude or not is not my business. It is between them and should have stayed that way. How many conservative sites are there? Go to another one and seek some publicity, Diana, cause dragging everybody into your mud is a bit adolescent.

    • RCraigen

      Uh, you may not have noticed, @HollyW, but Diana did exactly as you are suggesting … “go to another [site]“. When the Radosh piece appeared here she didn’t leave a comment; she has pulled up stakes and dissociated herself with FPM. She posted those letters on her OWN site. By your reasoning, she is completely within her rights to do so. Am I missing something in your comment?

  • Barbara

    I wonder why Mr. Radosh could not have had a more civil tone in his review and why he bordered on an ad hominen attack.

    Those who see clearly enough to oppose the spread of Shariah and who write about this are so few in number that it is a great pity that they can’t at least be civil to one another, even while disagreeing.

    Whether or not Ms. West’s commentary contains some errors of fact, this whole exchange makes me less willing to read anything by Mr. Radosh (who, if Diana West’s latest column is correct, has been less than factual and even less than honest in his review and subsequent response).

  • Benjamin Kerstein

    I presume you’re simply making this up, since it bears no resemblance to the modern clinical definition.

  • BS61

    @Ron I’m very concerned that you can’t be contacted

  • Feisty Hayseed

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

    • Texas Patriot

      It would be funny if it weren’t true. Instead it’s tragic in a Franz Kafka sort of way. The Prince goes to sleep and wakes up a Spider. I remember people saying that Richard Nixon was the perfect President to fight Communism. Why? He knew how to play the game the way the Soviets played it. Presumably that is the reason Messrs. Radosh and Horowitz found employment in the Anti-Communist Movement. Who better to fight Communists and Leftists than former Communists and former Leftists, right? Obviously that entire philosophy was mistaken. You don’t defeat totalitarians by becoming bigger totalitarians. You don’t defeat liars by becoming bigger liars. Diana West is an Authentic American Conservative. She’s never been a Communist and she’s never been a Leftist. She’s always been an all-American girl who loves Truth and Freedom and the All-American Dream Machine. And the fact that Messrs. Radosh and Horowitz have chosen to attack her in such a hateful, unmerciful, and unkind way says much more about them than it says about her.

      • PouponMarks

        The same nit picking destructive palaver came from Melanie Phillips against Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller in relation to the National Party in Britain, the nearest thing to our Tea Party.

        • Frank

          This was an attack on the association of Geller and Spencer with the English Defence League, a single issue grassroots organization, not a political party.

  • Eden

    Your relentless, vicious attack on author Diana West is unhinged. Five hit
    pieces on one book? You have lost all credability with this pathological
    campaign. Couple this with your censoring your first review of the book and you
    come out looking very bad.

  • Texas Patriot

    This entire controversy can be resolved if Messrs. Radosh and Horowitz admit that they overreacted in attacking Ms. West’s book and apologize to her personally. If they want to be thought of as anything other than a former Communist and a former Leftist who have not yet learned to respond to perceived threats with anything other than a Soviet-style smear campaign, they need to do that, and the sooner the better.

    • PouponMarks

      Spot on. A more balanced and mature discussion can be found on PJMedia. Don’t mess with Texas. Greg Abbott for Gov.

  • Mittymo

    “It makes a big difference whether Hopkins was a sucker for Soviet propaganda or actually working for Soviet intelligence.”

    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 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.

    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 exactly 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 gain high office & have profound influence over a majority of American lives frightens the daylights out me.

  • Texas Patriot

    The handwriting is on the wall. The obstinate refusal of Messrs. Radosh and Horowitz to apologize to Ms. West can only signify one thing. They are more concerned with preserving their own legacy as Neo-Communist and Neo-Leftist Neo-Conservatives than they are with the future of the Authentic Conservative Movement in the United States today. So be it. What we need is a good old fashioned purge. All of the Neo-Communists, Neo-Leftists, and Neo-Conservatives that have driven the Grand Old Party into the lowest depths of failure and futility in its entire history need to be put on notice that there is no future for them in the Republican Party of the United States of America. None whatsoever. Sorry boys. You had your chance to repent. But you didn’t take it. And at this point, I just don’t see that happening. You can rail about Obama and Hillary all you want. But I’m convinced that the biggest threat to the Conservative Movement in America today is YOU.

  • RCraigen

    Diana West is guilty.

    Guilty, that is, of making historians’ heads explode by speaking the truth.

    Not long ago (2010), it was Max Boot. Here’s Andrew McCarthy summarizing. See if any of this sounds a wee bit familiar:

    “Max Boot is a good historian. On Islam, I often disagree with him, finding in his work the wishful thinking common among Islamic Democracy Project enthusiasts. Still, he is thoughtful and civil, so one always expects to learn something from reading him. It was therefore jarring to read his smug attempt to drum Diana West out of the conservative movement. Boot seems to see himself as William F. Buckley Jr. and West as the John Birch Society. If you’re going to play that game, you’d better be right. Boot is dead wrong.”

    So, apparently, is Ron Radosh. I just read Diana’s latest, extremely thorough response, and Ron’s wandering ramble through a field of conjecture about what she might have been thinking mixed in with red herrings and obfuscatory digressions rather than addressing the rather substantial counter-charges she makes or dealing with the factual material she proffers to counter his claims.

    Ron, it’s your own credibility on the line now.

    • Texas Patriot

      It’s only the Neo-Communists, the Neo-Leftists, and the Neo-Conservatives who want Diana West out of the picture. For Authentic American Conservatives, she’s the brightest light and the clearest voice of truth since Barry Goldwater.

  • jlrjfi

    Perhaps I am being parochial about this but what I find truly more damning is FDR’s knowledge of the Holocaust and his active opposition to opposing it, his anti anti-Holocaustism. There were 190,000 visa positions per year open for Jews. But for one year (1941 I think), he never permitted more than 25% of the quota to be filled. FDR was a true Jew hater and contributed to the annihilation of Europe’s Jews to a highly significant extent. He even squelched information about the slaughter. To that extent, I think FDR committed some form of treason. He certainly aided the destruction of hundreds of thousands of potential anti-Hitler soldiers and many more workers and researchers and such.
    As for there being “dupes” or worse, there is plenty of evidence for that.
    At some point, the difference between clueless and complicit becomes blurred when the results are indistinguishable.
    Fortunately, the Soviet Empire fell, largely of its own accord, but we certainly gave it a good push in the process.

  • semus

    Thanks for bringing her book to my attention. I have seen the excerpts from it sounds like a very important book.

    • Texas Patriot

      Given the hysterical attempts by Leftist Neo-Conservatives to suppress it, I’d say it’s probably the most important book since Barry Goldwater’s “The Conscience of a Conservative”.

  • Texas Patriot

    I too want to thank Messrs. Radosh and Horowitz for bringing to the attention of all Americans the true sources of the deep-seated hatreds and antipathies of Neo-Communists, Neo-Leftists and Neo-Conservatives toward the time-honored and time-tested principles of Authentic American Conservatism as articulated by Barry Goldwater and Diana West. It is now perfectly clear what has happened to the Republican Party over the past several decades.

    Before their vehement, vitriolic, and wildly hate-filled overreaction to Ms. West’s book, I confess that I was somewhat mystified by the steady decline of Conservative politics in the United States since Ronald Reagan. There is no longer any doubt about what is causing it. And without their Kafkaesque morbidity and panic over Ms. West’s exposure of the extent of Communist infiltration in the government of the United States, the causes of that decline might have remained obscure to me for yet a while longer.

    Thanks for accelerating the process guys.

    Good work.

  • Merican

    See the current posting “M. Stanton Evans Rebuts Ronald Radosh, 2008″ which is another example of Radosh’s bombastic type of insulting and unprofessional book review.

  • Whirlwinder

    Horowitz, are you reverting to your communistic days? I consider Diana’s book as truthful. You should try reading it with an open mind. And, by the way, stop begging me for money. You will not see any.

  • Jaroslaw

    I have now read American Betrayal, Radosh’s venomous attack and
    West’s lengthy three-part rebuttal. My conclusion: West in the scholarly one
    and it is Radosh that comes across as an ‘unhinged” character assassin, a
    profession he must have picked up from his communist past. David Horowitz’s
    words in this regard are fitting: “Well designed attacks on an opponent’s
    credibility can overpower well-crafted messages.”

    No one has connected all the dots like West. NO ONE! She synthesizes
    all of the material and findings of the past three-quarters of the century into
    a coherent and believable narrative. However, it’s not an easy read; she has a
    quirky way of writing and it takes a lot of patience to uncover all of the gems
    contained in the book. Let me explain why feel this way.

    As a survivor of communism I’ve had a lifelong interest in this topic. I vividly recall the last year of WWII and the time after the war in DP camp outside Regensburg, only 120 kilometers from the Czechoslovak frontier
    where Soviet armored divisions were ready to move. The refugees from Communism were all convinced that it was only a matter of time before a war between Americans and Russians was going to break out. Endless conversations among adults in the DP camps always revolved around the question “how could Roosevelt give away half of Europe to Stalin?” This was unfathomable and even though they could not prove it, common sense told them that FDR’s administration must have been riddled with communist agents of influence. There was no other explanation.

    It took a long time but finally someone has put it all together. What the DP refuges only suspected, West’s demonstrates in astonishing detail that
    their suspicion of conspiracy was correct.

    On every point Radosh had raised, West’s rebuttal provides a plausible explanation and in the process she has demonstrated his lack of scholarship and professionalism.

  • Smee

    thanks for this info :)

  • yamaconham

    Great stuff from you, man. Ive read your stuff
    before and youre just too awesome. I love what youve got here, love what youre
    saying and the way you say it. You make it entertaining and you still manage to
    keep it smart. I cant wait to read more from you. This is really a great blog.giàn phơi | giàn phơi đồ