The Rebuttal: Defending 'American Betrayal' From the Book-Burners (14 page)

Before
elucidating the significant role Hiss in fact played at Yalta,
Romerstein and Evans
remind us, rather understatedly, who
Hiss was:

Alger
Hiss...was a secret Communist serving in the wartime State Department,
identified as a Soviet agent by ex-Communist Whittaker Chambers, a former
espionage courier for Moscow's intelligence bosses. This identification led to
a bitter quarrel that divided the nation into conflicting factions and would do
so for years to follow. The dispute resulted in the 1950 conviction of Hiss for
perjury when he denied Chambers charges under oath, denials that ran contrary
to the evidence then
and to an ever-increasing mass of
data later.

Contrary
to Black's glib assertions, both the incomplete Yalta compilation published by
the State Department, and more clearly, the Stettinius papers,
demonstrate
Hiss's central role at Yalta. A
revelatory State Department official entry documents the wide-ranging authority
Stettinius conferred upon Hiss:

At
the Secretary's staff committee meeting of January 10, the Secretary asked that
all memoranda for the President on topics to be discussed at the meeting of the
Big Three should be in the hands of Alger Hiss not later than Monday, January
15.

As
Romerstein and Evans
observe
,

This
was just nine days after FDR and Stettinius discussed having Hiss go to Yalta,
in which span he had somehow risen from obscurity to become custodian of
"all memoranda for the President" on topics to be considered at the
summit-not bad positioning for a Soviet agent whose nominal chieftain, FDR,
would soon be meeting with his real one, Stalin. Nor was this the only
indication in the records of the role played by Hiss and his skill at
collecting information. 

But
it is Secretary of State Stettinius's diaries and other confidential papers
which reveal how intimately he and Hiss worked together at Yalta, and how
heavily Stettinius leaned on his junior colleague's expertise on a broad range
of issues. Romerstein and Evans provide this
overview
:

The
documents indicate that Hiss was an outspoken participant in the Yalta
sessions, addressing a wide array of topics and at times dealing virtually as
an equal with British foreign secretary Anthony Eden and other high officials.
As Hiss was the American on the scene most conversant with U.N. affairs, he of
course had a lot to say about that subject, but his role was by no means
limited to such matters. 

Among
the topics on which Hiss held forth, often in authoritative manner, were the
conduct of China policy by the Allies, establishment of a high commission to govern
peacetime Europe, the role of France in the postwar era, and occupation zones
in Germany once the Nazis had surrendered. The Stettinius diaries likewise
depict Hiss as a knowledgeable source on one of the most contentious issues
raised at Yalta-the use of German compulsory labor as a form of human
"reparations."
Along with other data on such matters, the
Stettinius papers show there were few subjects at the meeting on which Hiss
wasn't a significant player
.

Romerstein
and Evans also
illuminate
how Hiss's consummate ability "to position
himself at the crossroads of information" throughout his tenure at the
State Department, even as a junior staff member (in 1936), impressed his fellow
Communists:

...one
KGB report quoted State Department official Laurence Duggan, himself an
oft-identified pro-Soviet agent, as saying Hiss was "the one who had
everything important from every division on his desk, and must be one of the
best informed people," in the department. The KGB lamented that Hiss was
already spoken for by the rival GRU (military intelligence) saying that if the
KGB had such a source at State "no one else would really be needed."

Conrad
Black's
willful blindness
to Hiss's well-documented machinations,
before and during Yalta, should give serious pause to those who accept Black's
warped
characterization of
Diana
West
and
American Betrayal
at face value.

Andrew G. Bostom, M.D., M.S. (Providence, RI), is the author
of the highly acclaimed The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims.
He is an Associate Professor of Medicine in the Division of Renal Diseases at
Rhode Island Hospital, the major teaching affiliate of Brown University Medical
School. Dr. Bostom has published numerous articles and commentaries on Islam in
the Washington Times, National Review Online, Revue Politique, FrontPage
Magazine.com, American Thinker, and other print and online publications. More
of his work can be found at
www.andrewbostom.org
.

# # #

In Defense of Diana
West and 'American Betrayal'

By
Michael McCann

Family Security Matters

August
19, 2013

Diana West's latest book, 
American
Betrayal,
 is a serious, astute and thorough examination of the
penetration of Soviet agents and fellow travelers at the highest levels of the
United States government beginning in the 1930s. In it, she documents the
destructive, covert influence the Soviet Union had upon American foreign and
domestic policy at one of the most crucial junctures in our history. It is
story long overdue in the telling.

Anyone
involved in historical research or study will immediately appreciate the depth
and complexity of West's undertaking. There are nearly a thousand end notes
based on a wealth of contemporary sources as well as thousands of pages of
archival material made available since the fall of the Soviet Union. Her unique
gift is the ability to sift through and organize mountains of materials and,
most importantly, to connect the dots. This she does cogently, seamlessly, and
eloquently. She writes very, very well and yes, it is a detective story. It is
a detailed exploration of a period of history that changed the world and you
will not look at our history in the same way again.

Why,
then the visceral, personal attack on Diana West by 
Frontpage Mag?
 The
revelations of her powerful narrative seemed to have rocked the boat. When I
read David Horowitz's initial editorial response, I honestly wondered if he
read the same book I read or if he had, indeed, read the book at all. After
attacking her competency, Horowitz writes, "West has already shown herself
to be a very angry, very self-centered and a very reckless partisan, with a
paranoid streak and a disposition to think in extreme terms that have only a
tenuous and deceptive relation to the truth." With effort, I can think of
a few people who might fit this description but the least likely is Diana West.

I
categorically reject his statement, word for word, as having no basis in truth.
Such a statement cannot be surmised or even remotely construed from her recent
book or from any of her many articles with which I am familiar. Where, how and
why did Horowitz come up with this? As regards to competency, her work speaks
for itself. This is not the problem. But when he says, "It's not about our
desire to suppress West's ideas...", I would say, it is exactly about
suppressing her ideas and doing so immediately before they gain more traction.
Moreover, the venom and stridency of this unwarranted attack goes beyond all
bounds of decency.  How does one characterize the attempt to destroy
someone and a reputation built over a lifetime? There is no instance in which
this O.K. A dispassionate collegial dispute among peers would have been of
benefit to all. What we observe is Horowitz's authoritarianism bordering on the
sadistic with the obvious and singular goal to humiliate, cause pain and
destroy. This is as readily apparent as it is reprehensible.

I
have slight hope that something conciliatory could occur, where apologies would
be given and accepted and equilibrium restored but the chain reaction
continues. Clarice Feldman writes an article in 
American Thinker
 entitled,
"Demagogic Writers and the People Who Love Them". While
unbelievably admitting to have 
never
 read West's book, she
blithely dives into the fray, regurgitating the entire animus found on 
FP
.
Now we have a whisper game without heed given to the sources or to the
consequences for real life people. The only reason I include a quote from her
article is to show the contempt she has and obviously 
FP
 has
for readers who have chosen to disagree with them:

I
have little patience with amateurs who take advantage of the internet and cable
news to delve into political and diplomatic history willy nilly, taking
advantage of the poor educations of their target audience
 
an audience that is hurting, confused by
conflicting truth-claims, and looking for guidance.

Feldman
included this to explain the, "...vicious, personalized, heated responses
to Radosh's criticism of West's work by West and her fans" In other
words, the response to Ron Radosh articles published on 
FP
, (which
has been 
overwhelmingly
 
in favor of Diana West)
 is
so, not because the readers are intelligent, well informed and objective but
rather the opposite according to her insulting caricature. As she did not read
West's book, I doubt if she read any one of the well reasoned responses posted
by readers either. Furthermore, I doubt if she is aware of the irony in her own
use of the word "amateur", in the above quote, inasmuch as she
couldn't be bothered to conduct her own research. Certainly, she is unaware of
her self-parody, "Demagogic Writers and the People That Love Them",
as she appears to be a blind, unfortunate and thoughtless follower of Ron
Radosh, parroting his every word and every accusation.

In
reviewing Ron Radosh's article, "Diana West Down Crack Pot Alley"
several things become clear. One of course, already well illustrated by
Horowitz, is the old left penchant for vilification, that is, the object is not
to refute but to destroy. Thus far I have not seen a credible refutation. Ron
Radosh's "factual" critiques of 
American
 
Betrayal
 are
freighted with error; they are strong opinions with a very personal bias. His
motives for writing are demonstrably less than honorable.

Radosh
writes "What I want to discuss is why I took upon myself the job of
writing a lengthy and detailed critique of West's book. First, as a historian
and a conservative, I believe that my responsibility is to the truth. I cannot
countenance conspiracy theories, whether they come from those on the Left or
those on the Right." After proclaiming his righteousness, objectivity and
dedication to truth, he essentially compares himself to William Buckley and
compares Diana West to Robert Welch of the John Birch Society. He is wrong on
both counts. The point of the comparison, however, is nothing less than to
build a basis and rationale for his 
auto-de-fe.

William
Buckley was a great man and a moral man. In the political sphere, he did more
than any other to place the conservative movement on a firm intellectual
foundation in order to challenge the liberal establishment. I believe, without
a doubt, he would welcome Diana West and her contributions for the very same
reasons he welcomed his friend Whittaker Chambers on an earlier day. I think he
would have admired her courage, honesty, intellect and humor. Unlike Ron
Radosh, William Buckley was not a book burner. Furthermore, he was a rare breed
of gentleman noted for cordial social relationships, even with those with whom
he disagreed. Ron Radosh has chosen a far lesser path.

Radosh,
in attempting to establish the need to maintain the "purity" of the
conservative movement, is dangerously undermining its core tenants, notably
intellectual freedom, a prerequisite in the search for truth. However, I don't
think empirical evidence is his concern. In reality, Dr. Radosh is introducing
a lame, albeit new version of McCarthyism for the purpose of censoring others
with whom he disagrees.

He
is sounding the alarm on behalf of conservatives everywhere, "There is a
Bircher under my bed!" This is confusing, coming from the man who can't
countenance conspiracy theory. I do not think this is a classical case of
psychological projection. I think it would be more accurate to say he is very
craftily refurbishing or morphing the McCarthy myth into a new and updated
"Bircher" myth for the purpose of silencing others within
conservative circles. How is it that Professor Radosh feels empowered to speak
for conservatism, let alone as the "Voice of History"?

Radosh
has struck a pose that has a lot of appeal to those self-appointed censors on
the left and the right seeking to control who is allowed to study, comment and
analyze history and what conclusions are appropriate. Our milieu has been
created by just such intellectual pretense, thuggery and arrogance emanating
from Jacobins who "...presume to confer certificates of correct
thinking." 

Diana
West's book challenges the present public perception of an era that has been
formed by the left and empowered by the intellectual class but which is no
longer sustainable in view of available information. The animosity currently
directed against Diana West is because of her successful attempt to explore and
clarify a history that academic circles are no longer intellectually or morally
entitled to ignore and avoid. For her splendid efforts, I am most grateful.