The Rebuttal: Defending 'American Betrayal' From the Book-Burners (25 page)

# # #

M. STANTON EVANS

Harry Hopkins, Diana West and Me

By M. Stanton Evans

Posted at
dianawest.net

September 9, 2013

To
understand the attached email exchanges between John Earl Haynes and myself
some background information is needed.

There
are a lot of details here that amount to “inside baseball.” It is however
precisely from the accumulation of such details that the true history of the
Cold War will be, or more accurately should be, written.

By far
the major issue in this discussion is whether President Roosevelt’s top
adviser, Harry Hopkins, was in back channel communication with the Soviet KGB
in the 1940s, and if so for what purpose he would have been in contact.

The role
of Hopkins in this respect has recently been pushed to the forefront by Diana
West’s book, American Betrayal, in which she references two Hopkins-related
items derived from Soviet sources. One is a decrypted KGB message in the Venona
cable series between Moscow and its U.S. agents. This involved a May 1943
conference (called Trident) between Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. Present at
the meeting was a KGB source code named “No.19”, who reported to the Soviets a
confidential conversation between the two leaders.

In 1998,
Air Force historian Eduard Mark published a lengthy essay about this cable and
the Trident conference, concluding that “No. 19” in fact was Hopkins. (Though
not contending that he was in such contact for disloyal purpose.)

A second
Hopkins item referenced by West is the statement of a KGB defector, Oleg
Gordievsky, quoted in a 1990 book by British Cold War historian, Christopher
Andrew (KGB: The Inside Story). In this discussion, Gordievsky recalled a
Moscow lecture by Iskhak Akhmerov, a one-time high ranking KGB “illegal” in the
United States.

In this
lecture, according to Gordievsky, Akhmerov said that during World War II the
Soviets had many agents in the U.S., but that their “most important” agent was
Hopkins. This shocking assertion – later modified by Gordievsky, per
Andrew, to “unconscious agent”— was the more so as Hopkins in
Gordievsky’s telling was identified by name, not by a pseudonym or symbol
subject to interpretation.

Among
other things discussed by Diana West, these Hopkins references have ignited a
firestorm of attacks against her—principally by Ronald Radosh but also by
others—accusing her of impugning the loyalty of Hopkins, and saying she
is misrepresenting the Cold War record.

A main
emphasis in this Radosh attack is the contention that Eduard Mark recanted his
position on No. 19-as-Hopkins and that this discredits her position, to wit: “At
a conference on Soviet espionage held a week before his untimely death, West’s
source, Eduard Mark, publicly stated that he now acknowledged that Harry
Hopkins was not Agent 19, and that the conclusion he reached in his 1998
article was false.”

The
conference referred to was a meeting held at the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars in Washington in May 2009, discussing the notebooks of
another KGB defector, Alexander Vassiliev, and the book Spies, by John Haynes
and Harvey Klehr, based on the Vassiliev data. The reason I somewhat
mysteriously got pulled into the current dispute is that I happened to be
present at this meeting, along with my associate and co-author-to-be, the late
Herb Romerstein.

Also
present at the meeting were Eduard Mark himself, Radosh and Harvard Cold War
historian Mark Kramer. As the accompanying memos show, Radosh and Kramer have
lately been contending that Eduard Mark got into an exchange with me about
Hopkins, and that it was in the course of this that Mark recanted his position
on No.19, saying that he had been wrong in naming this KGB source as Hopkins.

(This
assertedly in response to a John Haynes analysis based on the Vassiliev papers,
indicating that No. 19 in fact was Laurence Duggan, an oft-cited pro-Soviet
official in the U.S. State Department of the era. A condensed version of this
analysis is contained in the Haynes email to me of August 22, attached.)

I don’t pretend
to know whether No. 19 was Hopkins or Laurence Duggan—there are problems
either way—but I certainly know that the references to me by
Kramer-Radosh are totally in error. I had no such encounter with Eduard Mark,
about No. 19 or anything else, then or ever.

It was
because of these inaccurate citations of me in support of Radosh’s attack on
West that I wrote the accompanying memos, which supply other specifics on the
matter. As I say in my second email, such wildly inaccurate statements about my
alleged but nonexistent role in provoking Mark’s comments lead me to wonder
about the whole recantation scenario.

Again,
the point about all this is far larger than misstatements concerning me, or the
book by Diana West. The real story to be told is the true saga of Harry
Hopkins—FDR’s key adviser in the war years – a mystery that has yet
to be unraveled.

The
Evans-Hopkins Memos

#1:
 
M Stanton Evans to John Earl Haynes

Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 8:02 PM

To: John
Haynes

Dear
John,

It was
good seeing you some weeks back at the Benn Steil event, though there wasn’t a
chance to do much more than say hello. Ironically, in view of the current Ron
Radosh attack on Diana West, both of them were present also.

In which
connection, Diana West has forwarded to me her correspondence with you
concerning Eduard Mark and Venona source 19, with a separate memo from Radosh
(in which I am somewhat surprisingly and inaccurately mentioned). This quotes
Mark Kramer on Eduard Mark's supposed recantation on the issue. In this memo,
Kramer says he remembers my raising the issue of Hopkins and No. 19 at the
VassilievSpies conference, and that Eduard Mark “intervened” in the course of
my remarks to say that he had changed his mind about the subject.

Kramer
further said that Eduard Mark and he discussed the matter on the way to the
Metro, and Radosh adds the reinforcing comment that “others, including me,
remember this quite well” (presumably meaning the conference part, as
distinguished from the Metro, but maybe the latter also). In your letter to
Diana West, you in substance concur with the above, though without any mention
of me .

Concerning
all of which, some observations, and a question.

First,
if Mark Kramer and Ron Radosh “remember” such an episode involving Eduard Mark
and me, they remember something that never happened. I had no such encounter
with Eduard Mark about Harry Hopkins, No. 19, or anything whatever. My
contribution to the discussion concerned J. Robert Oppenheimer. I had brought
with me part of the FBI file on Oppenheimer, and read from it segments in which
Communist leaders Steve Nelson and Bernadette Doyle were recorded by the Bureau
as saying Oppenheimer was a CP member but had to lie low because of the war
time work that he was doing. This reading led to a brief exchange between me
and Vassiliev, a later rejoinder from Martin Sherwin, and later still a brief
discussion between you and me about the Oppenheimer issue.

Thus the
supposed recollections of Kramer and Radosh about my part in all of this are
totally mistaken. I don't know what Eduard Mark may have said on the way to the
Metro, or in other settings where I was not present, but he never said anything
to me, or in response to me, about No. 19 and Harry Hopkins. If Kramer-Radosh
are so distinct in their remembrance of something allegedly involving me that I
know to be in error, I marvel at their powers of recollection.

So much
for me. What actually happened on the Harry Hopkins front as I observed it was
essentially as follows: The Hopkins-related comments that apparently ignited a
response from Eduard Mark were made not by me but by Herb Romerstein. Herb got
into a somewhat testy exchange with Vassiliev about Akhmerov, and in the course
of this alluded to the Gordievsky/Akhmerov reference to Hopkins as a Soviet
agent.

This
seemingly angered Mark, who made a subsequent statement denouncing the
allegation that Hopkins was a Soviet agent – comments evidently aimed at
Herb, though not by name. None of this had anything to do with me. Even more to
the point, it also had nothing to do with No. 19, but was instead apparently
triggered by Herb and the Akhmerov matter. Equally important, it was not in my
view a Mark recantation of anything, since his 1998 essay, though saying the
case was ambiguous and uncertain, strongly implied that Hopkins was not a
Soviet agent. In particular, Mark discussed the to him apparently greater likelihood
that Hopkins was a hyper friendly contact with the Russians whose activities
led some of them to think he was a kind of agent for them, since they didn’t
know about things he was otherwise doing to oppose them.

Accordingly,
none of what happened at the conference, so far as my knowledge and
participation were concerned, amounted to any kind of recantation by Mark. If
such recantation did happen on source 19 or anything else, it had nothing to do
with me, or as far as I know Herb, or anything else occurring there that I was
aware of then or later.

Again,
if something was said by any of the parties where I wasn’t on the scene, I of
course can’t confirm or deny what happened. But I certainly deny the
Kramer-Radosh version involving me.

Now my
question about all this. I have read with great interest
your rebuttal
to Mark's 1998 essay saying Hopkins was No. 19.
In this rebuttal, written in January 2013, you counter with your thesis, backed
with numerous references to Vassiliev’s papers, that No. 19 in fact was Laurence
Duggan. You further contend, in answer to Mark's view that Duggan wasn't at the
Trident conference, that he could have been, though not showing up on the
attendance lists or in other relevant records, as an aide to Henry Wallace
(whose presence at this particular meeting of Roosevelt and Churchill is based
on your further inference from the cover names – quite reasonable, I
think, as you and Mark both explain it, concerning Wallace.)

That
said, my question is: If you knew Mark had recanted his position on
Hopkins-No.19 three-plus years before you wrote your rebuttal in January 2013,
why didn't you mention this in your essay? That obviously would have settled
the matter beyond all cavil, as nothing could possibly have been more
conclusive in favor of your analysis.

Indeed,
mention of this could have obviated the need for a rebuttal entirely, since all
you had to say was “Eduard Mark recanted his position on No. 19 in my presence
at a conference in 2009.” Alternatively, if you wanted to write your rebuttal
anyway to spell out the details for Mr. Fetter, it would have been an
irrefutable capstone to your argument. But in the text I have you didn't use
it.

Knowing
how comprehensive and thorough you are both in documentation and in argument, I
find all this extremely puzzling. Any clarification you can offer would be
appreciated.

Best
wishes,

Stan
Evans

PS: Since
drafting this memo, I have read your latest essay on Hopkins, written with
Harvey Klehr. I notice that this contains a footnote on the Mark affair,
to the same general effect as the version discussed above, thus giving the
story greater prestige and status. As the person whose name has been freely and
I might add rather recklessly tossed around –though not by you—as
the supposed provocateur of Mark’s recantation ,I am intensely interested in
knowing exactly how the recantation story came to be, and what might be the
factual basis for it. (I note that in your email to Diana West you say you
remember the remark at some session of the conference.) Any further information
you can provide would be most welcome. Best, Stan

#2:
 
John Earl Haynes to M Stanton Evans
08/22/2013

Dear
Stan:


We put
the mention of Ed's remarks at the 2009 symposium in a note rather than in the
text in order
not
to give it undue status because, most importantly, the
Vassiliev notebooks provided more than ample documentation that "19"
was Duggan, so Ed's 2009 remarks warranted noting but only noting.

In the
essay we provided the page numbers of the entries on Duggan and "19"
in Vassiliev's notebooks. There are many entries and here are three of
relevance.

White
Notebook #1 p. 45

Mer’s
letters to C. through Zarubin

....

“Re
“Frank.” – For the sake of convenience and simplicity I will continue to
call “19” “Frank.”
My relationship with him has improved significantly.
He is not displaying his former nervousness and conveys the impression of a
person who is sincerely sympathetic to us…
Unfortunately, “Frank” is not
especially active in serving us needed information. True, events have confirmed
some of his principal reports over the past few months. He still refuses to
meet more than once every four or five weeks. He attributes the skimpiness of
his information to the fact that he deals primarily with his own area and
doesn’t have any access to materials in other areas. He views himself as
mistreated and oppressed in the office and doesn’t seek out close contact with
his colleagues.