The Kook Army Speaks Out

The controversy over Diana West’s book American Betrayal has brought out a lot of interesting discussion and argument in various venues. In the comments on last night’s post about David Horowitz’ appearance yesterday at Heritage, John Dietrich, the author of The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy, left the following analysis about what is going on:

In Defense of David Horowitz

David Horowitz has stated that he sees Diana West’s American Betrayal as a threat. He is perfectly correct. According to Horowitz her book is “a complete reinterpretation of the Second World War based on the presence of Soviet agents and communists in the Roosevelt administration.” Her book is a threat to the conventional account of the war that is satisfying to both liberals and conservatives. Horowitz is happy for the most part to expose Communists in government but he is not willing to accept the implications of their influence on American foreign policy. Yes, there were Communists in the government but their impact was small. Diana West sees their role as crucial. Her reinterpretation has a dramatic effect on the conventional account of the Second World War.

The conventional account maintains that the Second World War was a good war. The United States was attacked without provocation. We reluctantly went to war to defeat the greatest threat to civilization the world had ever seen. We defeated our enemies and immediately rehabilitated them. After the war we learned that the Soviets were not the benevolent force we had believed. We discovered that there were Communists in the Roosevelt administration and they were swiftly removed from government. Unfortunately, some Americans went to extremes and targeted Americans who were not Communists but merely progressive. Basically we are good people. End of story.

The problem is that West’s interpretation begins the unraveling of war propaganda that we are still being subjected to. Soviet agents had a tremendous impact on American foreign policy. They were responsible for the U.S. government’s involvement it what can only be described as “crimes against humanity.” This has led both Diana West and Vladimir Bukovsky to claim that “we” were complicit in Soviet crimes. “We” were not complicit. These Soviet agents and their American sympathizers implemented their plans in secret. The American public would not have accepted their policies and these policies were directly contrary to American interests. As a result of these policies France and Italy were in danger of going Communist by 1947.

Diana West has only scratched the surface of Communist impact of U. S. foreign policy. These agents and their sympathizers involved the U.S. government in the slave trade and a government orchestrated famine that led to the deaths of an undetermined number of people (The Morgenthau Plan and Yalta Agreement.) There is a fear that exposing these policies might lead to the relativization of the crimes of the Nazis. This exposure would give support to members of the extreme right. It does not occur to the defenders of the conventional school that intelligent people can be simultaneously anti-communist and anti-Nazi.

David Horowitz said. “I don’t want to get into an historical thing.” What is this “thing” if it is not historical? Eventually Diana West’s reinterpretation will prevail because it is closer to the truth than the one Horowitz wants to maintain.

Mr. Dietrich also wrote a review of The Rebuttal: Defending ‘American Betrayal’ from the Book-Burners at Amazon:

Kook Army View of The Rebuttal

When Diana West took up her little sling and aimed at Communism, she hit something else. Maybe she should be called Chambers on steroids. The level of vitriol unleashed against her reveals that she hit a sensitive spot. She has responded in a responsible way with The Rebuttal. West has been accused of being “very angry very self-centered,” with a “paranoid streak.” I view her as being modest to a fault. Her behavior does not match their psychological diagnosis. Her opponents have made a major miscalculation. The time tested method of dealing with uncomfortable facts is to completely ignore them. By attacking Diana West in such an amateurish fashion they have increased the circulation of these facts. Such attacks are counterproductive. Diana West fears that these attacks undermine her integrity. I think it is clear that they have undermined the integrity of her opponents.

Progressive defenders of the Consensus have suffered defeat after defeat. The truth about the Ukrainian famine, Katyn Forrest Massacre, the guilt of the Rosenbergs, Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White and untold others, eventually came out in spite of their heroic efforts. These defenders of the Soviet conspiracy make no apologies. They do not need to. Their mistakes are conveniently assigned to the Memory Hole. As Vladimir Bukovsky points out such incompetence would have severe consequences in any other field.
Ned May describes how professional historians view their field: “the masters of the guild get angry when someone less worthy than they are ventures into the orchard in which only they are privileged to harvest. The harvest the outsiders brought in, they ritually burn.” Amateurs are incapable [of] understanding “historical context.” Professional historians tell us if you want to write history you must have formal training. The arrogance of her critics does not compare favorably with her modesty.

Maintaining the “Consensus” requires censorship. M. Stanton Evans has pointed out, “many relevant records have been buried, censored or omitted from official archives. Presidential secrecy orders, disappearing papers, folders missing from files” have been used to keep information from the public. “We know from the Kliefoth memo the New York Times had an agreement with the Soviets whereby Walter Duranty’s dispatches would always reflect the official opinion of the Soviet regime.” Mark Tapson’s review has disappeared. He was incompetent. Clare Lopez’s review disappeared and she received a pink slip from the Gatestone Institute. Thank God for the internet. It is a bucket beneath the Memory Hole. I have no evidence, but I can assure you that publishers and broadcasters have been contacted and advised that it would not be in their best interests to deal with Diana West. Horowitz claims that she should not have written the book. Is there any doubt that if Horowitz had the power to ban the book he would not do so?

The major conflict arising from her book is the extent of the government infiltration. Aside from the people who were actively working for the Soviets there were a large number of people like Secretary of State Dean Acheson who stated, “I do not intend to turn my back on Alger Hiss,” after Hiss was convicted of perjury. Hiss was a Stalinist who spied for the Soviet Union. Yet Acheson and many others could sympathize with him. How many Americans died as a result of his work of the Far Eastern postwar settlement? One of the most successful defense tactics used to defend the government officials is to claim they were “duped.” In response I quote Jean-Francois Revel: “One of the abiding myths of the twentieth century is that many Western intellectuals sympathized with the Soviet Union because they were unaware of the true nature of the regime established by the Bolsheviks.” The Germans who lived under a dictatorship and a controlled press probably knew more of what was happening than progressive politicians and bureaucrats.

One of the points that really agitates progressives is her statement “Stalin — an even greater totalitarian monster than Hitler.” This is sacrilegious. Although Hitler comes in third, according to the Guinness Book of World Records, in the contest for greatest mass murderer, it is something not mentioned in polite society.

I have two criticisms of the defense in Rebuttal. I will make them without questioning the sanity or paternity of the sources. I was disappointed to read that M. Stanton Evens appears to believed that FDR signed the Morgenthau Plan because of his failing health. The records amply demonstrate that he had given this decision a great deal of thought. Secondly, even Vladimir Bukovsky has stated, “We have been accomplices to mass murder.” “We” were not accomplices! The accomplices in the U.S. government did these things in secret and many of their acts have been concealed to this day. Progressive historians further their careers by researching crimes committed by Americans. Imagine the accolades a historian would receive if he could show that Benjamin Franklin was a pedophile. However, a clear example of government involvement in the slave trade and an attempt to reproduce the Ukrainian famine in the heart of Europe do not interest them.

I am proud to be a member of the DWKA (Diana West’s Kook Army).

These two accounts provide a convincing map of the topography of Planet X. The task that remains is to discover the explanation for the enormous mass of this mysterious celestial body.

The only plausible source for such a strong gravitational field is a huge concentration of money. Which persons and organizations can pack such an effective financial wallop? What motivates them to use their monetary clout in a ham-handed attempt to discredit Diana West and her book?

The visible players in this affair are not the ones bankrolling the threats and incentives that disturb the orbits of other planetary bodies in the conservative solar system. Someone else has vested interests, and is exerting influence to protect them.

It will be the task of future historians to track down the precise combination of heavy elements that make up the core of Planet X.

For links to previous articles about the controversy over American Betrayal, see the Diana West Archives.

23 thoughts on “The Kook Army Speaks Out

  1. As the people directly involved in ww2 die off the entire story is going to become less and less important, less agenda driven and less heated.

    It could be reduced to a footnote of the holocaust.

    On the other hand it may be seen as the end of Europe. A cataclysm.

  2. I am one of the original members of the DWKA, and have never regretted it. I have included my original review of American Betrayal, “The Enemy Inside the Gates,” and one of my two defenses of the book in my new anthology, “Letters of Marque: Beating to Quarters in the War of Ideas.”


  4. About half of America is accepting the progressive system. This is exactly what Lenin wanted to happen. There has always been big money behind the left and it is working. The question is how does and open Republic defend itself from this tyranny. I do not think debate is enough to put a stop to the destruction of our system.

  5. Attack of the Diana West’s Kook Army
    Recently David Horowitz implied that Diana had sent a Spetsnaz team to attack him during his book presentation. (“I wouldn’t think of sending a little army to Diana West’s book presentation to attack her.”) He neglected to describe this team as part of the DWKA. Perhaps that was because it was composed of M. Stanton Evans, Peter Huessy and Sebastian Gorka. Describing them as kooks might have reflected on his own credibility.

    • What a hypocrite! Poor him! He is using the same good and proven methods of the left – lynch via the media – and in the same time is posing as the real victim. My heart pumps custard.

    • M Stanton Evans left David Horowitz at a loss for words. The host had to step in to rescue him!

  6. John Dietrich’s analysis of the problem is fine, but his conjecture of motive once again suffers from a curious lapse I haven noticed is virtually universal. Dietrich seems to think that professional jealousy/boy’s club wagons-rounding, and greed suffice as factors to explain the behavior of Horowitz/Radosh/Black.

    They don’t suffice. The behavior of Horowitz/Radosh/Black have been so egregious, one must match it with a suitable hypothesis of motive. So far, the only one I can think of is that they are stealth Communists pretending to be anti-Communists. Until someone comes up with a reasonable alternative that matches the behavior, I will stick to this.

    • I am sorry if left the impression that I believed Horowitz is motivated by professional jealousy. If greed and professional jealousy play a role in his thinking they are insignificant. What is at stake here is faith in The Consensus. The Consensus is that “we” are good people who fought for justice and the American way. Even progressives will reluctantly admit that mistakes were made and these mistakes can be attributed to Communist infiltration. But the Consensus must be maintained. This is the threat Horowitz sees. If The Consensus is challenged it will reveal that “we” were complicit in crimes as horrendous as the Nazis. This will provide ammunition for the extreme right. Unfortunately both Diana West and Vladimir Bukovsky fall for a progressive trap. They claim that “we” were complicit in these crimes. “We” were not. These crimes were committed at the direction of specific individuals who attempted to keep their directives secret. This was impossible to do but they were remarkably successful. M. Stanton Evans provides an excellent description of the Memory Hole. Files just disappeared. Maintenance of The Consensus also depends on people being willfully blind. Paul Johnson wrote an entire book on Political Pilgrims who visited the Soviet Union and saw noting but happy workers. Malcolm Muggeridge suggests that these highly educated visitors were more gullible than grade school dropouts. I don’t like to hawk my book but I believe that it is one of the few sources where you can get a clear picture of what was done (The Morgenthau Plan 2013). The book is entirely consistent with what Diana West has written. Yet it only scratches the surface of the corruption and the extent of Stalinist infiltration. “Professional” historians should investigate this subject with their abundant resources, but they will not. This task is left to “amateurs” like Diana West with their limited resources. Diana has done a remarkable job. People can argue specific points (was Harry Hopkins Agent 19?) but these are just diversions from the meat of the argument. Stalinist agents had a massive role in determining American foreign policy and these policies made “us” complicit in crimes that we would rather not reveal.

      • I couldn’t possibly be more flattered than to have been publicly accused of having raised a “kook army”/”wolfpack” as I have been by David Horowitz. It is surely the kindest thing he has said about me, although it is also untrue since any and all comments about this perplexing turmoil are, of course, made by free men and women.

        Having picked up on a degree of coordination in the campaign Horowitz and Radosh have spearheaded against me, however, I begin to wonder whether Horowitz is simply unable to conceive of individuals expressing themselves (in violation of “Party line”) without being stage-managed — conscripted! — as much of the campaign against me and American Betrayal appears to have been.

        That aside, there is one point thing I would like mention in the excellent John Dietrich’s post. (I am a big fan of Dietrich’s book The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Foreign Policy and cite it in American Betrayal.

        Dietrich takes issue with my and Bukovsky’s use of the word “we,” describing this as our having fallen in a progressive trap. He writes:

        If The Consensus is challenged it will reveal that “we” were complicit in crimes as horrendous as the Nazis. This will provide ammunition for the extreme right. Unfortunately both Diana West and Vladimir Bukovsky fall for a progressive trap. They claim that “we” were complicit in these crimes. “We” were not. These crimes were committed at the direction of specific individuals who attempted to keep their directives secret.

        It is certainly true, for example, that “we” did not meet with a KGB agent at the Old Ebbitt Grill in 1941, “we” did not receive instructions to insert certain language that would be received by Japan as an ultimatum into the State Dept. cable flow, and “we” did not see to it that this language was inserted successfully, thereby achieving the Soviet strategy to prevent Japan from attacking the USSR. Harry Dexter White did that. But “we” as a nation did indeed send that ultimatum-like cable to Japan.

        Similarly, “we” had nothing to do with the backstage diplomatic machinations that led to Operation Keelhaul (forced repatriation of millions of Soviet-claimed nationals) — Stanton Evans indicates this is likely to have been Alger Hiss’s handiwork in Stalin’s Secret Agents ). Still, “we” as a nation with leaders “we” elect played a role in the atrocity of forced repatriation.

        Maybe that will extricate “we” from the progressive trap.

        • Diana,
          I can not overstate my respect for you and I think my disagreement with you demonstrates that people can disagree without rancor. I think the “we” issue is crucial. If I vote for a politician who promises to annihilate the population of the hypothetical Kingdom of Wazooistan and he is elected and he proceeds to exterminate the Wazooistanis, I will accept responsibility for my support of this politician. However, if I vote for a politician who promises not to send my boys to war while he is secretly plotting to instigate a war, I will not accept responsibility for his actions. Following the Second World War all Germans were held responsible for the crimes of Adolf Hitler. This attitude justified policies that led to the starvation of infants. When the mayor of a town in occupied Germany complained about conditions he was told that he should think about what the Germans had done to the Jews. This mayor was Jewish and had spent time in a concentration camp. Is the average Russian responsible for the crimes of Joseph Stalin? Is the average Chinese peasant responsible for the crimes of Mao? I contend that these people were the greatest victims of their leaders. There is no limit to the number of crimes “we” have committed. Am I responsible for ante-bellum slavery? How about the Spanish Inquisition? Bill Clinton apologized for the Crusades. I can’t remember what I was doing during the Crusades.
          A large majority of Americans did not want to enter the war. That is why policies had to be carried out in secret. Most Americans would not have supported sending an ultimatum to Japan. It is unlikely they would have supported repatriation. Only an extremely small minority would approve of starving infants. Even today these criminal policies must be maintained in secrecy in order to preserve the illusion of Progressive innocence. That is the reason for the reluctance to investigate these crimes. “We” did these things: Republicans and Democrats, butchers, bakers and candlestick makers and even Midwestern farm hands who could not locate Japan on a map. When a progressive claims that “we” are responsible for some evil policy my response is, “What do you mean by ‘we’ kemo sahbee?”

          • I find I am not content simply to agree to disagree because it’s such an interesting question! Also, I find areas of agreement with you as well. I take your point about “collective guilt” — and actually discuss in the book nefarious efforts inside “our government” not to recognize let alone aid resistance inside Germany to Hitler (and Stalin) as a rationale for collective guilt, the Allied firebombings, and “unconditional surrender.”
            Indeed, American Betrayal is all about the betrayal of We, the People (and other peoples) by our governments — what they did to us and others in our name. Given that “we” do elect our government leaders, however, even the average American’s relative position to corrupt or corrupted officials seems quite different from that of the average person under Communist dictatorship. Theoretically.

            Worth more mulling, though. Maybe up next: The Philosophy of American Betrayal!

  7. Like the left constantly reminds us of the horrors of slavery to keep blacks loyal to the cause and whites crushed with guilt, we should constantly remind all that McCarthy was right, immigration is risky, and foreign threats do exist despite the mockery of the left.

  8. I dont get David Horowitz’s assertion that Diana West is sending out people to attack him at his talk….as if independent quality minds can’t disagree with him, of their own accord. That is a deranged assertion. As if Diana West has the power to direct people in that manner.

  9. Count me in as one of the Kooks. American Betrayal answered two mysteries in my own family. My former father-in-law was sent to the Gulag after his Rumanian ship was captured. Since he was a Jew they sent him to Siberia and didn’t release him until 1946. I never heard or READ about this before and Ms. Wests answered my questions. My father fought in D Day and was a special op. Everyone wonders at the silence of the WWII vets. Maybe it’s not heroism but silence because of the betrayal. After my father marched into Dachau he saw our government adopt Nazis into our country to ” help.” If it’s kookie to desire truth count me in.

  10. LOL. David cannot accept that the consensus (which he’s always striven to control) is now against him, so he naturally thinks it’s a conspiracy with Ms West at its core. What more evidence does one need to see that he is still a Marxist? “No enemies to the Left.”

  11. I formally joined the DWKA yesterday. And am quite thrilled by the depth of the comments on these issues. Being European, I have a somewhat different angle than most, and there is some severe food for thought here. Keep goin’!

  12. Pingback: Soviet Influence: Myth vs. Reality | Gates of Vienna

Comments are closed.