I thought I’d have the task of writing yet another defense of American Betrayal and its author, Diana West. Fortunately for me, Diana wrote her own material on this latest attack; I’m simply going to mirror it here since she’s the expert on that nightmare, though the Baron is a pretty close second.
They both worked so hard to beat back the smears, lies, and defamations. The cacophony descended into attacks on her character, just as though we were in a Soviet Communism reality. That’s what happens when your opponents come from the American Communist Party (CPUSA) milieu, even though they claim to have bleached out their spots. The Horowitz strategy vis-à-vis Diana West’s exposure of the USSR’s tunneling through America’s highest levels of government under FDR is akin to the campaign(s) and reign of Obama. Same tactics and strategy.
We never did figure out precisely who was the Big Goombah behind the whole onslaught… that failed blitzkrieg was the strangest thing I’d ever witnessed. The attacks on her book were from the Right, that is, from Conservatism, Inc. But as it was to turn out, this ugly episode was a prodromal event which would play out in full when Trump ran for President. Then they came out of the woodwork like termites.
The archives for Gates of Vienna’s Defense of Diana West are here. Be sure to read “Planet X” — you may want to present your own ideas in the comments as to what entity might have driven this concerted smear. Many of her attackers admitted they’d not read her book and didn’t intend to do so; as though they were leftists, those folk were content to pile on, proving the temptation toward tyranny lurks on both sides of the political divide. There will always be those willing to play kiss-the-derriere if the payoff is big enough.
Below is Diana’s posting on the latest resurrection of this old battle. [My comments are italicized, in square brackets. —D] Please go to her website to get the links, since I’ve omitted them here, except for the first one to the relevant section of her own archives.
What started this strange little eruption was an essay by Daniel Greenfield at Front Page. Greenfield, in his job as a Front Page writer, was tasked with serving notice about Ron Radosh’s self-excommunication from the Right due to his NeverTrump convictions. Radosh’s departure from the Right, returning to his leftist den after so many years of trying to carve himself into a conservative, showed how thin his new “conservative” veneer was. In the end, he is little more than the radical wolf he always was.
[Diana West begins by pointing to one of her collections from the past —D]
Desk Drawer 5: David Horowitz Has Another American Betrayal Meltdown
Desk Drawer 4 is here.
[That drawer #4 is chockablock full of David Horowitz’ lies and half-truths. Reminds one of Obama that way. —D]
Got an email the other night from a pal.
It was slugged: “Dear God in heaven, they’re doing a re-enactment of the American Betrayal attacks.”
Oh no, not again …
Turns out “they” are merely David Horowitz, who, some oldtimers will recall, led a disinformation campaign against American Betrayal from his Frontpage website. It began publicly with a “take-down” called “McCarthy on Steroids” by Ron Radosh in August of 2013, which appeared in the same week as a five-part—series based on American Betrayal ran at Breitbart News. The Horowitz-led disinformation campaign
endedcontinues to this day.
[As all Americans, and many of our European readers know, the mention of “McCarthy” is supposed to serve as a signal that one’s opponent is deranged. Much of the material McCarthy uncovered about the American Communist Party — Radosh & Horowitz were members in their youth — turned out to be true. Unfortunately, he hit at those far more powerful than he, so McC had to be destroyed. In today’s political climate, as soon as someone says McCarthy’s name, you know they’re on paper-thin moral ice. That was true with the rabid Radosh’s attack against Diana West —D]
That first payload of disinformation was originally debunked at Breitbart News in three parts, which is also available as a book and Kindle here.
Four years later, however, the attacks are in miniature — a tiny fight Horowitz picked with a few readers in the comment section of a rather curious piece by Daniel Greenfield. The piece, which appears to ex-communicate Radosh from all things Horowitz, seems to be about the “ancient slur” of “McCarthyism” as it is now, evidently, being used by Radosh against “a growing list of conservatives from David Horowitz to Stephen Bannon to Rich Higgins to Stephen Miller to a fellow named Daniel Greenfield.”
Readers may be forgiven for assuming, logically, that Frontpage might also be taking Radosh to task for such “ancient slurs” against me and my work. As a great admirer of the late, great Joseph McCarthy, I, of course, take such “slurs” as supreme compliments, but still: lies and ad hominem attacks? Not so much.
Greenfield opens his McCarthyism/Radosh piece thus:
“McCarthyism accusations are the last refuge of old Commies. As a dog returns to its vomit, old lefties reach for the security blanket of that ancient slur which is used to tar anyone who questions the left.”
Mixed metaphors aside, the sick canine Frontpage has in mind is Ron Radosh, which might seem to be something, if you excuse the neo-Red “running dog of imperialism” prose. Alas, †he rest of the piece mainly bemoans and pities the “old Commie,” never again achieving that same dog-vomit piquancy. I suspect that’s because the whole thing is not particularly serious.
Still, some readers interpreted the article as a rationale for, or even possible stirrings of, a Horowitz Mea Culpa for Yours Truly. While that’s all very kind of them, and I do greatly appreciate their comments about my book, this is not in the cards of the kind of game Horowitz is playing.
Anyway, the whole affair, apparently calculated to smoke-signal some meaningful public rupture between faux populists (Horowitz) and herd-riding NeverTrumpers (Radosh) — perhaps as a way to atone for Horowitz having failed utterly for a year to help Bannon out with Radosh’s damaging, year-long “Leninist” attack when it might have mattered — completely backfired.
He just couldn’t help himself.
Behold.
NB: For reader convenience, I will mark the three statements David Horowitz makes that are probably or actually true (for more info, see, for example, The Rebuttal: Defending ‘American Betrayal’ from the Book-Burners
Texas Patriot wrote: “… When is David Horowitz going to reach out and mend the fences with Diana West?…”
Horowitz : You’re forgetting. I offered her all the space in Frontpage she might need to reply to Radosh’s review and she denounced me as a “book burner”. Your appeal if it’s sincere needs to be made to this disturbed woman. I never intended Radosh’s review or my decision to remove Tapson’s review to start a war. [1: Probably true, especially since they lost.]
DonnieZen wrote: Unfortunately David Horowitz followed [Radosh], saying Diana’s book was “sloppy journalism”, even though the book contains 900 footnotes. What’s up with these Marxist converts?
Horowitz: Footnotes yes. Good judgment no. Read her chapter claiming that D-Day was a Soviet plot, which makes Eisenhower and the American general staff Communist dupes.
GingerLi wrote: There was nothing ‘sloppy’ about Diana’s book, and I was disappointed in Horowitz’s denigration of it. One thing it did: it spurred my interest in the subject so much so that its truth for me was more than confirmed. It’s a terrible accusation to make that traitors were actually running our government during WWII but one can’t escape that conclusion when allied countries and millions of people were sold out wholesale to Stalin’s communism to preserve the narrow political fortunes of high sounding windbags: FDR and Churchill. …
Horowitz: What West ignores is that by making Stalin an ally, we saved millions of American lives. Literally. You make not like this pact with the Devil but it doesn’t mean that the US gov’t was run by Soviet agents, which is what West claims.
DonnieZen wrote: Conrad Black also leveled charges at Diana because of “American Betrayal”. That’s hardly a surprise as Black is the Official Bowdlerizer of the FDR Myth. …
Horowitz: That the Roosevelt Administration was penetrated by Soviet agents and included Soviet sympathizers at the highest level — there’s no question. [2: True.] The issue is precisely what kind of influence and control they had, and this is an issue that West fails to address. [NB: That, dear reader, is what the entire book is about.] Churchill led the cover-up of the Katyn massacre. By West’s logic that makes him a Soviet agent or dupe. Yet her view of the D-Day plan would suggest just the opposite. This kind of illogic pervades her book.
Daniel Greenfield wrote: Indeed. If you believe her, who wasn’t a Soviet agent or dupe.
DonnieZen wrote: Radosh is a lying Marxist dog. I’ve known he is a fraud for a long time, and he really confirmed that for me when he attacked Diana West for writing “American Betrayal”.
Horowitz: This is a typical example of the derangement of West and her followers. Radosh is not a Marxist.
Horowitz (in addition to slandering me for “derangement”) has just said “Radosh is not a Marxist.” But isn’t the essay’s convoluted point that ex-Communist Radosh has returned to “his roots”? Oh well, so much for the headline. Maybe it’s all just a little reader-manipulation for the cause, whatever that is: Give the readers the vivid shock of Radosh as “Dog” returning to “Vomit” of “McCarthyism” — but don’t elucidate Radosh, dogs, vomit, or, most of all, McCarthyism. Seem like so much between-the-lines careerist positioning; with Horowitz perhaps staking out a square of ideological territory as close as possible to the astronomically more successful Bannon/Breitbart machine.
DonnieZen wrote back: Drop the straw man BS, please. I’m not a “follower of West”. In my opinion Radosh has returned to his roots. Live with it.
Note the commenter is arguing with the editor over the editor’s own message-of-the-day headline, which is: NEVER TRUMP DRIVES A FORMER COMMUNIST BACK TO HIS ROOTS
Isn’t this great?
Hoping Against Hope wrote: Ron Radosh exposed himself when he viciously attacked Diana West’s book “American Betrayal”. I felt then that he was a pretender and a poser.
DonnieZen wrote: Hah. I posted the same after you did. “American Betrayal” is an excellent book. Unfortunately, David Horowitz accused Diana of “sloppy journalism”, even though the book, as you are aware, has some 900 footnotes. I hate to say it, but that gave me pause about Horowitz also.
Horowitz wrote: There’s no contradiction between having 900 footnotes and being sloppy and illogical and dodging key issues.
DonnieZen wrote: Your opinion. The book did fairly well, from what I understand.
Hoping Against Hope wrote: I trust Diana West. Sorry to hear that about Horowitz.
DonnieZen wrote: It stunned me. It was at a seminar and [M. Stanton Evans] (great historian) asked Horowitz about comments he had heard attributed to Horowitz. Horowitz went on a rant about Diana’s book. Conrad Black is another, but that’s not surprising, as he is the official bowdlerizer of the “FDR experience.”
Horowitz wrote: This lie is easily refuted since there’s a video of my remarks at that event at Heritage. [3: True, there is a video of Horowitz’s remarks at Heritage.] Considering West brought her minions to disrupt my book event, I was excessively nice to her.
My “minions”????
DonnieZen wrote: Yes, and I watched the youtube video of that event. Considering whatever, the assertion you made that she indulged in “sloppy journalism” is unfounded. Have you read Diana’s book? I didn’t notice Diana’s “minions” disrupting the event, it is well over an hour, isn’t it? Don’t get butthurt, everyone, including the esteemed [Horowitz], gets one wrong sooner or later.
Horowitz wrote: I was referring to your description of my very civil response to an uncivil protest as a “rant”. I would have debated West if she had asked for it. Instead she crashed my book event — I happened to be promoting a book about the left in the Clinton and Obama administrations and its communist roots. My quarrel with her is that she overstates the case in a way that discredits it. I did read her book, and I gave a couple of specific examples in this thread of why it is flawed. According to her argument, Churchill was 1) a Kremlin tool and 2) a valiant Kremlin opponent. You can’t eat your cake and have it too.
The man is a menace to reality.
Hoping Against Hope gets the last, best word:
“Until they open their mouths and expose themselves, we just never really know.”
Sadly, that’s what Horowitz continues to do to this day. He simply has too much dirty early history in the CPUSA to be able to wash out the stains, nor can he ever cover over them completely. And he knows it, so he plays “look-over-there” when his Red Diaper starts to show.
If he weren’t so bizarrely bent, he’d never have put up a separate page dedicated to Diana West in, of all places, “Discover the Networks”, the otherwise fine compendium of leftist movers and shakers. As though West deserves to be lumped in with George Soros and/or Teresa Heinz Kerry or anyone else listed in DTN, which is specifically subtitled, “A Guide to the Left”. That Diana West page inclusion makes no sense except that it proves definitively Horowitz’ deep insecurity and vindictiveness.
I wish I could say this is over, but now we know it’s going to continue as long as Horowitz draws breath. But each time he does this, he looks more suspect.
At best David Horowitz is simply unhinged.
For links to previous articles about the controversy over American Betrayal, see the Diana West Archives.
I recall the video of Stanton Evans pinning H (to use a wrestling term) at a talk. He told H that it was actually TRUE that there were multiple Soviet sympathisers & agents in the US administration, as DW had said. So why on earth did H get all bent out of shape about this being said now, all these years later?
H looked shiftily around, took a swig from his bottle of water, and said that if he did what he did because if DW was correct, then his work would all have been a waste of time.
So, someone else had made an historical point that was definitely worth making, and H felt that he personally had missed the bus. Can’t have that, so it was all out attack … ???
Note that he conceded the point to Stanton Evans that what DW had said was in fact TRUE – and made his behaviour all about him and his so-called “life’s work”.
How strange.
The comment that Horowitz can’t wash out out his communist past is an ugly smear. Charging he is “unhinged” in light of his many lucid books about the left is outrageous. Actually it’s a shabby communist tactic. Here we have Diana West coming along six decades after the end of the war and following mountains of scholarly study with original documents — as distinguished from her shallow journalism — and purporting to turn history on its head: that is unhinged.
Diana West’s tour de force, American Betrayal took more than two years to document. In fact, she originally set out with a different goal, i.e., tracking the Muslim Brotherhood’s tunneling through our government. What she found to her sad dismay was something far worse.
Her mentors in this project, among them Stanton Evans, warned her there would be pushback from the soi-disant “former Communists” who used FDR as their shield.
West followed where the research led. Horowitz’ many strange utterances about her, his putting up a page on her in his compendium of leftists, and his many mis-directions have made him suspect on this subject.
As for coming along “six decades” after WWII, what do you call people who are still pondering the effects of the Peloponnesian wars?
What do you know of Horowitz’ Communist past? A little research wouldn’t hurt. He wasn’t a passive by-stander.
See anon’s description of Horowitz losing the argument with Stanton Evans in this comment thread.
@Spencer Warren,
So according to your way of thinking, using the term “unhinged” is “a shabby communist tactic”.
And yet you feel able to use that very term yourself, at the end of your comment.
Are you familiar with the phrase “hoisted by your own petard”?
I never looked into this sideshow too closely, but I’m tremendously sorry that so much energy is lost in a senseless fight between people who are essentially on the same side of the fence.
The only ones laughing are those on the left.
You are wrong, OM–logic dictates that they can’t both be rite. Look for the liar and aggressor.
I have to agree with you 100%. I read David’s highly esteemed blog for so many years that it escapes my memory and in my humble opinion David is the last person to be accused of being som kind of crypto commie.
The fact that he was one in his early youth (having been born into the family of commies and living in the enviroment infected by commies) and being able to break with that MAD, PARASITIC ideology is a great credit to him.
Wqually, I have as much respect for Diana as for David.
It is a shame that Gates of Vienna allowed itdelf to be drawn into that artificial, purely academic conflict pouring even more oil onto the fire harming the Conservative cause.
It is a shame that Gates of Vienna allowed it[s]elf to be drawn into that artificial, purely academic conflict…
First of all, the “conflict” was NOT ‘academic’. Crowds of Soi-disant “conservatives” arrived at Diana’s book – many of them admitting they hadn’t read it and didn’t plan to do so – with pitchforks. If a large group of influential people ever arrive at your door, I hope someone has your back.
Horowitz was not merely a Red Diaper baby, he was quite active as a Communist in his youth. That he broke with them is to his credit, but his shameful treatment of Diana West and her book blindsided many of his now-former fans. And as someone who is capable of judging history, he’s not in the same league as Stanton Evans, Diana West’s mentor. SE debated Horowitz and the latter was drubbed.
IOW, you don’t know the full story of any of the actors in this on-going vendetta and your lack of knowledge shows.
Dear Dympha, as I pointed in the beginning of my rant, I have as much respect for David as for Diana. There is another fine analyst, Jeff Nyquist who supports Diana and whom I respect immensely.
Not being a historian I obviously don’t have that detailled knowledge of the matter causing the present spat between Diana and David.
What I think is that nobody on both sides of the conflict is perfectly right about the issue and that we should do everything in our power to calm down the discourse and show more mutual respect and friendliness.
You don’t need to be a historian to have “the detailed knowledge of the matter” causing not “a spat” but a serious attempt to move Diana beyond the pale of normal human discourse.
No, this is not a matter of anyone trying “to calm down the discourse”. As soon as Diana’s name is mentioned, Horowitz is there to slam her. Period. We have a whole archive of material on this ugly attempt at a takedown of a person of integrity. Do the research: read our archive here, https://gatesofvienna.net/topical/diana-west/
That’s several years’ worth of material about a vicious assault. Horowitz deserves neither respect nor friendliness. He set the neocon dogs on her and the attacks went on for a long, long time.
You can also read the reviews of her book – the verified purchase reviews are safest. Over 90% say Diana was right, if you combine the 4 star and 5 star reviews…
The problem is that Diana revealed through the course of her book, sourcing it with 900 footnotes, that the American Communist Party had far more unacknowledged power in our government in the 1930s through the 1950s than was ever admitted. This was responsible for our reprehensible impoverishment of Britain, to name just one thing. It also led, eventually, to Stalin’s grab of Eastern Europe.
Now “McCarthyism” is a dirty word, thanks to the hard work of the Left. Yet he was one of the few trying to expose the tunneling through in D.C., New York, and Hollywood. So they destroyed him. And the same tactics were used on Diana West.
A “spat” ?? Not hardly. A coordinated attempt by a number of prominent neocons to destroy Diana West.
By the way, several authors have firmly established the Communist bona fides of Obama, based on his behavior during his two terms in office. Both his mother and father (whichever person one decides to pin paternity on – the Kenyan or Marshall) were Communists and his run for political office began in the home of the terrorist, Bill Ayers.
We will be at least a generation recovering from the damage he did.
I am afraid I must disagree with your portrayal of these events as an “artificial, purely academic conflict”. As Dymphna has very ably pointed out, there are deeper forces in play here.
I must also add that the people on Horowitz’s side did not conduct themselves as if they were engaged in an “artificial, purely academic conflict.”
Far from it.
At one of the talks Horowitz gave for a book of his, M. Stanton Evans asked Horowitz during the Q & A at the end of the talk:
Did you read the article I wrote in support of Diana West’s work, and what did you think of it?
Look at Horowitz’s response.
(Seriously – that’s on video. Seen it. Talk about body language, eh.)
@ Outlaw Mike:
If you didn’t look at this “sideshow” then don’t comment. Back when it wasn’t popular to do so, Diana West went to Brussels to personally interview VB members. She wrote admiringly of the party and its struggle in a totalitarian atmosphere…
No, this was strictly internecine warfare. The Left ignored her book.
You might bring yourself up to date by just taking some time to read the comments on her book on Amazon. Thanks to Horowitz and his cronies, she sold more books than would have otherwise been the case. Here’s one editorial review:
“What Diana West has done is to dynamite her way through several miles of bedrock. On the other side of the tunnel there is a vista of a new past. Of course folks are baffled. Few people have the capacity to take this in. Her book is among the most well documented I have ever read. It is written in an unusual style viewed from the perspective of the historian–but it probably couldn’t have been done any other way.” ― Lars Hedegaard, historian, editor, Dispatch International
Of the 300+ reviews, here are those from verified purchasers, over 80% positive:
https://amazon.com/American-Betrayal-Assault-Nations-Character-ebook/product-reviews/B008BU71BM/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_hist_5?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=avp_only_reviews&filterByStar=five_star&pageNumber=1
What is unusual for these reviews are the large numbers of comments other readers made to the original reviews. These are appended to the original reviews; I haven’t seen this response pattern anywhere else.
Finally, Horowitz and West are not “on the same side of the fence”. They were, more or less, until Horowitz began his unhinged attacks – just look at the disgusted responses to his comments. That disgust has been on-going each and every time he attacks her.
What America did and didn’t do in WWII remains crucially important. Had we behaved better – e.g., not supplying Russia (at NO cost to Stalin) and sent the materiel to Britain instead, there might never have been an Iron Curtain. Actions have consequences, as you well know.
Your dismissive remark simply adds to the burden we face.
As you will know Dymphna, Harry Hopkins flew to Moscow and met with Josef Stalin before Roosevelt or Churchill did.
Why?
Well, on 27th July 1941, Sumner Welles sent a telegram to Laurence Steinhardt, the American Ambassador in Moscow: “The President has instructed Harry Hopkins, who is now in London, to proceed by air to Moscow. […] The objective of his mission is primarily to investigate how best we can furnish material assistance to the Soviet Union at this time.”
See link.
The aid and comfort supplied to the tyrant was not permitted to be given to Britain. We beggared the Brits, making them pay for everything. The loans were paid off a few years ago – finally – but right into the 60s, Brits were poor by American standards. I remember my relatives from Maidstone coming to visit and being aghast at our “low” prices for everything from petrol to clothing to food.
A lot of first-rate people, the ones not killed off in two wars, fled from the poverty to Oz in the late 40s.
There’s a reason why WSC refused to even attend the great FDR’s funeral.
The “Neoconservatives” who attacked Diana West were never true conservatives at all, as Pat Buchanan has ably argued on many occasions. Deep down, they were always men of the Left. Their newfound “conservatism” was based on two things: Defence of Israel and an almost religious belief in the virtues of democracy – which, they argued, America should be spreading throughout the world. Democracy however is not and never has been a mark of conservatism. Instead, it is almost always a precursor of social division and ultimately socialism. It was for very good reason that Plato described it as the “worst possible” form of government. In 1914 Europe had only two real democracies, Britain and France. During World War I it was the monarchs and emperors, of Germany, Austria/Hungary and Russia, who tried repeatedly to bring the conflict to a peaceful end; it was the democracies Britain and France who rejected all peace overtures and kept the carnage going till victory over Germany was achieved. And what a terrible price Europe and the world paid for that.
After 1918 the monarchies were overthrown and most of Europe became “democratic”. That was less than a hundred years ago, and already the democracies have brought Europe to the brink of destruction.
This is inarguable to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.
Btw, I enjoyed your books very much esp revisiting the Henri Perrine (sp?) controversy. Changed the way I look at post Roman empire history.
TY for what you do.
With due respect; pat Buchanan is an extremely dishonest quasi-historian who profusely applies ditortions and outright lies to push his mad, selfdestructive concept of America’s total isolationism.
For example, he frequently accuses Poland of displaying a donkey’s stubborness right before the outbreak of WW2 as a main reason for Hitler’s aggresion against that country.
Greetings from Aussie
It is also worthy to point on the fact that Poland is displaying the same stubborness today while consequently refusing the Brusselian barbaric regime’s demands to take an accomodate thousnds of Muslem invaders that Brussels is trying to inflict on that country/
That’s your opinion of Buchanan but I think it’s mistaken. He’s been in public life for decades and has stood up to attacks far harsher than yours. I don’t agree with his isolationism but I do see why he finds it a valid stance. America has suffered far too much trying to police everyone.
We could begin a more sensible policy by removing our troops in Oz. And Germany.
I read Buchanan’s almost every post in the blog Human Events.
While I agree with him almost 100% on every domestic issue, hes approach to international matters is almost infantile.
He’s constant prisez of Putin for example as an alleged defender of Christianity proves that he understands very little of the dynamics shaping the pesent political landscape.
Mentioned by me above highly esteemed Jeff Nyquist writes extensuvely about Putin’s Russia plans of destroying Europe and America.
And I certainly agrre with you that America should withrawn troops from Germany.
Both Krautfressers and to a large degree the Kangurians lead a hugely parasitic (in military terms) life at the exoense of the US.
Greetings
Thanks for the clarification. This is a more reasonable critique than your first comment on Buchanan. He’s a paleocon, not my cup of political tea, but he deserves fisking for his words rather than accusations. This is a more reasonable and informed opposition to his work and adds value to our comment section.
Tell me if I’m wrong but, isn’t Horowitz a neo-con? Wasn’t he one of the loudest supporters of the Iraq war? Isn’t a neo-con a Marxist who believes in perpetual revolution? Don’t revolutionaries have a history of insinuating themselves into a movement claiming to be sympathetic to the group’s cause only to ultimately take it over?
Don’t know about anyone else but, I don’t trust Horowitz even though I read his autobiographical mea culpa many years ago. He is the same as the father and son team of Kristol’s.
Maybe Diana West was getting close to something that would have uncovered some more dirt on David. Who knows. He’s still a Trotskyite to me.
Cheers
I’m going to more-or-less repeat the arguments I made concerning American Betrayal and the Horowitz Radosh critique on https://gatesofvienna.net/2017/08/an-historic-counteroffensive/#comment-490997
There were two parts to West’s book, interchanged. One part was a documentation of the actual Communist affiliations of the US government officials in high levels. There was also the record of actions by the US government which seemed inexplicable from any moral standpoint, or standpoint of having US interests in mind. An example of this type of decision was the withdrawal of US troops ready to invade Germany through the Alps from Italy, which the US had conquered from the Nazis at great cost. Another example is how the US ignored repeated attempts by the head of German military intelligence, Canaris, to arrange a negotiated surrender on behalf of the German resistance.
West’s documentation and account of these facts, the infiltration and the betrayals by the US, is rock-solid. Radosh, in his review, tried to accuse West of misreading the facts, acting in his capacity as “historian”. West’s research was solid, and she made a literal fool out of him. For example, he accused her of making distortions which, in fact, were not even in her book. It was like he wrote the review drunk.
So, Horowitz in his fall-back position, accuses West of using poor judgement. This actually segues to the second part of her book, which is to claim that the Communist penetration resulted not only in complete Communist knowledge of the Allied actions and deliberations, but resulted in embedded Communists actually making command decisions in the interests of the USSR, which were directly counter to US interests. See the fore-mentioned account of the D-Day invasion, or the cover-up of the Katyn Forest massacre, of which the Allies were completely aware.
The second part, the claim of actual disloyalty by US decision-makers, requires either solid evidence or defensible chains of evidence.
Howowitz as a fallback position, resorts to point-and-sputter arguments: “You accuse Eisenhower of being a Commie dupe..horrible, irrational, shoddy research.” Horowitz avoids the obvious tactic of actually researching Eisenhower and giving convincing arguments on why Eisenhower couldn’t possibly have been a Communist dupe or a political general willing to go with the political winds.
Anyway, a lot of the argument rests on Harry Hopkins. For those readers familiar with Game of Thrones, Harry Hopkins was the hand of the king to the king, Roosevelt. In other words, Hopkins spoke with Roosevelt’s authority, except when directly counteracted or overridden by Roosevelt himself. There was no evidence that Hopkins was under Communist discipline, although plenty of indications of Communist affiliations in his past.
So, to my mind, an accusation of acting in the interests of the USSR would have to deal with the counter-hypothesis: the US was bending over backwards to keep the USSR in the war and absorbing millions of casualties the West would otherwise have to suffer. In other words, the US strategists may have been trying to make sure Stalin would not make a separate peace with Germany. So, for this reason, they opened up yet another front that didn’t make sense from a Western perspective, covered up Katyn, and went along with the Russian treachery towards the Polish government, a staunch and valuable ally in the war effort.
West never really deals with this counter-hypothesis. She cites a quote by Hanson Baldwin on how unlikely it was that Stalin would stop the war. But, in this case, West misuses the quote.
Here is the quote from Baldwin’s book, Great Mistakes of the War:
But, if the US leaders saw it as a genuine threat, even if they were wrong, that counter’s West’s hypothesis that they were acting directly and knowingly counter to US interests.
My view is that West’s argument is strong, but could be stronger if she devoted more attention to the counter-hypothesis. Horowitz is using the argument “She accuses Eisenhower and Roosevelt of being Commie dupes, which is obviously incorrect, so her work must be shoddy and irrational.” But, it seems to me, West’s work is solid, and in fact I recall that she portrays Roosevelt himself as a mystery, even to his closest associates. They really didn’t know what his opinions were a lot of the time.
Thanks, RonaldB. Your demeanor and rhetoric are impeccable.
Hello Baron and Dymphna.
I have stayed read-only since Dymphna expressed a preference for that, but have been reading the Diana West saga for hours, and have two or three points to add.
Comparisons of the U.S. situation with the Sorge ring in Japan (have seen quite a few) are absolutely invalid. Sorge, though posing as a German National Socialist, and a brilliant spy before he was caught, had no power whatsoever as an agent of influence, except on the USSR, and via there, possibly the USA and Brit. Empire. Members of his ring were mainly Japanese communists.
There is a theory that he was used for some time after his capture and before his execution, but no real evidence for it, only very circumstantial.
Of course, there were two main factions in Japan, the army-centred one which wanted to attack the USSR, and the navy-centered one that wanted to turn south.
The USSR influenced the choice in two main ways. Our foreign minister stopped in Moscow on the way back from talks in Berlin, while the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact still held. He was strongly advised to aim for the south.
The other was the eventual rout by the Red Army at Nomonha, only a little earlier.
The closest thing to the communist agents of influence in the U.S.A. was the Quaker faction in the Imperial family and some parts of the old hereditary nobility.
Sorge is buried at a large cemetery near my flat (15 min. by bicycle), but I have never found it. I would guess a false name. I want to lay flowers or some sake, not because of his GRU work, but because he was so brave and clever.
Final point, I saw ＜i＞The Manchurian Candidate＜/i＞ (real one, with Sinatra) years ago, bought the novel by Richard Condom more recently, very badly written, but the target is clearly McCarthy.