Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In Defense of Diana West
CNS News ^ | September 13, 2013 | M. Stanton Evans

Posted on 09/14/2013 10:30:57 PM PDT by No One Special

Out of the public eye and far from the daily headlines, a fierce verbal battle is currently being waged about the course of American policy in the long death struggle with Moscow that we call the Cold War.

At ground zero of this new dispute is author Diana West, whose recent book, American Betrayal (St. Martin's), is a hard- hitting critique of the strategy toward the Soviet Union pursued in the 1940s by President Franklin Roosevelt, his top assistant Harry Hopkins, and various of their colleagues. Ms. West in particular stresses the infiltration of the government of that era by Communists and Soviet agents, linking the presence of these forces to U.S. policies that appeased the Russians or served the interests of the Kremlin.

For making this critique, Ms. West has been bitterly attacked by writers Ronald Radosh and David Horowitz, Roosevelt biographer Conrad Black, and a considerable crew of others. The burden of their complaint is that she is a "conspiracy theorist" and right wing nut whose views are far outside the mainstream of historical writing, and that she should not have presumed to write such a book about these important matters.

Though the professed stance of her opponents is that of scholarly condescension, the language being used against Ms. West doesn't read like scholarly discourse. She is, we're told, "McCarthy on steroids," "unhinged," a "right-wing loopy," not properly "house trained," "incompetent," purveying "a farrago of lies," and a good deal else of similar nature. All of which looks more like the politics of personal destruction than debate about serious academic issues.

From my standpoint, however, what is going on here seems to be something more than personal. Having delved into these matters a bit, I think I recognize the process that's in motion: the circling of rhetorical wagons around a long accepted narrative about the Second World War and the Cold War conflict that followed.

This narrative sets the limits of permissible comment about American Cold War policy, bounded on the one side by Roosevelt and Hopkins, representing generally speaking the forces of good (appeasing Moscow, e.g. , only in order to win the war with Hitler), and on the other by Sen. Joe McCarthy of Wisconsin, the supposed epitome of evil. Between these boundaries, variations are allowed, but woe betide the writer who goes beyond them. Ms. West has transgressed in both directions, sharply criticizing Roosevelt/ Hopkins and speaking kindly of Joe McCarthy.

(Full disclosure: I provided a cover endorsement for Ms. West's book, and wrote a book of my own some years ago examining the myriad cases of McCarthy. Based on that background, I can testify that conventional views about him are almost totally devoid of merit, based as they are on extensive ignorance of the archival record.)

Especially galling to West's critics is her contention that Washington in the war years was so riddled with Communists and Soviet agents as to be in effect an "occupied" city -- an image that seems to have sparked the greatest anger and most denunciation of her thesis.

By using the "occupied" image, Ms. West is of course not saying Soviet tanks were patrolling the streets of Washington, or that Red martial law was imposed on its cowering citizens. What she is arguing instead is that Soviet agents, Communists and fellow travelers held official posts, or served at chokepoints of intelligence data, and from these positions were able to exert pro-Soviet leverage on U.S. and other allied policy. Though ignored in many conventional histories, the evidence to support this view is overwhelming.

It is for instance abundantly plain, from multiple sources of Cold War intel, that Communist/pro-Soviet penetration of the government under FDR was massive, numbering in the many hundreds. These pro-Red incursions started in the New Deal era of the 1930s, then accelerated in the war years when the Soviets were our allies and safeguards against Communist infiltration were all but nonexistent. The scope of the problem was expressed as follows in an FBI report to Director J. Edgar Hoover:

"It has become increasingly clear... that there are a tremendous number of persons employed in the United States government who are Communists and who strive daily to advance the cause of Communism and destroy the foundations of this government. Today nearly every department or agency is infiltrated with them in varying degree.. To aggravate the situation, they appear to have concentrated most heavily in departments which make policy, or carry it into effect..."

Pro-Red penetration was especially heavy in such war-time agencies as the Office of Strategic Services and Office of War Information, which were thrown together in a hurry at the outset of the conflict, with little thought for anti-Communist security vetting. But the problem was acute also in old-line agencies such as the State and Treasury departments, both of which by war's end were honeycombed with Soviet agents.( Making matters worse, anti-Soviet officials and diplomats were in the meantime being purged from their positions.)

Far from being lowly spear carriers on the fringes, pro-Soviet operatives in case after case ascended to posts of great power and influence. Among the most famous-though only three of a considerable number-were Alger Hiss at the State Department, Harry D. White at the Treasury and Lauchlin Currie at the White House. All of these, as we now know, were Soviet agents, well positioned to affect the course of American policy in matters of concern to Soviet dictator Stalin.

A prime example of such policy impact occurred during the earliest wartime going, in the prelude to Pearl Harbor. At this time, Soviet agents White and Currie maneuvered to prevent a truce between the United States and Japan, which might have freed up the Japanese military for an assault on Russia, an attack Stalin was desperate to fend off while he was embroiled in Europe with the Nazis.

In this maneuvering, White worked with the Soviet intelligence service KGB, and in parallel with the efforts of a Soviet spy combine in Tokyo, headed by the German Communist Richard Sorge. The Sorge group sought to persuade the Japanese that there was no percentage in attacking Russia-- that there were much more inviting targets to be found down south in the Pacific. One such target turned out to be the American naval base at Pearl Harbor.

In the State Department, while Alger Hiss would become the most notorious Soviet agent of the war years, he was far from going solo. According to a long concealed but now recovered report compiled by security officers of the State Department, there were at war's end no fewer than 20 identified agents such as Hiss on the payroll, plus 13 identified Communists and 90 other suspects and sympathizers serving with him.

Like the FBI report saying "nearly every department" of the Federal government was infiltrated by Communist apparatchiks, these staggering numbers from the State Department security force look suspiciously like the description of a de facto "occupation" given in Ms. West's supposedly unhinged essay.

At the Treasury, there were at least a dozen Communists and Soviet agents, headed by Harry White, who exerted influence on a host of issues. In late 1943, to cite a prominent instance, White and his fellow Soviet agent Solomon Adler, Treasury attaché in China, launched a disinformation campaign to discredit our anti-Communist ally Chiang Kai-shek, deny him U.S. assistance, and turn U.S. policy in favor of the Communists under Mao Tse-tung.

This campaign, aided by Adler's State Department Chungking roommate John Stewart Service and other U.S. diplomats in China, succeeded, with results that we are still living with today. Meanwhile, an identical propaganda campaign was waged by U.S. and British pro-Red officials to discredit the anti-Communists of the Balkans, in order to deliver control of Yugoslavia to the Communist Tito. This, too, succeeded, resulting in the communization of the country and capture and murder by Tito of his anti-Communist rival, Gen. Draza Mihailovich .

In the summer of 1944, White and his pro-Moscow Treasury colleagues played a crucial role in devising the so-called "Morgenthau plan" for Germany, which would have converted the country into a purely agrarian nation. They were involved as well in plans to turn two million desperate anti- Soviet refugees over to the Russians, and a slave labor proviso that would herd millions into the Soviet Gulag.

All these projects would be promoted in the run-up to a 1944 Roosevelt- Churchill summit in Quebec, later becoming American policy in Europe. At an in-house meeting just before the summit, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr. met with a group of his staffers and praised them for the excellent plans they had developed. Of these advisers no fewer than six would later be identified under oath and in secret security data as ideological Communists or Soviet agents. That amazing line-up of pro-Moscow assets at a single U.S. Treasury meeting would once more seem to justify the "occupied" description.

As to how such improbable things could happen under FDR, a post-script to the above is suggestive. Though Roosevelt signed off on the Morgenthau plan at Quebec, when he was later challenged on it by War Secretary Henry Stimson, he said he didn't know how he could have done so-that he "had evidently done it without much thought." As that response implied, the President at this time was failing badly in his powers, and would fail even more dramatically in the months to follow.

Which leads to a provisional wrap-up of this discussion. The culmination of the policy debacle of the war years occurred in 1945 at Yalta, where the American delegation headed by FDR made innumerable concessions to the Russians: slave labor for the Gulag as post-war "reparations" to the Kremlin , turning anti-Soviet refugees over to Moscow, Soviet control of Manchuria's ports and railways-presaging the Red conquest of China. A leading member of the American delegation that agreed to all of this was none other than the now famous Soviet agent, Alger Hiss.

In court histories and Roosevelt biographies, we're told that Hiss at Yalta was no big deal-an insignificant figure without substantive influence on the proceedings. As the archival records show, this is grossly in error. In fact, Hiss in the Yalta discussions was a ubiquitous and highly active presence, dealing as a virtual equal with British foreign secretary Anthony Eden, and speaking out on numerous issues-China prominent among them-voicing the "State Department" or "United States" position in backstage meetings.

Scanning these records, it's obvious that Hiss was far more conversant with issues and events at Yalta than was his inexperienced nominal chieftain , Secretary of State Edward R. Stettinius Jr. (all of two months on the job). As with Joe McCarthy, our historians might be advised to consult the primary data on such matters, rather than re-cycling Hiss-was-no-problem comment from secondary sources.

Granted, getting at the primary data takes some digging, as many relevant records have been buried, censored or omitted from official archives. Presidential secrecy orders, disappearing papers, folders missing from the files, two manipulated grand juries (that we know of) used to cover up the extent and nature of the penetration ; all these methods and more were employed in the 1940s to keep the shocking story from Congress and the public. And, sad to relate, in some considerable measure the cover up continues now, in court histories that neglect archival data to repeat once more the standard narrative of the war years.

Diana West's important book is a valiant effort to break through this wall of secrecy and selective silence. Her work in some respects touches on matters beyond my ken-such as Soviet treatment of American POWs-- where I am not competent to judge . But on issues where our researches coincide-and these are many-I find her knowledgeable and on target, far more so than the conventional histories compared to which she is said to be found wanting . As the above suggests, her notion of wartime Washington as an "occupied" city, and the data that back it up, are especially cogent.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: algerhiss; americanbetrayal; coldwar; communism; dianawest; joemccarthy; mstantonevans; pages; stanevans; ussr
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last
Diana West's website has much more information on her book, "American Betrayal", and the controversy it has caused as she defends herself.
1 posted on 09/14/2013 10:30:57 PM PDT by No One Special
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: No One Special

Got the link wrofng. It should be:

http://dianawest.net


2 posted on 09/14/2013 10:33:22 PM PDT by No One Special
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: No One Special

Bob Dylan-Like a Rolling Stone

3 posted on 09/14/2013 10:35:14 PM PDT by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life :o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: No One Special

4 posted on 09/14/2013 10:42:20 PM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: No One Special

Saint FDR and Saint Truman both need to be taken down about 50 pegs. Absolute scumbags, the both of them.


5 posted on 09/14/2013 10:42:30 PM PDT by Impy (RED=COMMUNIST, NOT REPUBLICAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: No One Special
The burden of their complaint is that she is a "conspiracy theorist" and right wing nut whose views are far outside the mainstream of historical writing, and that she should not have presumed to write such a book about these important matters.

Accusations like this never bother anyone on the Left, I wouldn't let it bother me. What do people say when you run into flack?

6 posted on 09/14/2013 10:57:45 PM PDT by jeffc (The U.S. media are our enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: No One Special

All of this is true and has been excised from popular history.

If you don’t understand this, you don’t understand half of what happened in World War II.


7 posted on 09/14/2013 11:06:52 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: No One Special
The book (get it here: http://www.amazon.com/American-Betrayal-Assault-Nations-Character/dp/0312630786/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1379224894&sr=8-1&keywords=american+betrayal) is excellent, and the assault by Radosh, who has always taken the conventional (liberal) line about McCarthy and Roosevelt it not surprising. I'm a little more puzzled as to why David Horowitz weighed in since he is not an authority on these matters.

I have one minor criticism of the book: It needs an editor, particularly the opening chapter, which attempts to relate the current War against Islam (let's face it, that's where we are, like it or not) to the Cold War. While it might be true, it shouldn't be in there. The book can stand on its own as a purely revisionist narrative of the Cold War, which the author properly identifies as running not from the end of the Second World War, but from before the beginning of it.

For Radosh, Horowitz, and all of the other naysayers, here's another excellent book, which bolsters most of Diana West's positions and was written by no bomb thrower, but a former American President: Freedom Betrayed Herbert Hoovers Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath.

I was surprised by the existence of this book. Hoover started out his career and ended his presidency as a very liberal Republican; his predecessor, Coolidge, had nothing but disdain for Hoover's activism. As a matter of fact, a great many of the New Deal programs were actually economic reforms Hoover wanted to try, but he was sandbagged by a Democrat Congress in order to secure his electoral defeat.

But eventually Hoover became a conservative, and he wrote a fine book, well worth reading. [Just skip the Introduction, which is 100 pages of some academic's medal polishing over his editing that doesn't contribute anything to the work, unless you want to understand sources and methods. Most people won't.]

8 posted on 09/14/2013 11:17:38 PM PDT by FredZarguna (Or perhaps his Nobel Prize lecture for medicine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

Maybe Horowitz is out there providing the outer bounds of what is acceptable in the way of anti-communism.


9 posted on 09/14/2013 11:37:10 PM PDT by No One Special
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: No One Special
The most serious contention in West's book, and fully supported in Herbert Hoover's Secret History of World War II, is not whether Harry Hopkins is any particular case reference in Venona; it's the degree to which Stalin got everything he wanted, and more.

The conventional historical narrative, that Roosevelt gave away so much at Yalta because of his failing health, is scandalously false. It is not supported by any of the facts on the ground, nor by any statements of contemporary witnesses. In source after source we discover that from almost the very day tens of thousands of Polish POW's were repatriated from Siberia to form a Polish allied army in exile, Roosevelt intended to give their country, as well as the Baltics, to Stalin.

This is in 1942. This is not at Tehran or Yalta. Roosevelt made various remarks in 1942, 1943, and 1944 -- despite the explicit wording of the Atlantic Charter which he and Churchill signed and to which the Russians assented on numerous occasions -- that Russia would receive EVERYTHING she had been granted in the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, and as a matter of fact, a great deal more, and that people in Eastern Europe would "simply have to accept that."

Nobody wants to address these claims, and have chosen instead to focus on narrow questions about whether Harry Hopkins was a spy or not, and whether the General in charge of Lend-Lease did indeed see proscribed nuclear materials being shipped to the Russians.

But the betrayal of Eastern and Central Europe, the deadly repatriation of millions of Ukrainians and White Russians to the Gulag by American and British Armies, and the pointless concessions made to Stalin in the Far East are topics no one wants to discuss. Why? Because the historical record is clear: Roosevelt wasn't swindled on these deals. He made these deals, he understood these deals, and he fully assented to them long before Yalta.

10 posted on 09/14/2013 11:41:14 PM PDT by FredZarguna (Or perhaps his Nobel Prize lecture for medicine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narses; SunkenCiv; neverdem; Nachum; FredZarguna

Bookmarked!


11 posted on 09/14/2013 11:55:25 PM PDT by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but socialists' ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: No One Special
By using the "occupied" image, Ms. West is of course not saying Soviet tanks were patrolling the streets of Washington, or that Red martial law was imposed on its cowering citizens. What she is arguing instead is that Soviet agents, Communists and fellow travelers held official posts, or served at chokepoints of intelligence data, and from these positions were able to exert pro-Soviet leverage on U.S. and other allied policy. Though ignored in many conventional histories, the evidence to support this view is overwhelming.

I am paraphrasing but I recall Whitaker Chambers stating in Witness that his Soviet handler once proudly boasted the Soviets had deeper penetration into Washington, DC, than they had had during Weimar. Ms West was using "occupied" correctly and in that sense.

Hopkins may or may not have been "Agent 19" but his entire career shows he supported Soviet objectives and, as FredZarguna notes in post #10, The most serious contention in West's book, and fully supported in Herbert Hoover's Secret History of World War II, is not whether Harry Hopkins is any particular case reference in Venona; it's the degree to which Stalin got everything he wanted, and more.

12 posted on 09/15/2013 12:05:31 AM PDT by Robwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: No One Special

This is awesome. I will get this book.
The light of truth scatters Democrats like cockroaches.


13 posted on 09/15/2013 12:10:36 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: No One Special
Maybe Horowitz is out there providing the outer bounds of what is acceptable in the way of anti-communism.

That is certainly the role that Radosh has played:

Yes, the Rosenbergs were guilty, but Joe McCarthy was bad. Yes the Spanish Civil War was a tragedy, but John Stewart Service was not a Communist agent. And so on. The first is such a throwaway that it's no longer even controversial. The Second is nonsense. The third is a given. And as to the fourth, it's very, very hard to believe that John Stewart Service was merely a simple-minded dupe in the fall of China, which is what Radosh expects us to believe.

Ann Coulter pretty thoroughly demolished Radosh in one of her columns. I guess I take some pity on Radosh. He's an academic and needs to keep his contacts... I guess ...

14 posted on 09/15/2013 12:13:11 AM PDT by FredZarguna (Or perhaps his Nobel Prize lecture for medicine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

Thank you for that sobering post. Now I see why Diana’s book is so “perturbing”. I wonder if Roosevelt learned of the Ukrainian “famine”. I mean, what did he know and when did he know it? I guess we will probably never know the full story. Just hope some of this gets into the mainstream. It is criminal to ignore it.


15 posted on 09/15/2013 12:17:37 AM PDT by No One Special
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: No One Special

16 posted on 09/15/2013 1:01:00 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

17 posted on 09/15/2013 1:04:32 AM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: knarf; FredZarguna; No One Special

I have been fascinated by WWII, partly I think because my parents went through it. It was kind of a romantic story I wasn’t a part of. Dad was Army Medical Corps but didn’t go overseas and died when I was 4. It was a period of time that I wanted to understand because it so changed America from what it was. It has changed again today into something totally different.

I am about 2/3 through Diana’s book after reading things like Witness and Blacklisted by History. Things are starting to make sense now.

I also recommend None Dare Call it Conspiracy, it explains the connection between Marxist ideologues and the “rich and powerful elites” who are the real benefactors. It helps to understand how China has become such a financial powerhouse.

We have become almost fully Soviet here in America now. We don’t have gulags partly because they didn’t exist here under a previous czar. Also the regime isn’t dragging us off to the gulags because they don’t have to. The vast majority are so fully brainwashed by media or too morally compromised to stop them.

This is dangerous knowledge. Where do we go from here?


18 posted on 09/15/2013 2:55:08 AM PDT by vanilla swirl (searching for something meaningful to say)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: vanilla swirl
I'm old(er) ... almost dead (comparatively).

I've reared my children and they're as good as they'll get until they really, REALLY wake up.

Go from here?

In a few hours ... I'm going to church.

19 posted on 09/15/2013 3:03:20 AM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: No One Special

My dad fought in the Warsaw Uprising or 1944, he never forgave Roosevelt and Churchill for selling out Poland to the Soviets.


20 posted on 09/15/2013 3:39:01 AM PDT by SAMWolf (Looking for my generations Lexington and Concord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: david horowitz

Well David, care to defend your alliance?


21 posted on 09/15/2013 3:42:21 AM PDT by KC Burke (Officially since Memorial Day they are the Gimmie-crat Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: No One Special

As an aside, I have always found David Horowitz an angry, unpleasant individual - even when I have agreed with him.


22 posted on 09/15/2013 4:45:59 AM PDT by PghBaldy (12/14 - 930am -rampage begins... 12/15 - 1030am - Obama's advance team scouts photo-op locations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: No One Special

Anticommunist ping.


23 posted on 09/15/2013 4:47:27 AM PDT by Chainmail (A simple rule of life: if you can be blamed, you're responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

Diana West only scratches the surface of this Communist “conspiracy.” Read The Morgenthau Plan 2013. White and others almost succeeded in turning all of Europe Communist.


24 posted on 09/15/2013 5:25:07 AM PDT by Vehmgericht
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee; ATLDiver; Hoodat; Pan_Yan; SLB

Worth reading in its entirety.


25 posted on 09/15/2013 5:25:19 AM PDT by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: No One Special
In the summer of 1944, White and his pro-Moscow Treasury colleagues played a crucial role in devising the so-called "Morgenthau plan" for Germany, which would have converted the country into a purely agrarian nation.

There is a considerable amount of contemporary primary source material (diaries, etc) that show how knowledge of the Morgenthau Plan had the effect of increasing the resolve of many German soldiers who were not particularly imbued with Nazi ideology. Such things didn't affect the DC elite and their ancillary intelligentsia, but they did impact the men at the point of the Allied spear.

Mr. niteowl77

26 posted on 09/15/2013 5:38:33 AM PDT by niteowl77 ("There's nothing a vulture hates more than biting into a glass eye.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: No One Special; Ravnagora
At the Treasury, there were at least a dozen Communists and Soviet agents, headed by Harry White, who exerted influence on a host of issues. In late 1943, to cite a prominent instance, White and his fellow Soviet agent Solomon Adler, Treasury attaché in China, launched a disinformation campaign to discredit our anti-Communist ally Chiang Kai-shek, deny him U.S. assistance, and turn U.S. policy in favor of the Communists under Mao Tse-tung.

This campaign, aided by Adler's State Department Chungking roommate John Stewart Service and other U.S. diplomats in China, succeeded, with results that we are still living with today. Meanwhile, an identical propaganda campaign was waged by U.S. and British pro-Red officials to discredit the anti-Communists of the Balkans, in order to deliver control of Yugoslavia to the Communist Tito. This, too, succeeded, resulting in the communization of the country and capture and murder by Tito of his anti-Communist rival, Gen. Draza Mihailovich.

Another piece falls into place, the US betrayal of the Serbs and the resultant false witness Clintonian war against them a second time.

27 posted on 09/15/2013 5:41:23 AM PDT by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it, and the Constitution and law mean what WE say.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: No One Special

On reading the Book:

West was going to write about MUSLIM penetration of the US of the present.
All the Commie stuff, while immensely important as background, and defining the ‘attitude’ of the government towards penetration (denial); our real problem today is the residual Commie stuff AND the Muslim penetration well fundied and well on its way.


28 posted on 09/15/2013 6:39:51 AM PDT by Flintlock ("The redcoats are coming" -- TO SEIZE OUR GUNS!!--Paul Revere)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: No One Special

I read Evans book on McCarthy and respect his opinion. However, I will wait for more info and comments by other conservatives before I form my own opinion. I do believe there were many Soviet agents operating in Washington at that time, and West may be right about their influence on the Roosevelt admin. But I want more info. I’m wondering if the truth, like many other things, is in the middle.


29 posted on 09/15/2013 7:20:57 AM PDT by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

“...The book can stand on its own as a purely revisionist narrative of the Cold War...”

Not quibbling with your excellent post, but the phrase “Cold War revisionism” has in the past described works by left-leaning authors like Gar Alperovitz which assign guilt exclusively to the United States and the anticommunist West for causing the Cold War to exist.

(Aside: it was U.S. atomic strength that kept the Soviets from engaging in hot war with the West, but as Emily Litella would say, “never mind”.)

Maybe Ms. West’s new book is the `new revisionism’ after forty plus years of post-Vietnam Blame America First “scholarship”.


30 posted on 09/15/2013 7:30:33 AM PDT by elcid1970 ("In the modern world, Muslims are living fossils.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: No One Special

West was DEAD RIGHT about one thing in an earlier book...’grown-ups are pretty much extinct in the United States’. I have remarked to my wife before that the adults in Red England conduct themselves like 5-year olds...nearly impossible to even speak with them. This is what happens when you remove the moral compass set by G-d Almighty from the classroom...we have been on a steady decline since 1962, and nothing is going to reverse it.


31 posted on 09/15/2013 7:57:48 AM PDT by who knows what evil? (G-d saved more animals than people on the ark...www.siameserescue.org.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knarf

I have this book; I recommend it.


32 posted on 09/15/2013 10:09:26 AM PDT by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: driftless2

The truth is n e v e r in the middle. That’s a leftist meme.


33 posted on 09/15/2013 10:12:01 AM PDT by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: kabumpo

Mine is frayed, but still intact ... great read.


34 posted on 09/15/2013 10:13:53 AM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: elcid1970
We are agreeable on substance if not on naming convention.

In my lexicon, the Standard History of the Cold War is: America, England and Russia were part of a Grand Alliance that destroyed fascism which ultimately disintegrated because of Russian insecurity (the Soviets had lost so many men, Russians are historically distrustful, and a host of other rationalizations) and a subsequent American overreaction caused by the anticommunists, moneyed interests, and militarists.

It's all rubbish, of course. We didn't need Venona declassification or the (brief) opening of the Russian archives to establish that. The open source information available to every historian and interested lay people, the testimonies of Whittaker Chambers and Elizabeth Bentley, and the work of the Dies Committee were more than enough to establish the true parameters of Russia's war against the West in general, and The Main Enemy in particular.

Yet a strange thing happened when academic historians started looking at the new, previously hidden sources: they actually changed their minds. It's true that their treatments have been largely demure, but (shockingly) they have been largely correct: The Russians were at War with us long before they were at war with the Nazis. But it didn't matter, because the first narrative is now so thoroughly embedded in the public mind that revelations which would have been considered startling in 1944, vindicating in 1954, have been completely ignored.

So in my mind, any attempt to set the record straight now is revisionist. If you prefer Neorevisionist, let it be so. The truth, by any other name...

35 posted on 09/15/2013 10:29:55 AM PDT by FredZarguna (Or perhaps his Nobel Prize lecture for medicine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

Wow, lots of food for thought there. As for the term `revisionism’, my knowledge is dated. I earned a master’s in international studies in the mid 1970’s and the dominant motifs among the faculty were: Nixon-bashing, post-Vietnam recriminations, transnational organizations can solve the world’s problems, communism in practice is state capitalism, true socialism hasn’t been tried yet, etc.

In that milieu, America-sucks revisionist authors were held in warm regard. William Appleman Williams was another of those.

To confirm your point, the reality of the evils of communism were even then already common knowledge to anyone with any intellectual honesty and the energy to do the research. But I was studying under professors (not all of them) who, to use the proverbial example, were convinced of the innocence of Alger Hiss and would not be dissuaded even if Hiss told them to their faces that he really did spy for the Soviets.

So then, some in the Academy have indeed changed their minds about the origins of the Cold War. Better late than never, I suppose. But those who have are probably a beleaguered minority.


36 posted on 09/15/2013 10:50:48 AM PDT by elcid1970 ("In the modern world, Muslims are living fossils.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: driftless2
Ayn Rand: "In any compromise between Good and Evil, Evil wins."

The truth is not "in the middle."

Here are some books you can read. They were not written by conservatives, but by liberal leaning academic historians. They lay out the case very clearly. If anything, they don't take the conclusions all the way to the end.


37 posted on 09/15/2013 10:51:13 AM PDT by FredZarguna (Or perhaps his Nobel Prize lecture for medicine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: elcid1970
I always get a kick out of conservatives who repeat the claim that "The Left nowhas completed its Long March through the institutions." I think if you critically examine the record you'll find that American "intellectuals" in and out of the academy have always been enablers and fellow travellers (full disclosure: I left academia in the 1980's after a brief career, but my discipline was not overtly "political." Even so, most of my colleagues including my thesis adviser were reflexively, though not ideologically, liberal.)

You might like The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression , by Amity Shlaes. This is a bit drier and less overtly "shocking" than the communism revisionist [neorevisionist] books, but if you like history you very well may enjoy it. I certainly did. To the point: In this book Shlaes documents -- among many other interesting and heretofore mostly unknown things -- that most of Roosevelt's economic "brain trust" were leftist academics and fellow travellers long before most Americans even thought seriously about communism. Many of them had travelled to Russia to see for themselves what the excitement was all about, and came back to America thoroughly converted (or confirmed) in "the Cause." This was in the 1920's, not the 1960's or 70's.

[It's also interesting to see The Ickes and Blumenthals, the Harvard grads and Yalees of previous generations whose children and grandchildren thread their way through the history of the 20th Century and are still part of the Democrat nomenklatura today.]

38 posted on 09/15/2013 11:13:48 AM PDT by FredZarguna (Or perhaps his Nobel Prize lecture for medicine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Honorary Serb
Ping

At the Treasury, there were at least a dozen Communists and Soviet agents, headed by Harry White, who exerted influence on a host of issues. In late 1943, to cite a prominent instance, White and his fellow Soviet agent Solomon Adler, Treasury attaché in China, launched a disinformation campaign to discredit our anti-Communist ally Chiang Kai-shek, deny him U.S. assistance, and turn U.S. policy in favor of the Communists under Mao Tse-tung.

This campaign, aided by Adler's State Department Chungking roommate John Stewart Service and other U.S. diplomats in China, succeeded, with results that we are still living with today. Meanwhile, an identical propaganda campaign was waged by U.S. and British pro-Red officials to discredit the anti-Communists of the Balkans, in order to deliver control of Yugoslavia to the Communist Tito. This, too, succeeded, resulting in the communization of the country and capture and murder by Tito of his anti-Communist rival, Gen. Draza Mihailovich.

Another piece falls into place, the US betrayal of the Serbs and the resultant false witness Clintonian war against them a second time.

39 posted on 09/15/2013 11:38:15 AM PDT by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it, and the Constitution and law mean what WE say.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

Thanks. For those who think the Hollywood crowd’s fascination with communism began with Jane Fonda and Oliver Stone (or no further back than Dalton Trumbo), “The Red Decade” by Eugene Lyons (1941) is still instructive.

Published just after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union and the incredible flipflops by the CP,USA which followed, the book describes of communist infiltration & recruitment of the filmmaking elite that began even before Lenin consolidated Bolshevik rule in Russia. The communists were early experts in using mass media to seize the attention of the masses.

As for the descendants of the fellow-travelers of the Comintern period, “The Coercive Utopians” (Rael Jean & Erich Isaac, 1984) is a useful and not yet dated reference. A revised edition would have to include Cass Sunstein in that assemblage.

S. Steven Powell’s “Covert Cadre” (1987) is also helpful in identifying those who were later forced to abandon pro-Soviet advocacy for today’s leftist movements (green, gay, gun control, anti-Western, government healthcare, etc.)

Though aging, `communitarianism’ theorist Amitai Etzioni & his writings give keen insight for understanding the thinking of those who belong to our latter-day Aristocracy of Conscience.


40 posted on 09/15/2013 11:46:15 AM PDT by elcid1970 ("In the modern world, Muslims are living fossils.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

41 posted on 09/15/2013 6:23:22 PM PDT by No One Special
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: No One Special

we are again seeing DC occupied by commies


42 posted on 09/15/2013 7:13:45 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kabumpo

If it’s between conservatives, the truth is very often in the middle. David Horowitz is no radical leftist...at least not anymore.


43 posted on 09/15/2013 7:16:44 PM PDT by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna; Homer_J_Simpson
This is in 1942. This is not at Tehran or Yalta. Roosevelt made various remarks in 1942, 1943, and 1944 -- despite the explicit wording of the Atlantic Charter which he and Churchill signed and to which the Russians assented on numerous occasions -- that Russia would receive EVERYTHING she had been granted in the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, and as a matter of fact, a great deal more, and that people in Eastern Europe would "simply have to accept that."

Were these remarks reported in the press?

44 posted on 09/15/2013 7:18:29 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: vanilla swirl

The gulags and deaths will come sooner or later


45 posted on 09/15/2013 7:21:38 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: elcid1970

There could be a whole website where conservatives set history straight, call it New History Review or something


46 posted on 09/15/2013 7:24:14 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

They were made to various people in the Military, OSS, and State Department, many of whom reported them in their memoirs after the war. It’s highly doubtful that the press would have reported anything questionable about FDR, even if they had access to contemporaneous information.


47 posted on 09/15/2013 9:48:18 PM PDT by FredZarguna (Or perhaps his Nobel Prize lecture for medicine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: driftless2
If it’s between conservatives, the truth is very often in the middle.

I'm inclined to give David Horowitz broad leeway on some things, but this is simply not an area of his expertise. His parents were Communists. That doesn't mean he knows anything about the extent of penetration into FDR's administration. As a matter of fact, if anything he would probably know less because Red Cells were highly compartmentalized as a matter of tradecraft. So his involvement in this dispute is puzzling.

Radosh is another story. I personally think Radosh has played the role of limiting the breadth and depth of revelations about American Communism and Soviet penetration. His narrative about John Stewart Service and the fall of China is simply not to be believed. I'm also skeptical about his book about the Rosenbergs. Ann Coulter slapped him down very hard after he attacked her for defending McCarthy. From what I've read about McCarthy from a number of sources, Radosh was carrying liberal water, and Coulter was right about him. Personally, I don't think Radosh is trustworthy.

48 posted on 09/15/2013 10:02:44 PM PDT by FredZarguna (Or perhaps his Nobel Prize lecture for medicine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna
I do think both Horowitz and Radosh are unwilling to give McCarthy the credit he deserves because most likely they have personal friends who were hurt by the senator's efforts. And let me make it clear I fully support the great part of McCarthy's efforts to uproot commies. And I don't think Radosh had the conservative credentials Horowitz has.

But I want to read and hear more comments by other conservatives before I make a judgment about West's book. Again, I read Evans book about McCarthy, and I liked it a lot. However, let's see what other big name conservatives say about West's book.

49 posted on 09/16/2013 7:14:38 AM PDT by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: driftless2

That doesn’t mean that he can’t be wrong, or stupid.


50 posted on 09/16/2013 9:59:04 AM PDT by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson