Read The Rebuttal: Defending 'American Betrayal' From the Book-Burners Online
Authors: Diana West
There
is a firestorm occurring on FrontPage over a purported review of Diana West's
American
Betrayal: The Assault on Our Nation's Character
, written by Ronald Radosh.
Radosh penned a "review" which questioned the reasoning and
scholarship of West's contention that Franklin D. Roosevelt consciously, or by
subtle policy, boosted the fortunes of Stalin's Soviet régime to profit from
the course of WWII, aided in large part by Soviet agents working within and
without the U.S. government, and by Harry Hopkins, FDR's chief advisor and aide
for so many years.
The
title of Radosh's review telegraphs his hostility towards West and her book,
"
McCarthy on Steroids
," and what he plans to say about
the book. It is interesting to note that some time has passed since the first
reviews of West's book appeared, one on FrontPage itself, written by Mark
Tapson in July, whom Radosh does not consider an authority on the subject of
Soviet espionage and FDR's complicity in furthering the interests of Stalin and
the Soviet Union.
Significantly,
FrontPage's editors purged, or removed, Tapson's objective, short, and
informative review of the West book. It's too late for that, because, speaking
for myself, I already have a hard copy of the review, together with its now
defunct URL. The text of it can be found
here
, on West's
own
blog site. Printed out, it comes to two and a fraction
pages. How many reader comments it generated is now unknown.
Printed
out, Radosh's comes to nearly ten pages. Radosh may as well have written a
book. It has generated, to date, 182 reader comments, a good many of them
criticizing Radosh for conducting a smear campaign against West or otherwise
advising him that he is talking through his former "
Red Diaper Baby
" hat. Radosh continually accuses
West of weaving a "conspiracy theory," when she painstakingly
documents every claim, assertion, and conclusion in
American Betrayal
.
Why
would the editors remove Tapson's review? Because it contradicts Radosh's in
substance and in style, in truth, and in honesty. The removal of Tapson's
review speaks volumes about the motives of FrontPage's editors. Instead of
issuing a statement to the effect that while they respect Tapson's views on
West's book, there is another perspective and here is Mr. Radosh's, and even
providing readers to a link to Tapson's review. But to remove a contradictory
and controversial article is a confession of intellectual weakness and moral
turpitude. The editors do not wish readers to compare the Tapson review with
Radosh's. They wish to play Big Brotherish Ministry of Truth games with
readers' minds.
In
his rambling, Alinskyite article, Radosh expects West to have read or consulted
every book ever published whose subject was FDR's conscious, insouciant, or
unwitting complicity in the preservation of the Soviet Union. He claims she
didn't read this or that authority or author. Her knowledge and command of the
field of Soviet-American studies ought to have been encyclopedic, and if it
wasn't, then, as far as Radosh and his editors are concerned, she should be
shot down, discredited, and her work consigned to a dustbin.
Reading
his purported review, I was constantly reminded of that old legal saw,
"When did you stop beating your wife?" "But I never beat my
wife." "Prove it." "I can't prove a negative."
"Too bad. Let the implied charge be entered into the minds of the
jury." "Objection!" "Objection overruled."
Reading
Radosh's "review," one is first knocked silly by the highly personal
animus he nurtures for West. It colors his purported review and does him no
favors, and certainly, as West herself points out, does nothing to lend his
reputation as a neocon any credibility. I could not shake loose the impression
that Radosh was attempting to defend Roosevelt, Harry Hopkins, and even Stalin
from West's charges. The invective present in his long screed is demonstrable
and there for all to see who choose to see.
But
rather than attempt to counter Radosh's allegations of West's incompetency and
illiteracy - which in itself would require a book-length treatment, something I
am not willing to undertake because the soundness and value West's book speak
for themselves - I will simply stress that FrontPage's editors have shown their
dishonest and manipulative hands by removing Mark Tapson's review. That is an
unconscionable and unforgivable journalistic and moral crime.
That
is a grave enough charge that should weigh heavily on FrontPage's editors.
Radosh's purported review may as well have appeared in The New York Times, and
we all know how committed that publication is to straight journalism and
truth-telling.
But,
then, we are dealing with Neocons here. Neoconservativism is simply a
smorgasbord of supposedly "right-wing" ideologies populated largely
by former communists, retired radical left-wing activists, cringing liberals,
and even ex-SDS members such as Radosh. It is as philosophically rudderless as
traditional as "right-wing" Republican philosophy (provided anyone
can find it). As a movement, it is so open-ended it may as well admit Barack Obama
and all three Clintons as honorary members. Neoconservatism can accommodate
just about every ideology but Islam.
Had
West written a similar book about the infiltration of our government, military,
and other institutions by Islamic supremacists, would Radosh have attempted to
pick it apart and wisecrack about West's insufficient scholarly abilities? I'm
betting he would. Would the editors of FrontPage have sanctioned it? To judge
by their behavior now, I'm betting they would.
They've
shot their bolt, discredited themselves, and I'll never trust a neocon ever
again. Not that I ever did.
I
have also reviewed West's book on Rule of Reason and Family Security Matters,
"The Enemy Inside the Gates,"
here
and
here
. Judge for yourselves. I have also critiqued another
scurrilous review of West's book by Frank Csongo in The Washington Times,
"Critical Tunnel Vision at The Washington Times" (June 27
th
),
here
.
I
conclude this defense of Diana West and her book by paraphrasing myself from
"The Enemy Inside the Gates":
On
one hand, the culprits did not value the truth. On the other, they feared its
power and went to extraordinary lengths to suppress it, erected ideological
barricades to block it from public knowledge, and punished those who spoke the
truth or threatened to tell the truth.
West's
lesson to Americans: Reality can't be redacted, buried, fabricated, falsified,
or omitted.
And
that goes for the editors of FrontPage, as well.
# # #
Ruth King Examines
David Horowitz’s and Ron Radosh’s Attack on Diana West’s Reputation
By John L.
Work
August 12,
2013
I’m
awaiting the arrival of my copy of Diana West’s new Book
American Betrayal: The
Secret Assault On Our Nation’s Character.
I’ve not commented on the work itself
because I have yet to read it. I have, however, followed Diana’s literary work
for years. I read and reviewed her first book,
The Death of the Grownup:
How America’s Arrested Development is Bringing Down Western Civilization.
As a
retired law enforcement officer of twenty-plus years experience, followed by
nearly two years as an investigator with the Colorado State Public Defender’s
Office, detailed criminal investigations accounted for ten years of my career
in the field. I investigated crimes for lawyers working on both sides of
American courtrooms, including murders, sexual assaults, robberies,
burglaries and white collar crimes.
From the
first column I encountered by chance many years ago, shortly after the 9/11/01
attacks, I found Diana West to be meticulous and accurate in her fact-gathering
methods. She would have been a marvelous detective. She is ethical and
microscopically true to the smallest details in her presentation of
evidence.
Come now
neo-conservatives David Horowitz of
www.FrontPageMag.com
and Ronald Radosh, both former revolutionary communists. Their anti-American
activities in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s were dedicated to the
implementation of Karl Marx’s manifesto. Their support for that
ideology endorsed Nikita Khruschev’s continuation of Josef
Stalin’s gulags in the USSR. They provided de facto abetment for
a regime responsible for the suffering and deaths of countless
victims of Communist repression.
So, Horowitz
and Radosh recanted their revolutionary ideas and recited their mea culpa.
They switched sides. They made their fortunes writing books for patriotic
American conservative interests. I’m not impressed with their sincerity,
especially in light of the recent events. The two former
Marxists, hiding behind their neo-con credentials, have launched
a
relentless attack
on Diana West’s book in a manner
that can only be seen as carefully designed to ridicule, marginalize
and destroy her literary credentials. This is not scholarly debate. It’s
annihilation and character assassination. Why would they do this?
Over at
www.RuthfullyYours.com
,
Ruth King presents her hypothesis on why Horowitz and Radosh decided to start
this malicious campaign, which to all appearances is designed to
demolish West’s reputation as a scholar and author. I recommend that you take
the time to read Ruth’s opinion and make your decision:
As soon as I’ve read American
Betrayal, I’ll render my opinion on its value.
# # #
What Are They
Thinking at American Thinker?
Ruthfully
Yours
August 13th,
2013
I
like and often post from American Thinker…but these past few days have set me
to thinking…They have joined the jeremiad against Diana West. Two efforts are
actually risible - by authors who have not read the book!!!!
Exhibit
A:
All
Feldman
does is repeat the screeds of Radosh and Herf…..hhmmmmm……
“This week I’m
making an exception in highlighting the imbroglio between Ron Radosh, an
historian whose knowledge of the American Communist party and the McCarthy era
is unmatched, and Diana West, author of American Betrayal: The Secret Assault
on our Nation’s Character. I’m doing so, not to attack West whose work I have
not read, but to point out the dangers of demagogic writers — everywhere
on the political spectrum and the emotional bonds their fans form with them. ”
“
I
haven’t read West
(I do intend to), but from the scuttlebutt and reviews
circulating the internet, it is fairly apparent that she is a reckless
historian of the McCarthy school of history. This, Ron Radosh is not. Unlike
the conspiratorial school, populated on the left by Oliver Stone, and on the
right by West, Radosh dares to take a complex view of history. He is grown up
enough to realize that both Hiss was guilty and McCarthy was a reckless
demagogue; that the blacklist was wrong and that the Hollywood Ten were
selective civil libertarians.”
More egregious, however is the following by raging
Ron
Radosh
where it is obvious that he got an advance copy of Diana West’s
submitted rebuttal. That’s really unsavory.
Diana West submitted a rebuttal of false claims against
her by Radosh to American Thinker, but instead of publishing them, AT ran this
by Ron Radosh, which shows in his words that he saw her column:
“Now let me turn to some of
Diana West’s key assertions regarding World War II, which she argues in the new
piece she is writing for this site I do not really effectively challenge.”
And
by the way…..AT has not posted West’s rebuttal……rsk
# # #
Yet Another
Circular Firing Squad
By Ned May
August 13, 2013
The
controversy
over
Diana West’s book
American Betrayal
continues at a rolling boil within certain sectors of the conservative ghetto
on the Internet.
Before laying out the latest details, I’d like to
consider the larger principle at stake here. The issue is not what is written
in Ms. West’s book, nor does it concern who is right or wrong among those who
have weighed in on the book.
The most important — and puzzling — aspect of
this episode is the eagerness of people to stake out a public position about
American Betrayal without having read the book. It is nothing short of
astonishing that respected writers and scholars should be willing to state a
definitive opinion about a book they haven’t read. How is it that so many
well-educated people could be so lacking in intellectual integrity?
So, when I post about the current imbroglio, I must
emphasize that I have no opinion about the book, since I have not read it. I
do, however, have an opinion about people who state their firm opinions about a
book they have not read.
The
latest prominent venue to publish an article about American Betrayal was the
New English Review, which
posted
excerpts from Ronald Radosh’s original review
yesterday,
accompanied by supportive remarks from NER’s editor-in-chief, Rebecca Bynum.
Reader
comments accompanying all of the reviews and articles attacking Diana West have
been overwhelmingly negative about her detractors, and the comments on Ms.
Bynum’s post were no exception. One commenter had some especially thoughtful
points to make in response, based largely on the
article
“FDR’s Traitor?” by Dr. Andrew Bostom
that was posted yesterday
at American Thinker:
Rebecca,
you owe it to yourself and your readers to read the book — don’t let
Radosh et al tell you what to think. It’s now
deeply
discounted at amazon.com
.
Note
what
Geert
Wilders reportedly took
for some light reading on summer
vacation.
The
NER has a stellar reputation for integrity. Why not read the book and then do
your own review on it?
Here’s
a review by an expert on the subject,
Bernie
Reeves at AT
.
Worth your time. Bernie Reeves, a magazine editor
and publisher, is founder of the Raleigh Spy Conference, established in 2003 to
interpret
declassified information
from the 1930s through the Cold War.
Don’t
miss the author Diana West’s many ripostes to Radosh
here
.
Please
also note the sad problem of Radosh’s factual errors (including his mistakes in
correcting a first set of errors). He gets the book wrong (I mean he literally
mixes the book up with another book apparently). At 75 there can be — not
always, but we’ve all seen it in relatives or friends or colleagues — a
decline in cognitive functioning, and Radosh’s rage and paranoia about Diana
West and American Betrayal fits that profile as well. See
here
(“Today, what I
consider one of the most important review articles I have written is available
on Frontpagemag.com. It is about Diana West’s horrendous and yet popular book,
American Betrayal, which to my mind is not only the single worst book I have
ever read, but a “conservative” assault on history, the truth and intellectual
integrity.”)
Seriously,
Rebecca, how can you NOT read a book that is “the single worst book” that
Radosh ever read, especially since he spent decades reading communist tracts
before he become a recovering former communist? Aren’t you even a wee bit
curious? That’s some bad book.
One
last thing — the whole Source 19 controversy. Since you haven’t yet read
the book — but you will, right? — this may be a bit obscure, but
bear with me. It’s not the centerpiece of West’s argument, but it’s the
centerpiece of Radosh’s argument against West. She says Edouard Mark identified
in 1998 that source 19 was Harry Hopkins. Radosh grants her this point, but
then notes that in 2009, Mark presented a paper (In Re Alger Hiss — A
Final Verdict from the Archives of the KGB) in which (and this is my research,
not what Radosh says which is much briefer), on page 33, Mark quoted Vassiliev’s
notes referring to Boris Bazarov’s letter in 1936 mentioning a “19” which was
annotated much later by John Haynes as referring to Laurence Duggan, not Harry
Hopkins. (Why yes, it is like a passage from Nabokov passed through a processor
designed by Borges, but hang in there). So Radosh’s annotation by John Haynes
in the Mark paper from 2009 was more recent than West’s 1998 Edouard Mark
reference — so the point goes to Radosh. But it turns out that Herbert
Romerstein, a leading historian of the era (author of “The Venona Secrets”), in
November 2012 published with Stan Evans “Stalin’s Secret Agents.” See pages
113-199 for a lengthy discussion of the “19” question — from 1943 —
in which the authors citing numerous sources conclude that “19” was Harry Hopkins.
Who knows, maybe they recycled numbers. Maybe it’s an open question still.
Serious and cognitively capable people can take different positions and keep
analyzing the evidence and agree to disagree. Sadly, not Radosh.
So
at least — if these were fact-based discussions by Radosh et al, in the
same way that American Betrayal is a well-sourced, fact-based work (900+
footnotes) — at least that 2012 discussion of “19” would be a point to
Diana West in this match, no?
At
least it could have been an interesting debate, and civil? And not this awful
leftwing tradition of denunciation and disinformation to which Radosh reverts.
Give
it a shot. Read the book. I would be very interested in reading one of your
thoughtful essays, especially after all the facts have emerged through Diana’s
posts.
Look
for some good writing on this coming soon from Europe too.
Ms.
Bynum responded to this comment, and others:
Thank
you all for your thoughtful comments. It still appears to me that West has
charged into US history in a way that is very reckless. I know enough about
that period to state unequivocally that NER Press would never have published a
book like that. If I were to review it, my review would be similar to Radosh’s,
but without his clear expertise on the Cold War. I’m more familiar with the war
years and FDR.
I
wish Diana luck, but I cannot agree with her about Hopkins, FDR or what should
have been in the aftermath of the war.
A
reader who followed the exchange was amazed by what he read at the New English
Review, and emailed us with his observations:
Without
reading the book, and as a book publisher herself — how can she make any
of these comments? She knows in advance that her review would be similar to
Radosh’s without having read the book? Isn’t this the very picture of an
imposed politically correct party line? That she is saying, publicly, she will
have no thoughts other than Radosh’s, but that his are by definition superior
to hers?
Confronted
with sins small and large, it is always a temptation to despair. And yet Diana
is winning with the commenters — readers both ordinary and expert in the
field — and their comments have been courageous, truth-seeking, brimming
with good fellowship. Even better, so many keep telling her to keep her chin
up, etc.