The Rebuttal: Defending 'American Betrayal' From the Book-Burners (11 page)

What
an extraordinary stage this has set for so many to engage with morality,
ethics, personal integrity, their own place in history.

How
affirming this is for the power of the written word.

The
near-universal condemnation of Diana West’s conclusions by prominent conservative
writers stands in stark contrast with the sentiment of commenters on these
writers’ sites, which are overwhelmingly in favor of Ms. West’s position and
against the lockstep — and often personal — attacks on her.

It’s
too early to make a judgment about what lies behind this deep divide, or why so
many well-educated people are so hasty in their condemnation of a book they
acknowledge not having read.

I
don’t understand it. It’s peculiar, perplexing, and dismaying. It represents a
widespread abandonment of academic standards among scholarly critics who should
know better.

It
makes no sense.

# # #

My Say: All is
Quiet on the Diana Western Front

By
Ruth King

Ruthfully Yours

August 14, 2013

First:
The good news is that sales of her book are soaring.

Second:
Frontpage today has some good columns and a very apposite title “Rats Are Still
Comrades.” Yup….they sure are.

Third:
On Pajamas Media Raging Ron Radosh has a
piece
on treason, Manning, the Rosenbergs etc.

He
has this pithy comment:

“If
we excused people who betray their country out of a delusional belief that they
are doing so for a higher cause than patriotism to their own nation, then our
nation would truly be in mortal danger from our enemies.”

And
in an interview about his book (
The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America)
in 2006
) Horowitz had
this
to say:

He
noted that he writes in the introduction to the book that he believes all
professors — liberal and conservative — have points of view and are
entitled to interpret their fields according to their philosophies. Such
expression, he writes, “is the essence of academic freedom.” In the interview,
Horowitz said that a McCarthyite would never make such a statement, and he said
that the only McCarthyism in evidence with regard to his book are those who
criticize it with
“a rash of misrepresentations” and without having read it.

# # #

Lars Hedegaard on
‘American Betrayal’ by Diana West: ‘Her book is among the most well-documented
I have ever read.’

By
Andrew Bostom

Andrewbostom.org

August
14, 2013

Historian and journalist Lars Hedegaard, who
has—wait for it—actually read Diana West’s “
American
Betrayal
,” made these very insightful comments on the book:

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.

Hedegaard, a
former Marxist who left the movement just over thirty years ago, was one of the
editors of the
Fundamental historie
series of books–world history
from a Marxist perspective, in 4 volumes. He also edited a volume of the Hvem
Hvad Hvor (“Who What Where”) yearbook in the 1980s. At present, he edits the
online and print editions of the newspaper
Dispatch International
.

Lars
Hedegaard’s major writings of late, which have focused on Islam, include the
following books and articles:

Books

I
krigens hus: Islams kolonisering af Vesten [In the House of War: Islam’s
colonization of the West] (with Helle Merete Brix and Torben Hansen). Aarhus,
Hovedland, 2003

1400
års krigen: Islams strategi, EU og frihedens endeligt [The 1400 Year War:
Islam's strategy, the EU and the demise of freedom] (with Mogens Camre).
Odense, Trykkefrihedsselskabets Bibliotek, 2009

Muhammeds
piger: Vold, mord og voldtægter i Islams Hus. [Muhammad’s girls: Violence,
murder and rape in the House of Islam] Odense, Trykkefrihedsselskabets
Bibliotek, 2011

Articles

“Den
11. september som historie” [September 11 as history] in Helle Merete Brix and
Torben Hansen (eds.), Islam i Vesten: På Koranens vej? Copenhagen, Tiderne
Skifter, 2002.

“The
Growth of Islam in Denmark and the Future of Secularism” in Kurt Almqvist
(ed.), The Secular State and Islam in Europe. Stockholm, Axel and Margaret
Ax:son Johnson Foundation, 2007

“Free
Speech: Its Benefits and Limitations” in Süheyla Kirca and LuEtt Hanson (eds.),
Freedom and Prejudice: Approaches to Media and Culture. Istanbul, Bahcesehir
University Press, 2008

“De
cartoon-jihad en de opkomst van parallelle samenlevingen” [The cartoon jihad
and the emergence of parallel societies] in Hans Jansen and Bert Snel (eds.),
Eindstrijd: De finale clash tussen het liberale Westen en een traditionele
islam. Amsterdam, Uitgiverij Van Praag, 2009

Cordon Sanitaire:
FAIL

By Ned May

Gates of Vienna

August 14, 2013

On
Sunday
and
yesterday
we reported on the uproar in conservative circles about
Diana
West’s book American Betrayal
, which examines the penetration of
the United States government, in particular the Roosevelt administration, by
Soviet agents of influence. One might assume from the discussion in those posts
that Ms. West’s book was universally panned and condemned by American
conservatives.

Such
is not the case. Several readers have emailed us to point out those
conservatives who have decided to breach the cordon sanitaire around American
Betrayal. The cordon is pretty leaky, actually.

American
Betrayal has received endorsements from:

Ÿ
 
Amity
Shlaes

Ÿ
 
M.
Stanton Evans

Ÿ
 
Monica
Crowley

Ÿ
 
Debra
Burlingame

Ÿ
 
Brad
Thor

Ÿ
 
Laura
Ingraham
(who also made it a “must-read”)

It
was also featured at the
Heritage
Foundation
and the
Daily
Caller
.

And
Breitbart ran a five-part series based on book:

1.
Why
FDR Fail to Relieve MacArthur and 151,000 Troops Fighting the Japanese in the
Philippines?

2.
Did
the Roosevelt Administration Send Uranium and Other Atomic Materials to Stalin?

3.
Did
Communist Influence Prolong WWII by Blocking German Resistance Efforts?

4.
Did
Communist Influence Lead to D-Day Invasion over Italy Strategy?

5.
Did
Uncle Sam Leave 15,000 to 20,000 GIs in Stalin’s Hands?

So,
to mix my metaphors a bit, the choir is not singing in unison: there are
reviewers who gladly recommend American Betrayal. One presumes that —
unlike many other reviewers — they have actually read it.

# # #

An Unambiguous Example
of Harry Hopkins’s Pro-Soviet Perfidy

By Andrew Bostom

Family Security Matters

August 15, 2013

Diana
West’s
American Betrayal
enumerates an impressive litany of FDR “co-President” Harry
Hopkins’s pro-Soviet activities. Here is a partial listing: his excessive
largesse toward the USSR via Lend-Lease, which he oversaw, even to the point,
arguably, of sacrificing American and British military needs; his relentless
dedication to Stalin’s “Second Front” demands, opposing at least equally viable
military alternatives less “advantageous” to Soviet expansionist designs in
Eastern Europe, as originally laid out in the secret August, 1939
Molotov-Ribbentrop pact between the USSR and Nazi Germany; his dismissal of the
1940 Soviet Katyn massacres of 22,000 Polish civilians, soldiers, and officers;
his labeling of Soviet defector to the U.S., Victor Kravchenko (author of the
memoir, “I Chose Freedom”), a “deserter,” while pressing FDR to deport
Kravchenko back to the USSR, where he faced certain execution; and, according
to one very credible American witness, his apparent role in the facilitation of
uranium shipments to the Soviets-after such shipments were embargoed.

This
incomplete litany far transcends the controversy over whether Hopkins was
Soviet “agent 19″-a case made, separately, by intelligence historians
Eduard Mark
,
and
Herbert Romerstein
,
but contended by the intelligence
historian team of
Haynes and Klehr
.

Perhaps
the most compelling evidence West presents of Hopkins’ traitorous perfidy is
conveyed by reproducing a personal and confidential letter FBI Director J.
Edgar Hoover wrote to Hopkins and FDR (dated May 7, 1943), and chronicling what
followed via revelations from a KGB archive.
But what is of equal
importance, in terms of West’s discussions of the glaring omissions in our
historical understanding is a striking example of how established academics-in
this instance,
Christopher Andrew
, insert their own a priori judgments in
attempting to exculpate Hopkins of having consciously abetted Soviet anti-US
espionage. More remarkable is Andrew’s omission of objective evidence-the
direct contents of Hoover’s letter to Hopkins-making explicit what Hopkins had
been told about Soviet “embassy member” Zarubin/Zubilin, i.e., that he was a
Comintern agent
.

What
follows is Diana West’s own full elucidation of this telling episode, which
elaborates on its summary portrayal by Christopher Andrew, from pp. 187-190 of
American Betrayal
:

We know this also
from another Soviet source, the Mitrokhin archive, which tells us that “earlier
in the year he [Hopkins] had privately warned the Soviet embassy in Washington
that the FBI had bugged a secret meeting at which Zarubin (apparently
identified by Hopkins only as a member of the embassy) had passed money to
Steve Nelson, a leading member of the U.S. Communist underground.” (Andrew and
Mitrokhin, Sword and Shield, 111.)

Let’s leave aside
the unsubstantiated parenthetical comment preemptively declaring Hopkins
“apparently” guileless: We have just learned that Hopkins blew an ongoing FBI
surveillance operation by revealing to the Soviet embassy that a Soviet
official had been bugged delivering money to the American Communist
underground. Never mind that this Soviet chain of activity was in flagrant
violation of the 1933 terms of U.S. diplomatic recognition prohibiting
espionage activities in this country. The footnote to the statement cites
Mitrokhin’s archive (vol. 6, ch. 12) and further notes, “Hopkins had been
personally briefed by Hoover on Zarubin’s visit to Nelson. Hoover would
doubtless have been outraged had he known that Hopkins had informed the Soviet
embassy.” (Andrew and Mitrokhin, Sword and Shield, 594.)

With good cause.
Hoover’s briefing came in the form of a “personal and confidential” letter to
Hopkins, which the authors cite from Benson and Warner’s book VENONA, where it
is reproduced in full.(Benson and Warner (eds.), VENONA, 49-50.)

To unpack Andrew
and Mitrokhin’s statement and really shake out the wrinkles, we need to know,
first, that Vasily Zarubin, who used the cover name Vasily Zubilin (that’ll
throw people off), was a Soviet Comintern agent, later identified as the top
NKVD rezident in the United States. We need to know also that Hopkins knew that
Zarubin was a Soviet Comintern agent, despite Andrew and Mitrokhin’s
parenthetical testament to Hopkins’s “apparent” ignorance. We know Hopkins knew
this because J. Edgar Hoover, in the very letter Andrew and Mitrokhin cite,
told Hopkins so.(Benson and Warner (eds.), VENONA, 49-50.)

“Dear Harry,”
Hoover wrote in a letter marked “personal and confidential,” stamped May 7,
1943-some weeks after George Racey Jordan claims to have gotten orders from
Hopkins to expedite a uranium shipment to Moscow:

“Through a
highly confidential and reliable source it has been determined that on April
10, 1943, a Russian who is an agent of the Communist International paid a sum
of money to Steve Nelson, National Committeeman of the Communist Party, USA, at
the latter’s home in Oakland, California. The money was reportedly paid to
Nelson for the purpose of placing Communist Party members and Comintern agents
in industries engaged in secret war production for the United States Government
so that information could be obtained for transmittal to the Soviet Union. The
Russian agent of the Communist International has been identified as Vassili
Zubilin, Third Secretary of the Embassy of the USSR.”

Zarubin/Zubilin
was the top Soviet intelligence officer in the United States, who, we would
later find out, “supervised Soviet atomic espionage.” (Harvey Klehr, John Earl
Haynes, and Fridrikh Igorevich Firsov, The Secret World of American Communism (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1995, 216)

In fact, it was
from this bugging of Nelson’s home in Oakland, California, that the FBI learned
about both the existence of the supersecret Manhattan Project and the Soviet
espionage operation targeting it for the very first time. (Romerstein and
Breindel, Venona Secrets, 545-46.)

Hopkins‘s
reaction to Hoover’s revelation may be the most damning piece of evidence of
all in the case against Harry Hopkins. When we read what Hoover told Hopkins in
his confidential letter-that a Comintern agent posing as a senior Soviet
diplomat in Washington was passing money to the American Communist underground
to establish Comintern networks within the U.S. war industry to steal military
secrets-and see Hopkins immediately turn around and tell the Soviet Embassy,
where that same “diplomat” was posted, that the FBI was onto them, we have to
realize we are looking at a traitor acting with Soviet, not American, interests
at heart. I don’t see any other plausible conclusion-and this traitor was the
closest adviser of the president of the United States.

I must interject
one additional detail that Romerstein and Breindel provide in their report on
the Zarubin-Nelson link, as recorded by a young FBI agent named William
Brannigan, who would go on to head the FBI’s Soviet Counter- intelligence
Section. In the course of their conversation, Zarubin and Nelson also discussed
the work of Gregory Kheifetz, NKVD San Francisco rezident, and his mistress,
Louise Brantsen, a wealthy California Communist who hosted parties bringing
agents together at her San Francisco home.

Kheifetz was the
agent assigned by Moscow to raid UC Berkeley’s Radiation Laboratory, where work
on the atomic bomb was being done. (Romerstein and Breindel, Venona Secrets, 255-57.)
George Racey Jordan mentioned Kheifetz in his 1950 testimony on the shipment of
atomic materials-the cadmium rods, heavy water, uranium, and other atomic pile
ingredients that went through the Lend-Lease hub under his supervision in Great
Falls, Montana. Discussing a young Soviet sergeant Jordan believed was, in
fact, a KGB minder sent to Great Falls to watch over the Soviet Lend-Lease
chief at the base, Colonel Kotikov, Jordan mentioned that this particular
sergeant took a lot of “mysterious” trips for a junior NCO.

Where would he
go? “When he would apply to go to San Francisco, he would go to see Gregory
Kheifetz,” Jordan recalled. (Hearings 1950, Shipment of Atomic Material, 1163)

This detail may
not connect another dot, but it does add a dot to enlarge the plane on which
the Soviet conspiracy was taking place. As Kotikov was collecting the
ingredients in his “Bomb Chemicals” folder, his minder was tripping off to San
Francisco to see a senior NKVD officer overseeing atomic espionage in the
United States. From Jordan we have testimony that Harry Hopkins telephoned to
push uranium through Great Falls to Moscow in April 1943. From Mitrokhin’s KGB
archive we know that Hopkins tipped off the Soviets to the FBI’s April 1943
surveillance of atomic espionage in San Francisco. From J. Edgar Hoover’s May
1943 letter we know that Hopkins knew, at the very least, that he was tipping
off the Soviets to FBI surveillance of a known Soviet agent seeking U.S.
military secrets. In light of what Hopkins did upon receiving the Hoover
letter, I don’t see how Hopkins can conceivably be described as any- thing but
a conscious and conscientious agent of the Soviet Union.

The Hoover letter
goes on to note the existence of further evidence of coop- elation between the
CPUSA and the Comintern in such penetration operations, to offer details on
Nelson’s background, and to caution Hopkins about the confidential nature of
the information “inasmuch as the investigation is continuing.” Summing up,
Hoover wrote, “Because of the relationship demonstrated in this investigation
between the Communist Party, USA, the Comminist International and the Soviet
Government, I thought the President and you would be interested in these data.”
(Benson and Warner (eds.), VENONA, 49-50.)

“The President
and you.” It wasn’t just burbling magazine copy that promoted the
Roosevelt-Hopkins co-presidency; it was for real. Sure enough, Hopkins was so
very interested in Hoover’s data he couldn’t wait to tell . . . the Soviets.
(Did he ever even tell Roosevelt? We don’t know. Somehow, I doubt it.) The net
effect of Hopkins’s spilling the FBI’s beans to the Soviets, then, was to make
the Soviets-the “Freshmen”-more discreet in the future, more mindful of FBI
eyes and ears. Just think: We wouldn’t know about this act of treason if a
retired KGB archivist named Mitrokhin hadn’t bothered to copy, hide, and
successfully smuggle his archives out of the former Soviet Union in 1992.
Hopkins’s guilt on this particularly damning count would have remained secret,
probably forever.