The Rebuttal: Defending 'American Betrayal' From the Book-Burners (9 page)
Read The Rebuttal: Defending 'American Betrayal' From the Book-Burners Online
Authors: Diana West
RADOSH’S
PLAGIARISM CALUMNY
It gets worse.
Radosh:
“West has read
historian Laurence Rees’
World War II Behind Closed Doors: Stalin, the
Nazis, and the West
British Book Award Book of the Year for History in 2009
and also the basis for a BBC television documentary which was aired on all
American PBS stations.”
Just
what is he getting at?
“West cites Rees
in her text, and
clearly much of her
account comes from his own findings and work. “
I
get it. Radosh is saying I read Rees, watched the TV show and copied “his own
findings and work.”
This
is outrageous.
I do cite Rees about six times in my book, but not in the
German section, as Radosh now implies. That’s because Rees, except for about
two sentences
in one
paragraph, doesn’t report the story of the German Underground that I happen to
develop into a chapter of 15,000 words with 78 endnotes.
This less-than-oblique charge of
plagiarism is a lie.
Radosh continues in this ugly and
outrageous vein:
“When I myself read about George H.
Earle’s advice to FDR in West’s book, it sounded very familiar, until I
realized I had read the same account, with the same quotes and detail in Rees’
book.”
I utterly and completely reject this
non-specific, non-sourced charge of plagiarism, too.
MY TRUE CRIME REVEALED
– AGAIN
He
continues:
“But she has
ignored all the evidence Rees assembles in his book, and all the arguments he
makes that refute her conclusions.”
Here
we go again. I have used a different and, particularly in this case, far more
extensive set of sources for this stream of history and reached a different and
more extensive set of conclusions. And for that I get my knuckles rapped,
again.
“
She should not have written this book,”
Horowitz wrote. My conclusions – my sources − are verboten in
Radosh-Horowitz World.
Fortunately,
not so in America.
PRAISE FOR WHAT IS
CONVENTIONAL, CONDEMNATION FOR WHAT IS …
NOT
IN MY BOOK!
Radosh:
“Rees gives a
nuanced account … but Rees does not share
West’s
conspiratorial mindset,
or her claim that the suppression [of Soviet guilt
for the Katyn Forest Massacre],
which
Churchill demanded
, was the result of
machinations
by Soviet agents
. In fact
Rees
reaches conclusions quite the opposite from West’s, something readers of West’s
book would be unaware of.”
(Emphasis added.)
How
weird is this: First, I make no such claim regarding “Soviet agents” – or
even, in this case, agents of influence, either. What I analyze in depth
regarding Katyn is a case of moral decline and cowardice. Indeed, I am able to
draw on Rees’s fine account in this same stretch regarding Katyn, and find his
conclusions quite sound. In other words, Rees’ conclusions are not incompatible
with what is, in fact,
in my book
. You might think as we
approach the end that Radosh would ease up on the pace of calumnies and
sloppinesses, but he could hardly be more wrong on more points than he is here.
The critique is an utter shambles.
Meanwhile,
I can find no evidence that Churchill did anything other than follow along in
this ugly suppression, not “demand” it, as Radosh claims.
LIKE THE ENERGIZER BUNNY,
HE KEEPS ON GOING
Radosh:
“Rees asks an
important question that West might have paid attention to: Could Western
leaders have `prevented the Soviet dominance of Eastern Europe by acting
differently during their partnership with Stalin?’ ”
Is
this some kind of horrible prank − ? I “might” have paid attention to
this important question…? I have written an entire book paying attention to
this question.
And
then he gets it wrong, yet again:
“The decision not
to consider an entente with Hitler’s army against Stalin was a clear-headed
affirmation of U.S. interests, not a
betrayal
as West virtually screams.”
Not.
In. My. Book.
Radosh
quotes Rees to comment on the German Underground; Rees, who pronounces his own
two-sentence encapsulation of the entire history of the German Underground as
having presented a “disastrous course of action” that was best avoided. Thus,
Radosh dismisses my entire 15,000 word chapter, which draws from multiple
sources Rees did not draw from, rendering the comparison of our two narratives
moot at best, and his own appraisal inapplicable to mine.
“This
is the consensus of every historian of the war,” Radosh writes, once again
pronouncing, denouncing my true crime – writing a non-consensus narrative
that, Radosh and Horowitz clearly believe, must be stopped by any means
necessary. This includes the willful and baseless attempt to destroy my own
credibility and reputation to do so.
This
includes the lies, distortions, fabrications and smears that I have endured and
rebutted here.
But
“the consensus of every historian”?
Whether
or not Radosh is suddenly right about something, I can say with complete
confidence: It is not the consensus of me.
Commentary
from the Blogosphere
What follows is an unusual
chronicle of controversy. It is by many authors from many places, from Los
Angeles to Georgia, from Ken Sikorski at Tundra Tabloids to Ned May at Gates of
Vienna, from Carol Taber at Family Security Matters to Ruth King at Ruthfully
Yours and more, all of whom erupted in shock, perplexity, consternation, and
outrage at the onslaught of vitriolic attacks leveled at both
American Betrayal
and me personally, beginning with Ronald Radosh’s
7,000-word “take-down” (his word) published at David Horowitz’s Frontage
Magazine on August 7, 2013. (See Appendix 2 for a listing of the copycat pieces
that followed.)
It fell to me to
demonstrate the mendaciousness of these attacks, which was the task I set for
myself in my 22,000-word-rebuttal. That document took weeks to prepare. How
fortunate – how blessed I was that in the interim so many
individuals rose up in my defense.
Some of the authors of the
following essays were known to me; others were not. All of them wrote their
opinions spontaneously and unsolicited, which makes their contributions all the
more precious. I was similarly heartened by the dozens if not scores of readers
who fought in the “comment wars” that raged over American Betrayal at
participating websites: Frontpage, PJ Media, The American Thinker, National
Review and elsewhere. Meanwhile, I received many heartfelt emails of
encouragement, some of which I have posted at the Reader’s Corner at my
website.
I would like to note that
this controversy, while quite personal and specific to me and my book, was also
about something larger: the nature of civilized debate; the conduct of
political discussion; the openness of historical inquiry. These weighty matters
and the principles they entail spurred these writers to take their stands, and
thank goodness. “The media,” including conservative media, failed to respond or
even address any of these vital issues. When on September 4, in a brutal excess
of “political correctness,” my Team B II colleague Clare M. Lopez was fired
– fired -- by the Gatestone Institute for favorably mentioning my book in
an essay, this same unbroken silence became a new danger to free expression and
inquiry.
Then again, it may well be
that the silence lingers because so many are unaware of what went on in the
shank of the summer of ’13. All the more reason to draw attention to the voices
of vigilance below. May they encourage new and freewheeling debate.
Diana West
October 2013
My Say: On the Matter of Diana West Vs. Frontpage
August
8th, 2013
First: Diana West is my friend. I admire her, respect her
and trust her research.
I
read her book “American Betrayal” carefully. I came to her book with a serious
difference with her over Senator Joseph McCarthy who was Senator while I was
experiencing a political growing up at Bronx High School of Science where
supporting the candidacy of General Eisenhower was heresy, to say nothing about
the “sainthood and martyrdom” of the Rosenbergs.
Like
George Orwell, McCarthy’s name altered the dictionary…and “McCarthyism” became
synonymous with punishment and harassment of dissent…..I went along with this until
I read “Witness” by Whittaker Chambers; until I realized that the Communist
hunter James Jesus Angleton (a C.I.A. counterintelligence agent and one of the
men who helped found the Mossad in 1951) was right about a Russian/Communist
mole in the C.I.A. even though he was called a “crackpot conspiracist”; until
the revelations that J. Robert Oppenheimer, the head of the Manhattan Project
may have been a Soviet agent (the Alsop brothers hysterically compared the
investigation of Oppenheimer to the Dreyfus affair); until I read Diana’s book.
Maybe….just maybe…Joseph McCarthy, not the most attractive or likeable
messenger was on to something really big. “American Betrayal” is persuasive, informative,
meticulously researched and documented and convincing.
Now,
many may disagree. David “Spengler” Goldman, a friend whom I like and respect
agrees with Ron Radosh. So does a dear friend of mine who has courageously
exposed the radical agenda of the climateers and so called environmentalists,
so does Jamie Glazov, another person whom I like and respect, so do many
others, and Frontpage had every right to publish Radosh’s nasty review.
But,
and this is the serious butt of the scandal…Frontpage should not have removed
Mark Tapson’s good review and then as a conciliatory crumb offered Diana the chance
to rebut Radosh. I don’t blame her for refusing and all the squirming and
offensive name calling and apologetics at the site don’t excuse their craven
decision to remove Mark Tapson’s review which they had accepted and posted.
In
good time and in a venue of her choosing Diana west will reply, I can’t wait to
read and post it.
# # #
David Horowitz and Ron Radosh Attack Diana West and
American
Betrayal
By
Donald Douglas
August
9, 2013
Folks will remember
I
attended
the Diana West book signing last month. It was a lively event and I was excited
to meet Diana.
At the time I'd read a couple of chapters of
the
book
.
I'm frankly not well read in the historiography of Communist Party infiltration
of the U.S. government, although from my
own training
I thought
that some of Diana's conclusions were quite broad, especially on WWII strategic
issues and the origins of the Cold War in Europe. Indeed, I mentioned to Diana
that I thought her book was very "bold" and that I'd be interested to
see the reactions among academic historians.
Unfortunately, this isn't what I had in mind.
It turns out that former Communists-turned conservatives
David Horowitz and Ronald Radosh have launched a vicious, personal and ad
hominem attack on Diana and American Betrayal. And right off the bat I have to
say that any writer/scholar is going to face criticism and pushback against
their work. But in an ideal world such criticism comes with an abundance of
collegiality, reflecting normative expectations of elevating the community of
scholars and scholarship. But with Horowitz and Radosh the attack is actually
the exact opposite. It's an attempt to destroy any scholarship that isn't the
acceptable form of anti-communism. This is conservative political correctness
of the most extremely ugly kind.
Lots of interested parties are weighing in on this, and the
heated exchange has seen a flurry of salvos issued at FrontPage Magazine, PJ
Media, with Diana responding at her blog. But to be clear, at this point it's
not whether Diana's book is right or wrong on facts and interpretations. It's
that she's being treated as shabbily as can be, and sadly this is by people
I've long held in very high esteem.
Let's start with Diana's initial, shocking email exchange
with the folks at FrontPage. See, "
If
Frontpage Will Lie about This, What Won't They Lie About?
" Diana
was responding to Radosh's attack on her book at Horowitz's website, which
included a nasty disclaimer falsely alleging that Diana refused to publish a
response to Radosh at FrontPage. Check that link for the full post. (And note
that Horowitz pulled his website's initial glowing review of the book, written
by Mark Tapson, "
MARK
TAPSON ON DIANA WEST’S “AMERICAN BETRAYAL”
.") But here's the exchange:
The email sequence starts at the bottom. I note that
Horowitz cc'd his email (immediately below) to three other people
presumably to display his cleverness.
On Aug 7, 2013, at 1:08 AM, david horowitz wrote:
Dear
Diana,
Our decision to remove the review of
American Betrayal was not because it offered an incorrect opinion that we
wanted to suppress. The review was removed because the reviewer was as
incompetent to provide an informed assessment of your book as you were to write
it.
David
[Horowitz]
From: jamie glazov
Subject: Fwd: review of your
book
Date: August 6, 2013 7:41:00
PM PDT
To: David Horowitz
I guess we're not friends
anymore.
From: Diana West ...
Date: Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at
9:38 PM
Subject: Re: review of your
book
To: jamie glazov
Dear Jamie,
What gall. You and your crew
behave like little totalitarians, suppress an "incorrect" opinion of
my book, and, now that you have your "correct" review at the ready,
ask me to dignify your nasty tactics by engaging in civil debate. If I deem it
worth my while to respond to the Radosh review, I will find another outlet.
Diana
On Aug 6, 2013, at 9:41 PM,
jamie glazov wrote:
Dear Diana, I just want to
give you a heads up that our review of your book, written by Ron Radosh, will
be going up on our site at 9:30pm Pacific time this evening (12:30am Eastern).
David would like me to pass
on to you that you are most welcome to write a response to this review, and to
feel free to write at length to defend your position (but not longer than the
review itself).
Sincerely, Jamie.
I've
placed Horowitz's email in bold as the condescension and contempt for Diana is
really astonishing.
And the
exact same contempt bleeds across the page at Radosh's angry review at
FrontPage, "
McCarthy on Steroids
." He's so fired up that he posted
another piece at PJ Media even before Diana was able to respond, "
Why I Wrote a Take-Down of
Diana West’s Awful Book
."
And then
on it goes. Here's David Horowitz, "
Editorial: Our Controversy
With Diana West
."
There's
also a review by historian Jeffrey Herf, "
Diana West vs. History
." And then Ron Radosh lashes out
again, "
Diana West’s Attempt to
Respond
."
And then
back over at Diana's blog, "
If Frontpage Lies about
This, They'll Lie about Anything, Pt. 2
," and "
'Professor' Radosh Gets an
'F'
."
Again,
I'm still reading and evaluating Diana's book, and I expect to be reading more
books in the genre of Soviet espionage against the U.S. My argument here is
that the attacks on Diana are unscholarly and unprofessional. Nothing here
works to elevate the community of scholars above the routine bilge we navigate
on a daily basis in the blogosphere. There's a prodigious amount of research
that went into American Betrayal, and I'd expect that the work would be seen as
advancing an important debate and offering much needed provocation in our
current era of official state-sponsored ignorance and the media's capitulation
to daily Orwellian lies.
# # #
My Say: Why Do Ron Radosh and David Horowitz Hate Diana
West?
By
Ruth King
August
11th, 2013
Thank you for the myriad letters expressing support for
Diana West and outrage at the actions of Frontpage. As you know, I have been
partial to Frontpage and I post something from them almost every day. I have
been pondering so many of your questions about the possible motivations of two
journalists who promote a conservative agenda and expose mindless liberals and leftists,
but have been obsessively attacking one author and one book. They have caused
the controversy by purging a good review and posting a vicious one. When
brought to task, they redoubled their attacks and insults.
Diana West, the author, has stripped the calumnies about
Joseph McCarthy, a bogeyman to both leftists and conservatives, to reveal that
he, along with other Senate and House investigators of both parties were
certainly onto something real in disclosing the penetration of high ranking
Soviet Agents and propagandists in all the corridors of power and
policy- the government, the media, entertainment and the academies. Some of you
have asked if that could explain their animus. I don’t thinks so.
Diana West will rebut every smear and lie and
misstatement but in the meantime, here is some perspective on how Marxism
infected America long after World War 2 and long after Joseph McCarthy.
The work of spies and agents of influence for
the Soviet Union was aided by the “useful idiots” who did the leg work in the
public. Some were amateur hour socialists, others like Horowitz and Radosh
were, by their own admission, Marxists who carried their useful
idiocy into the anti Vietnam War movement. And, they remained
Marxists in spite of the revelations of the murderous acts and intentions
of Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh and Castro. They remained Marxists even when Robert
Conquest, the brilliant historian, poet and essayist published The Great Terror
– in 1968 detailing Stalin’s purges and brutality. Harrison Salisbury
called it “brilliant…not only an odyssey of madness, tragedy, and sadism, but a
work of scholarship and literary craftsmanship.” Gee….Radosh who described
himself as “ a young man of vast intellectual curiosity” must have missed it.
Yes, while Jamie Glazov’s (Jamie Glazov whom I like is an
editor at Frontpage) late and noble father, a Russian dissident was being
harassed and threatened in Russia, Ron Radosh remained a member of the
Communist party and was cavorting with Students for a Democratic Society and
assorted thugs and terrorists. And, David Horowitz, who was editor of Ramparts
magazine, by his own admission was eager “to divulge the secrets of
America’s electronic intelligence agency to the world. We viewed it as an
effort to level the military playing field so that America would no longer be
the superpower that was able to lord it over everyone else.”
His
words
…not mine.
Diana West reminds Horowitz and Radosh how they abetted
and supported a vile and genocidal ideology, far more pernicious and treasonous
than the punk leftists such as Oliver Stone or Code Pink or their ilk, so often
attacked in Frontpage.
While Radosh and Horowitz both have denounced Communism
and the left, do they accept their inherent responsibility for the present
climate which they attack daily in Frontpage?
In
fact, at the end of his book
Commies: A Journey Through the Old Left, the New Left and
the Leftover Left
by
Ronald Radosh
(Jun 15, 2002), the author states:
“”The country is stronger for having encountered and
withstood us.” Huh?
No! The country is not stronger for having
encountered your arrogance and recklessness, and Diana West demonstrates how
the deception and self-deception of Marxists, paved the way for the political
correctness, moral relativism, and blindness to the dangers of Islam that now
pervade our culture.
That
surely must rankle.
# # #
FrontPage's Spitballs Strike Diana West
August 12,
2013
