Diana West Dissed by David Horowitz?

Posted on Comments

Regular readers will remember the shocking revelation — “‘A Conspiracy So Immense’ — Was FDR Aide Harry Hopkins a Soviet Agent?” — from Diana West’s new book, American Betrayal. Now comes disturbing news from Diana that David Horowitz’s FrontPage Magazine has removed a favorable review of her book from that site and replaced it with what she calls a “massive hit piece” by Ron Radosh.

Radosh and Horowitz are friends from way back, and I’m sure this influenced the decision, but . . . c’mon, really?

It’s not the first time Radosh has slammed conservative authors. Years ago, Thomas Woods’ Politically Incorrect Guide to American History came under similar assault, and I know Woods was furious about that. But that was one of those typical neo-vs.-paleo dust-ups, and I chalked up that episode as mere sectarian infighting.

Radosh’s hostility to West is more difficult to fathom, because she is a Movement Conservative in good standing. One might think that Horowitz would have looked at Radosh’s savage review of West’s book and said, “Ron, could you tone it down a bit? Do we really need to have this fight?” This could turn into an damaging feud.

And just to make clear, I’m on Diana West’s side all the way in this one, because I remember how Diana stood up for Pamela Geller when Charles Johnson went on the warpath against Pamela.

There’s more that friendship involved, however. American Betrayal demands a conservative re-appraisal of our understanding of FDR’s foreign policy, and indeed to re-examine many basic assumptions about mid-20th-century history. If Harry Hopkins was a Soviet agent . . . Well, finish that sentence however you will.

The very fact that there could be any suspicion about the loyalty of such a key presidential aide is mind-boggling.

Please read Diana’s article at Breitbart.com, “Did the Roosevelt Administration Send Uranium and Other Atomic Materials to Stalin?”

 

72 comments

  1. What difference at this point does it make?

    (just getting it in early to defuse the lurking libtrolls)

  2. I’m highlighting the series on my blog (http://universalspectator.com). As a long-time student of World War II I’ve speculated as to the reasons behind some of the more questionable decisions made by the Allies in Europe beginning in early 1943. This series may have the answer. A fascinating read.

  6. As I said at PJMedia, in a comment to Radosh’s “COME SEE THE CRAP I WROTE” post — “if our foreign policy were under the control of our enemies, how would it have been different?”

  10. Was FDR Aide Harry Hopkins a Soviet Agent?

    Since the Venona Papers (if not earlier) has there been any doubt whatsoever? It’s like asking, Is Barack Obama a complete narcissist?

    Why is this even a question rather than a plain statement?

  12. West might well be going overboard in this book, but I can’t help reading Radosh’s defense against West’s counter-attack without getting a slight sense of political correctness. In other words, Radosh appears to be bending over to give an explanation of reasonableness rather than conspiarcy for some of FDR’s and Truman’s policy blunders.

    Note that I’m not claiming that the two were part of a deliberate conspiracy themselves, merely that they allowed the genuine communist conspiracy that had infiltrated our government to exercise influence on far too many decisions.

  13. This matters, Robert, because West’s book doesn’t merely reach “controversial” conclusions — it’s dishonest, morally and intellectually bankrupt history, in the best ideological traditions of the Birch Society or the Communist Party. If you want to associate yourself and conservatism with that, be prepared for the inevitable backlash.

  14. For those of us who haven’t read the book, please quote some of the factual inaccuracies.

  15. Garth, if you’re right that the book is this faulty, why in the world did these enlightened and elite historians need to behave this way? The insults, the memory holing of a contrary argument… that stuff is how you act if you don’t have facts. It’s pounding the table argumentation.

    If their point is so important, they need to make it like serious people.

    With murky history like this I am guessing that many of the facts are in question. I noticed Radosh relied far too heavily on appeals to authority instead of facts. I think West’s book would make a good starting point for a discussion of what we do know about how this government changed over the past 100 years.

    If there’s a backlash for having a more honest conversation than frontpage wants to have, who cares? Bring it on.

  20. I quit when they printed the Dershowitz attacking Finkelstein. Finkelstein committed truth on Dershowitz’s plagiarism and lying and Dershowitz has been acting on a vendetta ever since.

    I despise Finkelstein’s politics, but Dershowitz is a truly vile man. And Horowitz had teh gall to publish him, and dump Auster for committing racial truth. Horowitz is a vile pseudoconservative, as is Radosh.

  21. The US shipped a goodly amount of rare nuke materials to the Soviets over the Alaska air bridge. A lot of heavy water and Uranium went over according an AAF officer who saw the manifests. Several tons of heavy water went over when Groves was scraping together all he could find for the Manhatten Project.

    Don’t forget Hiss. Hopkins and Hiss were Soviet agents, and it appears we had several among Democrats in the years since WW2.

  22. If an author is going to write a book claiming that US government policy in World War II and after was determined by Communist spies, she had better have significant, verifiable evidence to back up her conspiracy theory. West did no original research and either made factually inaccurate assertions or twisted other historians’ work to support her charge of treason. If this was a legal case, it would be laughed out of court. The facts aren’t in question — there is simply no evidence to support the claim that Harry Hopkins was Agent 19, say, or that Lend-Lease led to the Soviet atomic bomb. West’s book is not a revisionist but intellectually serious history, it’s dishonest propaganda, on a par with Robert Welch’s claim that Dwight Eisenhower was a conscious, dedicated Communist agent. Would anyone defend a book claiming that the moon is made of green cheese (“How do you KNOW it isn’t? Have you actually BEEN to the moon?”) on the grounds that the author was “a Movement Conservative in good standing”?

    So I repeat my question: Is Robert Stacy McCain giving his support to the Birch Society version of history? Because if he is, he will lose the respect of many people who consider him a voice of responsible conservatism.

  23. Funny, before coming here, I’d just finished reading all 5 of Diane’s pieces at http://www.breitbart.com/ Note, click on her name to get links to all five! Haven’t read Radosh, but clearly there’s plenty of smoke in the historical record along with some fire. Clearly, Hopkins was pushing lend-lease to the Russians at the expense of our Pacific forces, including McCarthur’s troops in the Phillipines. Also very interesting was the true state of affairs in Italy/Central Europe vs the D-Day route towards Germany. Another factor in this whole thing was FDR’s level of incapacitating illness for really the last two years of his presidency. Whether FDR himself was aware of or even approved of Hopkin’s treachery is an open question. But clearly he lacked the wherewithal to detect it or do anything about it. Hoover, Grove, & Marshall come off as looking to do the right thing. Eisenhower & others, not so much. Can’t wait to read the book

  24. There is nothing pseudo about Horowitz. He’s left/liberal, and has always been left/liberal. Common cause on some issues does not make him (or his fellows) conservative.

  25. I don’t agree with you that “pseudo” doesn’t apply to Horowitz because he does pass himself off as a conservative. He gets annoyed if you call him a Lib. He has managed to fool a lot of people (Richard Poe is one), but, and here’s where we agree, he’s still a leftist. That’s why he reacted in the way he did to Auster, and why he can publish a vile Libtard like Dershowitz.

    It bothers me that Newsmax publishes Dershowitz too.

  27. Which factually inaccurate assertions. If you had time to type all that you had time to type examples.

  28. Stacy wrote: And just to make clear, I’m on Diana West’s side all the way in this one….

    So am I.

    I’m still reading her book and it is very well done. While I may not agree with every conclusion she draws, the evidence Mrs. West lays before us is well and truly presented. She’s obviously done her homework.

Comments are closed.