Powered by TypePad

« I'm Rooting For Pujols | Main | Sentencing Reform - Bipartisan Cooperation, Or Prosecutorial Indiscretion? »

August 11, 2013



Good morning. Just read Clarice's Pieces and, more importantly, the comments to it. Holy Moly, Clarice stirred up a hornet's nest. I have to say that I am not at all familiar with or informed about the subject matter (Radosh v. West) so I cannot even attempt my own comment, except to say I respect Clarice's opinions.


First! Yay!

Nyah, nyah, na, na, nyah, ppfftt!!!


Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck


Is anyone out there looking for a new job or new career?



CC, weird dynamic in the comments. It appears to be a mix of appeals to credentials vs footnote counts (West dropped by to play there). Substance of the scholarship does not come up. I am not familiar with either author. However I did get the opportunity to ask one general* why the US didn't push the soviets out of Eastern Europe. Public exhaustion with the war, plus a need to move all the troops to support an invasion of the Japanese home islands had a lot to do with it.

*My grandfather did the army part of lend-lease, then ran the log train from Normandy.


Good morning -- and it is a good morning so far. Clarice's Piece is back and the RCP polling average is showing 51% disapproval.

Spread -7.4


centralcal @ 8:11 am, you already have your big nose so far up inside of Clarice's [big] ass that if she stops abruptly either you are going to break your nose or you are going to find your big head all of the way up inside her of her big ass. :grin:

Jack is Back!


To paraphrase Oliver Hardy: "Well, this is nother fine mess you have got into":). What a hornet's nest but I give you credit for being so intrepid.

However, what West is writing about is nothing new, just Google "FDR communist". Looks like this conspiracy has as many legs as the Kennedy assasination.

Captain Hate on the iPhone

Well since Saint FDR was an inept bumbler at everything but conning dimwits into voting for him, not unlike Gaylord, it's to be expected that conflicting theories on his motives would exist.


Well, I had read Clarice's article but went back to read the comments. I think if Diana has her facts apart from the Harry Hopkins accusation Clarice just gave her an even bigger platform from which to redeem the quality of her scholarship.

I have to feel for the commenter who said that the term conspiracy theorist gets used to excuse real provable conspiracies because that is the tack I have had to take. If I am willing to talk about something it is not a theory.

Clarice-I did hurt for you with the comment about what would you know about WW2 as you are a litigator. We really are too consumed with titles and degrees and not enough with knowledge itself.

I will have to go back later and read more comments. I used to watch Glenn Beck for insights into how, or how not to, present deeply troubling facts.


I had only heard good things about both Radosh and West so I read Clarice's piece completely new to the controversy.

Janet  --- -... .- -- .- ... ..- -.-. -.- ...

this is a good idea -


Rangers back in sole possession of first place after Alex Rios escapes the hellhole of the South side of Chitown and promptly delivers in his debut in a Ranger uni.


I understand the criticism of someone not reading a book (or movie or whatever) when they are commenting directly on the book.
But when you are reporting on a controversy between the person who wrote it and others who read it and criticized it I've never really understood the criticism.
Presumably is it is employed in lieu of actually debunking the criticism, something I didn't see any of the commenters, including West herself, attempt.

While there was a great deal of Soviet influence throughout America at that time,it is a bit hard to take seriously any book which promotes the idea that we shouldn't have intervened against the Nazis or, after four years of total war for us and several more for our European allies, that there was some practical way to dislodge the USSR from most of Eastern Europe.


Thank you all. Yes, Iggy that's my view-- WWII historians I am familiar with--Href, Radosh,Spark--condemned the work as simplistic and untrue. When West refused an opportunity to defend her work on frontpage and responded with ad homs and invective to her critics, instead of refuting their assertions, I wanted to warn readers who otherwise might have been taken in. I believe AT will allow both Radosh and West a one last full shot at airing their views.

(Like Frontpage, both AT and PJ Media initially ran favorable accounts of the book.)

The critics at AT are the same group that have been savaging Radosh and his defenders on Facebook and PJ Media..West seems to have a devoted band of followers.
I wonder is this the old pre-Buckley isolationisits, paranoid anti-Communist wing rearng itself again?


Clarice, practicing discussion -- and encouraging good habits during that discussion -- is a worthwhile lesson . . .

and something quite beyond those who practice winning at any cost at the expense of understanding.

Thank you for the opportunity.



Historians make a living off of "new" and revisionist history. It is their game and they are most unhappy to have someone who insists on facts interfere. Good work.

Jane -May2014 Be there or Be Square

Eric Snowden's father and his lawyer are on Stephanopolous.

It's pretty interesting.

Jane on Ipad hi there NSA

Edward, not Eric. Sheesh


McCain is on with Wallace... I have the sound off.

Danube on iPad

I read Radosh's piece earlier in the week and applauded it lustily. He put West squarely on all fours with Robert Welch and the John Birch Society, who were peddling this same nonsense fifty years ago. I remember t vividly, and Wm. F. Buckley's courageous decision to marginalize those hysterical fools.

It should come as no surprise that West has apparently swallowed the Arpaio birther hoax whole.

Very nicely done, Clarice.

Captain Hate on the iPhone

McStain is really butthurt at the Egyptian military. Too bad we can't make them Arizona citizens.


McCain is certainly becoming Tobolowsky's weatherman from Ground Hog day, his mug filling the screen, I wonder which fool is he listening to now, General Assisi is an imperfect vehicle, then against so was Sadat, the Army remembers the Brotherhood's Armed Wing, Gamaa Islamiya's part in the latter's death, they recall Luxor.


West did herself no favors by calling Horowitz's removal of the original review from Frontpage "totalitarian tactics" while simultaneously innocently asking where the "attacks on her critics" were.

I found the comment asking whether Clarice spent any time dodging Nazi bullets and wondering about her bona fides as though West, born fifteen years after WWII ended and with her English lit BA, was out there digging foxholes with the other dogfaces, particularly amusing.

You'd think people who had just been accused of hotheaded and irrational conspiracy thinking might tone it down a bit rather than confirming the accusations.

Captain Hate on the iPhone

Huckabee's campaign manager and Trippi? Ailes is really reaching out to the B-listers.

Danube on iPad

The Birchers used to claim the U.S. "lost" China because of communists in the State Depiartment (as if it had been ours to lose). Wonder what West has to say about that one.


CH, they got C listers for the panel.


Another Am Thinker article that points out political differences.


As Barack Hussein Obama enjoys his vacation, he should ponder the brutality of Muslims against so many groups in the world, including other Muslims. Instead of his fawning at the recent White House iftar dinner, he should remind these co-religionists that their religion defies the imagination for the sheer ferocity against those who dare to resist."

I don't think it is just Obama, IMO it is the entire Obama regime.

Agent J

O/T even for a Sunday free for all. Back from a 8 day road trip to South Dakota & Wyoming with three grand daughters.

I can sum it up with "what a blast"..Their "high lights". From the 23 year old, "vodka" and nights with an equal aged cousin. !3 year old, visiting the coal mine in Gillette, WY. The 12 year old was terrified of the Big Horn mountains..

My observation, if you want to get from point "A" to point "B", give the keys to a 23 year old and buckle up.

Now back to mowing while hopping my mind can catch up with me.


Thanks, again.

I see the obligatory slam @ McCarthy.  Review the Venona Papers, please.

It seems that no one remembers that we were allies with the USSR, at least for part of the war, and that they were the good guys. To suggest that we should have attacked and driven them out of Eastern Europe is a little unrealistic.

I expect there is more to West's thesis than many will admit, but far less than she alleges.


Iggy: "You'd think people who had just been accused of hotheaded and irrational conspiracy thinking might tone it down a bit rather than confirming the accusations."


Steroided up Monday morning quarterbacks.

If I remember correctly, we also hoped that Russia would help us in the Pacific. A vain hope.

Captain Hate on the iPhone

Kristol slattered the JEF's willingness to leak classified info including sealed indictments to make political points. Where is the "opposition" party on this?

Cecil Turner

I understand the criticism of someone not reading a book (or movie or whatever) when they are commenting directly on the book.

I understand it, but don't particularly ascribe to it. The decision on whether to read a book is important . . . and a negative decision saves substantial time and effort (if it is warranted). There's nothing wrong with sharing the reasoning behind the decision, especially after disclosing the fact that it wasn't read. And I certainly didn't find anything in that comment section that'd make me more likely to read that book.

I also found Ms West's distinction of not responding to FP (vs not responding to FP on FP) to be somewhat ridiculous. If she doesn't want to respond, fine. Pretending they owe her a disinterested third-party hosting site for the discussion is unpersuasive.

On a side note, I'm just finishing Joseph Persico's Roosevelt's Centurions, which is an outstanding read.

Jane -May2014 Be there or Be Square

Cool! Agent J!


Thanks, Cecil--and now ta da from the left side of the hornet's nest:http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/08/conservative-historian-has-interesting-ideas.html#comments


rse, yes, the projection of conspiracy ideation is so amusing. It's strong in the climate wars.

Danube of Thought

I believe the USSR declared was on Japan about two weeks before the war ended. Just getting their oar in before the finish line was crossed, in order to have a say in post-war arrangements.

The criticism of FDR that I've always thought was valid was about his decision to halt the Allies' eastward advance so as to allow the Soviets to be the ones to enter Berlin. A lot of people in Germany suffered an awful lot for fifty years as a result.


Ah leave it to Chaitred, to write the stupidest possible take as of yet. I think your point is correct, Kim, take what Tretyakov revealed about
Strobe Talbott, one of the esteemed credentialed morons, and other easy marks, the Soviets had. like the ones who bought the 'nuclear winter' fable,


"The criticism of FDR that I've always thought was valid was about his decision to halt the Allies' eastward advance so as to allow the Soviets to be the ones to enter Berlin"

Wrong. Eisenhower made the decision.



--I expect there is more to West's thesis than many will admit, but far less than she alleges.--

That, I agree with.
FDR and McCarthy are two of those guys who politics make a sensible middle ground hard for most people to stake out.


Interesting read, Bailey.
Any relation to Beetle?


Clarice, your title... And the People Who Love Them, is so prophetic regarding the comments.

Very well done.

I can feel them in the theater.

Good God, narciso, if I ever have to go to war, I want you with me.

The comments are running 98-2 against Clarice.

Danube of Thought

From the article to which Bailey linked:

Even if the Allies reached the Elbe before Zhukov crossed the Oder, the British and U.S. forces would still have to cross fifty miles of lowlands marked by lakes, streams, and canals to get to Berlin. When asked by General Eisenhower for an opinion, General Bradley estimated that a breakthrough from the Elbe would cost 100,000 casualties. "A pretty stiff price to pay for a prestige objective ," he told the Supreme Commander. And, remembering that the Allies had already agreed that the Russian occupation zone would run within one hundred miles of the Rhine, he added, "Especially when we've got to fall back and let the other fellow take over."
Common Core, now the Law of the School.

You really wonder where we'd be now had McCarthy not been so incontinent.


The fateful decision that abandoned Eastern Europe was made at Yalta.


Well West approached an important subject, and was careless in how she presented some things,


If Ray Floyd had a son

he'd look like Jason Dufner;

That part's a slam dunk on ya.  Have Horowitz and Radosh read her book?

Heh, quite an irony, n., given that C. cared not to read the book.


Having had Larry McDonald as my Congressman as a teenager was more than enough exposure to the Bircher mentality and its irrational paranoia.

DOT-there is some truth to the China allegation though. It was a scholar who was advising on China whose name I cannot remember and it was very slanted. It will come to me when I am doing something else.

Here's today's post http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/motto-of-living-well-as-an-individual-is-not-functional-anymore-must-find-ways-to-live-well-together/

And to the extent it contains allegations of a conspiratorial nature it comes with cites and links to the underlying declarations of nefarious intent.


I hate revisionists. They project their political values into the world of facts and narrative for the wrong reasons. If there are new facts, present them and let them be judged by their peers.

I always despised the Birchers.To make a rational case one has to deal in the facts. Of course this eliminates many academic historians these days.

So maybe it's worth a read?  The meme of McCarthy has been terribly destructive.

We make big fun in the climate wars of people who wrote glowing reviews of the Piltdown Mann's book without having read it.

Yes, you can do a meta-review without having read the book. I do that sort of stuff all the time in the climate wars, but it is inherently risky and subjects you to pertinent criticism. I just don't admit not reading the source stuff.


Speaking of careless:


Maybe Radosh didn't read the book either.


Yes, DoT, and I doubt the best interests of the Germans vs the loss of another 1900,000 men presented a great dilemma.


"I will not, however, take responsibility for Radosh fabrications he attributes to me. I don't yet know how many there are in this ridiculously long review, but here is something Radosh hits me for that isn't in my book.

Instead of weighing these fears, West turns to another anecdote telling how George Elsey found confidential files in the Map Room that showed FDR naively thinking he could trust Stalin, and instructed Hopkins to tell Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov that FDR was in favor of a Second Front in 1942. She believes that this was a smoking gun proving that FDR was “making common cause with the NKVD.”
This "anecdote" Radosh says I supposely "turn to" is not in my book! When I first read it, the story wasn't familiar to me, so I scanned the book, also performed a search of the electronic version, and couldn't find it. I do find one reference to Elsey, circa 1948, regarding the Whittaker Chambers case. The quotation (mangled, of course) he derisively cites is, needless to say, completely out of context."



Thanks, Caro. Narciso's ,emory of history is so profound, I don't know why he isn't advising top officials in the govt. Seriously. Is there nothing he has forgotten? And unlike most people I've met with such outstanding memories, he has the ability to rationally weigh and judge, not just recall.

Danube of Thought

The deal was cut even before Yalta, in 1944. The terms were ratified at Yalta:

The First protocol on Zones of Occupation, from September 1944, defined three zones of occupation between the United States, Britain and the Soviet Union. The Second Protocol on Zoones from November of 1944 created a French zone.

The Occupation Zones established by the Allies were within the German frontiers of December 31, 1937. The Poles were granted all lands east of the Oder-Neisse line on a provisional basis. The Soviets received what was left of Pomerania whichwas combined with Mecklenburg, Brandenburg, Thuringia, Lower Silesia, as well as Halle-Merseburg, Madgeburg, and Anhalt which were all merged to form Saxony-Anhalt.

Ike's military decision was made in light of the political concession FDR had already made. It would have been irresponsible to sacrifice lives to gain territory that would have to be yielded to the Soviets.


So the Allies that suggests it wasn't Montgomery or Eisenhower's decision alone, but it was in concert with policy makers back home.


I have not read West's book. I have now read enough of both sides of the story to wonder if Clarice shouldn't be asking Radosh to debunk West's claims.

It seems to be a premature war.

More facts please.

Account Deleted


The contretemps was initiated by an alliance between national socialists and international socialists and ended with the international socialists in alliance with Fabian socialists led by a President fairly indistinguishable from his cousin or the racist progressive who found adoption of totalitarian methods justified in pursuit of the romantic idiocy called the League of Nations. I would rather read a history delineating the spread of romantic idiocy through the poisoned Ivies in the 1860's-'70's than a polemic concerning the rotten fruit generated in the 1930's.

I sincerely doubt F. Roosevelt to have possessed the intellectual heft to have made an informed choice regarding communism or capitalism any more than his cousin or a run of the mill Kennedy. He was always as comfortable floating in the same cesspool of received wisdom as the others.

Resist deadline pressure.

Eisenhower wasn't an idiot, and I doubt that he made the decision alone, just as those he consulted with wouldn't make the decision without his input.


Well this is but one chapter, Rick,of West's case, which extends to the present day, so this part being presented fairly is important. now deleting Tapson's review was unprofessional on Radosh and Horowitz's part, but so were some of her shortcuts.


Did you read her book, narciso?

McCarthy got Alinskyed.

Back to the McCarthy thing. Because he was egregious, and rude, and a drunk, he's been an easy target since the gitgo. Both left and right have come to believe he was wrong, except those who are aware of the contents of the Venona papers.

West sources in the Venona Papers.

Perhaps Radosh represents the reflex from those who are still ashamed of McCarthy.


Eisenhower had many egos to deal with, like Montgomerymeglomaniac. Fortunately he had Bradley to run interference.

Danube on iPad

I believe you're thinking of John Stewart Service, rse. My point is that no matter what advice Service gave, the U.S. wasn't going to go to war with Mao in mainland China, and there's no way Chiang was going to prevail against Mao.

Danube on iPad

Woods now in a six-way tie for 50th.


Good morning -- and it is a good morning so far. Clarice's Piece is back and the RCP polling average is showing 51% disapproval.

The polls are even more devastating if you just look at the last 4 for August:

Ras 8/8 - 8/10 1500 LV 46 53 -7
Gallup 8/7 - 8/9 1500 A 41 50 -9
FOX News 8/3 - 8/5 1007 RV 42 52 -10
Econ./YouGov 8/3 - 8/5 676 RV 42 57 -15

The collapse in Gallup is interesting, because it results not so much in a huge drop in approval, but in a big spike in disapproval. Gallup lets people essentially opt out on that questions (don't know/no opinion). For a long time that was keeping the approve/disapprove close in their poll. The fact that 50% will outright way they disapprove, when they could choose the opt out seems rather significant to me.

If she's all that wrong.  Paradigms die hard.

There's a parallel. What was right about McCarthy got lost in what was wrong. What is right in West gets lost in what is wrong.


Not all of it but parts, hence my overall review, the Hopkins material, was not particularly new, some of the conclusions might be.


Viva El Tigre. Mi alma levanta.

I even review myself when there's nothing better to do.

Heh, I haven't read West or Radosh, only Clarice and commenters, but of course, my meta-review is the best.


I understand both Radosh and west will be given space at AT to rebut the other's claims/ West did herself no favor by refusing Horowitz' offer to do so there when the controversy first arose. Instead of defending her position she attacked him and Radosh.

If you check through Radosh's posts on PJ Media about this and his post on Frontpage you will see detailed arguments he had made about her work.


Halberstam, is responsible for a fair bit of the 'Mind arson' that is typical to our understanding of South East Asia generally, Service, Chubb, Fairbanks were quite naive about what Mao was about, not unlike the Arabists of today. Mary McCarthy of all people, noted a number of clear errors, he presented in 'Brightest' that furthered a template at odds with the facts.


Would you please scan your copy of West's book, narciso, and tell me if West is correct in her claim I posted at 12:19?


Yes, she is right on that point, she relies more on Sherwood, who is one of Hopkins major biographers.

Has Horowitz read the book he was so snotty about?

Horowitz was awfully snotty to West; I'd have refused at first to have any dealings with him.


Would a reviewer who attributed content to a book that does not exist in the book give you more pause against the reviewer or the author?

It is not Radosh's first rodeo:


"...even more so, is the manner in which Radosh fills gaps in his knowledge with reversals of the empirical record in which he represents me as saying the exact opposite of what I have actually written. This happens so frequently as to suggest a deliberate tactic — apparently on the premise that, if I didn’t say something or other in defense of Joe McCarthy, I should have, so that’s how Radosh describes it. Following are a few examples:..."


On China, my grandfather said what Danube posted at 12:33. He had the added benefit if knowing the players, from his post as Commaning General US Services of Supply - China Theater 1945.

West should thank you, c; sales will rise.

Horowitz looks like an idiot pulling the first review. I doubt he'd read the book when he published the first review, and I wonder if he'd done so when he got snotty with West.


Come now. Horowitz originally ran a rave review, thought better of it, and retracted it giving her an opportunity to respond to Radosh's charges. I see no reason why she chose to attack Horowitz instead of taking advantage of that offer.


Horowitz reply:

"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]"

Nothing snooty there...


I'd have more respect for this whole brouhaha if Arpaio was mentioned a little more. That is always fun.

Anybody have experience with dripper irrigation and mature citrus trees? My next project.

He could put the rave review back up, and reconsider his incontinence.

I've explained it, C.

He ran the rave review. If he thought better of it, posting a non-rave review together with the rave review would have been better. Insulting West after such idiotic behaviour would justify West's anger.


Edgar Snow was Mao's greatest apologist. Propaganda from start to finish. I read his stuff in college and he provided a service, but one knew his work was tainted.

Chiang at that point was hated throughout most of China. The corruption was pervasive. His subordinates were fractious.

The country was attempting to recover from probably the worst of the war with the exception of the Russian Front. The China war was very different from the mechanized war of the Western powers, but nevertheless crops and cities were devastated and many millions died.

Mao and Chou were master propagandists who followed many of Sun Tzu's precepts.I don't think we could have done much, and at that point we were well over Chiang and his corrupt regime.

(A) nuther Bub

Gallup lets people essentially opt out on that questions (don't know/no opinion).

Every question in every poll ever done, Ranger, has a "don't know/no opinion" response category, even if the question is "Have you been to a fast-food restaurant in the past month?" That category is not offered to the respondent as a choice, however, but the interviewer has to have a place to record it when someone declines to answer for whatever reason. . . haven't formed an opinion, can't recall, don't know enough about the topic, think it's none of your business, and so on. In political surveys, it's mainly a hiding place for the LIVs.


The USG just kept hoping Chiang would die.

Unholster first before pulling trigger.

In fact, TK, Horowitz is being snottier to himself as editor than he is to either the reviewer or West.

Frau Steingehirn

As an ten-year old in 1944, my husband was evacuated from Wesel, Germany (Dutch/German border) to Plauen, Thuringia which is west of the Elbe River and not far from Dresden. The town was invaded and occupied by American soldiers who held it until the Russians took over, sealing the area and trapping the many Rhineland people who had been sent there as the war intensified along the Rhine River. Getting back home was a dangerous undertaking.

Rob Crawford

Perhaps Horowitz is pissed that West's theory places America's delivery into the hands of a tyrants a generation before the one he blames?


Well it's a survey of the process that got us here, just one note, there was no real isolationist movement, until the Hye Committee
published it's findings, whose criticism of arms sales during the previous war, had a similar impact to the Church committee too generations ater. one of those staffers was Alger Hiss, which objectively made him as useful to Nazi Germany as he was to Soviet Russia,


Nye Committee, so this affected the predisposition toward rearming.

Thomas Collins

I read Clarice's Piece on the West-Radosh kefuffle, Radosh's review of West's book, and West's response. I have read neither West's book nor the remarks of Sparks and Horowitz in their entirety (I note that Clarice quotes from Horowitz's and Sparks' remarks). I am less interested in West's interpretation of the reason the US didn't challenge Sov control of Eastern Europe than in the basis of West's factual assertions re Communist enablers or active supporters in the US Government. It is perfectly plausible to me (i) that we didn't challenge Sov control of Eastern Eurooe for fine reason of state rationales during WW2, and due to war wearniess in the aftermath of WW2, and (ii) the full extent of Communist influence in the FDR and subsequent US Administrations, while substantially vetted already by folks like Allan Weinstein, is worthy of more scholarship. While the criticisms of West as an "amateur" may have validity with respect to her overall knowledge of post-WW2 fatigue in American, the integrity of the amateur's scholarship may still be at a high level. I note that West specifically defends such integrity in her response to Radosh. If Radosh has counter responded, I haven't seen it yet.

Thomas Collins

I also think the developing scholarship on the continuing effect of Sov propaganda on policies of Western democracies is useful to understanding of the thinking of our current prog establishment.


If you consider rse's connecting the dots and Pacepa's inside view the effects are substantial and ongoing.


TC--Radosh has responded elsewhere. It's my understanding that he and West have both requested a shot at it at AT and probably will be given ONE each.


Pacepa is been eyeopening in his latest 'Disinformation,' like the slander of Pope Pius that started with Hochhuth, but was then resurrected by Cornwell, Carroll, et al.


Where has he responded?

Please link.

The comments to this entry are closed.