As demonstrated chapter, verse and footnote below, the self-described Radosh "take-down" of American Betrayal by Frontpage Magazine is based in large part (one section of five, so 20 percent so far) on a critique of things that are not in my book.
Now let's turn to another aspect of Radosh's credibility. In his "take-down," he writes:
(When I sent her a collegial email questioning this assertion, and requesting that we get together to talk about it, she became huffy. “Dialoguing is one thing,” she emailed back; “issuing directives is another.”)
Really? Is that what happened? On receiving a "collegial" email, I became "huffy"?
Let's check. After all, there's a chance that even if Radosh doesn't know what my book says about the "Second Front," he just might know a "collegial" email when he, himself, writes one.
On Jun 22, 2013, at 11:41 AM, Ron Radosh wrote:
You have to acknowledge that you and Stan are dead wrong about Hopkins.
Oh well. So much for the "collegial" email.
This was not the first such "collegial" email I had received from Radosh on the subject, either. "Stan," by the way, is M. Stanton Evans, whom Radosh previously savaged in a "take-down" very similar to mine, which you can read rebutted, parried and filleted here.
Radosh writes on, citing a book and a good review of that book as "proof" at which Evans and and I, having been duly Radaosh-corrected and Radosh-chastened, should now abandon all evidence -- and, more important, all thought of evidence -- to the contrary.
This is from an interview with David Roll at History News Network. Roll is the author of a book about Hopkins, praised in a review by Alonzo Hamby that appeared in The Wall Street Journal.
Here is what he says:
"Hopkins was accused of being a Soviet agent, and there was no justification for that in the documents. It was later discovered in the KGB archives that it wasn’t Hopkins who was leaking secrets to the Soviets. There was another guy in the State Department, Lawrence Duggan, who was Sumner Welles’s nephew. Duggan committed suicide.
Hopkins was cleared of all that, but I’m still getting a few emails from people who maintain that Hopkins was a Soviet agent. I devoted a lot of research to the question of whether he was or he wasn’t, and I concluded he was not based on materials out of the KGB archives."
You base a great deal on Hopkins being an agent. He was not. So I'd like a response from you on this question.
Frankly, I didn't much feel like responding to such a hectoring note. So:
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Diana West wrote:
I look forward to yr review
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 22, 2013, at 4:49 PM, Ron Radosh wrote:
I was just trying to communicate and dialogue with you about Hopkins. I wasn't contemplating writing a review, but I can, of course. I never got the book from them, but have bought one.
"You have to acknowledge that you and Stan are dead wrong about Hopkins" is just "trying to communicate and dialogue"?
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Diana West wrote:
"Dialoguing" is one thing: issuing directives is another.
You had mentioned you were going to write a review but it's fine if you don't.
There is no request to get together to talk about anything, either, as he declares to readers in the "take-down. "
Seems as if Ron Radosh just can't get anything right.