The Debate over Soviet Espionage: What Nicholas Lemann of The New Yorker Gets Wrong
Second, Lemann undermines the concluding sentence in his own essay in which he writes that “As for the extent of Soviet spying, [Allen] Weinstein, Haynes, Klehr and others are right to say that their case has been supported by most of the evidence that has emerged since the Soviet Union collapsed.” Why, then, does this support “a conservative view?” Cannot someone who sees himself today as a political liberal acknowledge that his liberal ancestors might have had a blind spot in the late 1940’s about the extent of Soviet espionage in the United States ? If they answer in the negative, they are substantiating the claim of Ann Coulter who continually argues that liberals are incapable of understanding that America has real enemies.
Next, Lemann cannot refrain from bringing up the irrelevant argument surrounding the former Bush administration. Could not have a person been a critic of some Bush policies, and still have supported a war against Islamic radicalism? If Lemann answer in the negative, he too is arguing in favor of the Coulter position, without realizing it.
Finally, Lemann presents a bizarre statement about Prof. Allen Weinstein, who resigned recently as Archivist of the United States for health reasons. He suggests Bush appointed him because having done so “sent a message.” The implication is that because Weinstein was author or the path breaking book Perjury:The Hiss-Chambers Case, which proved to most people’s satisfaction that Hiss had been a Soviet agent, Bush made him Archivist to subliminally gain support for his unnecessary war on terror.
He ignores that Weinstein had strong bi-partisan support in the Senate for his appointment, and had managed to win over backing of professional organizations whose left-leaning membership was at first opposed to his appointment. Moreover, those who work in the Archives will point out that during his tenure, Weinstein was a strong and professional leader, who did more to restore the Archives to prominence than previous purely political appointees. He is a scholar who had worked in archives himself, who took positions that in fact differed on points favored by the Bush administration, and who among other things, took the Nixon Library out of private hands and made it part of the Presidential libraries run by the Archives. Is Lemann suggesting that perhaps Weinstein should not have been made Archivist, because his own research led him to conclude Hiss was guilty? Many leftists opposed his gaining the post because Weinstein’s research led him to this conclusion about Hiss. Does that mean that others backed him because of this conclusion? There is, in fact, no evidence for this assertion.
I do not think I am wrong in reading Lemann in this manner. Indeed, so does Eric Alterman. In a recent posting on the website of The Nation, Alterman more or less endorses and recommends Lemann’s essay as one that seconds his own position. Like myself, Alterman views the Lemann essay as “an extremely valuable contribution to the historical debate,” but the real reason he cites it is to emphasize Lemann’s judgment that the finding by Haynes and Klehr that I.F. Stone had been a Soviet agent for two years- 1936 to 1938- to be “unproven accusations.”
Lemann does argue that Hanes and Klehr set the bar for “being a ‘spy’ or an ‘agent’ awfully low,” and writes that they do not show that “Stone was paid.” Of course, nowhere do the authors ever assert Stone was paid; that is in Lemann’s imagination. Lemann also writes that the authors “let Stone’s softness toward the Soviet Union- and the ardor of his defenders- enter the courtroom.” Why is it then, that when they issued their book on Venona in 1999, Haynes and Klehr wrote that documents mentioning Stone only showed that he was “flirting with the KGB,” not that he was or had been an agent. They wrote: “There is no evidence in Venona that Stone ever was recruited by the KGB,” (my emphasis) although they conclude that one had to leave open the possibility that he may have met with KGB agents at other times.
What changed between 1999 and 2009 is simple. The new Vassiliev documents revealed KGB messages that Stone had “entered the channel of normal operational work.” In other words, he had formally agreed to work with the KGB. The evidence, in other words, led them to change their opinion. In 1999, Klehr and Haynes took a position that was the opposite of many on the Right, like Herbert Romerstein, who argued vociferously that Venona did indeed prove Stone was an agent. So Lemann’s charge that they reached their judgment because they let Stone’s softness towards the Soviet effect their judgment is unfounded.
In my earlier entry I quoted the following passage from Anne Applebaum, who wrote the following in her TNR review of Spies: “The truth, of course, is that neither [Ann]Coulter or [Victor]Navasky, nor any of the many others who have joined this particular battle, is really interested in history. They…instead wish to score points about contemporary politics- points that bear only a tendentious relationship to the events of the 1930s and the 1940s. Coulter and her ilk want modern liberals to be identified with the CPUSA: Hiss= Obama. Navasky and his friends [like Alterman] suspect that anyone who investigates Hiss is covertly promoting ‘the wholesale suspension of liberties,’- historical research=Guantanamo.”
I’m afraid that despite his seriousness and erudition, Nick Lemann comes close to making the same mistake as Coulter and Navasky that Applebaum refers to: changing a discussion about history and the past to one of present politics. For if one takes him at his own words—anyone not a conservative will think twice about what the evidence about Soviet espionage reveals. That would mean that only conservatives can accept the truth about the past. I do not think that is an outcome Nicholas Lemann would approve of.
“If they answer in the negative, they are substantiating the claim of Ann Coulter who continually argues that liberals are incapable of understanding that America has real enemies.”
Ann Coulter often gets a bit goofy—but she is usually more right than wrong. How many center-left Democrats still exist? Do they even comprise 10% of the Democratic Party? Coulter is right to describe the vast majority of Democrats as unable to realize that America has real enemies. We are hated because of our values and not our alleged past imperialistic behavior. Sadly, few of our present day members of the Democratic Party agree with this proposition. They have instead become self-hating Americans who are convinced that our country probably well deserves to be verbally maligned and even violently attacked.
“President Truman was right to claim in 1951: “The greatest asset that the Kremlin has is Senator McCarthy.” McCarthy ultimately did more for the Soviet cause than any agent of influence the KGB ever had. His preposterous, self-serving crusade against the “Red Menace” made liberal opinion around the world skeptical of the reality of Moscow’s intelligence offensive against the United States.”
Joe McCarthy did get careless with his facts. He deserves to be taken to task. Nonetheless, one should never forget the naiveté of Harry Truman. He insisted after he left the White House some five years later than Alger Hiss was a victim of right-wing slander. McCarthy was admittedly a flawed human being, but he imperfectly forced the American public to take a look at a serious crisis. Think also about this for a minute: what would have occurred if McCarthy had remained quiet? Who would have fought the good fight?
I agree with Mr. Radosh about McCarthy. Regardless of whether he “fought the good fight”, his incoherent accusations detracted from the overall message that there actually *were* Soviet spies during the era. Taking Mr. Lemann’s extract as a starting point, McCarthy serves for historical purposes the same purpose that the Birthers do now: they both give a bad name to what would otherwise be a much more convincing position in a debate important to our country.
If I may, I believe this entire project – necessary though it may be for a true appraisal of the UN, the Manhattan Project, or the Morgenthau Plan – ultimately serves the purpose of eclipsing the real purpose of the debate: for Americans to understand the nature of Soviet Communism and Marxism-Leninism. Unfortunately even excellent historians such as Mr. Radosh appear to get bogged down in what amounts to a celebrity sqwabble.
Meanwhile, the real reason that many people cannot accept what the evidence shows Hiss did is because *those people do not accept what the Soviet Union was and did.* It is a shame, and it has wrought great damage – by the way, remember that Communists and Liberals, not Senator McCarthy, invented “McCarthyism.” That “McCarthyism” did damage is not disputable, but really – who is responsible for the extent of the damage? Ask yourself.
Mr. Radosh has no credibility of the subject of Joe McCarthy. His error ridden review of M. Stanton Evans authoritative history of the era “Blacklisted by History,” proves that beyond question. Mr. Evans responded in National Review the site of Mr. Radosh’s original crime and blew him away.
The problem with Joe McCarthy was, pure and simple, alcoholism. Well before the disease became acute and highly apparent, it was impairing his judgement and eventually destroyed same.
Had those around him arranged an intervention and had him attend “90 meetings in 90 days and don’t drink in between them”, he would have been able to expose much more actual wrongdoing and minimized inaccurate accusations. He would also have lived much longer and not died the miserable DT-plagued death he did. I’m sure he went to Heaven. He had spent his time in Hell.
McCarthy came to public attention after the dangers of Communist spying were already well known. He seemed to me that he was just after personal power. Hiss had already been outed by Chambers, and his (Hiss’)own hard-to-believe testimony. Mrs Bentley, the KGB secretary, had already testified. McCarthy only added to the black listing by the already established Red Channels, which ruined the lives of many patriotic Americans
I don’t quite know why researchers seem bent on making their views appealing to those on the left who really are incapable of seeing reality; especially since they really are the prodigy of the worldwide socialist movement which the CPUSA was the foremost offspring in the U.S. A movement that can be traced back to the French Revolution, whose offspring became the American Progressives, and finally to modern day Liberals.
Furthermore, those who style themselves as conservatives really are the only ones capable of seeing the truth of this matter. After all, which side has been consistent and correct for seventy years? As for Truman’s comments about McCarthy….McCarthy was a drunk and Truman was a child, his dealings with Stalin were even worse than Roosevelt’s….in far too many ways. Perhaps I am wrong, but I have been under the impression that his administration was as full of KBG agents and fellow travelers as Roosevelt’s.
I would also like to address the idea that there is no evidence in VENONA that indicted certain individuals. The fact of the matter is that there are a large number of code names in VENONA that they cannot attach a real name to. In other words, there were a lot of unidentified spies then and they remain unidentified today. However, it is known from VENONA that Hollywood, the news media, the unions and government were rife with agents. Including (if I remember correctly) Bull Donavan’s OSS which became the CIA.
While Ann Coulter may seem goofy at times, it is her outrageous statements and style that brought this to the general public’s attention. She and others weighed in on this stuff because honest researchers, who knew the truth and should have been weighing in on it for years, didn’t have what it takes to stand under the heat and glare of outrage and personal attacks that would have ensued.
While I find interesting information in your comments, I also find them to be strange for anyone who would style themselves as an honest researcher. The primary reason to study history is to get the understanding of past events to make sense what is going on today. It can hardly be studied without making political assessments that may be applicable today.
Adults need to deal with the fact that messengers will often be flawed, and learn how to criticize them while spreading and perhaps refining their message. The method of the Left is to find a couple of mistakes made by some conservative icon, treat thos mistakes as “lies,” and then attach “liar” to that person forevermore like a Homeric epithet. We need to resist that method very forcefully, while not falling into idolatry or defense of the indefensible ourselves. (I’m making a general point, not accusing anyone who has commented before me, all of whom take the approach I am describing)
Let’s remind a few numbers. Mc Carthyism caused the execution of two people, under a dozen of persons were sent to jail and under two hundred government employees were fired. Let’s remind that despite being able to decrypt only a small part of Russian communications the FBI had identified several thousand different codenames for agents operating in America.
In addition, to the above, after an attempt of violent takeover of the entertainment industry by communist sympathises during which Regan was threatened to have acid thrown at his face and several battles with iron bars between communist and non-communist members of the entertainment industry (Kirk Douglas was active in the good guys side) and a number of “communist movies” dismal failures at box office Hollywood ended firing a number of communist actors, directyors and scenario writers. Except for the actors, who were easily identified by public, most of them would ned being hired again several years later.
These were the horrible crimes of McCarthysm: two dead, a dozen jailed, a few hunded people lsosing tgheir job. In the meantime, Stalin’s regime ie that regime those people were trying to duplicate in America, was, according to the lowest estimations killing an average of one million pople a year. That makes three thousand a day.
I finally finished the book ‘Spies’. It is a tough read; some of it down right boring. But what is inescapable is that the US of A was very lucky to get through the Cold War virtually unscathed.
We had many enemies amongst us at the highest levels of government, society and business.
The Left is still at this game of denial. I sure hope they wise up before we really take a fall.
Thanks for the good review and rebuttal to yet more liberal flack.
Senator Joe McCarthy, and especially his methods, are certainly worthy of criticism. However, you’d think by now that with these revelations and everything we know about the USSR, sensible people would, at least, accept the fact that Communism damaged way more lives than McCarthyism ever dreamed of.
“McCarthy’s antics, his scattershot attacks on liberals as Communists and some Communists as spies- when no evidence existed for his charges- allowed those truly guilty to win public sympathy by claiming that they too were simple victims of a McCarthyite witch-hunt.”
That’s one take. My more cynical view is McCarthyism as a meme has simply been used to help take ideology off the table. It is used today to browbeat people into not discussing the left’s ideological agenda because to do so, even in measured and sober terms, is ‘McCarthyistic’…
Conservatives can be attacked as free market ideologues in the pay of industry (we are seeing it a lot right now)… but mention that the left might be motivated by anything other than pure reason and honest social science (say by a bias in favor of public ownership or an ideological attraction to forced equality) and your a McCarthyite / nut / something bad.
Indeed.
I think, for example, one could rationally believe that members of the LAPD fabricated evidence against O.J. Simpson- who was nonetheless guilty as hell.
Mutatis mutandis. McCarthy gave McCartyism a bad name.
Slightly off topic, but one has to wonder about the course of history without McCarthy. I strongly suspect the left would have found some other demagogue on the right and used him to discredit all anti-communist activity. In that sense, McCarthy was just the best scapegoat.
John Moore #15: Very true. However, McCarthy’s alcoholism not only made him a soft target, it also lend credence to the demagoging. Had he been clean and sober, the commies would have had less success.
A quick search with Google on Mr. Lemann background convinced me that his affection for Stalinism, leftism is congenital for people of similar, Buddhist origin.