To the Editor:
Although I could have done without the "pathological," believe it or not, a part of me is glad that, in her review of Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America by John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr, and Alexander Vassiliev, Anne Applebaum refers to "Navasky's pathological inability to believe that there really were Soviet spies in America." The reason: It gives me a second shot at correcting an egregious New Republicerror.
The last time a New Republic writer misstated my position on the fact of Soviet spies in America, it was Martin Peretz ("Red Dusk: The Rosenberg Bombshell," October, 2008). After musing about "what the folks around The Nation might think" about Morton Sobell's confession in September of 2008 that he and Julius Rosenberg turned over military secrets to our Soviet allies during World War II, Peretz wrote that I was "a cheerleader for the ‘Everybody was innocent' school in America…" On TNR's website, the head was: "The Persistent--And Despicable--Refusal To Believe That Julius Rosenberg Was A Communist."
At the time I sent a Letter to the Editor. For reasons best known to TNR, it never got around to publishing my letter. In the hope that that was a lapse rather than a policy, I write now to correct TNR's latest misstatement.
The facts about my position on the Rosenbergs, about whom I had long been an agnostic: Back in 1995, The Nation published an article by Walter and Miriam Schneir based on the release of certain Venona documents, as well as interviews of their own in Prague and Moscow, that concluded that Julius Rosenberg--a Communist--did, indeed, run a spy ring of which Ethel Rosenberg was likely not a member. She was, nevertheless, used as a "lever" in an unsuccessful attempt to pry a confession from Julius. On any number of subsequent occasions, I endorsed these findings. Had Peretz (or, I might add, Applebaum) done any research to support their ad hoc accusations, or even bothered to read the end of Sam Roberts's September 21 New York Times story on Sobell's admission, they would have known my position and seen me quoted saying, "I wish Morty and Ethel and Julian had been open about what they had and hadn't done, or in Morty's case, ‘come clean' before this, but these guys thought they were helping our ally in wartime, and yes, they broke the law, shouldn't have done what they did, and should have been proportionally punished for it."
I also happen to believe that Colonel Rudolph Abel, Theodore Hall, and Morris and Lona Cohen, among many others, were Soviet spies. But that is neither here nor there. It is true that I have also written (and still believe) that the Venona documents need to be fact-checked before they can be accepted at face value; that the Rosenbergs' death sentence was unwarranted; that the case against Alger Hiss is full of holes; and that any number of neo-conservative post-cold war cold warriors too often neglect or underplay new evidence about these and other cases which seems to contradict their ideological predispositions.
Maybe I'm wrong in these beliefs, but right or wrong, Peretz's and Applebaum's statements are flat-out false, and demonstrably so, as a few minutes of inquiry would have demonstrated. So the next time the folks around The New Republic want to know what "the folks around The Nation" think about anything, let me suggest that they check the record, and when they do, they will find that the folks around The Nation don't always agree with each other, no less Peretz's stereotypes of them, although they do have a preference for getting the facts right.
Martin Peretz has a long history of sniping at The Nation (going back to February of 1979 when he wrote a letter to the editor of The New York Times in response to an article about the two magazines, "We have no feud with that magazine. Its readership is too tiny…to trouble with.") Now that The Nation's circulation is triple that of TNR (I take no credit for this, I'm emeritus), I can understand Peretz's agitated hyperbole, but Ms. Applebaum, who ought to know better, should be ashamed of herself.
Victor Navasky is the publisher emeritus of The Nation.
Please read responses to this letter from Anne Applebaum and Marty Peretz.
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
COMMENTS (5)
What Marty doesn't understand is that among Obamaite liberals Nation magazine style neo-Stalinism is the norm. There are still pro-American, anti-Stalinist liberals. They are called "neoconservatives".
Michael Walzer asked the question: can there be a decent left? The answer is no. There is no such thing.
What Marty doesn't understand is that among Obamaite liberals Nation magazine style neo-Stalinism is the norm. There are still pro-American, anti-Stalinist liberals. They are called "neoconservatives".
Michael Walzer asked the question: can there be a decent left? The answer is no. There is no such thing.
This is a fascinating feud and as someone who has read both magazines for almost 30 years, I can say this: peretz and Victor occupy polar ends on this debate regarding the Rosenbergs. In all objectivity, it appears that history is tilting towards the Applebaum perspective that Victor, whom I adore, has just been too slow in acknowledging this point. As for the old grudgeholder, his perspective, though arguably clearer on the facts, has always been laced with his characteristic pettiness and tendency to snipe and agitate for agitation's sake.
As for peretz's claim that he never ducks a confrontation, all I can say is that evidence doesn't bear this out. The man's courage is all in his fingers ... view full comment
This is a fascinating feud and as someone who has read both magazines for almost 30 years, I can say this: peretz and Victor occupy polar ends on this debate regarding the Rosenbergs. In all objectivity, it appears that history is tilting towards the Applebaum perspective that Victor, whom I adore, has just been too slow in acknowledging this point. As for the old grudgeholder, his perspective, though arguably clearer on the facts, has always been laced with his characteristic pettiness and tendency to snipe and agitate for agitation's sake.
As for peretz's claim that he never ducks a confrontation, all I can say is that evidence doesn't bear this out. The man's courage is all in his fingers, at the keyboard. I have no problem believing Victor's claim that peretz is "ducking" him. I hesitate to use the word "coward" but by just reading this magazine and many times, peretz' own columns, there are so many instances when peretz comes face to face with his [too] many bete noirs - John Kerry, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, just to name a few - and he simply fails to live up to his own self image of a Lion and too often morphs into something closer to a Lamb. Need I say Eric Alterman? There is a word for guys like peretz and everyone knows what is it. Civility prevents me from printing this on this page.
Victor Navasky's Soviet style denial brings back wonderful memories of the cold war theatrics of Kruyschev.
However his writing betrays his beliefs. Claiming to be 'agnostic' on the Rosenbergs he points out that Ethel was probably innocent. How he wished they had come clean before getting caught, and his position that they did not deserve the Death Penalty. For an Agnositc he sures has a lot of prayers.
And the Verona Documents may not be fully legitiamate. Slander the evidence when it contradicts you.
His contrite statement that 'Maybe my Beliefs are wrong' is a hedge against these accusations he denies. What beliefs does an agnostic have? And then he lets us know how independent the Nat ... view full comment
Victor Navasky's Soviet style denial brings back wonderful memories of the cold war theatrics of Kruyschev.
However his writing betrays his beliefs. Claiming to be 'agnostic' on the Rosenbergs he points out that Ethel was probably innocent. How he wished they had come clean before getting caught, and his position that they did not deserve the Death Penalty. For an Agnositc he sures has a lot of prayers.
And the Verona Documents may not be fully legitiamate. Slander the evidence when it contradicts you.
His contrite statement that 'Maybe my Beliefs are wrong' is a hedge against these accusations he denies. What beliefs does an agnostic have? And then he lets us know how independent the Nation news room is. Everyone has different thoughts. Really, and are they always right all the time too?
And he lets us know how sucessful the Nation is with their subscription numbers compared to the New Republic. He fails to mention the magazine lives on the genorosity of it's well-heeled readership, most probably living in the colorful past. If the Nation is so sucessful, why the begging?
And with the big finish he aknowledges the long fight with Marty Peretz but never really says anything about it, and he admonishes Ann Applebaum with shame for her innocence in not knowing how wonderfully agnostic Mr. Navasky is.
Millions of people suffered under Soviet Tyranny. Lives were ruined by Soviet Spying. The Cold War went on far longer than needed because of these actions by the Rosenbergs and others. In addition, supporting these spies undermined the American Left. Mr. Navasky never aknowledges the failure of communism or the truly awful things they did. Now he is concerned that he will be remembered as a communist sympathizer. Sorry, but it looks like Ms Applebaums analysis is correct.
Communists like Navasky never anticpated the Soviet Union would fall and that history would be free. It is.
Dimbulbman: You should adopt my moniker for you as your own as a truth-in-advertising move. Your grasp of affairs is pathetic. Of course there is a decent left and Michael Walzer is part of it. There were many Cold War liberals who never became neoconservatives. I really detest people who run their mouths - or keyboards - when they don't know what they are talking about. You could much more profitably spend your time by reading something of quality, say, histories by that Cold War liberal Theodore Draper, who did not make a death-bed conversion to neoconservatism.
Victor Navasky and much of the middle-to-far left have been dragged kicking and screaming toward truths about espionage conducted ... view full comment
Dimbulbman: You should adopt my moniker for you as your own as a truth-in-advertising move. Your grasp of affairs is pathetic. Of course there is a decent left and Michael Walzer is part of it. There were many Cold War liberals who never became neoconservatives. I really detest people who run their mouths - or keyboards - when they don't know what they are talking about. You could much more profitably spend your time by reading something of quality, say, histories by that Cold War liberal Theodore Draper, who did not make a death-bed conversion to neoconservatism.
Victor Navasky and much of the middle-to-far left have been dragged kicking and screaming toward truths about espionage conducted on behalf of the Soviet Union. At this late date, Navasky is still being disingenuous, as Anne Applebaum notes in her response.
liberal reformer are you still interested in posting on James Wood?
The discussion has started, here:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/alan-wolfe/further-thoughts-untenable-distinctio...
liberal reformer are you still interested in posting on James Wood?
The discussion has started, here:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/alan-wolfe/further-thoughts-untenable-distinctio...