>Dr. Alterman wrote:
>
>I have no desire to reopen this can of worms and if I were forced to
>make a judgement, I would probably guess that Chambers (the admitted
>perjurer, liar, and traitor) is probably closer to the truth than Hiss,
>who has admitted none of these things, but I should like to point out for
>the benefit of the list that the case remains contested.

Indeed. However, the number of Hiss partisans and " Hiss agnostics" has
steadily diminished over the years as the weight of evidence has
accumulated. Chambers probably did not, I agree with Dr. Alterman, tell
the full story of his relationship with Alger Hiss but the fact there is
a story to tell in the first place is what was so damning to Hiss in
court.

The United States was not " the main adversary " of the Soviet security
services in the 1930's which in any event had the run of the American
embassy in Moscow. The networks run by the NKVD, the GRU, AMTORG and the
underground CPUSA were providing intelligence that was mostly relevant
regarding third parties - Trotskyites, Japan, Great Britain, Germany,
American leftists in Spain and the like. Moreover, it is also true that
Stalin's paranoia and purges shaped the Intel reports he received because
Soviet intelligence officers greatly feared making a political misstep
and sought to curry Stalin's favor. These caveats are peripheral however
to the main point of the Hiss case.

The crux is that a foreign power rather easily inserted spies, some of
who like Hiss and Harry Dexter White and others later became agents of
influence in very high policy positions of the American government.
Whether White and Hiss performed " active measures " at the behest of
Soviet controllers at that point in their careers is less important than
the fact that their deep and emotional allegiance to the Soviet Union
rendered them unfit for their posts. Secondly, the reaction by FDR and
Truman ( or Eastern Establishment elite if you want to throw in Dean
Acheson and John Foster Dulles) to information regarding potential
disloyalty by Hiss and others was to wave it away (FDR) or obfuscate,
cover-up and attack the bearers of bad news (Truman).

The Hiss case continues to resonate after fifty years because to a great
extent the above reactions remained for decades the reflexive response of
the Left to the Hiss case; Dr. Alterman did so when he wrote that
Chambers was a " perjurer, liar and traitor " - all true but Hiss' legal
problems began in earnest when Chambers stopped rather than started those
activities.  More pointedly, from the New Left forward, this reaction was
also their general response to any assertions of a threat posed by
Communism. That is, in my opinion, why the Hiss case remains a
touchstone; it's an ideological shorthand for the Left and Right on a
host of related issues.

Mark Safranski

Humanities & Social
Sciences Online

Copyright © 1995-2006 - Contact Us
RSS | Validate: XHTML | CSS