Congratulations to Ron Rosenbaum for summing this debate beautifullly, as well as tearing apart the scandolous article by Bird and Chervonyya in the Americal Scholar. The editors should provide the proper links to Harvey Klehr and John Haynes' meticulous deconstruction that is available on a few websitses. I wrote about the original presentation of the article at the NYU conference that took place. My article can be found on the website of The New Republic, for all who might be interested. Sam Tanenhaus speaks about the issue in his article on Whitaker Chambers in the last issue of The New Republic, which should also be mentioned.

One question that might be raised is why The American Scholar, a distinguished journal published by Phi Beta Kappa, should have even run this article. The editor's introduction is in a way even worse than the article, since the editor suggests the piece will open up the case again and praises the authors for writing it.

Clearly, the defenders of Alger HIss have now come up with bottom of the barrel and desperate arguments to try their best to open this up. THe reasons, as Ron Rosenbaum points out, are ideological. Victor Navasky, whom I have debated more than once, has been trying to do this about HIss for years. He is imperious to evidence, as his consistent argument that the Venona decrypts proves nothing prove. For those who doubt that he does this, look up his introduction to the most recent edition of "Naming Names." That the NYU Center on the Cold War asked him to keynote is proof only of the very ideological nature of the new Center, whose officers clearly did not allow any serious opponents of Bird and Chervonyya to present their case.

Ron Radosh

I'm about as neutral as one can get on this whole debate. But Rosenbaum's article does come across as slightly unhinged. Just to bring up three rather obvious flaws with the article, that call into question it's worth:

1) Rosenbaum does appear to seriously misstate the grounds of Alger Hiss' perjury conviction. As a reader noted, he was convicted for lying about his contacts with Whittaker Chambers, which seems a little different than "lying in denying he'd been spying." To put it in a modern context, that seems as misleading as claiming that Libby was convicted for releasing Valerie Plame's name, when he was in fact convicted for obstruction of justice.

2) From a psychological perspective, the charge that Hiss would deny his ideological communism for a half century in order to sully this nation's reputation seems bizarre. The most reasonable account for denying his guilt would be that he's actually innocent... one would expect an innocent man to work to exonerate himself. But even if we grant that he was a Soviet agent, the more reasonable motive for falsely maintaining his innocence would be self-interest. The idea that he was reluctantly holding back a confession for half a century in order to besmirch the nation's integrity doesn't have the ring of plausibility to it.

3) If the VENONA intercepts locate "Ales" in Mexico City at a point when Hiss was in Washington DC, and Gorsky was tasked with knowing the whereabouts of "Ales," then it is a reasonable supposition that knew where "Ales" was. One can seldom prove whether a historical figure had access to a given piece of information. But, for a scholar, the supposition that Gorsky knew what he was supposed to know when identifying the location of "Ales" seems to fit the known facts best. Sure, he might have been ignorant of something he was responsible for knowing. But to shift the presumption to suppose that Gorsky didn't know what he should have known, one would expect some evidence that he wasn't doing his tasks. As it is, he had means and motive to know that Hiss was in DC, so the most reasonable supposition would be that he knew Hiss was in DC.

I don't have a dog in this hunt. But this article seems like it could have used a fact-checker and a more rigorous editor. Right now, it's long on insinuation and seemingly irrelevant animus towards Navasky.

1) Rosenbaum has the facts right on this point, G. The second count of Hiss's conviction related to his denial that he ever knew Chambers. The first count on which he was convicted, however, specifically alleged that Hiss falsely denied participating in espionage with Chambers. Here's the text of the indictment:

"That the aforesaid testimony of the defendant, as he then and there well knew and believed, was untrue in that the defendant, being then and there employed in the Department of State, in or about the months of February and March, 1938, furnished, delivered and transmitted to one Jay David Whittaker Chambers, who was not then and there a person authorized to receive the same, copies of numerous secret, confidential and restricted documents, writings, notes and other papers the originals of which had theretofore been removed and abstracted from the possession and custody of the Department of State, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1621."

In re Hiss, 542 F.Supp. 973 (S.D.N.Y. 1982).

2) It goes too far to say that "The most reasonable account for denying his guilt would be that he's actually innocent." An innocent man denies his guilt because he wants people to believe he's innocent. A guilty man denies his guilt because ... he wants people to believe he's innocent. I agree with you that self-interest seems like the primary basis for denial of guilt, but that self-interest is the same whether he's actually innocent or actually guilty.

Rosenbaum reaches too far with this point, but it's worth noting that Hiss was consistently portrayed "as a living embodiment of American injustice and anti-communist hysteria" until the Venona decrypts. And it does seem reasonable to me that Hiss, if guilty, would have believed that a confession from him would have been a blow to the "anti-anti-Communist" left.

3) You and Rosenbaum agree that B&C's evidence is suppositional, but you disagree about the conclusions to draw from that. Looking beyond the bounds of this article, it may be of interest to note that Chervonnaya swings both ways on Gorsky's credibility: When he wants to use Gorsky's cable to exonerate Hiss, he supposes that Gorsky was competent and thorough, as discussed here. When he wants to discredit "Gorsky's List," a separate document that appears to implicate Hiss, he argues that Gorsky was careless and ignorant of key facts:

"Gorsky thus might not have been aware of details of the group's composition.... he should have done a better job."

"With his service's 'American line' archives at hand, Gorsky should have known better...."

"Most notable is Gorsky's ignorance of the fate of the long-time OGPU U.S. 'illegal,' Harry Rabinovich, who perished during the purges of 1938, and so could not possibly 'reside in the USSR' at the time that Gorsky was writing his report."

I'm thus not as inclined to give B&C the benefit of the doubt, since there seems to be a bit of picking and choosing in different directions in order to reach a particular conclusion.

As I've said, my world doesn't stand or fall on Alger Hiss' guilt, and it seems like the case is still very ambivalent. If I had to pick a side in this debate, I'd land with the guy who thinks this doesn't matter much and that Nixon accomplished far more significant damage to America over the long run.

Nevertheless:

1) He was convicted of passing documents to Chambers. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but Chambers was also a journalist. It seems clear that Hiss lied about giving the documents to Chambers. What seems less clear is whether he did so as an act of espionage. Admittedly, I'm way behind the curve on this... I haven't done an exhaustive investigation. Just enough to check out the basic facts asserted in contradiction to the article. But the outline of verifiable facts appears to support multiple readings as to what indeed was happening between the two men.

2) I agree that self-interest is a plausible grounds for denying true charges. But, an ideologue would be hard pressed to deny his ideology for fifty years, especially if there were no tangible reward for doing so. By 1992, what can Alger Hiss possibly expect to gain from coming clean? If he remained an ardent anti-American Communist, as Rosenbaum suggests, his commitment to this facade would seem counter-productive so late in the game. If he was a smart and committed Communist, I'm not sure sidelining himself for half a century would be a good way to argue for his beliefs. If he's falsely denying guilt out of self-interest, one would suspect his reputation mattered more to him than politics.

I'll concede his lifetime of denials provides no reliable evidence one way or the other. But Rosenbaum's investigative reporting from the cocktail party circuit comes across as paranoid more than counterintuitive.

3) I can't support B&C's methodology with regard to the Gorsky list. If they have an axe to grind, then I'm sure they'd take liberties with sources and methods. But Rosenbaum's critique of their work neglects the obvious point that, in historical scholarship, there is a world of difference between a reasonable supposition and an unreasonable one. Their speculation about Gorsky's work product with regard to his list, may well be flawed - though it may also rely upon evidence which bolsters the otherwise unreasonable supposition. In the case of the VENONA decrypts, however, the supposition that Gorsky was on the job and knew what he was expected to know is more reasonable - absent contrary evidence - than the supposition that he was unaware of Hiss' and Ales' whereabouts.

There's an awful lot of ideology in the academies, so I'm not prepared to defend B&C. But, I would note that this last point, which seems central to Rosenbaum's argument, is criticizing a staple methodology of academic history - reach for the most reasonable supposition in conformity with the available evidence. They may have failed to do so as a whole, but that isn't apparent from our published critique.

No offense to Ron Radosh, but this argument could use an assist from more than just a bibliography. And thank you, Tom for providing one.

This all sounds reasonable. I don't have any stake in Rosenbaum myself, and someone more knowledgeable than me can presumably point out instances where I've erred in what I said.

Ultimately, I guess I'm just arguing for the sake of being contrary.

Regarding Hiss's long-term protests of innocence and what they might indicate. It is worth pointing out that Hiss was under no legal obligation to answer Chamber's initial charges. By simply pleading the 5th, a course pressed on him by many, he could have avoided the entire show. But he argued that his name had been unjustly smeared and thus entered the fray. Strikes me as the behavior of an innocent man. Perhaps a naive innocent man, but not the disciplined communist spy portrayed by Rosenbaum and co.. After all, the point of spying is to gather information and get away with it, not martyr oneself.