Re: Rosenbaum article on Hiss
by
victor navasky
07/17/2007, 1:12 PM #
In his article, "Alger Hiss Rides Again", Ron
Rosenbaum mentions that he first heard of the article Pulitzer prize-winning
winner Kai Bird co-authored with Svetlana Chervonnaya from me at a party. I hadn't
realized I was speaking to my friend Ron for the record, but since he now makes
it public, I want to share my memory of the conversation. Ron recalls that I
was "bursting with enthusiasm for a paper" Bird had delivered at a
recent conference of Hiss scholars at NYU. It is true that I admire the
Bird-Chervonnaya paper not least because they had the courage to take on the
consensus historians, none of whom had previously bothered to investigate
whether there any plausible alternatives to the Hiss-is-Ales thesis. (I urge
others to read it in the current issue of the American Scholar and decide for
themselves.) But what Ron omits, I am embarrassed to say, was that actually I
was bursting with enthusiasm for my own keynote address at the Hiss and History
Conference, on the Ten Reasons that the Hiss case refuses to die. I pointed out
to Rosenbaum that I had cited his own writing on the case in connection with
Reason Number Six (which I described as "the mystery which has hovered
over the case since Hiss emerged from prison." If, indeed, Hiss was
guilty, why did he spend the rest of his life trying to prove his innocence?)
Readers curious about what I had to say about what Ron had to say in Reason
Number Six may find my address at http://hnn.us/article3s/377701.html.
Anyway, since RR concedes that B&C have indeed raised "a legitimate
question" about the Hiss-is-Ales thesis, I am disappointed that instead of
pursuing the implications of their new finding, Rosenbaum chooses simply to
defend a position he had already taken prior to the Chervonnaya-Bird article.