DIANA WEST’S REBUTTAL IS IN THE WORKS…..NOTICE HIS SHIFTINESS….WEST REBUTTED STATEMENTS WITH ACTUAL PAGES THAT RADOSH QUOTED THAT WERE NOT IN THE BOOK….SO RADOSH DISMISSES THAT AND GOES ON TO DISCUSS GENERAL CLARK…… ALSO WHY WAS HE GIVEN AN ADVANCE COPY OF WEST’S REBUTTAL BY AT….THIS IS SO UNSCRUPULOUS…
“Now let me turn to some of Diana West’s key assertions regarding World War II, which she argues in the new piece she is writing for this site I do not really effectively challenge.” SHAME ON AMERICAN THINKER….RSK
Writing on this website, Bernie Reeves attempts an evaluation of both Diana West’s book and my own critique of it. Their method, particularly that engaged in by Diana West, is one that my colleagues John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr write is that of intellectual “‘true believers,’ ideological zealots who are mentally incapable of accepting or processing information that undermines their historical worldview… it is as if they wear special glasses that can only see what conforms to their worldview. Information that contradicts their fiercely held view is denied, explained-away, or, most often, simply ignored.”
Reeves argues that while he respects and knows my work and that of Haynes and Klehr, I was “nitpicking” her facts, by pointing to “contradictory facts.” Reeves writes that we are all “excellent researchers and writers,” yet somehow we “are all restricted by their profession not to dramatize their findings,” connect the dots, and “come to conclusions.” This is more than ridiculous. If you read any of the scores of articles I have written in the past few years about Howard Zinn, Oliver Stone, or the Rosenbergs, that becomes more than clear. I have never shied away from clearly stating the implication and meaning of the evidence I have uncovered. What Reeves actually means is that I do not endorse West’s analysis, methodology, or findings — which is something other than what he accuses me and Klehr and Haynes of.