Historians generally tend to disagree when evaluating particular evidence or when posing what they believe to be the most important and relevant questions. In responding to Weinstein’s review, let me emphasize that my purpose is not simply to take issue with his conclusions. That same charge applies equally as well to Professor Weinstein’s conclusions in this review essay: not only does the evidence he cites not bear the weight of his conclusions but he has failed to address important questions surrounding this case and to await the complete FBI files bearing on this case. In his thoughtful review of John Smith’s book, Professor Weinstein faults the former New York Herald Tribune reporter for failing to consult and consider the available evidence. In his review essay, “Was Alger Hiss Framed?”, Professor Allen Weinstein offers the following contentions: “In this review I shall try to show why the new evidence in this case-as well as the old evidence Smith often ignores-demonstrates that the claim is false and that Hiss has been lying about his relation with Chambers for nearly thirty years.” “But others who once believed in Alger Hiss may now be persuaded that he stole the documents in question and that Whittaker Chambers told the truth.” “Long before the FBI files on the case had been opened to me, new evidence had already accumulated to bear out Chambers’s story of his secret activities and his relationship to Hiss.”
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |