the imaginative conservative logo

Protesters Outside the Waldorf Astoria red appleAmerica’s fascination with the anti-communist era after World War II has finally begun to fade. The fall of the Soviet Union and the subsequent brief opening of Soviet government’s most secret archives, the publication of the Venona files along with the work of scholars such as Ronald Radosh, Allen Weinstein, Harvey Klehr, and others put an end to arguments that raged for years. Was Alger Hiss a spy? What about the guilt of the Rosenbergs? Was the Communist Party of the United States an arm of the Soviet state? These and many other issues that divided the nation have been resolved. Those who were suspicious of communist infiltration in the United States, and were vilified for saying so, were right; the left, with few exceptions, was wrong. Today even the Red Diaper generation and angry New Leftists of the 1960s have grown old and no longer seem eager to re-fight lost battles now lost.

Yet a young historian from Australia, Phillip Deery, has decided to take a fresh look at communism and fellow traveling in the late 1940s and early 1950s. His book is built around the cases of six individuals who were caught up in political and legal controversies over communism in New York City, thus his title, Red Apple. The key figures whom Deery describes as “living on the left”—a nice way of saying that they were either communists or dedicated fellow travelers—are a doctor, Edward Barsky; the writer Howard Fast; two college professors from New York University, Lyman Bradley and Edwin Burgum; the lawyer O. John Rogge; and, in something of a reach, the Soviet composer Dmitri Shostakovich.

Mr. Deery’s theme is to look at how what he calls the “limits of tolerance and the boundaries of political debate” affected the lives and careers of these individuals—wrecked their lives, in his view. The five chapters examining these figures vary in quality, and the link between them is tenuous at times. The two chapters on Mr. Barsky, Mr. Bradley, and Mr. Burgum are the weakest, dealing as they do with three individuals who were relatively insignificant, politically and otherwise. Mr. Barsky, Mr. Bradley, and Mr. Burgum are tied together by their connection to the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee, a communist front organization created in 1942. Ostensibly designed to help Spanish Republicans fleeing Spain after the Civil War, the JAFRC was typical of the pro-Communist groups that thrived during the years when the United States and the Soviet fought together in World War II.

Mr. Barsky was chairman of the JAFRC while Mr. Burgum and Mr. Bradley were members. By refusing to testify to various congressional committees and invoking the Fifth Amendment, all three fell afoul of the anti-communist atmosphere of the times and placed their careers in jeopardy. Interestingly, all three seemed content with the choices they made, which was typical of the mindset of the fellow traveler or outright communist. These people believed they were morally right and justified in what they did, thus they saw themselves as both victims and martyrs.

The three remaining chapters are of more interest. Howard Fast was one of the most successful writers of his era, the author some 60 novels, including the hugely popular Citizen Tom Paine and Spartacus. A dedicated American communist, his books were particularly popular behind the Iron Curtain. Spartacus sold over 800,000 copies in East Germany alone.

While Mr. Deery sees Mr. Barsky, Mr. Bradley, and Mr. Burgum as victims, Mr. Fast comes across as a classic political operator. A communist for years and proud of it, he fell afoul the House Un-American Activities Committee and went to jail for four months in 1950. Mr. Deery portrays him as gradually drifting away from his left-wing friends until in 1956, following Nikita Khrushchev’s speech denouncing Stalin’s crimes, Mr. Fast abandoned the Communist Party. Mr. Deery sees Mr. Fast’s defection as “remarkable … for its candor, bravery, its sense of sharp criticism of Soviet leaders.” Mr. Deery also believes that as a Jew, Mr. Fast was troubled by the anti-Semitism he saw developing in the Soviet Union.

It seems to me that Mr. Deery is overly kind about Mr. Fast’s motivation for leaving the party. Ever the opportunist, Mr. Fast was careful to exploit and nurture his break with the Soviet Union, in the process launching a second career which, if not as successful as his first, was nonetheless highly lucrative. In 1960 his Spartacus novel—with a screenplay by one of the Hollywood Ten, Dalton Trumbo—was turned into a hugely successful motion picture and helped revive his career.

Mr. Deery devotes his shortest chapter to the visit of Mr. Shostakovich to the United States in 1949 to take part in a communist-dominated peace conference at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel. The Waldorf Peace Conference was the last gasp of fellow-traveling in America. Mr. Shostakovich was ordered to take part by Stalin, as a way of promoting a Soviet-led peace offensive. Mr. Deery portrays him as uncomfortable in this role, particularly when he was forced to defend the treatment of dissident intellectuals in the Soviet Union. Mr. Shostakovich had to tell lies about the fate of people he knew, some of whom had been murdered while others were sent to the Gulag. There is little that is new in the chapter, unfortunately, and Mr. Shostakovich’s role seems unconnected to the others analyzed in the book.

The most interesting figure that Mr. Deery deals with is the lawyer O. John Rogge. Mr. Deery sees Mr. Rogge as the classic American progressive liberal facing the conundrum of how to deal with communism. Mr. Rogge drifted in and out of various communist organizations. He was involved in Henry Wallace’s presidential campaign, as a major speaker at the Waldorf Conference, and as the defense attorney for the JAFRC. For a long time Rogge was comfortable on the left, arguing that he “was more afraid of fascism than communism in America.” Despite that he never joined the Communist Party.

What makes him such an intriguing figure for Mr. Deery is that Mr. Rogge switched sides and became a harsh critic of communism. The primary reason for his drift from fellow traveling was Russia’s condemnation of Tito’s Yugoslavia and the outbreak of the Korean War. These events transformed Mr. Rogge politically. But what really made him anathema in left-wing circles was his role in the Rosenberg case. He was David Greenglass’s lawyer and convinced him to implicate his sister, Ethel Rosenberg, and her husband in spying for the Russians. For that, Mr. Rogge was denounced by left-wingers as worse than Judas. This does not seem to have bothered Mr. Rogge. He continued to be active in legal and political circles for the rest of his life.

Mr. Deery portrays Mr. Rogge as trying to steer a path between liberalism and communism. All this is interesting, although it has only a limited connection to the other figures analyzed in the book, all of whom were either communists or remained dedicated fellow travelers.

Red Apple is not a monograph with a tight, coherent thesis but rather a collection of disparate essays loosely tied together around certain individuals in the New York area. Mr. Deery is sympathetic to the view that American leftists were innocent victims of right-wing political smear campaigns. That many leftists collaborated with communists and some even engaged in espionage is not stressed enough. The communist movement in the United States and its various allies on the left were determined enemies of the American system. One can feel sorry for some of its victims without losing sight of that point.

None of this should detract from certain positive aspects of his book. It is clearly written, based on an exhaustive list of sources, and most impressively shows a nuanced grasp of American political and cultural scene that is impressive for a scholar from Australia.

Books on the topic of this essay may be found in The Imaginative Conservative Bookstore. Republished with gracious permission of The American Conservative

Print Friendly
"All comments are subject to moderation. We welcome the comments of those who disagree, but not those who are disagreeable."
3 replies to this post
  1. John,

    While you mention the recent historians of Soviet espionage–Klehr, Radosh, Venona releases, etc.–which focused on the intelligence collection efforts of the KGB, you neglect the most recent revelations–Clizbe, Willing Accomplices–which detail the covert influence operations against America.

    Clearly the author of the book reviewed is also ignorant of the most recent revelations and analysis of the covert influence operations and operators.

    The American “fellow travelers” in the period 1920-1949 were Willing Accomplices in the operations designed to infiltrate, subvert, and destroy the American muscular culture of exceptionalism. They succeeded. The subjects of the book under review here were all participants in this operation.

    Stephen Koch laid out the broad outlines of the Comintern’s operation in his 1995 book, Double Lives: Stalin, Willi Muenzenberg, and the Seduction of the Intellectuals.

    Muenzenberg created the Popular Front cover system of high-minded organizations (Anti-Fascist, Anti-Racist, Anti-etc) that lured in the Willing Accomplices. These front organizations allowed the Comintern operators access to the transmission belts of American culture: Hollywood, the media, and education/academia.

    Full details: Willing Accomplices: How KGB covert influence operations created Political Correctness, Obama’s hate-America-first political platform, and destroyed America.

  2. American leftists innocent, of what? Presumably literate adults are responsible for their actions. It bears remembering that as late as 1948, and with a much smaller electorate, Henry Wallace still pulled a million votes. I think it’s fair to say he was the darling of the hard left.
    Really not much as changed ideologically, the lust for centralized power in the slum by the Potomac still rages on, lost is the locus points of a home country, a Soviet Union and an ideological focus point, but the primal urges of an overpowering and endlessly expansive, no limits State still lives.
    Most assuredly the God that Failed, but the lust lives on.

  3. “Mr. Deery’s theme is to look at how what he calls the “limits of tolerance and the boundaries of political debate” affected the lives and careers of these individuals—wrecked their lives, in his view.” Regardless of the quality of the work reviewed above, the issue of the limits of tolerance and its effect on the lives and careers of individuals is highly pertinent and deserves to be studied in these days when the Left rules supreme in government, federal administration, the courts and the media. People are still being sent to the Gulag, their careers ruined, their businesses destroyed, their reputations trashed and their families broken because of the limits to tolerance. The shoe is well and truly on the other boot.

Leave a Reply