had seriously damaged British-Americannrelations by January 1940 — ifnRoosevelt in return would agree tonkeep this deal a secret from othernneutral nations and agree not to carryncargo that Britain considered contraband.nOn May 20, 1940, after months ofninvestigation, Tyler Kent was arrestednby Captain Maxwell Knight, head ofnthe British Security Service. Nearlyntwo thousand embassy documentsnwere found in his possession. In what isnconsidered the first major espionagentrial of World War II, Kent was convictednunder British law of violahng thenOfficial Secrets Act and sentenced tonseven years in a British prison. He wasnreleased in late 1945, whereupon henreturned to the United States. Kentndied in Kerrville, Texas, in 1988.nRay Bearse and Anthony Read havenwritten not a historical account of thenTyler Kent affair but another chapter innthe mythology of Wodd War II. Innfact, it is difficult to find a singlenargument in their book that is supportednwith anything but conjectures,nguesses, and innuendos. They exhibitnno concern whatsoever for an honestnand evenhanded analysis of the evidence,nand their bias against Kent isnevident from the start. “Kent was endangeringnthe very existence of anfriendly power that was then trulynfighting for its life,” they write in thenprologue. “Had Britain fallen, thenUnited States would have been left tonfight the inevitable war against NazinGermany.” Historical incidents arennever inevitable, except to amateurnhistorians like Bearse and Read, andnthere was certainly nothing inevitablenabout a war between America andnLET US KNOW BEFORE YOU GO!nTo assure uninterrupted delivery ofnChronicles, please notify us in advance.nSend change of address onnthis form with the mailing label fromnyour latest issue of Chronicles to:nSubscription Department, Chronicles,nP.O. Box 800, Mount Morris, Illinoisn61054.nNamenAddressnCitynState JZip-n28/CHRONICLESnNazi Germany.nLike inveterate liars who over timencome to believe in their own veracity,nthe authors conjecture something innone chapter and then resurrect it asntruth later on, either oblivious or indifferentnto the fact that they nevernproved the point in the first place. Thenauthors’ “proof that Tyler Kent wasnan agent for the NKVD during hisndays in Moscow is a prime case innpoint. The authors begin by makingnmuch of the fact that Kent had “affairs”nwith a number of Russian women.nKent was only 22 years old whennhe arrived in Moscow, one of thendreariest capitals in all of Europe. Withnonly one woman on the embassy staffnduring the entire five years of Kent’snstay in Moscow, it should not bensurprising that diplomats and clerksnalike ended up associating with Russiannwomen. And this included AmbassadornBullitt, who was fond of minglingnwith ballerinas from the Bolshoi.nMoreover, personal relations betweennAmericans and Soviet citizens werennot viewed as suspiciously as hindsightnmight suggest. Soviet Russia in then1930’s was by no means perceived asnthe Cold War menace it would laternbecome. On the contrary, Rooseveltnhad come to view it as an importantnpotential ally, one worthy of America’snrecent diplomatic recognition. WilliamnBullitt, in fact, was one of the mostnpro-Soviet ambassadors to ever holdnthe post.nIronically, the authors denouncenKent’s relationships with Russiannwomen but see nothing unnerving innthe fact that Ambassador Bullitt wasnbisexual and that Max Knight wasnsexually impotent or a homosexual;nand it is the homosexual, not thenheterosexual, foreign service officernwho has traditionally been most vulnerablento blackmail. Nevertheless,nBearse and Read deem the young Kentna “womanizer,” a “wencher,” who wasn”obsessed with sex,” while the sexuallynconfused or frustrated Knight wasnmerely “remarkably complex.” Thenauthors add that Knight was handpickednfor the Kent case by Britain’sncounterespionage expert Guy Liddell,na man “particularly good at spottingnand encouraging talent.” AnthonynBlunt and Kim Philby were two othernpromising officers spotted by the talentednLiddell.nnnThe authors contend that Kent’snrelationship with Tatiana Ilovaiskaya, anNKVD informer, is enough to substantiatenKent’s work as a Soviet agent.nKent never denied his relationship withnTatiana, and he even admitted thatnthey would “lie abed mornings andnlaughingly discuss what she would tellnher bosses that day.” But Kent went tonhis grave denying that any of herninformation came from him or thenembassy, and never have there beennany evidence, any documents, anynconfessions to the contrary. Guilt bynassociation, however, is all the evidencenBearse and Read need. “Kentnmust have passed substantial quantitiesnof genuine information from the embassy.”nThe authors even provide anpsychological justification for Kent’snalleged actions. “No doubt the knowledgen[that Tatiana had ties to thenNKVD] added spice to the relationshipnfor Kent, enabling him to feelnsecretiy superior to his fellows in thenembassy. It would have been completelynin character for him to havendespised [fellow] Foreign Service officers.”nAfter all, the embassy had oncenreprimanded Kent for having asked outnthe secretary of one of Bullitt’s guests,nand “no doubt ‘the reprimand wasnstored in Kent’s memory as a score tonbe settied sometime.”nAfter stating that Kent “must have”npassed papers on to the NKVD, thenauthors feel qualified pages later tonstate this as fact. “But Tyler Kentnseemed to have no such qualms aboutncooperating with the Soviets, and wentnon happily supplying secrets ton[Tatiana] and her masters in thenNKVD.” The authors brush off thenfact that they have no evidence for thisncontention by writing, “We must setnhis need for financial and sexual rewardsnagainst any protestations of innocence.”nAnd like habitual liars whonhave finally lost all touch with reality,nthe authors then wildly conclude,n”Given our current knowledge ofnKent’s NKVD connections, it is entirelynpossible that Stalin received copiesnof the [Roosevelt-Churchill] signalsnthrough [Kent]”!nThe authors’ allegiance to the nodoubt,nprobably-was, must-havebeennschool of historiography hauntsnthis book from beginning to end. Notneven the tangential matters of the narra-n