as one of the most inhuman dictatorshipsrnof modern times, exceeding evenrnNazi Germany in its barbarities. Therernwas another New York Times correspondent,rnMax Frankel, who after years inrnMoscow wrote: “The ‘greatest storyrnin the world’ is also the greatest secret inrnthe world. And the lone correspondentrnis a poor match for a giant, totalitarianrngovernment. The story is only rarelv tornbe had on the scene. The scholars willrnhave to dig out what really happened.”rnWliat really happened! In other words,rnwhat Western correspondents, includingrnFrankel himself, had been reportingrnabout the Soviet Union to democraticrnpublics over the years was either untrue,rnhalf-true, or meaningless.rnLying about the Soviet Union wasrnmade legitimate because it was supposedlyrndone on behalf of a higher truth.rnWhen asked what he was going tornwrite about the Stalin-induced Russianrnfamine, Durantv replied: “Nothing.rnWhat are a few million dead Russians inrna situation like this? Quite unimportant.rnThis is just an incident in the sweepingrnhistorical changes here. I think the entirernmatter is exaggerated.” It was not untilrn1990 that a Times editorial describedrnDuranty’s coverage as “some of the worstrnreporting to appear in this newspaper.”rnBeatrice and Sidney Webb, in theirrncorrupt two-volume tract about the So-rn’iet Union, described in these wordsrnStalin’s organized famine against thernUkraine peasantry in the winter of 1932,rnwhen between five and seven millionrnpeople died: “Strong must have been thernfaith and resolute the will of the menrnwho, in the interest of what seemed tornthem the public good, could take so momentousrna decision.”rnAs recently as 1987, KGB propagandarnfound its way into the American media.rnWhen the Soviet Union accused thernUnited States of introducing AIDS asrnpart of its alleged biological warfare research,rnDan Rather—March 30, 1987—rnplayed this smear as news and offered nornevidence other than the Soviet report. Arnyear eadier, Stuart H. Loory, then CNNrnMoscow bureau chief, wrote in a letter tornthe Wall Street Journal (February 3,rn1986): “I can say without reservation thatrnif the Communist Party of the SovietrnUnion were to submit itself to the kind ofrnfree elections held in South Vietnam inrnthe 1960’s or El Salvador in the I980’s,rnit would win an overwhelming mandate.rn. . . Except for small pockets of resistancernto the Communist regime, the peoplernhave been truly converted in the past 68rnyears.”rnIn his 1994 book about the Cold War,rnMartin Wilker, Washington correspondentrnof the British Guardian and earlierrnits Moscow correspondent, writes:rnThe similarities between Moscowrnin the early 1980’s and Washingtonrnin the early 1990’s became eerilyrnacute to one who had livedrnthrough both. The contrast betweenrnthe former Soviet Union’srnrelease of its prisoners and the wayrnthat the U.S.A. had over one millionrnof its citizens incarcerated,rnsummoned the bizarre, dismayingrnthought of an American Gulag.rnWith the accession, following therndeath of Leonid Brezhnev in 1982, ofrnYuri V. Andropov as the ruling strongmanrnof the Soviet Union, the credulity ofrnthe Western press became scandalous.rnAndropov, known in Hungary as thernButcher of Budapest for his infamousrnrole during the 1956 Hungarian uprisingrnand a longtime chief of the KGB, instantlyrnbecame the beneficiary of a disinformationrncampaign which the Americanrnpress lapped up with squeals ofrndelight. Andropov was a “bibliophile,” arn”connoisseur of modern art,” enjoyedrnAmerican novels. The ineffable WashingtonrnPost described Andro]5ov as a manrn”fond of cynical political jokes with anrnanti-regime twist… collects abstract art,rnlikes jazz and Gypsy music [and] has arnrecord of stepping out of his high partyrnofficial’s cocoon to contact dissidents.”rnHe also swam, played tennis, danced therntango gracefully. Even the Wall StreetrnJournal fell for this disinformation campaign.rnAndropov, it reported, “likesrnGlenn Miller records, good Scotchrnwhiskey, Oriental rugs, Americanrnbooks.” The New York Times and Timernmagazine also fell for this tripe, which includedrna revelation that Andropov “hadrna strange attraction for Western culture.”rnIt will be remembered that it was duringrnthe Andropov reign that KAL 007 wasrnshot down.rnBut it was not only influential Westernrnjournalism that failed to tell therntruth about the Soviet Union. One ofrnthe great intellectual failures of this centuryrnhas been the failure of distinguishedrnscholars—political scientists, historians,rnphilosophers, sociologists, many of themrnteachers at prestigious universities—rnto apply the standards of truth to their researchrninto the Soviet Union and communismrnitself. As a result of their falsehoodsrncamouflaged as “research,” a fictitiousrnSoviet Union and an equallyrnfictitious People’s Republic of China asrnutopias-in-being were created for Westernrnpolicymakers. The relationship betweenrnthe lies of academe and the exterminationrnof millions of people withinrnSoviet borders, in Eastern Europe, inrnChina and Southeast Asia may be causalrnor coincidental, but there is no questionrnthat communist totalitarianism benefitedrnfrom at least 50 years of academic indulgencernand willful credulity. And ofrncourse, this lying went a long way torntransforming Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro,rnChe Guevara, and the Sandinistasrninto nation-building democrats.rnThe Soviet archives hold many secrets,rnnone as important as the possiblerndisclosure of the names of those who,rnwhile posing as friends of democracy,rnknowingly allied themselves with thernfoulest dictatorship in human history.rnArnold Beichman is a research fellow atrnthe Hoover Institution and author ofrnAnti-American Myths: Their Causesrnand Consequences.rnHomer Nodsrnby William F. WyattrnThe author David Halberstam gavernthe principal address at the convocationrnopening Broyvn’s 1994-95 academicrnyear. Time was when only thernpresident of the university spoke, butrnrecent presidents have instituted the policyrnof having a distinguished visitor givernthe main address. Halberstam is indeedrna distinguished man with many significantrnbooks to his credit. Perhaps hernwill not mind being compared withrnHomer.rn”Homer sometimes nods” is the wayrnBrewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fablernreports the expression, which goes backrnto Horace’s Ars Poetica. I had alwaysrnheard: “even Homer nods.” No matter.rnJULY 1995/47rnrnrn